Why is the assassination of heads of states almost never used in realpoliticking?

618 viewsOther

I thought about this when a coworker mentioned in casual conversation that they wondered why a certain head of state (no reason to get into specifics) is not simply done away with to resolve a currently ongoing international conflict. To my knowledge that’s almost never done in the real world because it rarely works as intended. I was wondering if any politics/international relationship experts or avid Hitman/Assassin’s Creed players knows the real reason why this is, and if there’s even a official term for why this is not done in real politics? Thanks.

In: Other

18 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

When Caesar was assassinated, it removed Caesar from the equation. It didn’t remove the problem that Rome was critically dependent on strong military leaders to defend it against threats, but expected them to step back into the shadows after they were done, without offering them anything. It didn’t change the problem that this kind of people was painfully aware that Rome couldn’t survive without them.

So Rome still became an Empire.

The fundamental problem is that as much as they are leaders, they are often symptoms, riding a wave that doesn’t critically depend on their person. So all the assassination often does is create bad blood and delegitimize the very thing you want to achieve.

You are viewing 1 out of 18 answers, click here to view all answers.