Sacking, Looting, Raping, Burning

[unmerged(16560)]

Medieval warfare was extremely brutal. Civilians died. Often. Towns were sacked. There was looting. There was raping. There was pillaging.

In EUII this was represented by the little "sacked town" icon, loss of monthly revenue, and a small malus to population growth.

Hopefully, CK expands on this. If the player captures a town or city, with there be an option to let the troops run wild? Will spoils from an exceeding rich city (Constantinople...met Venice) fill up your coffers? Will the population of a sacked city or town drastically decline after being captured, or not?

Also, will you be able to engage in nasty, evil activities such as ethnic cleansings, or stuff similar to the Albigensian Crusades? I understand that its not entirely politically correct, but it is a game, as has been so often pointed out, and it would be an interesting exercise in catharsis (no pun intended) to simply flatten some town after a successful siege.

 

[Jerzy_I]

Look closely at screenshots that contain a shot of a province on the left.

 

[Deaghaidh]

It shouldn't be an 'option' it should just happen. Rulers didn't have that much control over their men after a fortress or city was taken to stop it. The loss of population and future revenue should be severe. If a city changes hands to often there should be a chance of it practically disapearing.

 

[Jerzy_I]

Oops i forgot..as to ethnic cleansing...Paradox has stayed away from this so i think there no chance that this will be in the game except by mistake. Looting provinces that are mostly muslim for instance will probably have "bad" effects on the population.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

It shouldn't be an 'option' it should just happen.

Actually if any options should be there, it should be the attempt to “Restrain your troops.” Victorious lords often had a hard time restraining their troops from preforming a general sack. It happened during the Eastern Crusades, and at Beziers during the Albigensian Crusades, and probably many other sieges throughout the middle ages. This option should fail regularly, especially if your army is made up mostly of mercenaries.

 

[Shadow Knight]

"Remember men, loot, pillage, and rape first. Then burn."

In all seriousness though The Leper King has the right of it. The option should be there (if its not well I won't cry over it), and it should have a percentage of failure based on the make-up of your troops. i.e. Mercenaries or conscripts should have a high failure rate (say 90-98%), and loyal household guards on the lower spectrum (say 40-50%).

 

[Giant Tourtiere]

Actually, prior to the HYW, in Western Europe at least, attacks on/looting of *Christian* non-combatants was not on. Note that the Albegensian Crusade and (as far as the crusaders were concerned) Constantinople were exceptions to this.

It would be interesting if there is a switch at some point in the game, however.

 

[InnocentIII]

I believe that the Albigensian Crusade was the source of "Kill them all, let God sort them out". Except that, while a church filled with both heretics and non-heretics was burning it was suggested that the non-heretics be let go, what was actually said was to let them all burn, "God will know his own."

In any event, looting ought to occur both as a matter of policy ("the use of excessive in subduing Antioch... has been approved"), and as an occurance beyond the control of the player at times when his troops go wild. I suppose it should be even more likely if the leader of the troops were someone of low loyalty.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Actually, prior to the HYW, in Western Europe at least, attacks on/looting of *Christian* non-combatants was not on. Note that the Albegensian Crusade and (as far as the crusaders were concerned) Constantinople were exceptions to this.

Harrying of the North anyone?

 

[Arentak]

Actually, prior to the HYW, in Western Europe at least, attacks on/looting of *Christian* non-combatants was not on. Note that the Albegensian Crusade and (as far as the crusaders were concerned) Constantinople were exceptions to this.

It would be interesting if there is a switch at some point in the game, however.

Richard the Lion-Hearted was notorious for sacking, burning, raping and pillaging the villages of any lord who opposed him. He even personally participated most of the time. I think unrestrained violence was the norm rather then the exception. Modern style "cleansing" was certainly more rare then a quick rape/pillage/burn job, but it did happen too, with entire towns put to the sword. This type of rampant slaughter happened on the Continent and on the British Isles with regularity.

 

[HolisticGod]

Magpie,

It (and particularly regicide and noble rapine) was forbidden by the Pope, the Patriarch and most monarchs. However, it did happen, particularly when an army was principally made up of peasent levies (Knights, of course, felt as the Russians and Germans at Stalingrad-the enemy whose manor you ravage today may well be at your own gate tomorrow).

And with a few exceptions only the Mulsims forbade rape and looting of townsfolk. Most commanders in Christian armies felt that if their men went too long without women, they'd desert or start a'buggering each other; and as pay in the army was mostly irregular, if it existed at all, the spoils of a lengthy siege and of long march through good country were built into military structure of the day.

 

[HolisticGod]

Arentak,

Aye, though ethnic cleansing on a modern scale occured chiefly in the east after the Mongol invasion. The Chivalric Code, in both the Muslim and Christian worlds, was very clear on the point of not involving the innocent, and where towns were razed to the ground it was often in a broad, sweeping and peculiar conquest, not hum-drum warfare. The most famous examples of the period-Keiv, Novgorod, Delhi, Bagdhad, Allepo and Bursa-were all carried out by the Kahns.

It was disadvantageous to spend six months laying siege to a town and expend thousands of troops taking its citadel only to burn it down with all the people inside.

 

[Kurek]

William the Bastard kicked the crap out of the Yorkshire area as they were loyal to Norse Lords, or Harrying of the north as Snuggs says. Good times, should do that these days, burn down the North I say! mainly Manchester & Liverpool though

 

[Giant Tourtiere]

Well... first of all, the heretics killed in the Albegensian Crusade would be a special case... no more deserving of protection than any other infidel community.

William I's sack of York *was* pretty harsh, but here again, he was acting against *rebels*, not innocent bystanders.

I am unsure where/when medieval armies were "largely made up of peasant levies" ... certainly *not* in most of Western Europe prior to the HYW.

 

[unmerged(11620)]

I believe that the Albigensian Crusade was the source of "Kill them all, let God sort them out". Except that, while a church filled with both heretics and non-heretics was burning it was suggested that the non-heretics be let go, what was actually said was to let them all burn, "God will know his own."

Actually "Kill them all, God knows his own," is an apocryphal quote. There is no direct evidence that he ever said it, and given his history it's not like him. Add to that the people who claim he said it also claim some 20,000 people were killed at Béziers which was like twice the total population .

 

[unmerged(11620)]

and it should have a percentage of failure based on the make-up of your troops. i.e. Mercenaries or conscripts should have a high failure rate (say 90-98%), and loyal household guards on the lower spectrum (say 40-50%).

Better yet, it should also have a major effect on public relations. If you are successful your army's morale should go down by a little, and your personal piety should go up. But if you let your men go nuts, or even if you simply fail to restrain them, your piety should go way down. Remember the Pope actually excommunicated, not juts the army, but the whole city of Venice after the fiasco with the forth Crusade.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Medieval warfare was extremely brutal. Civilians died. Often. Towns were sacked. There was looting. There was raping. There was pillaging.

This is of course, very different from a certain modern conflict fought 50 years ago. Or a certain southeast asian one 30 years ago.

All war is brutal. Medieval warfare was too. In organized pre-modern scale this sort of behaviour is probably topped by the romans, who "left a desert and called it peace" in the words of a contemporary englishman.


EF

 

[Earl Uhtred]

William I's sack of York *was* pretty harsh, but here again, he was acting against *rebels*, not innocent bystanders.

Be that as it may, he brutally devastated the whole county without bothering to make the distinction, and the focus of his wrath was inevitably on civilians.

Anyroad, that's just one of dozens of examples I could mention from the British Isles alone. The Scots were responsible for some terrible atrocities in these parts, frx.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Better yet, it should also have a major effect on public relations. If you are successful your army's morale should go down by a little, and your personal piety should go up. But if you let your men go nuts, or even if you simply fail to restrain them, your piety should go way down. Remember the Pope actually excommunicated, not juts the army, but the whole city of Venice after the fiasco with the forth Crusade.

Sounds good. Pillaging should prolly also cause a temporary loss of income from the province as fields are burned and peasants run away to hide in the woods. Were the plunder taken from enemy castles ever significant enough to warrant giving a small cash boost upon pillaging a rather wealthy province?

 

[unmerged(11620)]

Were the plunder taken from enemy castles ever significant enough to warrant giving a small cash boost upon pillaging a rather wealthy province?

Doubtful. There really wasn't much "plunder" in castles besides arms and equipment that is. You'd get a lot more from ransoming prisoners probably. If you were lucky enough to capture a prince you might get a pretty penny.

Really the best place to "plunder" would be a city, not a castle.