How effective is killing enemy generals?

[Dick Cheney.]

In war, how effective is it to target the enemy's general (to include decapitation strikes, sniping, or targeted-killing of a leader in wartime)?

Questions:

1) How effective is it to target enemy commanders? (historically speaking, was this a good strategy for the battlefield?)

2) Does the loss of a military leader (or officer corps) typically lead to defeat in battle? (also historically speaking)

3) Can the loss of a general (or officer corps) lead to defeat in war? (why it might or might not)

4) Finally, is the targeting of a country's military leader (or military headquarters) a valid way to win a war? (present day)



ALEXANDER THE GREAT CHASES KING DARIUS - BATTLE OF ISSUS, 333BC.



IRAQ MOST-WANTED DECK OF CARDS - IRAQ WAR, 2003.


Below is also a short history and rough conjecture:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ancient Warfare = Effective When Not Fighting Romans.
1. Alexander the Great won the majority of his battles by targeting King Darius. The hammer & anvil tactic (as employed by Alexander) almost certainly depends on the successful targeting of the enemy's general for success; especially when facing a more numerous foe.
2. If Alexander is KIA, the Macedonian Army almost certainly returns home and Persians win.
3. Hannibal ate Roman consuls and senators for lunch, though most were pretty incompetent anyway, it did not have much of a long term effect (credit to the Romans). Though it did take a decent general to finally defeat Hannibal.
4. Caesar's legions would not have lost had he died in battle, his assassination also did not politically defeat his populist faction.
5. The death of Gemanicus did hurt the empire (leading to Caligula and Nero), but did not lead to collapse.
6. Pericles may have been a better statesman then general.


Medieval Warfare = Less Effective
1. Generally not too effective to my knowledge; medieval kings were ransomed, captured, or killed in battle all the time, but hereditary rule generally made succession quick and easy.
2. William did kill Harold at Hastings.
3. Joan of Arc became a martyr, so that backfired.
4. The Illness and death of Edward the Black Prince did hurt England long-term against France somewhat.
5. The massacre of the French noble class at agrincourt did not destroy France, English men at arms and longbowmen would have fought to the death anyway, even without Henry.
6. The Aztec did not stop fighting immediately when Cortes captured Montezuma.


Gunpowder Age = Effective
1. If Washington is KIA, then the outcome of the American Revolution is radically changed (unknown if better or worse).
2. Napoleon would have became the greatest martyr in history had he been killed or executed.
3. English still won major battles and wars when Wolfe and Nelson died, but Wolfe and Nelson still deserve credit for winning them.
4. Americans won at Saratoga partly due to general sniping.
5. Loss of Stonewall Jackson and John Reynolds hurt later campaigns, but not battles they were in. Generals were frequently killed or injured during the ACW.


WWI - Mixed
1. Assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand backfired, tipping point to war.
2. Execution of Tsar Nicholas II was a win for the Bolshevik revolution
3. UK lost 78 general officers in combat, Germans 70.
4. Death of Richthofen did not become a propaganda win.
5. Death of Kitchener was a moral blow but not a military defeat.


WWII - Mixed
1. Death of Isoroku Yamamoto was a moral loss.
2. Wermanchant and Blitzkrieg over relied on the talent and skill of its generals, defeat became more inevitable as Hitler sacked them.
3. Battle of Bulge saw initial success for Germany partly due to IKE's assassination fears.
4. USSR survived the General Purge, but Stalin was certainly indispensable.
5. Truman effectively took over for FDR, but FDR did serve 4 terms.
6. Germany would likely have continued to have fought even without Hitler.


Modern Era - Effective When Not Fighting Counter-Insurgency.
1. Kennedy assassination led to brief government chaos.
2. Death of Ho Chi Minh did not turn around Vietnam.
3. Death of UBL, Al Zarqawai, and capture of KS.Muhammad has not defeated Al-Qaeda brand.
4. Targeted Drone Killing of terrorist leaders is effective, as is assassination of Iranian nuke scientists, but must be followed up with more targeted killings.
5. General officers are less vulnerable and less important than ever before, not worth the effort.
6. Heads of State (along with democratic systems) appear vulnerable to assasination.



Nuclear War - Unknown
1. Decapitating First Strike may be one of the only hypothetical means available to win a nuclear war, but the attacking country must be prepared for massive retaliation, especially from countries with second strike capability.

[NorseThing]

Your post seems to be mixing several ideas together and that may make if difficult to respond. Before gunpowder, it was essential to have a firm control of a battle and that necessarily puts the command at risk. The matter of who leads a kingdom / empire is a different issue than who leads the battle. Is your ancients example one of Darius as the leader of an empire targeted or is it Darius and the commander in the battle targeted? After the introduction of gun powder the general in the field is slowly but surely moved back. But still as late as the American Civil War had many high ranking officers killed leading the units. Generally this was only brigade commanders and not the generals of the war effort. I could go on, but you can see my confusion. Perhaps it would be better to narrow the discussion a bit.

[Cyclops]

Sniping literally means hunting a small target (a snipe is a bird) so the terminology is apt. I had though the title "general sniping" meant "sniping in general" but of course it means "sniping (or otherwise targeting) military commanders in the field".

In war, how effective is it to target the enemy's general (to include decapitation strikes or death of a leader in wartime)?

In simpler societies, especially feudal or tribal ones, the military leader is usually the civil leader as well, and the warrior caste is often the administrative and social elite as well. With more complex societies where the military leadership base is broader then the death of a leader is less catastrophic: there are formal structures to support a transfer of power and continue the mission at hand.

Ancient Warfare = Effective When Not Fighting Romans.
1. Alexander the Great won the majority of his battles by targeting King Darius. The hammer & anvil tactic (as employed by Alexander) almost certainly depends on the successful targeting of the enemy's general for success; especially when facing a more numerous foe.
2. If Alexander is KIA, the Macedonian Army almost certainly returns home and Persians win.
3. Hannibal ate Roman consuls and senators for lunch, though most were pretty incompetent anyway, it did not have much of a long term effect (credit to the Romans). Though it did take a decent general to finally defeat Hannibal.
4. Caesar's legions would not have lost had he died in battle, his assassination also did not politically defeat his populist faction.
5. The death of Gemanicus did hurt the empire (leading to Caligula and Nero), but did not lead to collapse.
6. Pericles may have been a better statesman then general.

Yes all very reasonable conjectures. Typically the political and military system behind the armies in classical warfare meant the war leader was an important political leader and sometimes the reason for the war. Roman professionalism did mean leaders could be replaced, but Roman monarchs (whether "legitimate" or rebel, such as Sertorius) were vulnerable as their life was their cause.

Medieval Warfare = Less Effective
1. Generally not too effective to my knowledge; medieval kings were ransomed, captured, or killed in battle all the time, but hereditary rule generally made succession quick and easy.
2. William did kill Harold at Hastings.
3. Joan of Arc became a martyr, so that backfired.
4. The Illness and death of Edward the Black Prince did hurt England long-term against France somewhat.
5. The massacre of the French noble class at agrincourt did not destroy France, English men at arms and longbowmen would have fought to the death anyway, even without Henry.
6. The Aztec did not stop fighting immediately when Cortes captured Montezuma.

I would disagree violently. The capture of the enemy's "king" in medieval warfare was at least as important as in classical times, as was the death of a general.

The death of Richard III at Bosworth determined the outcome of the war, the death of the Scots commanders at Pinkie led to a collapse of the larger Scots force, the numerous captured nobles and the French King in the 100 years war led to a severe leadership crisis (as well as an economic one, paying the enormous ransoms paralysed the French for many years), ditto in the ERE when Romanus was captured, and then embarrassingly released to challenge a usurper.

Frederick Barbarossa's accidental death led to the rapid collapse of the largest and possibly most effectively organised crusading army ever assembled: had a Turk sniped him in one of the many skirmishes in Anatolia it would be an prime example of the vulnerability of Medieval armies to general sniping. The examples are almost endless, from Timur's capture of Bayezid to the death in battle of Malcolm III of Scotland.

The feudal system tied military and political responsibility together. If the King could not take the field it counted against him. Kings who were active in the field (eg Henry V or Richard I of England, Charlemagne, Louis VIII, Louis IX of France, Frederick Barbarossa etc etc. enjoyed particular glory, at risk of their lives of course.

Gunpowder Age = Effective
1. If Washington is KIA, then the outcome of the American Revolution is radically changed (unknown if better or worse).
2. Napoleon would have became the greatest martyr in history had he been killed or executed.
3. English still won major battles and wars when Wolfe and Nelson died, but Wolfe and Nelson still deserve credit for winning them.
4. Americans won at Saratoga partly due to general sniping.
5. Loss of Stonewall Jackson and John Reynolds hurt later campaigns, but not battles they were in. Generals were frequently killed or injured during the ACW.

With increasing professionalization armies did not rely exclusively on hereditary commander who were also the political masters. Kings took the filed less often as there was less social importance in personally killing dudes. The development of professional government (ministers, Rats/Cortes/Parliaments/Things) meant that even the death of a warrior King in battle did not cause the army, state or movement to collapse (eg Gustav Adolph, Lion of Midnight and ultimate Swedish badass was killed at Lutzen but his army won the battle, and the Protestant cause and the Swedish state both survived and even prospered).

Washington's death leads to another commander's appointment: he was not a great leader, more an agreeable compromise candidate that suited Congress: Congress can find another man. French intervention still leads to a British collapse whether Arnold or Clinton or someone else takes the helm.

WWI - Mixed
...
WWII - Mixed
...
Modern Era - Effective When Not Fighting Counter-Insurgency.
...
Nuclear War - Unknown
...

With the formal adoption of professional military in almost every state the only armies susceptible to general sniping are rebel and charismatic leaders in third world states: I believe the death of Bin laden was somewhat effective, albeit very late in the day. The sniping of other leaders has arguably been effective in reducing terrorist strikes.

Increased levels of education and organization means armies are now machines with machine parts standardised and relatively easy to replace: killing officers is tactically sound as it disrupts command lines but cannot be a war winner the way killing Harold Godwinson or Richard III was.

[hellheaven1987]

It depends on how the military organize and function.

[conon394]

hmm

I would say for for pre - modern battles where all political power or delegated power might rest one or two individuals - absolutely important. My example would the Fall of the Athenian Arche. Had Lamicus not lead (from the front) he would not have been 'sniped' as it were. Thus Athens would have completed it's siege, and Syracuse would fall (no Spartan general because aside from the lines he gets patrols and some ships moved to repair)... But that seems to archaic since the expectation that those who lead are supposed to be at risk or well lead in the danger they create or advocate for is in the dust bin of history I guess.

Modern since at least the ACW - useful and potentially very effective at low cost just one guy good with a rifle who can slow down a whole unit taking cover. DO you what to be the first guy sticking his head out?

[Spear Dog]

My take is, that of the two famous examples that come to mind where a general was successfully 'sniped'; Nelson at Trafalgar (actual sniper) and General Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr. at Okinawa in 1945 (artillery), their deaths had little or no effect on the outcome of the predetermined battle plan. They can be linked through their commanding of professional standing armies/navies which, once battle is joined, have their own momentum with a resilient chain of command due to multiple 'built-in' redundancies. It's been a very long time since senior Officers personally issued orders to individual combatants on a battlefield.

[Mamlaz]

This depends on whether you mean effective in terms of winning a battle or winning a war.

Because, for winning a battle, I would argue that it was very effective during the medieval and early-early modern period.

Battles like Muret or Flodden where basically won with this tactic and the opposing army would have likely lost had they not rushed the commander.

[Spear Dog]

Both those battles were before the time of professional standing armies and illustrate the strategic error of the commander placing himself in a vulnerable position on the battle field. It also highlights the problems that arise from having a chain of command dependent on a social system instead of an internal military structure. That is one of the reasons why the aristocracy as a social institution (the 'Second Estate' so to speak) has gone the way of the dodo. Rather than having a chain of command with built-in redundancy you often ended up with a command structure hiding built-in incompetency.

[Dick Cheney.]

Your post seems to be mixing several ideas together and that may make if difficult to respond. Before gunpowder, it was essential to have a firm control of a battle and that necessarily puts the command at risk. The matter of who leads a kingdom / empire is a different issue than who leads the battle. Is your ancients example one of Darius as the leader of an empire targeted or is it Darius and the commander in the battle targeted? After the introduction of gun powder the general in the field is slowly but surely moved back. But still as late as the American Civil War had many high ranking officers killed leading the units. Generally this was only brigade commanders and not the generals of the war effort. I could go on, but you can see my confusion. Perhaps it would be better to narrow the discussion a bit.

I agree. To help clarify;

1) How effective is it to target enemy commanders? (historically speaking, was this a good strategy for the battlefield?)

2) Does the loss of a military leader (or officer corps) typically lead to defeat in battle? (also historically speaking)

3) Can the loss of a general (or officer corps) lead to defeat in war? (why it might or might not)

4) Finally, is the targeting of a country's military leader (or military headquarters) a valid way to win a war? (present day)

We'll keep question #4 to present day only, though I'm certainly interested in any past examples someone might find.

[Condottiere 40K]

Redundancy is inbuilt in an officer corps. Or should be.

If you combine political and military leadership in one person, without a clear chain of command and/or secure line of succession, like we're wondering if North Korea will collapse if we maximally prejudice Kim, or if his successors will be more reasonable in regard to maintaining their nuclear arsenal and development programme. Alexander's empire disintegrated, and his line was extinguished.

Rommel's loss at the head of his troops would likely cause his command to lose momentum.

[paleologos]

1) How effective is it to target enemy commanders? (historically speaking, was this a good strategy for the battlefield?)

It was effective to the extend that pleasing (or not angering) the leader was the reason the soldiers fought.
Very frequently in ancient or medieval times peace and war were decided by one person.
The loss of that person would cause the soldiers to abandon the battlefield.
The Romans were an exception in that peace and war were decided by leadership that did not take the field (the senate).
There is also the case of the battle of the Catalaunian Plains where the loss of Visigoth king Theodoric I caused his troops to fight harder to avenge him.
The death of Attila a few years later on the other hand caused his empire to disintegrate.
So aspects of culture and power structure have to be considered.

2) Does the loss of a military leader (or officer corps) typically lead to defeat in battle? (also historically speaking)

It is a matter of sophistication of the chain of command and the willingness of the troops to fight and win (or die trying) regardless of who's in charge.
I believe it is safe to say that the answer is "yes", as a rule, but with notable exceptions as mentioned in this post and previous ones.

3) Can the loss of a general (or officer corps) lead to defeat in war? (why it might or might not)

I believe it is reasonable to assume that if all the command and strategy/tactics talent is concentrated in one person then the loss of that person is also the loss of the talents that are necessary for victory.

4) Finally, is the targeting of a country's military leader (or military headquarters) a valid way to win a war? (present day)

No, because in modern times the location of military and political leadership is not fixed in a geographical location.
Targeting a geographical location is one thing, eliminating the leadership (as in people in leadership roles) is another.
And eliminating all leadership talent (that can be readily tapped to and used in times of an emergency) is an entirely different preposition.

The fighting groups that come to mind when typing the lines above are Al-Qaeda, ISIS and others of the same ilk.
They don't need centralized leadership, they don't need extraordinary talent for this (although they can be helped from it) and the reasons they fight are not concentrated in one person.
Death strengthens - not weakens their ideology and drive to fight and die.
As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that dying in the fight is the reason they fight.

[RubiconDecision]

It can be devastating to the morale of the soldiers and officers if they don't believe they can win without that general's leadership and strategy and tactics. They might win the battle but might lose the war due to attrition as soldiers flee without his leadership to form a cohesive effective force.

It's remarkable to me how often one side wins a battle due to morale and a brilliant tactic executed at the right moment.

Which is why I hate autoresolving games that treat unit attributes as practically everything. The vast majority of strategy war games are just pretty dice rolling. This is the main reason I still play RTW1 and MTW2 because you might have terrible odds, lose a general, especially a second supporting army which foolishly does a cav charge...yet still pull off a victory.

The battle being won is vital, but afterwards without leadership, the taken city might be lost without authority to maintain order.