I'm not afraid to reveal my ignorance - Although political assassination has clearly been a common occurrence throughout history, can anyone tell me why it isn't as common as it seems like it should be?

When I look at the huge array of people in history who
1) Had enormous power
2) Made decisions that cost people their own power, peace, freedom and/or lives
3) Consequently made many enemies
4) Didn't benefit from modern security measures
5) Were surrounded by a constant churn of people
6) And yet did NOT end up stabbed, shot, ambushed or poisoned

I just scratch my head in honest, ignorant confusion.

A steady stream of assassins just seems way cheaper and much more direct than war.

What gives?

Because people aren't in power just because of who they are as an individual, but because of the entire apparatus of power that is behind them: the state, the military, the social connections, and the other societal power centres that support them on one or more issues. Assassinating an individual eliminates none of these things, and may merely make the situation worse for the assassin's supporters. At a broader level, I would argue that violence in general is only an effective tool once those using violent means have already put all of the above in place. Before that, it just leads to failed insurgencies, guerrilla war, and endless civil conflict.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;857527I'm not afraid to reveal my ignorance - Although political assassination has clearly been a common occurrence throughout history, can anyone tell me why it isn't as common as it seems like it should be?

When I look at the huge array of people in history who
1) Had enormous power
2) Made decisions that cost people their own power, peace, freedom and/or lives
3) Consequently made many enemies
4) Didn't benefit from modern security measures
5) Were surrounded by a constant churn of people
6) And yet did NOT end up stabbed, shot, ambushed or poisoned

I just scratch my head in honest, ignorant confusion.

A steady stream of assassins just seems way cheaper and much more direct than war.

What gives?

It is probably going to be hard to give a single answer here since we are talking all of history. I guess my first question is how many assassinations would you expect there to be?

There have been periods in history where assassinations happened one after the other and one of the things that goes hand in hand with this is instability (Year of the Four Emperors for Example). An assassination is a big deal and has consequences. They can lead to turmoil and civil wars. So they are not cost free. In some instances they may be an alternative to war, in others they could basically ensure war occurs. Plenty of conflicts have been triggered by an assassination. Also I suspect the more stable the system, the less impact the assassination would have on things (but that is just thinking out loud).

As to why they haven't happened all the time, I don't know. Its true they didn't have modern security measures in the past, but modern security measures are in part a response to modern technology. Their security measures were dealing with things like spears, daggers and cross bows, not the plethora of long range precision weapons you have today. These people were well guarded and they were capable of putting together information networks to help weed out conspiracies. A lot of the assassinations that did succeed required the corporation of the folks who were protecting the leader in the first place. I think well over ten Roman Emperors were assassinated by their own guards.

Macchiavelli talks about this a bit in Discourses. He mentions a few factors. One is quite simply that on approaching a person of status, you may hesitate - you see them there in all their robed and crowned glory, and lose your nerve.

He mentions some mercenary captain who'd taken a city in Italy, the Pope and his unarmed retinue came up to the gates to meet him and demand his surrender - and the guy handed himself over. Macchiavelli asks, it wasn't that the guy was religious, quite the contrary - why is it that a guy who had slept with his own sister and broken sworn oaths of loyalty would not simply run his sword through the Pope? In that specific example he says men do not know how to be either wholly good or wholly evil, but it's also true that the guy there in his robes with all his retinue is an impressive sight.

As well, most killers want at least moral support. So they talk to others and conspire, and wait for the perfect moment to come along - which gives time for the conspiracy to be discovered.

Plus they're usually idealists of some kind which fucks things up. Once Commodus was walking into the arena and down a narrow tunnel, the assassin stepped out and said, "the Senate sends you this!" and stepped forward to stab - and the guards stopped him. If he'd saved his speech for after he had stabbed the guy, he would have got him.

As well there are the other factors people have mentioned, like how useful will it actually be. Kill Stalin and you get Beria, kill Hitler and get Himmler, kill Cromwell and get his son - so then you decide you have to kill like 50 guys, this requires a much bigger conspiracy, and then we get back to being caught.

And so on.

I agree with what Kyle says. But there is also:

1. Most people are unskilled buffoons, doubly so with weapons. They can try but will probably just blow it. Most know this which keep the rate of trying down.
2. Fear of death and/or torture. You may be caught. Being caught usually means hours or days or weeks of [fill in your worst nightmare] torture. And not just for you, maybe your family too. If a guy is willing to kill his brother to get the throne what will he do to your extended family if he captures you?
3. Money. During battles knights and other royalty were preferably captured so they could be ransomed. Military matters are always expensive. Any way to defray the costs...
4. Opportunity. You may want to kill a guy, you may have the skill. But getting close is the problem. Walls and guards do have a purpose.

I admit I've wondered this too from time to time. When is some North Korean general going to get the nerve to gun down Kim and his family? Hasn't happened yet. As Kyle pointed out, to really get change you would have to kill a wider array of people, like The Godfather's "night of the long knives." And that just increases the number of conspirators and the chance of a leak and getting caught.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;857527I'm not afraid to reveal my ignorance - Although political assassination has clearly been a common occurrence throughout history, can anyone tell me why it isn't as common as it seems like it should be?

Legitimacy

Adhering to ;aw, custom, and tradition confer legitimacy which is a powerful advantage and a practical advantage as less resources are needed to keep the populace in line.

One classic example of this was the consolidation of power by Augustus Caesar. He did everything he could to make it appear that he was restoring the Republic while behind the scenes he was stacking the deck in his favor. The reason for this was that while he had the power he wanted to make sure he had the appearance of legitimacy to help keep things together and not ignite another round of civil war. It worked pretty well until the Crisis of the Third Century.

Quote from: Bobloblah;857529Because people aren't in power just because of who they are as an individual, but because of the entire apparatus of power that is behind them: the state, the military, the social connections, and the other societal power centres that support them on one or more issues.

I think that if the would be assassin is from that system and doesn't mean to tear it down... then assassination becomes a lesser option because it subverts the system, accuses it of being insufficient. Threatens any safety it would have afforded the would-be assassin and his friends/family.
So like others have said... that leaves true revolutionaries, ideologues and nutjobs.

Not exactly on point but I've always been suspicious of the Hollywood depictions of villainous organizations... Nazis, Mafia, whoever... bumping their members off so casually... as if any organization could operate in that sort of atmosphere.

I think fear. Chances are good the assassin is going to get caught. And in most of history, that meant being tortured very nastily first.

Why doesnt it happen more often?

As was noted by a poster above.
It often doesnt solve anything. A general or second may step in. Or they may just elect someone else. Or the person in power is a figurehead and the actual power is spread out.
And may make things worse. If you assasinate a popular leader then that may incite the public or the governing bodies to retaliate if they can figure out who did it. And often it is readily apparent who was the likely cuplrit.
Assasinating someone of importance in a way that doesnt implicate your country is harder too. You need professionals and these do not grow on trees.

But in general it doesnt happen as often as it rarely has an impact of destabalizing a country. You might get some confusion for a little bit and exploit it. But more likely the death puts everyone on alert.

Even when the assasination is from within. It tends to need planning otherwise its likely to fall apart disasterously.

Quote from: Omega;857547It often doesnt solve anything. A general or second may step in. Or they may just elect someone else. Or the person in power is a figurehead and the actual power is spread out.

That's what I always used to tell my friends who would rail against the president and talk about how someone should kill him... as if that would really have any effect on the real powers that put him there.

I trying to think of any examples where a political figure was assassinated by its own supporters in order to garner sympathy and bolster support...

As its still the centennary, kudos to the Serbs for making their assassinations truly count!

If you read up on the Srajevo attempts and how Gavrilo Princip managed to do it, you will find many of the above themes.

Quite aside from the cogent points others have raised, I've a few:

* Most people aren't murderers.  This is a key bit: a great many people who'd have no problem shooting a rifle at the other guys in wartime just won't walk up to someone with a pistol and blow his brains out.

* Simple, reliable, easily deployable, readily concealable and readily obtainable firearms are products of the last 150 years.  Before then, the malfunction rate of handguns were high, and their firing speed poor.  

* Err ... this isn't all that rare.  A tenth of the US Presidents have been assassinated, and serious attempts have been made against nine.  Of the last eleven Russian czars, six of them were assassinated.  Three of India's first seven Prime Ministers were assassinated.  Three Presidents of the French Third Republic were assassinated.

I am surprised it isn't used more often in the modern world, especially in the Internet/Bureaucracy Age where an assassination would spread panic in the 24/7 news cycle and the chain of succession would involve partisan bickering and tremendous uncertainty and speculation about the new leader.

I suspect modern surveillance tech in the First World (and even Second World) makes assassination very difficult so the kind of assassins capable of such kills would need support systems from an established nation's military and thus, the assassination would be a declaration of war.

Well, the issue with surveillance isn't killing the person, it's getting away afterwards. The assassin at least wants to be alive long enough to see the ensuing Great Revolution or confused chaos or whatever.

Plus as was noted, most people aren't murderers.

In Ye Olden Days, class cannot be underestimated. When your entire upbringing and culture is based around the right to rule and Divine favour, then doing away with, even with a tyrant, can be viewed as an attack on God's will itself, and will find few people willing to support your attempt. Even if you do it and replace them with yourself or someone more amenable to you, people could quite rightly view the new appointment as illegitimate.