This japanese mango about chinks has taught me that in ancient

Was that you in the /a/ thread the other day? Anywho:
Only sometimes. Other times the army would become so enraged by their general's death they would fight to the death with little regard to tactics. It all depends on how important that one general was to troop formation and fighting will, as in an army entirely of conscripts might surrender or flee while a seasoned troop might remain together and keep fighting albeit with worse tactics.

>>2358497
It can also be about politics, where the head of an army is the only thing keeping a disparate alliance together, and his death would mean the various forces he'd gathered have absolutely no reason to continue fighting. They might even have an incentive to retreat as fast as possible to take advantage of the political shakeup that would invariably follow.

>>2358467
Kingdom actually goes into detail on your very question.
>Is this accurate?
I could be; Sometimes maybe. A lot of the times

>>2358467
This actually highlights how command structure in ancient china worked.

Its actually a great manga if you want to read about the warring states, pre-Qin empire.

Shit depends on how likely victory and pay conditions are.

For instance, in the battle of Frigidus, Theodosius died but it was a decisive victory, because they also killed the enemy general and raised his head on a pike AND they had a really good opener (attacking at like 3 am really fast)

>>2358467

Yes, most of the time. Numbers in war, even back then, meant dick. Sun Tzu and many other examples in history knew that. What mattered was strategy and morale. If you kill the guy who is good at those things, the army falls apart. Because now the army with the dead general has to find a new guy and regroup, which is hard to do since you can't just call a time out in the middle of a battle. And if it didn't happen during battle, but from an assassin, odds are you aren't gonma feel confident fighting an enemy who can sneak into your camp and kill your leader. If they can do that what could they do on the battlefield?

>>2358467
The army general in China was basically the director. When he died, the company morale loses and the war loses direction until a clear chain of command has been established again. This takes bit of time, so during the disruption of their general being killed, the enemy will take advantage of this and strike a decisive blow.

>>2358467
I wouldn't be surprised if the average soldier doesn't give a shit about who they fight and is just following the orders of whoever is paying them. So if the employer is killed, it makes sense to just go home than risk dying unpaid for whatever reason the employer fought for. An example of this in the West would be in WW1, where the common soldier would rather play football than fight for a bunch of deluded toffs.

>>2358856
Western countries' lax military ethics is well noted.

This is how Germans took advantage of the situation. They were ideologically motivated.

>>2358467
The more controlled from the top, the more vulnerable the army. Hitler and Saddam, for instance, micromanaged everything their military did. Which is why they both lost.

>>2358898
Germans lost not because of micromanagement, but because of over extension.

>>2358909
Eh, I'm not that guy but I don't know if I'd agree with that.

The Nazis had a pretty good hold on Europe. If Hitler had just let his generals do their thing they could have probably marched on Moscow and dismantled the Soviet rail network.

I think it was a mix of poor micromanagement at the portion of the war where they were far too extended to let Hitler chase symbolic victories.

>>2358942
Germans were up against the entire Europe minus the few neutrals and Russia.

On top of that, they were up against the might of US backing the Europe, and later on joining the war.

They over extended and had no hopes of winning. At certain point Germans would have realized they fucked up in antagonizing the entire western world. They can't back out then and so they have to continue to push forward knowing their full defeat very well in advance. This is why they tried pushing as hard as they can in order to create a strong bargain. When the Allies refused anything short of full unconditional surrender, this was their death knell.

>>2358891
It is not only the West that only fight for money. And the Germans were just as happy to play football on that Christmas day than the Allies were.

Another example I vaguely remember reading here was at some remote frontline in Europe where both side were happy to keep the peace. When one side suddenly stated firing their cannon, they frantically sent a messenger to tell the other side that it was a mistake. Anyone know this story?

>>2358745
* A lot of the times no

>>2358467
>Kingdom
I always hear good things but the fact they use the Jap names for historical Chinese figures triggers my autism so fiercely that I can't bring myself to read it.

>>2358467
Sometimes yes, sometimes it literally makes the troops angry and sad and more motivated and they win.

>>2358784
>Numbers in war, even back then, meant dick. Sun Tzu and many other examples in history knew that.
Actually Sun Tzu is mostly about making sure you have more guys than the other team.

It could go either way

The death of Julian freaked out the Roman troops while fighting against the Persians, causing them to flee and capitulate against the Sassanids.

However, Alexander's army flipped the fuck out when Alexander was wounded in a siege of a city, and essentially killed everyone inside as revenge.

>>2358467
>when u nut but she still succin