Does it really change the outcome of the war? Does a country fall when the capital city is captured?
In: 462
The importance of the capital in modern times is more symbolic in most cases, as governments can easily relocate. However, the capital is usually (but not always) the most populous city and often the most important economic centre. Losing the capital means losing a *lot* of people and power. If the enemy has soldiers walking into the capital’s streets, the war is pretty much over. The people know that the government can’t protect them in their safest place, so resistance will often collapse and with no one in the capital to take over, defeat is all but guaranteed.
The war can still continue, but it becomes much more difficult to continue without a centralised government and command structure.
This was the rationale behind Russia’s strike on Kyiv last February. If they succeeded, they could have paralysed the Ukrainian response as their civilian and many military leaders would have been captured. Without a central coordinated command, the units in the field would be less likely to coordinate defensive moves and be taken down individually by other forces.
But taking the capital isn’t always the “instant win” condition. Many countries have strong economic and military centres elsewhere, especially if the country is very big. Washington DC, for example, is hardly a large important city. It is symbolic, but the President and Congress often aren’t even there and can relocate to any number of more distant locations and the military is much more spread out across the country. So if Canada marches down and burns the White House again, you end up with a lot of pissed off Americans.
If the US invades Canada and captures Ottawa in the first week, I don’t think most people would notice.
Latest Answers