The unforeseen consequences are another factor. You might never actually know what will happen if the assassination goes as planned. At the very least you will have made a life-long enemy of the target's faction/family/nation.

The Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan seperatist organization, had had some support from India in their struggle against the government. But they killed former president of India Rajiv Ghandi in 1991 for being one of the opponents of Indian support for their organiation. This ensured that the Indians would never again take the Tigers' side. When, many years later, the formerly very successful Tigers were at the edge of being wiped out by the Sri Lankan military they appealed to the Indians to negotiate a truce with the government, which could have allowed them to continue to exist as a political movement. The Indians, who might have stepped in on the side of the Tigers as they had done before the assassination, just smiled and said "Oh, nothing we can do, sorry 'bout that". That was over twenty years later, but the Indian government still held a grudge.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;857527A steady stream of assassins just seems way cheaper and much more direct than war.

Others have pointed out several factors, but here's an important one:

Most wars are NOT started because you want to kill the other king. Most wars are started because:

- you want their land
- you want your own land back
- they've just declared that a part of your country is now a brand new, independent nation, and the movement is so popular that a new leader would arise every time you killed the current one
- you want to kill a few hundred thousand/million of their citizens and the entire ruling family because they're the wrong religion / branch of Christianity
- you want to kill a few hundred thousand of their soldiers and wreck their economy, because otherwise they'll grow unstoppably strong in ten years and invade you
- they collectively decided to stop paying taxes and/or tribute to you
- you want to sink their ships so they can no longer keep sinking YOUR ships when you transport stuff from/to your overseas colonies
- your economy is in dire straits and the only way to save it from total collapse is to turn to War Economy, which in turn needs an actual war to pay off
- they've just invaded a third country and will clearly invade you once they're done there, so you're better of fighting this war now when their attention is still split
- your people hate their people and are clamoring for war, and if you won't give them that war they'll replace you with someone else who will

None of these problems can be solved by assassinating one single guy.

Killing a human is easy.
Killing a protected world leader is more difficult.
Killing a protected world leader and living or getting away is practically impossible.
Most people aren't killers.
Killing one guy won't solve anything.
Killing one guy might make it worse.

Really that leaves as successful assassins...
1.) The ideologues driven to the point of martyrdom
2.) Nutjobs who get lucky
3.) Killers of extreme skill and technical proficiency who can communicate effectively with the people who would hire them without being uncovered.

BTW, thanks for flagging us all in an FBI database.

Byzantine Emperors were regularly assassinated., in fact it was an occupational hazard.

Many kings employed food testers, to prevent them being poisoned, guards to prevent killers homing in on them and forbade the drawing of weapons near the king. That had a tendency to stop killers going after the kings.

But, other leaders were probably not brave or stupid enough to do the killing themselves. Instead, they would hire other people to do it. Once a king-slayer always a king-slayer and they would not be welcome at court afterwards, in case they had acquired a taste for it. Also, killing a king or queen is generally considered treason and is often a capital offence.

Another problem was that there were fewer anonymous partisans in those days (and where there were, there was more assassination). Without modern communication, you did most of your political radicalization by talking with people. Cities and towns were smaller, and more tangential people knew that you were out at the alehouses or coffeeshops (depending on era) talking smack about the archduke/viscount/cardinal. Regardless of your sucess or how much it changes, it's likely everyone is going to darn well know who was behind the assassination.

Quote from: CRKrueger;857638BTW, thanks for flagging us all in an FBI database.

Shit, didn't think about that. In my defense, I was clearly talking about history and fictional scenarios.

As well as all the other factors, don't forget the martyr effect. Killing MLK didn't reverse civil rights - it redoubled people's determination to see his dream happen and made more moderate opponents reappraise which side they were on. Killing JFK didn't reverse any of his policies except for LBJ being more hawkish on Vietnam - not a result Lee Harvey Oswald seems to have been going for. Killing Lincoln enshrined him as one of the greatest presidents. Killing Julius Caesar saw his hand-picked heir complete the process of subverting the Republic and deified Julius in the process. Killing Christ...

You get the picture. Assassinate someone and you run the risk of making their message even more powerful than it was when they were alive.

Quote from: Warthur;858017You get the picture. Assassinate someone and you run the risk of making their message even more powerful than it was when they were alive.

And the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin effectively ended the Peace Process in Israel/Palestine.

It all depends on the particular situation.

Quote from: soltakss;858064And the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin effectively ended the Peace Process in Israel/Palestine.

It all depends on the particular situation.

It really does, but the crucial thing is that it's incredibly difficult to know which way public opinion will jump until the act is done. That fact alone must give people pause for thought a lot of the time.

Quote from: Battle Mad Ronin;857623The unforeseen consequences are another factor. You might never actually know what will happen if the assassination goes as planned. At the very least you will have made a life-long enemy of the target's faction/family/nation.

The Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan seperatist organization, had had some support from India in their struggle against the government. But they killed former president of India Rajiv Ghandi in 1991 for being one of the opponents of Indian support for their organiation. This ensured that the Indians would never again take the Tigers' side. When, many years later, the formerly very successful Tigers were at the edge of being wiped out by the Sri Lankan military they appealed to the Indians to negotiate a truce with the government, which could have allowed them to continue to exist as a political movement. The Indians, who might have stepped in on the side of the Tigers as they had done before the assassination, just smiled and said "Oh, nothing we can do, sorry 'bout that". That was over twenty years later, but the Indian government still held a grudge.

Rajiv was assassinated for his role in sending Indian peacekeepers into Sri Lanka who committed numerous atrocities apon the Tamil civilian population. However, the rest of your point stands and it proved a disastrous move in the long run.

Quote from: Warthur;858017As well as all the other factors, don't forget the martyr effect. Killing MLK didn't reverse civil rights - it redoubled people's determination to see his dream happen and made more moderate opponents reappraise which side they were on. Killing JFK didn't reverse any of his policies except for LBJ being more hawkish on Vietnam - not a result Lee Harvey Oswald seems to have been going for. Killing Lincoln enshrined him as one of the greatest presidents. Killing Julius Caesar saw his hand-picked heir complete the process of subverting the Republic and deified Julius in the process. Killing Christ...

You get the picture. Assassinate someone and you run the risk of making their message even more powerful than it was when they were alive.

The history of politics -- never mind the mindset of those who contemplate assassinations -- isn't overloaded with people who consider the long term ramifications of knee-jerk fanaticism before firing with all barrels.

I give you, as Exhibit A, the 2016 US Republican presidential candidates.

Quote from: Ravenswing;858173The history of politics -- never mind the mindset of those who contemplate assassinations -- isn't overloaded with people who consider the long term ramifications of knee-jerk fanaticism before firing with all barrels.

I give you, as Exhibit A, the 2016 US Republican presidential candidates.

Yeah... let's not discuss assassinations and current political candidates in the same thread.

It depends on a situation where one man is really the lynchpin (of whatever you want to undu: tyranny, peace, whatever).

Quote from: RPGPundit;858863It depends on a situation where one man is really the lynchpin (of whatever you want to undu: tyranny, peace, whatever).

I wouldn't say that's the case at all.  It's whether the assassin thinks the target is the lynchpin of pretty much anything at all, and as much as anything else whether the target is easy to reach.  

Why is this Question in the RPG section?

Does the answer alter a campaign or game session you are planning?


- Ed C.