[Mass Combat] Discipline, Law, Order and Preventing Atrocities

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Short version -- the guy was a nut.

Why must he be insane?

I'd never throw myself out of a perfectly working airplane* but I don't call skydivers nuts. I'd never jump off a bridge attached to it by a stretchy cord, but I don't call bungee jumpers nuts.





* Let alone get in an airplane at all. People who travel by flight? They're nuts. ;)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Why must he be insane?
...

Enjoying situations that involve those you're supposed to love getting killed means sociopathy, a mental illness. Enjoying situations that involve major injury and pain means severe masochism and suicidal ideation, more mental illnesses.
If anyone can be called a nut, that guy can.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Enjoying situations that involve those you're supposed to love getting killed means sociopathy, a mental illness. Enjoying situations that involve major injury and pain means severe masochism and suicidal ideation, more mental illnesses.
If anyone can be called a nut, that guy can.

A lot of people back then did have what can best be called a testosterone addiction. Some of them channeled it it positive ways, others negative, others neutral. The wikipedia article seems to give him a rather average portrayal for someone like that. If he was a nut he did better then many and perhaps all one can expect of a person is to play well the hand one is dealt.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

A lot of people back then did have what can best be called a testosterone addiction.

I'd be inclined towards thinking adrenaline junkie, not testosterone (though there might be a link).

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I'd be inclined towards thinking adrenaline junkie, not testosterone (though there might be a link).

In any case those were the same types of people that became explorers and daredevils of various kinds between the wars. If they were of intellectual inclination they channeled it into their writing. Several became politicians of which a few became out and out tyrants.

[Donny Brook]

Propensity to offend = Incentive - Restraint

Elements of Incentive include:
-actual need/deprivation
-the reward or benefit of the deed
-battlefield resentment or historical dislike of enemy
-extraneous rewards for offending (spiritual benefits, regard from peers)


Elements of Restraint include:
-cultural ethics of the force
-intentions of leadership
-effectiveness of command/control
-ability of the defeated to resist/deter


There is a lot of room to further unpack the elements, and to play with how they interact.

I think that there is probably no generic answer and your question will have to find its reply in your vision of how these people think and act.

[Zeta Blaze]

Folowing several of your thread so far about this campaign i suspect you have a number of instances less than 5 so far across your entire force though that number will go up as it stands you troops have been to busy for any notable number of atrocities to have happened yet. As for what will happen in the near future that depends entirely on how the battle goes and with some fine detail.

I agree that given the unusual make up of the force in question most of it has a no higher rate of these crimes than the civilian population it is drawn from and the very worst of the pirates can be expected to have no more than 3 times the base crime rate of the society they at least nominally originate from sounds reasonable given the circumstances.

I assume that you have a lose but reasonable handle on what the civilian crime rates are in the native lands of these people so that should help.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by phayman53

I have to be honest, I do not think you will be able to find a way to make a careful estimate, at least if by careful you mean an estimate that is based off of historical, quantitative data for wartime atrocities committed by TL2-4 societies when a city was captured after a surrender.

I would love to find even one study to base my estimates on.

Originally Posted by phayman53

It is hard enough to get good estimates on army sizes in a given battle for this time, and casualty figures are even worse--and army size and casualty figures were figures that period chroniclers were interested in writing down (though often exagerated or based off of unscientific estimates)! As for the results of a seige for the local population, almost all of the sources we have that give any description at all of the actions of the common soldier are purely qualitative and mostly unhelpful in deriving the percision that you want.

I'd be happy with anything that could narrow it down from potential offenders being between 5% to 80% of the army, before any modifiers.

Originally Posted by phayman53

I think you are going to have to settle for coming up with something that seems reasonable based off of the qualitative historical descriptions we have, though you may alternatively deside to import your own research on modern wartime atrocities--it will be anachronistic, but it may not be too far wrong.

Only one third of the army has passed through any kind of selection and training that is analogous to that of a modern military. Those regard indiscipline and atrocity as unlawful and dishonourable. The rates of serious misconduct will be comparable to crime rates in their reference societies, albeit crime rates among active young males.

One third is more or less a typical TL2 military, which means that their cultural preconceptions will be that looting is the only form of military supply and woe to the vanquished is the immutable law of war. An important distinction to keep in mind is that due to cultural conditioning, even people who would never commit a crime will loot, rape and murder in war since that is accepted in their society as the norm. It's unreasonable to expect that all cultural norms will be overturned by a few orders from a foreign mercenary commander; even if those orders are eminently sensible, dissemnated through the ranks with consummate orgnisational skill and so concisely worded that they will be used to teach reading for the coming generations.

The final third are pirates, rebel slaves and criminals; who have the same cultural baggage as the TL2 army, but also contain a far higher percentage of habitual violent criminals than any functioning military. Some are fanatics, most have poor impulse control and many have legitimate psychological issues or even crippling discorders.

Originally Posted by phayman53

Just bear in mind when you do this that everyone in a conquering army during this time had a vestige interest in not treating surrendering cities with brutality in order to encourage future cities to surrender as well. It also seems that even the common soldiers understood this (or were made to understand it by their commanders).

There are conflicting interests, though. The rebel slaves have an incentive to commit atrocities directed at Mulhorandi (enemy) and Untheri (locals) slaveholders alike, to force the hand of the council that the PCs are fighting for and make it impossible for them to come to a modus vivendi with slave-holding nobles.

Anyone among the pirates, street thugs or even the Untheri army who plans to desert the moment he has acquired enough loot to allow him to leave this part of the world has a powerful incentive to threathen, torture and kill civilians in the pursuit of their valuables. Rape doesn't have the same rational purpose, but lust and dominance seem to be pretty powerful incentives nonetheless.

Anyone who isn't committed to winning the war, but is fighting to enrich himself through looting might well be perfectly indifferent to whether future cities surrender. They might even prefer an assault, as giving more opportunities for plunder.

Originally Posted by phayman53

It would be inappropriate to use atrocity figures in your PCs situation for seiges which ended with a city stormed by troops in battle (whether modern or ancient). Armies that took a city or fortification through forcing it to surrender (even after some fighting) were almost always careful to treat its citizens and soldiers with mercy. Saladin's capture of Jerusalem is a good example of this: [...] So, the conquest of Jerusalem is one example where a TL3 army was able to take a city with basically no record of committing atrocities because the city surrendered under terms before it was successfully stormed, and it has the advantage of being an extreme case where the conquering army WANTED to massacre most of the populace but held back because of the surrender terms.

Salah ad-Din taking Jerusalem is a good example. On the other hand, no record of atrocities probably means that in comparison with 'typical' sacks of cities, there was little indiscriminate killing and rape. For people who were expecting an assault by all the demons of hell, it must have seemed an enormous relief. It's still unlikely that there were no instances of murder and rape.

Originally Posted by phayman53

The above is why I suggested in my previous post using normal crime rates for the different people groups that make up your army, modified by influence rolls. Those that would break the rules to kill or rape anyway still will, but the city was not taken by storm, so there is not the same violent and disorganized initial contact between the citizens of the city and the PC army that would lend itself to wide-spread atrocities being committed in the heat of the moment. Even the common soldiers have a self-interest in treating the city's inhabitants with mercy so as to possibly avoid the danger of future seiges by encouraging cities to surrender without a fight.

I'm very skeptical that typical crime rates bear much resemblence to the rates of unsanctioned violence toward civilians in warfare. Typical crime rates represent societies where kinship and other social ties link the majority of people, where violence is strongly stigmatised, where encounters with the 'other' are rare and no extraordinary stress is placed on people.

And in the case of my campaign, the city of Shussel did surrender, but when it did, there were plenty of troops already in the streets. It is a port city and while the streets nearest the port tended to have warehouses more than residential housing, there were still some civilians in contact with the troops from the initial landings.

There wasn't much hand-to-hand combat, but the marines were exposed to sling bullets and arrows for an hour or so and about 300 marines fought a pitched battle where they fired volley after volley until the enemy column broke.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by phayman53

I think you are going to have to settle for coming up with something that seems reasonable based off of the qualitative historical descriptions we have, though you may alternatively deside to import your own research on modern wartime atrocities--it will be anachronistic, but it may not be too far wrong.

Just bear in mind when you do this that everyone in a conquering army during this time had a vestige interest in not treating surrendering cities with brutality in order to encourage future cities to surrender as well. It also seems that even the common soldiers understood this (or were made to understand it by their commanders). It would be inappropriate to use atrocity figures in your PCs situation for seiges which ended with a city stormed by troops in battle (whether modern or ancient). Armies that took a city or fortification through forcing it to surrender (even after some fighting) were almost always careful to treat its citizens and soldiers with mercy.

Sorry if I can't add anything more significant, but the above is what I would have offered (only, I wouldn't have written it so well). I agree.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I would love to find even one study to base my estimates on.

I'd be happy with anything that could narrow it down from potential offenders being between 5% to 80% of the army, before any modifiers.

I understand that you want to find such a study, and it is possible that one exists. That said, if such a study does exist, I would be highly suspect of any of its findings (to the point of mostly discounting them as guesswork). As someone who was an undergraduate History major who focused on the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean (and who took an elective in Medieval Warfare), I can tell you that I do not think there is any surviving evidence that would lend itself to even being able to do such a study. There is documentary evidence and archaeological evidence of mass atrocities following some sieges, but none of it is helpful for determining what percentage of the army participated (except where it is clear that a massacre was ordered, then it is fairly safe to assume that virtually all of the troops participated). Rape rates are even more impossible to determine as there is not even any surviving quantitative evidence in the archaeological record. Ancient chroniclers simply were not interested in quantitatively describing rates and percentages (and least not with any precision).

Originally Posted by Icelander

Salah ad-Din taking Jerusalem is a good example. On the other hand, no record of atrocities probably means that in comparison with 'typical' sacks of cities, there was little indiscriminate killing and rape. For people who were expecting an assault by all the demons of hell, it must have seemed an enormous relief. It's still unlikely that there were no instances of murder and rape.

Agreed, though it seems to have been little enough that when Salah ad-Din allowed the local Christians to stay in Jerusalem, they chose to. Likewise, Salah ah-Din allowed the Christians to take the treasures from the churches with them and they did so apparently without difficulty.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm very skeptical that typical crime rates bear much resemblence to the rates of unsanctioned violence toward civilians in warfare. Typical crime rates represent societies where kinship and other social ties link the majority of people, where violence is strongly stigmatised, where encounters with the 'other' are rare and no extraordinary stress is placed on people.

Sorry, my reference to my previous post was imprecise. I did not mean typical crime rates for civilians, I was referring to typical crime rates of an army on campaign through friendly or neutral territory. I mentioned in my first post that local populations did not like having friendly or neutral armies pass through their areas because they tended to steal and commit other crimes such as rape and murder. The degree to which they did this was heavily depended on the composition of the army though, and there are cases where commanders reimbursed the locals (and others where they even made promises to keep their people in check). That is where I got the multipliers on normal crime rates statistic (double it for a levy/non professional army, triple or worse for pirates, fanatics, and intolerant (but for the latter two, such crimes are targeted)). That said, to get a more reasonable number you might consider using the crime rates of young males for large towns and cities as a base (instead of rural crime rates) because it would give you a reasonable sense of how people treat others who do not share kinship ties. Such larger municipalities tend to have more diverse, less connected populations and therefore do not benefit nearly as much from the social pressures against crime in smaller communities.

Originally Posted by Icelander

And in the case of my campaign, the city of Shussel did surrender, but when it did, there were plenty of troops already in the streets. It is a port city and while the streets nearest the port tended to have warehouses more than residential housing, there were still some civilians in contact with the troops from the initial landings.

There wasn't much hand-to-hand combat, but the marines were exposed to sling bullets and arrows for an hour or so and about 300 marines fought a pitched battle where they fired volley after volley until the enemy column broke.

I see, I was picturing a city with a port district that was separated from the city proper by a wall (as was often the case in port cities). I did not realize that the city itself was penetrated because there was no wall between the city and the port district.

Still, even though there was fighting in the city, if an organized surrender was possible, it seems that the armies were still sufficiently separated and organize to allow for the occupation of the city to proceed in good order (as opposed to the rush of a sack).

Originally Posted by Icelander

Only one third of the army has passed through any kind of selection and training that is analogous to that of a modern military. Those regard indiscipline and atrocity as unlawful and dishonourable. The rates of serious misconduct will be comparable to crime rates in their reference societies, albeit crime rates among active young males.

One third is more or less a typical TL2 military, which means that their cultural preconceptions will be that looting is the only form of military supply and woe to the vanquished is the immutable law of war. An important distinction to keep in mind is that due to cultural conditioning, even people who would never commit a crime will loot, rape and murder in war since that is accepted in their society as the norm. It's unreasonable to expect that all cultural norms will be overturned by a few orders from a foreign mercenary commander; even if those orders are eminently sensible, dissemnated through the ranks with consummate orgnisational skill and so concisely worded that they will be used to teach reading for the coming generations.

The final third are pirates, rebel slaves and criminals; who have the same cultural baggage as the TL2 army, but also contain a far higher percentage of habitual violent criminals than any functioning military. Some are fanatics, most have poor impulse control and many have legitimate psychological issues or even crippling discorders.

...

There are conflicting interests, though. The rebel slaves have an incentive to commit atrocities directed at Mulhorandi (enemy) and Untheri (locals) slaveholders alike, to force the hand of the council that the PCs are fighting for and make it impossible for them to come to a modus vivendi with slave-holding nobles.

Anyone among the pirates, street thugs or even the Untheri army who plans to desert the moment he has acquired enough loot to allow him to leave this part of the world has a powerful incentive to threathen, torture and kill civilians in the pursuit of their valuables. Rape doesn't have the same rational purpose, but lust and dominance seem to be pretty powerful incentives nonetheless.

Anyone who isn't committed to winning the war, but is fighting to enrich himself through looting might well be perfectly indifferent to whether future cities surrender. They might even prefer an assault, as giving more opportunities for plunder.

Hmm, I see your issue, this army is composed of more disparately motivated elements than usual. While I still hold that it will be fruitless to look for quantitative studies of atrocities committed by TL2-4 armies after a siege, I may have a solution to your problem using game-mechanical methods that will at least be logically consistent within the framework of GURPS:

Assign self-control numbers to each type of troop within the army (pirate, thug, levy, freed slave, professional, etc.) for Bad Temper, Blood Lust, Greed, Lecherousness, and Sadism. Have the PC commander make an influence roll based on leadership (with appropriate complimentary skill rolls supporting it, especially administration and strategy--for properly allocating resources and MP duties to better control the troublmakers). Then have each troop type make a self-control roll against those disadvantages, modified by the margin of success or failure of the Leadership based influence roll. Use the margin of success or failure on the self-control roll to determine the extent that each troop type engaged different types of bad behavior. An MOS of 0 could mean that a few individuals acted out, but few enough that it did not get back to the PCs. MOS by 1 or more means that basically no outlawed behavior took place in that group. Margin of Failure could mean that 5% engaged in the behavior per 1 MOF.

-Failure on Bad Temper = Serious physical beatings of civilians, some deaths as a result (extent of deaths tied to MOF)
-Failure on Blood Lust = Murder of civilians
-Failure on Greed = Serious looting beyond what the PCs are willing to overlook
-Failure on Lecherousness = Frequent and/or public enough rapes to come to public attention
-Failure on Sadism = particularly brutal assaults and killings involving torture and other terrible acts

You might assign the particularly undisciplined group of pirates a self-control number of 6 on all of them (though a 9 on Sadism may be more appropriate, even pirates are not necessarily sadistic). The other groups can be assigned numbers that fit your understanding of their motivations and psychological make-up.

This method at least has the advantage of using GURPS native psychological modelling and influence mechanics, so the players cannot really complain about the results. I also think it is pretty fair given that it gives the PCs a good chance of controlling their troops, but will also likely result in some failures that they need to act upon.