Whatever semantics you prefer as long as we agreed upon the main principle.Woo mean!
The point remains that a headless military genius (providing he still can ride a horse) may be a greater success than one with a head by a virtue of being absolutely unpredictable in his military and diplomatic activities. On that I'll dare to disagree with Clausewitz who (AFAIK) stated that for thinking one has to use a head because this is where the mental capacities are concentrated. First of all, Clausewitz was neither a certified specialist in human anatomy nor a shrink so this opinion was anything but a hard science. Then, there is a huge volume of a factual material showing that limiting functions of a head to eating and talking and delegating decisions to other parts of one's anatomy is not just viable but can be quite successful and there were/are reasonably successful civilizations (one for sure) in which the decision making had been routinely delegated to the posteriors (well, and some other parts of anatomy). And in the armies practical usefulness of a head (except for wearing a headgear, saying "Yessir!" and eating) is debatable, to put it mildly: subordinate does not need to think because he has the orders to implement (*) and commander does not need to think because he is already the boss and his orders are to be obeyed (**)
(*) According to the regulations of Peter the Great, a subordinate in his contacts with the superiors must look (to quote) "brave and idiotic" ("вид бравый и придурковатый").
(**) If one believes Lev Tolstoy (read "W&P" or just trust me), an army commander can't issue an intelligent order by definition and the best thing he can do is to do nothing. Well, in Tolstoy's specific case the head was also needed for carrying a huge well-groomed beard.