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

A bit ASB, but Churchill fulfills his promise of fighting if the Germans invade Britain. He dies in the ruins of Parliament, still firing his gun.
 
This could be considered pre-industrial, but South Carolina had seceded during the Nullification crisis, I could see Andrew Jackson following the army and being killed while there.

Even earlier, James Madison escaped the White House just before the British arrived and would take personal command of an artillery unit.

Oh, and didn't Ike visit Korea after the election but prior to the armistice? I think Clinton and Bush 43 have also visited the DMZ.
 
I do wonder what morale effect having your head of state participating from the front (probably in an attack helicopter or fighter jet) would have on an army in the modern era---especially if that head of state was actually good at fighting. A lot of warrior caste types would respect that immensely.
 
I do wonder what morale effect having your head of state participating from the front (probably in an attack helicopter or fighter jet) would have on an army in the modern era---especially if that head of state was actually good at fighting. A lot of warrior caste types would respect that immensely.
But shattering to morale if he is KIA in medieval times that’s how most battles were decided
 
Guess that also rules out Stalin getting oofed at Moscow as Mikhail Kalinin was the nominal head of state of the USSR.
The main difference with Britain it that Stalin, beyond of whatever 'd say the Soviet law, it's that at difference of the British PM, he was an totalitarian dictator....
 
I have to ask why. What does this gain a nation from having a leader at the front? Unless they were a general or admiral before being elected to leadership they wouldn't likely have any skill in leading soldiers. Modern war is incredibly complicated and isn't something that you can pick up in an afternoon or even a couple of years. Try to imagine it in a small scale. Give someone who has never done your job before your position and see how well they do.
 
I have to ask why. What does this gain a nation from having a leader at the front? Unless they were a general or admiral before being elected to leadership they wouldn't likely have any skill in leading soldiers. Modern war is incredibly complicated and isn't something that you can pick up in an afternoon or even a couple of years. Try to imagine it in a small scale. Give someone who has never done your job before your position and see how well they do.
+20 war support, rally around the flag effect for their successor.
 
During the run-up to D-Day, Churchill started insisting that he'd go along to watch the landings from one of the warships involved. He was only dissuaded from this when George VI said that if that would be safe enough for the PM to do then it should be safe enough for the monarch as well and he'd accompany Churchill. It's probable that this was a bluff, to get Churchill to back down, but if that had been a serious intention on George's part instead then potentially we could have lost both of them in the same incident.
(N.B. In his younger years, George had served in the Royal Navy: He was at Jutland, as a Midshipman, commanding -- IIRC -- one of the turrets on Jellicoe's flagship.)
And here's the letter
 
I have to ask why. What does this gain a nation from having a leader at the front? Unless they were a general or admiral before being elected to leadership they wouldn't likely have any skill in leading soldiers. Modern war is incredibly complicated and isn't something that you can pick up in an afternoon or even a couple of years. Try to imagine it in a small scale. Give someone who has never done your job before your position and see how well they do.
I think many of us were going with "leader visiting the front to inspect the troops and raise morale going horribly wrong" for resolving the prompt.
 
I think many of us were going with "leader visiting the front to inspect the troops and raise morale going horribly wrong" for resolving the prompt.
I think that the in battle part means said leader has to actually fight instead of random artillery round or someone tripping and accidentally shooting the leader or something like that. The OP's prompt seems to lean in that direction.
 
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.
President Volodimir of the Ukraine came pretty close apparently....
 
I think many of us were going with "leader visiting the front to inspect the troops and raise morale going horribly wrong" for resolving the prompt.
Yes I’m guilty of that .. sorry
Just that it’s very hard to imagine any modern leader even symbolically participating in actual combat without it being completely staged ( or comical)

Oh btw Arafat during siege of Beirut ? Does that. Count ?
 
Top