Russia 3e Cossacks

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by WholesomeMadScientist

Thank you, do they have a “Code of Honor” disadvantage, and if so, could you share it with detail?

It gets a one-sentence descriptor: "Never refuse asylum to a runaway wishing to become a Cossack", and no suggested points value. I'd treat it as a variant Pirate's Code with that as an added detail, for -5. However, if it means that they're perpetually in conflict with nearby authorities because of all the runaways they're sheltering, it might bump up to -10.

The book also suggests Sense of Duty (to the band), and also Poverty (though that might surely cause problems if you assume that every self-respecting Cossack has a horse) and Bowlegged (because every self-respecting Cossack has a horse).

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

It gets a one-sentence descriptor: "Never refuse asylum to a runaway wishing to become a Cossack", and no suggested points value. I'd treat it as a variant Pirate's Code with that as an added detail, for -5. However, if it means that they're perpetually in conflict with nearby authorities because of all the runaways they're sheltering, it might bump up to -10.

They weren't usually in trouble with the authorities over it because they were usually a major calvalry element in the local military in time of war, and it didn't pay to aggravate them. Other times, they basically were the authorities, and authorities elsewhere didn't want a full scale war over some runaway serfs

[WholesomeMadScientist]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

It gets a one-sentence descriptor: "Never refuse asylum to a runaway wishing to become a Cossack", and no suggested points value. I'd treat it as a variant Pirate's Code with that as an added detail, for -5. However, if it means that they're perpetually in conflict with nearby authorities because of all the runaways they're sheltering, it might bump up to -10.

The book also suggests Sense of Duty (to the band), and also Poverty (though that might surely cause problems if you assume that every self-respecting Cossack has a horse) and Bowlegged (because every self-respecting Cossack has a horse).

Thank you, is bloodlust mentioned as a disadvantage? I am comparing warrior cultures side by side and looking at common denominators. One might actually be surprised at how few times bloodlust actually make the lists.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by WholesomeMadScientist

Thank you, is bloodlust mentioned as a disadvantage? I am comparing warrior cultures side by side and looking at common denominators. One might actually be surprised at how few times bloodlust actually make the lists.

In general, "battles" in non-settled cultures often take the form of posturing and a bit of skirmishing until it can be established which side is obviously stronger, at which point the other side concedes and withdraws. A few warriors with bloodlust could turn such an encounter into a proper pitched battle to the death, which would leave everyone much worse off.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by WholesomeMadScientist

Thank you, is bloodlust mentioned as a disadvantage? I am comparing warrior cultures side by side and looking at common denominators. One might actually be surprised at how few times bloodlust actually make the lists.

Bloodlust is a disadvantage for fanatics and psychopaths, basically. Refusing to accept surrender is bad strategy for people who might be on the losing side of another battle, because if they don't think you'll take their surrender they probably won't take yours. Likewise for how hard a retreating foe is pursued. Moreover, there's a moral/morale component. Being very much in favor of victory is normal and accepted for warriors. Always talking about how many people you will/have killed is kind of disturbing.

[WholesomeMadScientist]

Originally Posted by Dalillama

Always talking about how many people you will/have killed is kind of disturbing.

Trying to remember if the Klingons were specifically like that? Hmm…

[Rolando]

Most cultures value prisoners too.

It is uncommon in fantasy too, evil races like to have slaves.

Murdering beaten foes is wasteful, even for orcs.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by WholesomeMadScientist

Trying to remember if the Klingons were specifically like that? Hmm…

Klingons (post-TOS) are generally how the writer of the week think an "Honourable Warrior Culture" is supposed to be in (more or less pulpy) fiction. As this warrior culture is usually supposed to be at least somewhat sympathetic or comedically exaggerated, they're generally most interested in victory (or heroic death) by legitimate means, not in slaughtering their foes. Of course, that can mean killing foes dramatically, especially as worthy foes are rarely willing to surrender, but that's the means or the logical corollary, not the end.

Original Series Klingons were generally interested in winning by whatever means were necessary, sneaky often knows best, and hence were probably more inclined to ruthless killing - though that was still a means, not an end, and they were certainly fond of glorious wars, not just victories. They probably saw casual killing as messy and wasteful.

[Kromm]

Knowing people from actual Cossack families, I'd stay that the definitive trait of real-world Cossacks was mostly "Doesn't want to be ruled but is willing to work for a ruler who has no designs on ruling them." That's really it.

The entire idea that the Cossacks were raging land-pirates on horseback is essentially really good Russian propaganda, though not without basis in reality (keep reading). They were mostly people who declared themselves beyond the Tsar's rule, went off and lived semi-nomadically in places where the Tsar didn't have or particularly want much reach, and then took the Tsar's offers of honors, money, and land to fight on the Tsar's side ("for the Tsar" would be a reach) against people who concerned the Tsar more than a gang of militarized wanderers in the frontier regions; e.g., the Ottomans. The Cossack tendency to run down stragglers and loot as payment for service was the basis of the "raging land-pirate" thing, but it was mostly done in military service.

Even the "on horseback" bit is exaggerated. That's the Don Cossacks. It's true that they were the most famous military subgroup, but the vast majority of Cossacks who were just off living life didn't ride around on horses (which were expensive and mostly sustainable only by Tsar-paid Don cavalry), and not military but militarized, fighting as infantry when pressed. They actually had quite a reputation as snipers, and were Russia's answer to the classic "natives who know the land better than you and come out of the bushes at night to ambush you in close quarters" meme.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Knowing people from actual Cossack families, I'd stay that the definitive trait of real-world Cossacks was mostly "Doesn't want to be ruled but is willing to work for a ruler who has no designs on ruling them." That's really it.

Hence the business about taking in runaways; anyone who was prepared to go take their chances in the wilds instead of staying hime and being a serf, and tough enough to escape the pursuit long enough to reach a Cossack band was by definition their kind of person. The word Cossack is cognate to Khazar, which was at one time a nation and ethnic group south of the Slavic regions, but it's not clear whether the groups later called Cossacks were descendants of them or just took/acquired the name (which means roughly "free people"). Certainly a large percentage of Cossacks were runaway serfs or descendants of same.

The entire idea that the Cossacks were raging land-pirates on horseback is essentially really good Russian propaganda, though not without basis in reality (keep reading). They were mostly people who declared themselves beyond the Tsar's rule, went off and lived semi-nomadically in places where the Tsar didn't have or particularly want much reach, and then took the Tsar's offers of honors, money, and land to fight on the Tsar's side ("for the Tsar" would be a reach) against people who concerned the Tsar more than a gang of militarized wanderers in the frontier regions;

That's mostly the Don and the various groups that split off from them. The Zhaporizan Cossack were people who declared themselves beyond the Sejm's authority but were willing to fight on behalf of the Sejm because it was more convenient than fighting against the Sejm. For a while the Zhaporizan Hetmanate was an independent territory (and arguably a state, depending on how loosely one defines the concept).

The Cossack tendency to run down stragglers and loot as payment for service was the basis of the "raging land-pirate" thing, but it was mostly done in military service.

The targets of the looting don't usually care about niceties like that, and their accounts have also heavily colored the perception of Cossacks outside their home territories.

were Russia's answer to the classic "natives who know the land better than you and come out of the bushes at night to ambush you in close quarters" meme.

Notably so during the 19th century war with the breakaway Caucasian Imamate, in which the Cossack auxiliaries were key to Russian success fighting in the mountains where the regular troops floundered. This war was dramatically chronicled by Lesley Blanch in her 1960 book The Sabres of Paradise, which in turn served as the principal inspiration for Frank Herbert's Dune, wherein the Caucasians become Fremen, and the Cossacks transform into the Emperor's ferocious Sardaukar