Have a head of state die in battle in the industrialized age.

Maxell

Maxell

Banned
Nowadays modern leaders are comfortable with sitting in comfortable posts and mansions while the men who rally to their cause have to face grueling and deadly conditions. What would it take for someone in a position of government to be convinced to fight and kill alongside his soldiers? Doesn't have to be limited to kings btw.
 

YYJ

The last time anything like that happened OTL was in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War when Emperor Napoleon III was captured at The Battle of Sedan. This created a problem for the Germans, because no one remained in France with the authority to surrender.
 

Monk78

Maxell said:
Nowadays modern leaders are comfortable with sitting in comfortable posts and mansions while the men who rally to their cause have to face grueling and deadly conditions. What would it take for someone in a position of government to be convinced to fight and kill alongside his soldiers? Doesn't have to be limited to kings btw.
Click to expand...
Salvador Allende
 

Lalli

Albert I of Belgium and Nicholas II of Russia could are easilty to be killed on battle since they were pretty close of bettle fronts.

And if you want that happening on 21st century you probably can do that with George W. Bush. He often visited on batle zones so let some stray bullet kill him.

YYJ said:
I guess it could be said that happened to Muammar Ghaddafi as well.
Click to expand...

Probably can be counteed too.
 

YYJ

Monk78 said:
Saddam Hussain
Mullah Omar
Click to expand...
Hussein was captured while hiding, and hung after a dubious trial. I don't think that counts.
Omar died of illness in obscure circumstances, so I don't think that counts either.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi blew himself up by suicide vest in the middle of a special forces raid targeting him, so his death could count. The Islamic State was kind of a bullshit country though, so I don't know if he would count as a head of state.
 

naraic

YYJ said:
Hussein was captured while hiding, and hung after a dubious trial. I don't think that counts.
Omar died of illness in obscure circumstances, so I don't think that counts either.
Click to expand...
True. I think the previous poster was saying that it would be easy to have those killed in battle (for a certain definition of battle).
 

Arkenfolm

Noscoper said:
This happened last year in Chad
Click to expand...
That president, Idriss Deby, is probably one of the most straightforward examples in many, many years given he went to the frontlines on an extended visit with his soldiers, was in command, and was killed. Although one rumour holds he was actually assassinated by friendly fire but there doesn't seem to be evidence.
 
Slime_blob

Slime_blob

1652437250107.png

This guy first president of the Philippine republic, he apparently leads battle and often at the front if I'm right. Either he does during the 1896 97 kkk revolution here it's very likely or the Filipino/Illustrado/Principalia mainly all of society from bottom to top revolution of 1898. Either by artillery, friendly fire or sharpshooter etc.

Or the first phase of the Philippine American war during 1899 as he again commanded an army on his only battle at the Battle of Marilao River during the war against the Americans. Likely gunboats or American sharpshooter or even friendly fire. Or the second pahse at the shift to guerilla war at late 1899-1902/13
 

Garrison

Donor
Maxell said:
Nowadays modern leaders are comfortable with sitting in comfortable posts and mansions while the men who rally to their cause have to face grueling and deadly conditions. What would it take for someone in a position of government to be convinced to fight and kill alongside his soldiers? Doesn't have to be limited to kings btw.
Click to expand...
Which is a very emotive way of saying that given the scale of modern wars in terms of the size of the battlefields and the sheer complexity of running them that leaders need to be at some central point with good communications and far enough back so the enemy can't easily take them out. Also modern armies tend to be made up of professional soldiers. The days when some king could ride at the head of their armies and see the whole of the battlefield are long over and the idea of having Lloyd-George or Churchill out in the front lines is more than faintly absurd.
 

The Mole's Revenge

While I can see a senior govt figure being killed when visiting the front lines of a conflict, I don't think that's really the question being asked.

I can't see a modern head of state or senior govt minister voluntarily picking up a rifle or climbing into an AFV and going into battle alongside their troops except possibly in the event of a last stand defence of the palace/parliament/seat of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top