Agreed. And any army should be prepared to lay their lives for their leader - if his intentions are pure.
Like there was that one self serving kike who always tried to save himself, I don't know how he managed to stay with them the whole time. He was the common butt of jokes and a clear foil to the loyalty and pride of the rest of the mercenary band had for Griffith. I don't believe that Griffith betrayed them, I understand why Guts believes he did, but it's not true from Griffith's point of view. That they're both incapable of understanding each other's very resolute, but incommensurable ideals is an essential piece of their relationship. It's also why they respected each other so much, why each was the only person they ever respected, and why they're the only truly Great men in the story.
Readers who view Griffith as a villain, rather than the same man as Guts but on a different path, imo, misunderstand the narrative and pay too much heed to the fact that its primarily following Guts' POV. They are both ubermensch.
Also, I personally find Griffith a purer role model than Guts. Guts is vulgar and tied to the material world, corrupted by a woman and lead by emotions.
He comes from the gutter and never truly left it. He raised himself out of it, but at heart, he's still commoner trash, tainted with vulgar violence, lead by the pettiness of revenge and hatred. Griffith is a leader of men, an aristocrat, an intellectual, a tactician. He, too, came from the street, but untainted by materialistic tragedy, his vision was set towards a much higher ideal. Guts identified with the motley crew of degenerate outcasted bandits; but Griffith, though he loved them, knew them for what they were.
And both used their brotherhood selfishly: Griffith, towards his ideal of power. Guts, to win friends and finally find belonging. Despite Guts being the seeming "good" guy of the story for maintaining his allegiance to the brotherhood, his is harder to respect, it's a vulgar use separated from his own ideals.