View Single Post
Old 11-13-2015, 06:19 PM   #28
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Discipline, Law, Order and Preventing Atrocities

Quote:
Originally Posted by dukofdeth View Post
I've heard previous arguments wherein modern moralists have more or less lambasted the long dead for the way things were back then. We've learned a better way - or believe we have - and those people then did not, or could not, given the conditions they were living amidst then. I never once questioned my grandfather about how he treated Jews prior to WWII. It was enough for me, I suppose, that he did serve, and that for all the time I knew him, he never once spoke ill of anyone. And I know from my father that my grandfather did have a few biases, though in my opinion his reasons were more personal than anything else. My point is that it is very difficult to judge the past, since we were not a part of it. All the more so when the past is removed by centuries.

I was recently surprised to learn that it took mathematicians some thirty years to fully flesh out the proof that 1+1=2. I would imagine that coming up with some sort of mathematical model to generate a statistical model of typical post-battle atrocities in a historical setting would take just as long. It happens for so many stupid reasons, and psychologically it just seemed to come down to greed, wrath, and power, much as it still does. The difference then was that it was expected to happen. It was almost a perk of a conquering force - to do with the conquered as they wished. Some conquerors let their men run rampant, some reigned them in, and some made mountains out of the skulls of their victims.

Take your commander's wishes and translate that into what will, for the most part, happen. I wouldn't dwell on the numbers - there will always be those who refuse to toe the line. You can make it a quest of sorts for the PC's to investigate an incident, or a series of them, and to bring those they believe to be involved before justice. Your characters will not catch them all, so I wouldn't fret over such fine details. Either such incidents are critical to the overall story you are weaving, or they are just so much noise in the background. Those who suffered such deprivations were not likely to come forward, as in those days no one spoke of such things. Before people like Oprah stepped up and came out about the sort of things they had suffered through, most victims of such violence did not really speak of it. They held it in, and tried to cope. Some managed, some did not. Some imploded, and some exploded.

Figure out what you need - story-wise - of such events, and either work it in, or just have it as a casual mention. Such-and-such occurred - make up a number - and so-and-so have been put in chains, and await judgement. If it isn't driving your story, I'd keep it at arms length. Have your commander do what he must, mourn if he must, but move on.
I'm not so sure we've learned a better way so much as having more margin for error or thinking we have such. The temptation to use terror bombing to shut down Hitler or Tojo is greater then that to use it for Jihadists who may be as bad in intent but not in ability. Even then there have been short-cuts to say the least but not to the degree there might have been. I think Chesterton once said something about the difference between a suburbanite who is kind to animals and a shepherd.

The use of the enemy's territory as a perk is a reflection of lack of wealth. Modern armies can afford to give regular pay and feed them reasonably well. In Third World armies the old style still reigns. Even so one could get advantage by keeping one's men in hand while marching through the countryside. A good reputation, or at least a better one then one's enemy can get local cooperation.

One point that should be made is that predictability is as important as decency. If the locals know that you are ruthless but know that you have rules that can be understood then they are less likely to turn against you. For instance if it is known that you assassinate informants but only forage at a regular rate and don't do any other atrocities beyond taking their grain, then they might be inclined to accept you especially if your enemy is unpredictable and doesn't control his men.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison

Last edited by jason taylor; 11-14-2015 at 08:56 AM.
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote