Does it really change the outcome of the war? Does a country fall when the capital city is captured?
In: 462
If your goal is to take over a country, the best way to do so is to remove the current seat of power. Said seat of power is typically in the country’s capital city. So capturing the capital is the best way of supplanting the current governing body with your own.
Many capital cities are located at strategic transportation hubs or near vital resources, so there could be strategic reasons to capture it. It could disrupt the enemies command and control. It could have a effect on morale for both your troops and your opponents.
During the way of 1812 the British captured the American capital, and America went on to win that war.
During WWII, Soviets captured the Nazi capital and effectively ended the war in Europe.
So, there are reasons to do it, but it in no way assures victory.
You know how you can get a package from anywhere in the world in extremely short time? Well that is all thanks to a central hub in Atlanta. Most packages go through that central hub.
Now imagine a new delivery service hires a mercenary group and captures Atlanta (well, the airport at least). Amazon, FedEx, UPS, all of them would come to a screeching halt. Of course they could work around it and deliver your package, but my god would it be a logistical nightmare and take time to get things running smoothly. Meanwhile the new delivery company holds them all hostage and could easily negotiate a deal. They hold all the power.
Now, throughout history, capitals were like the Atlanta central hub, except for *everything*. Currency, information, trade routes, political leadership, you name it. Modern logistics and information sort of make that idea obsolete, though it does still have value if not as much.
Capturing the capital in the modern world would be largely symbolic. It wouldn’t be any more or less significant than capturing any other major city. The leaders don’t need to be in the same country as one another in order to collaborate and respond in real time, much less the same city. At the first sign of a military presence moving on the capital, the leadership would be at the airport and scattered to the winds rather promptly.
Besides the good points the top comments have made, I’m not sure how true the importance of taking the capital is. Napoleon took Moscow and failed. Justinian took the ostrogoth capital, but couldn’t ultimately hold Italy. The UK took DC during the War of 1812 and it basically ended with a draw. Japan surrendered before the capital was taken in WWII.
I think that if your goal is to completely dominate the enemy, taking the capital is a natural result of winning the war, not a requirement of it.
If you’re thinking of Germany in WWII, it was clear to everyone who lived in reality that the Germans had lost, long before Berlin was taken. It wasn’t strictly nessecary to take it besides the fact that it was the last place to take.
Same reason you shoot zombies in the head?
It’s like someone sleeping in your bed. They may break in your house, they could sleep on the garage, but if they sleep on your bed then it’s their house now. In a hypothetical situation
It used to be that capital cities were there basis for government and militaries because it had to be. Now this is not the case. With air and ground transport being easily available, they way to cripple a main ink submission is destroy infrastructure so resistance can’t happen and individual key positions can be taken and held independently to starve resistance. But conquering a government is the easy part. It’s holding out against resistance and gaining complete control that’s the hard part.
In Ukraine, capturing and dismantling the government is the way part and Russia never even made it that far. Had they succeeded, rather would have had to deal with actual resistance as civilians refused to cooperate and insurgents would have taken over.
Everybody jokes about France rolling over for the Germans, but France had a HUGE domestic resistance that was a key asset in the Allies reclaiming France. Contrary to popular belief, France does not have a history of cowering to tyranny. They burn down their cities every couple of years with their own politicians in them; they do more with foreign leaders in them.
Capturing the capital is more of a video game/fantasy trope than it is a reality. All it does is pisses people off.
It’s mostly symbolic, but then much of war is symbolism.
A country is a country pretty much as long as enough people are willing to form an army and fight and die for it to be. If for some reason they don’t want to anymore, they can all just quit and go home and the country dissolves. If for some reason they really really want to, they can keep it going against crazy impossible odds.
If an invader obviously and visibly intends brutal subjugation and genocide for your people, that’s pretty good motivation to stick with it no matter what. On the other hand, if an invader just wants to rule from a different city with slightly different rules and process, well maybe it’s not that big a deal and not really worth fighting that hard against.
If it looks more like the latter and the capital city gets captured, that’s a pretty strong sign that the party’s over and it’s time to give up and get used to the new guys. Or if they can’t manage to capture the capital city, that’s a good sign that the new guys aren’t all that and the current leaders actually are worth putting your life on the line for.
It’s where the Money is made, the Rule of Law is carried out over the Military, and has Embassies of International Diplomatic Relations
Latest Answers