StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In fantasy novels killing the opposing side's leaders or significant personnel and thus winning the war is not unheard of. For example David Eddings did that twice in his series of books where the God of the villains is killed by the heroes via a secret journey to confront him. In recent memory we have the Red Wedding from A song of Fire and Ice / Game of Thrones.

My question is, has there ever been a war in real life where assassinating someone was quite significant to turn the tide or give one side an advantage. Presumably this would have to occur in the ages where secession is via family lines and not through democratic appointments or selection via committee like the more powerful modern states utilise.

The most closest examples I can think of was the execution of Chinese generals Yue Fei during the Song dynasty and Yuan Chonghuan during the Ming dynasty for "treason" due to intrigue in the Imperial Court. This doesn't quite fit in the assassination mould as it wasn't done by the opposing state, but by their enemies within the same state.

I am interested if anyone knows of exaples which kind of fit the "assassination kills key personnel and turn the tide of war" meme.

An example where a failed public assassination had the opposite effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn

Battle of Hastings, the Normans started to crumble when the rumour went around the duke had died, forcing him to run around with a helmet off shouting to get people back (he won)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... the_battle

Antiquity is full of those things and the Renaissance era as well. Some of the more well known include Stilicho and Aetius, probably among the most capable generals of their time. Their assassinations not only left Rome somewhat bereft of competent leadership (leading to direct military catastrophes, such as the sack of Rome in 410) but also weakened the military forces (as a lot of them were bonded to the two via family bonds or personal oaths and wanted to enact revenge/desert) or were accompanied by other things (like having the smart idea to attack the Germans serving as Roman soldiers thereby making sure Alarich suddenly had a second much more professional army).

Another, maybe equally if not more important example is the assassination of Pompey (ended a civil war and gave Caesar direct control of the SPQR). Or just point to the many examples in the rest of Roman history, where killing the enemy leader in nearly all cases ended a war or rebellion. Roman history and Antiquity in general is full of those things.

The "War" of Serbian Independence. Granted, the whole thing got kind of out of hand.

"Pan Juang dies under this tree" classic.

Thanas wrote:Antiquity is full of those things and the Renaissance era as well. Some of the more well known include Stilicho and Aetius, probably among the most capable generals of their time. Their assassinations not only left Rome somewhat bereft of competent leadership (leading to direct military catastrophes, such as the sack of Rome in 410) but also weakened the military forces (as a lot of them were bonded to the two via family bonds or personal oaths and wanted to enact revenge/desert) or were accompanied by other things (like having the smart idea to attack the Germans serving as Roman soldiers thereby making sure Alarich suddenly had a second much more professional army).

Another, maybe equally if not more important example is the assassination of Pompey (ended a civil war and gave Caesar direct control of the SPQR). Or just point to the many examples in the rest of Roman history, where killing the enemy leader in nearly all cases ended a war or rebellion. Roman history and Antiquity in general is full of those things.

I had forgotten about Stilicho and Aetius, although IIRC they were killed by members of their state, rather than opposing states.

Also wasn't Pompey already losing to Caesar when he was assassinated.

There was also Viriathus, a Lusitanian chief who fought against Romans, and Quintus Sertorius, a Roman rebel in Spain, though the war dragged on for years even after the death of Viriathus and Sertorius was already losing, though his assassination definitely sped things up.

mr friendly guy wrote:I had forgotten about Stilicho and Aetius, although IIRC they were killed by members of their state, rather than opposing states.

Sure, if you want to limit it to that you still got pompey and a whole lot of usurpers against Rome.

Also wasn't Pompey already losing to Caesar when he was assassinated.

He lost Greece. Africa was not subdued, neither was Spain, nor Sicily, all countries capable of fielding dozens of new legions (and historically they did so). So he potentially still had more than a third of the republic as his supporters and considering Caesar was only able to subdue parts of Spain after Munda (and then could not defeat Pompey's sons before his assassination) it is not like he was completely out.

What would you say were they key differences between armies/wars/movements that kept going after their leader died/got assassinated, and those that dispersed as a result?

Was is simply philosophical or ideological? Fighting for Bob the individual vs the Nation of Bob? Or something more complicated?

Usually, an army only fought on if they found another charismatic figure to rally around. In this time, most of the fighting spirit was directly related to the commander - if the people fought for their leader, not for a country.
Also, having lost your leader means that the one with the clue how to fight was gone. People needed to know that somebody was watching out for their flanks to commit to battle.

So basically, if the leader was gone, you simply tried to save your ass and get home.

There have been some cases where you had a general rout, but with some competent leaders at 'company' level, able to keep their men organized enough to retreat orderly - these groups usually came out/home quite well, avoiding the general slaughter usually included in a rout, demonstrating how essential someone coordinating troops was in melee combat.

How often has there been assassinations by foreign agents anyway? Particularly in war time I'd think there is an ease of access problem that is difficult to overcome making it an impractical option. The tiIn the alternative, perhaps when it has been managed, foreign involvment tends to be hidded enough that it does not get recorded in history. Most of the events I can think of were where their was an internal loss of confidence in leadership which led to assassinations to seek terms with the other side.

A lot depends on the relationship between the particular leader and the war, and the reactions of the followers of that leader. For instance, the idea behind some of the attempts to kill Hitler was that then a more reasonable military person could be put in charge, who can then negotiate a peace or go for a more limited victory/stalemate.
Look at the death of Alexander the Great - not an assassination, but his death caused the breakup of his empire as there was no clear line of succession established.

It seems that historically there are events similar to the "Red Wedding" such as the Black Dinner and the massacre of Glencoe. Although these did not have the effect of drastically altering conflicts like it did on GoT.

Darmalus wrote:What would you say were they key differences between armies/wars/movements that kept going after their leader died/got assassinated, and those that dispersed as a result?

Was is simply philosophical or ideological? Fighting for Bob the individual vs the Nation of Bob? Or something more complicated?

This is a good question but it is just such a broad field that it would be impossible to have a general answer IMO. If I had to guess it would depend largely on the force structure (national forces vs "private armies"), skill of those that replaced the commander (Aetius and those that replaced him) and tradition (longstanding units who have a live of their own vs mercenaries) etc. I don't think there is a one size fits all answer here.

mr friendly guy wrote:It seems that historically there are events similar to the "Red Wedding" such as the Black Dinner and the massacre of Glencoe. Although these did not have the effect of drastically altering conflicts like it did on GoT.

Again, Aetius and Stilicho. Comparable to the black dinner certainly. Both changed the world even more radically than the Red Wedding did - one led to the fall of a city and ideology that dominated the world for 600 years, the other led to the death of the empire built on that city.

Coop D'etat wrote:How often has there been assassinations by foreign agents anyway? Particularly in war time I'd think there is an ease of access problem that is difficult to overcome making it an impractical option. The tiIn the alternative, perhaps when it has been managed, foreign involvment tends to be hidded enough that it does not get recorded in history. Most of the events I can think of were where their was an internal loss of confidence in leadership which led to assassinations to seek terms with the other side.

Ease of access was rather trivial in ancient times where most people did not care to watch over slaves that much and having bodyguards was frowned upon as the sign of a tyrant.

Thanas wrote:

Darmalus wrote:What would you say were they key differences between armies/wars/movements that kept going after their leader died/got assassinated, and those that dispersed as a result?

Was is simply philosophical or ideological? Fighting for Bob the individual vs the Nation of Bob? Or something more complicated?

This is a good question but it is just such a broad field that it would be impossible to have a general answer IMO. If I had to guess it would depend largely on the force structure (national forces vs "private armies"), skill of those that replaced the commander (Aetius and those that replaced him) and tradition (longstanding units who have a live of their own vs mercenaries) etc. I don't think there is a one size fits all answer here.

mr friendly guy wrote:It seems that historically there are events similar to the "Red Wedding" such as the Black Dinner and the massacre of Glencoe. Although these did not have the effect of drastically altering conflicts like it did on GoT.

Again, Aetius and Stilicho. Comparable to the black dinner certainly. Both changed the world even more radically than the Red Wedding did - one led to the fall of a city and ideology that dominated the world for 600 years, the other led to the death of the empire built on that city.

I wonder if you could use assassinations and assassination attempts of military and political leaders to give answer to the old question if "Great Men" make history. If you could identify all parameters and formulate a good hypothesis you maybe could try to run a statistical analysis.
I regret a bit that I didn't made a degree in history. Would be a nice dissertation.

Thanas wrote:Ease of access was rather trivial in ancient times where most people did not care to watch over slaves that much and having bodyguards was frowned upon as the sign of a tyrant.

I wonder what it tells us that our beloved democratic leader nowadays need small army of highly trained guards.

Welf wrote:I wonder if you could use assassinations and assassination attempts of military and political leaders to give answer to the old question if "Great Men" make history. If you could identify all parameters and formulate a good hypothesis you maybe could try to run a statistical analysis.
I regret a bit that I didn't made a degree in history. Would be a nice dissertation.

Sure but you probably do not have a sound basis for most deaths/assassinations and you face the obvious problem of the sources already being written with the theory in mind.

That being said, I do think there is some merit to the idea. For example, would any other leader have as much success like Napoleon or Alexander? The theory has almost become a stereotype though - most people who think they know it believe it means only great men move history, but in its original iteration it is not so extreme.

I wonder what it tells us that our beloved democratic leader nowadays need small army of highly trained guards.

Only the US has that really. Even Merkel does not have a huge army, in the situations where I was close to her there were nearly no obvious bodyguards in sight, certainly not more than a dozen or so.

Welf wrote:I wonder what it tells us that our beloved democratic leader nowadays need small army of highly trained guards.

Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy not to mention Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford(plus many others) would all like to have a long talk with you about that statement.

They aren't protecting the president from foreign enemies but from lone determined nuts.

As the population you rule gets larger, the odds of some loony deciding to "kill the king because God says so" increases.

If you rule a nation of a million, and one person in ten million is mad enough to try this, it'll happen once in every ten generations. If you rule a nation of three hundred million it'll happen at least once a year. Especially since modern transportation means these lunatics have an easier time getting into position to actually launch their attack.

mr friendly guy wrote:In fantasy novels killing the opposing side's leaders or significant personnel and thus winning the war is not unheard of. For example David Eddings did that twice in his series of books where the God of the villains is killed by the heroes via a secret journey to confront him. In recent memory we have the Red Wedding from A song of Fire and Ice / Game of Thrones.

My question is, has there ever been a war in real life where assassinating someone was quite significant to turn the tide or give one side an advantage. Presumably this would have to occur in the ages where secession is via family lines and not through democratic appointments or selection via committee like the more powerful modern states utilise.

The most closest examples I can think of was the execution of Chinese generals Yue Fei during the Song dynasty and Yuan Chonghuan during the Ming dynasty for "treason" due to intrigue in the Imperial Court. This doesn't quite fit in the assassination mould as it wasn't done by the opposing state, but by their enemies within the same state.

I am interested if anyone knows of exaples which kind of fit the "assassination kills key personnel and turn the tide of war" meme.

There....... are more examples, although most of the examples are along political assassination....

Yue in his defeat of Wu through bribery and political influence convinced King Fu Chai to order Wu Zixu to commit suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zixu
His death would ensure the removal of Wu defences against Yue and allowed for a sneak attack on Wu capital to succeed and result in the absorption of Wu into Yue.
Quite a significant turnabout, given that the State of Wu was in its ascendant when Sun Tzu aided Fu Chai father, and the above said general Wu Zixu in several campaigns in its ascendance and just years before, Wu almost completed the absorption of Yue before bribery and other issues stepped in to halt Wu campaign.

Jiang Wei of Shu Han was also politically assassinated, although this isn't turning the tide so much since the Jin Dynasty outnumbered and outgunned Shu Han.


There are also some famous anti bandit campaigns in China history that achieved this, leading to the common slogan that "to end banditry capture the chief", although I can't recall the extant names. Some of them was executed by Yue Fei itself, although they weren't 'assasination' per say but campaigns intended to catch and kill the chief.

Battle of Lützen has this on both sides, first Pappenheim which turned potentially won battle into lost, then main even which probably changed the history of Europe.

In more modern times, you have changes in policies after assassinations of Heydrich and Kutschera, plus difficulties Germans had in aftermath of Operation Valkyrie, though by then you can argue wars got too big to be influenced by singular deaths.

Edit: upon thinking and looking through my books, I recall British (and possibly other sides) had programs targeting enemy commanders for assassination/kidnapping, like General Heinrich Kreipe, so it wasn't entirely pointless. I'd need to look more for details, though.

Can a death in battle be really called an assassination though? I don't think Pappenheim or Gustav Adolf count, nor does Turenne.

Different from the french attempt to poison Prinz Eugen, definitely.

When I made the thread I wasn't thinking of death in battle when I used the term assassination.

The french attempt to poison Prinz Eugen would then probably be the last thing that would qualify, after it no attempts at assassinating military commanders by an opposing side are known to me (outside the British terror missions).

mr friendly guy wrote:When I made the thread I wasn't thinking of death in battle when I used the term assassination.

It's not the same but interesting to compare. If Gustav Adolf had not been killed in the battle but a few days later by an assassin the situation would be the same. Any difference in outcome would be from perception by other parties. An actual assassination might have been worse for the emporer than what happened in real history, since it would have tarnished his reputation all over Europe and made it harder to find allies or keep them, while his opponents would have gotten an boost in their determination. That of course only happens if there is a possibility of changing alliances and if assassination is considered a immoral act. But that might be a reason why there are not many attempts to solve a war with murdering the enemy. Unless you want to fight to total extermination and exhaust yourself you want them to sign a treaty and keep to it. And that is much more difficult if you don't have a common framework everyone accepts and adheres to.

Thanas wrote:The french attempt to poison Prinz Eugen would then probably be the last thing that would qualify, after it no attempts at assassinating military commanders by an opposing side are known to me (outside the British terror missions).

Maybe there is fringe case with Wallenstein, who got assassinated by his own ruler. But Wallenstein was maybe planing to change sides or force the emperor to accept a peace he didn't want. In any case it hugely affected the war since the emperor lost his best commander and the war took another 15 years.