>The more numerous army flees because their leader is killed.

Depends on situation.
If for example a pretender is killed early on and his troops come to know it, there's really no reason to fight anymore is there?

>>1613635
This. You, or your lord, fight for someone trying to be king against the sitting king.

If your guy is dead what are you fighting for?

Or your a peasant and your lord drafts you to fight some people you don't know or care about 10 counties over. If he dies why wouldn't try to get home as quickly and safely as possible.

>>1613635
There is. Current king needs to be killed or else he will fuck you up for treason.

This happened all the time in ancient history.

The Persians lost to Alexander partly due to their leader running away from a Macedonian cavalry charge. Not even getting killed, just running.

>>1613490

Not unrealistic at all. If your general/king/commander dies unexpectedly then that is going to cause mass panic and there will be nobody to restore order.

>>1615674
A persian pretender hired a bunch of macedonians to make himself Sha. They won the battle but he got himself killed so no dice.

Sometimes, if it is a political squabble, the death of one of the prospective rules would promptly resolve the issue..

>>1615671
I don't know many rulers who were moronic enough to massacre the armies or even vassals of traitors, at least if they accepted to surrender.

>>1615716

Xenophon's dudes were mostly Athenian, not Macedonians.

>>1613490
A soldier on the ground has literally no idea what is happening with the battle in general. If you see your commander running away that is extremely good evidence that the battle is lost

This is why you entrust the payment of your soldiers with multiple men, not just the leader.

Back in the days of Rome theyd decapitate the enemy general and raise the head on a pike in hopes of causing a retreat. It would work often.

The tactic became worthless over tine, eventually not being worth anything by the 1800s.

File: muret.png (302KB, 321x888px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 321x888px

>>1613490
Well

>King Peter rode to the front line, forsaking his royal armour for the plain armour of a common soldier. His army was disorderly and confused.

>When Montfort's first squadron charged the field, the Aragonese cavalry was crushed and Peter himself was unhorsed. He cried out, "I am the king!" but was killed regardless.

>With the realization that their king had been killed, the Aragonese forces broke in panic and fled, pursued by Montfort's Crusaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret

>>1615939
Those numbers are worthless as fuck. Thry probably had over 10 guys die of disease just on the march.

Germanic war bands had for time the whole come back with your leader or not at all thing. Forgetting the specifics.

>>1613490
Normans almost fled the field due to rumors of Duke William's death.

See:
>>1615657

>>1615939
I came here to post this

>>1613490
It happened with the Aztecs in the battle of Otumba.

>>1613490

yes, what is a snake without its head?

>>1615949
Same with the norse and anglo saxons
They liked their oaths, germanic peoples

>>1615947
you do realize that these number are not from the entire army size on campaign, but what forces were present at the battle

>>1618366
Though the Aztecs probably didn't lose just a single guy. The Spaniards knew who was in charge since they wore the most colorful clothing, and they were able to target them through cavalry charge, and also gunpowder weapons, though I'm not sure the Spaniards still had cannons with them.

Point is, the Aztecs didn't just lose a single superior commander, but their entire command structure, which was already damaged from before the battle.