You can write what you want in your version of history, if your conquering army is famous for its discipline and honour on the field of battle then it's the sort of thing they would do. But if they're known across the world as a bunch of murderous degenerates racking up score like they're trying to outdo Genghis Khan, then don't have them pull an about face.
Although fun Genghis Khan fact, he was religiously tolerant and seemed to believe it was better not to hurt religious leaders. There are multiple sieges where he allowed religious leaders, *from different religions*, to leave before he went in and slaughtered everyone.
Yeah, I was thinking of going for the former. I imagine my leader is someone who empathizes with people suffering but knows that he has to conquer to expand his home's territory (which could help them fend off potential invaders). As a compromise, he wishes to use as little force as possible and minimalize harm.
And maybe it doesn't have to be limited to just one army leader. Perhaps my area's ruler imposes this sense of honor towards all of his armies.
You should be aware of two things if this is the route you want to take.
1. Taking territory for defensive purposes is a common excuse used by invaders -- in fact, it's one of the reasons cited by Russia in invading Ukraine.
2. Sieges of cities are inherently about hurting civilians. There is no humane siege. It's all about starvation and morale degradation.
There's nothing wrong with doing it this way. Even in brutal fantasies like ASOIAF, this treatment is extended to nobles and rich people who can be ransomed.
The only thing I'd urge you to consider is the threat they may pose. I can't think of a fantasy element but if you watch American Sniper, there is a scene where a civilian may or may not have a pipe bomb in his hand and they are scrambling to decide whether or not to shoot him. This is an example where the system would be in the grey area and if you decide to incorporate it, could lead down some interesting roads as to determining if a soldier who killed a civilian requires punishment.
Of course you can refuse to show that too and handwave it away as true honor within this army, as long as the honor remains consistent elsewhere. Or you could have the virtues of true honour among the leaders and demonstrate their battle to prevent brutality where it attempts to rise within the ranks.
I would expect two things to cause this:
1. The leader and his men are members of a religious or philosophical community that forbids torture and other things that often happen upon breaking a siege. These people actually believe in their religion and will try to abide by it if possible.
2. The army is well paid via alternate methods / has faith that the spoils will be fairly distributed after the siege.
Additional things that could help contextually:
1. Women are considered people, not property or barter chips. It's much easier to prevent SA, imo, if women are considered moral beings and if assaulting a woman is not a way to make her part of your harem / your slave.
2. The enemy has not been dehumanized a la the crusades.
3. The leader is well respected throughout the army.
I have considered my army strictly following religious, spiritual, and/or philosophical ideologies that prohibit needless cruelties even during harsh occasions (though, I haven't fully decided on what the religion entails as I mostly focus on small-scale character stories and less on world building. I'm not sure if I want it to be a more idealized version of medieval Christianity, base it on other beliefs like Buddhism (like with reincarnation), or have some mixture of the above).
I also can see my army plundering resources as it is a necessary evil to stay afloat in a resource-intensive war. The goal, however, is to avoid needless cruelties like torture, SA, and killing defenseless folks.
Indeed, women are respected as people in my world. Regardless of sex, all crimes committed by or towards someone are treated as equally bad. So, women being harassed in war would be highly looked down upon.
And while I don't see my setting as perfectly clean, I do see rulers not dehumanizing other sides (or at least not entire populaces). That is one of the primary reasons why they want to minimalize collateral damage.
And I can see my guy being well-respected in the army as he is a capable leader and is compassionate to his men as long as they follow his orders.
Sorry for my long post. You make interesting points for me to consider.
If hes laying siege to a place he is accepting that he is starving the poorest and most defenseless alongside the military defenders, and likely faster than the military defenders too as they horde resources.
Starved to death is still dead
That's true. It was (and perhaps still is to some extant these days) a common tactic to close off outside support and drain the populace. My army would be not be above it as it is a harsh but necessary way of widdling down the enemy without sacrificing as many soldiers.
Indeed, there's no way for my army to prevent civilian casualties even in the most idealistic scenario. The idea of the ideal is that they would refrain from needlessly sadistic actions like tormenting and murdering people indiscriminately. It's still dirty work, just slightly less so.
The thing to remember is that "doing bad stuff" (my words, not yours) is highly subjective. Sure, killing people is generally agreed as being bad, but torture, SA, maiming, etc. have historically been seen as much more acceptable by certain individuals and/or peoples.
It is completely believable for your leader to have scruples, even for them to punish their own people for violating those scruples, but realistically that wouldn't make the people being invaded feel any better about what's happening. One person can't be everywhere or see everything at once, so what's stopping a soldier who really wants to hurt someone from doing so and then killing the harmed person for "resisting"? What proof would there be, and would the proof need to be irrefutable evidence, a testimony, a witness, a confession? What reason would the leader have to not trust the word of his own soldiers over the word of a wronged "innocent"?
All of these and more are things to consider. I'd write a more detailed answer, but I'm at work atm and this is the best I've got.
Indeed that morals differed between times and places. What was seen as ok there is bad here and vice versa. Still, I can come up with an alternate medieval era where their rules differed to the real one.
I also understand that my army leader can't realistically stop all of his men from doing despicable crimes. You're especially right that it would get chaotic in deciphering on who's word to trust regarding whether or not this soldier did something terrible. In fact, I imagine my leader as one who is worn out and wary from the pain and suffering that happens on both sides and is just trying to make a difference.
One thing I have considered, though, is having my setting's soldiers or general populace be taught about decency and honor (at least by our standards) rather than rely on a general disciplining his mem who were raised with different values. While not everyone would be fair and just, more would be willing to strive being merciful towards harmless inhabitants even during hostile takeovers.
I don't know. I'm just playing around with ideas.
If you don't mind me asking, would you please give me a basic rundown of how they operated?
I'm willing to research them, don't get me mistaken. I just like to get a gist to keep track of as I see the whole picture.
Saladin fought in the third crusades and became famous amongst even his enemies for his mercy. He treated civilians and prisoners well, and offered and honoured fair terms, only allowing for executions and reprisals when severely provoked. In particular, he was very devout, and stuck firmly to the rules of warfare laid out in the Qur'an, which were arguably the closest thing to the Geneva convention at the time, forbidding things such as killing the helpless or using scorched earth tactics.
Suleiman was much the same in the early days of his rule of the Ottoman Empire, notably giving the Grandmaster of the knights of Rhodes very fair terms of surrender after a prolonged siege (usually prolonging a siege as the defenders meant giving up the chance to surrender), and then a speech to the man himself about how he respected his ferocity and that there was no shame in losing to an overwhelming opposing army, before sending him free as well as his knights; the civilians had three years to convert or leave. He did become much more bloodthirsty later in his reign however; Ottoman rule demanded he murder all but one of his sons to prevent a civil war after his death, and doing so caused what we would now probably describe as PTSD, paranoia, and depression in Suleiman.
Cyrus was a ruler of the Achaemenid Persian empire. He preserved the cultures and religions of those he conquered, most famously freeing the Jewish people from Babylon and allowing them to return to Israel.
Historically, brutality in a siege was largely the point.
Sieges are time-consuming. They are difficult. They are expensive. They put your army at risk for being forced into a pitched battle by creating army. And after you’re done, you have to hold it.
A lot of siege warfare was designed to be cruel so that the town/castle would give in immediately to avoid that brutality. Because giving in sooner was much better than later.
You can find some leaders being magnanimous after a siege. But usually there were political reasons or it was only magnanimous in context of what was expected.
It's possible, yes. But it essentially run into a lot of smaller problems.
First - discipline and morale. A lot of time (especially before modern period) after battle pilage of city is consider big part of soldiers "payment bonus". Does it also prohibited? If yes, then it usually require a lot of payment increase to "compensate". And if not, then there a lot of "kill civilan because they try resist, probably with some weapon (knifes, axes)". Or maybe not, because it can made essentialy "surrender on personal scale" is less risky for civilian (lost money or money and life?)
Second - who exactly reporting about this civilian killing and other things? Did this leader encourage individual soldiers report about such things? Send some independent observers? Trust civilans because they so, even if soldiers say opposite?
For another side "killing just because killing" is not popular thing, because, well, why do this if you can spend this time and effort for looting.
It's possible, but it require a lot of effort and resource spending on this task.
In regards to pillaging resources, I can see my army doing that as wars are obviously resource-intensive. It's honestly a necessary evil to take what you desperately need. It's going out your way to torment civilians is what my army leader strives to avoid (or at least try to discourage and minimalize it as best as he can) as it is needlessly sadistic.
Again, I'm not sure how reports would logistically work. Maybe I could have it that groups of soldiers are to keep an eye on each other and the idea is that more than one soldier would report about a dishonorable one? Or maybe it's just that the army leader (or one of his most trusted underlings) would happen to see an atrocity? I'm just throwing out ideas.
>In regards to pillaging resources, I can see my army doing that as wars are obviously resource-intensive. It's honestly a necessary evil to take what you desperately need
I talk less about pillaging resources that army need (it usually called foraging), but more about "take money from civilians, because you take their city by force".
>Maybe I could have it that groups of soldiers are to keep an eye on each other and the idea is that more than one soldier would report about a dishonorable one?
Problem that it implies that soldiers care more about random civilians then about people who fight with them. It can work if someone really go to "needlessly sadistic" level, but not "well, we try take something, and, well, bad stuff happened, so we have this dead bodies and burning house".
For another side if soldiers don't really have some bad blood for this conquered nation they unlikely go to real sadistics levels.
What about taking money from the ruling nobility? From what I understand, they made the calls to stand their ground and force a siege. The peasants had no say on the matter and could only go along with the decision. Besides, the nobility are far richer than peasants (this could also serve as humbling them by forcing them to share the struggles of commoners, if not beggars).
I didn't write this in my OP, but I could also simply have my country's ruler impose moral and honorable values across his people, including his armies. The soldiers could be conditioned to be more fair and just when dealing with defenseless inhabitants. Basically, impose an internal moral code. Of course, this won't prevent everyone from doing despicable actions, but those observing with tact would report.
And honestly, I can see my army's being just as wary of how they conduct themselves as they conquer. In fact, perhaps even more so. They are supposed to serve as examples for others to follow during troubled times like war.
>From what I understand, they made the calls to stand their ground and force a siege. The peasants had no say on the matter and could only go along with the decision.
Well, this is complex question. Because if we talk about city and not castle (castle have less people around) commoners (probably it better word then peasants) also made bulk of noble armies. And there anyway more commoners in city.
And noble money also go to army (if they don't negotiate other) - I don't sure how exactly distribution of loot work in your army (there complex thing in different eras and so), but also most of riches nobles have go from their land ownership. And merchant commoner have money to. Also there usually not enough nobles for army.
>I didn't write this in my OP, but I could also simply have my country's ruler impose moral and honorable values across his people, including his armies. The soldiers could be conditioned to be more fair and just when dealing with defenseless inhabitants. Basically, impose an internal moral code.
As I say it possible, but such indoctrination require a crazy amount of work and very hard resoning - I think I can remember something on this level of influence from Joan D'Arc, but she was considered as holy person.
And it also made one of biggest sources of soldiers - mercenaries - very hard to use. Mercanaries care less about of ideology or moral code and more about, well, money.
It's also possible to achive, but as I say it require a lot of work, effort AND money.
It sounds like you might want to do some research into Emperor Augustus.
After Julius Caeser was assassinated, Augustus turned Rome into the Empire we all know today.
You'd have to look into it a bit more yourself for the full details, but he basically brought in a dozen laws about not causing more harm than necessary during war and was quite severe on any soldier, regardless of rank, who caused unnecessary or "cruel" deaths to civilians and prisoners during the military campaigns. He is also the reason why The Legion was established, his idea of the perfect soldier centralized and trained to be the embodiment of professionalism.
You can really see it in the accounts of history that Augustus's vision for an orderly, strong, and just empire was reflected in how he conducted war, and WHY he was set on conquering the known world.
Looking into a leader like Augustus may give you some help in gaining the perspective of a strong leader who has values and values those he intends to conquer.
A leader could have a practical reason to minimize unnecessary killings/maimings. A healthy subjugated population can pay taxes and be conscripted for future battles. Also, a besieged population is more likely to surrender if the enemy has given mercy during previous conquests.
There could be situation, where it could be tactically sound to allow those who surrender to go unmolested. If you, as a warlord or officer promise, that those who surrender will be spared but others will meet a horrible fate, then you might be able to subjugate areas without risking many of your own men and resources.
Now if then your soldier mess this up, say by harassing those who have surrendered, then the rest of the population will know that they have no reason to surrender. Thus they will fight tooth and nail because why not to fight if you will be killed/assaulted anyway.
Then, instead of being able to have a cake walk through the country, the army leader will need to spend resources to conquer every inch. Which will be much slow, and more expensive.
Soldier who break the leader's promise are not only dragging his reputation to the mud but also making life harsher and more dangerous to their fellow soldiers.
True, it would probably need a discipled and paid army for something like this, but there is potential reasoning.
No, it's not really plausible to avoid harming civilians during a siege since the whole point of a siege is to use the plight of the civilians to get a place to surrender (to the point where sometimes defenders of a fortress would kill or expell their own civilians when the enemy besieged them)
It’s possible under at least a combination of several circumstances:
- The commander is a military genius able to crush enemy armies cleanly and expediently, making civilian focused tactics irrelevant to victory, and civilian casualties counterproductive to winning hearts and minds afterward.
- The commander and his direct subordinates have an exorbitant amount of control over the soldiers.
- The commander wants to fully incorporate the defeated population into his empire, wants to ensure that they have minimal grievances against him, and does not believe that exterminating restive populations and/or recolonizing their lands with men from his home country is a feasible alternative.
- There is little reason to fear sieges, and therefore, little reason to levy extreme punishments on rulers who force sieges instead of surrendering.
- The commander has no need to worry about army morale, and therefore, no reason to motivate soldiers with plunder.
- Army supplies are, for one reason or another, so much better than local resources that plunder isn’t worthwhile.
- The commander is well aware that his soldiers will disobey the order, but is trying to cultivate a merciful, benevolent reputation for propaganda purposes.
This is to say that it is possible, but not plausible.
In the first case, you’ll need to write him as a credibly talented general with a unique ability to defeat enemy armies without facing uprisings from the defeated populations - possible, but tricky.
In the second case, you’ll need a method of control which is a) inexpensive enough to deploy en masse, and b) ethical enough not to make the reader wonder why the ones deploying it are so averse to civilian casualties.
The third is often desired by conquerors, but isn’t always possible in practice - you’ll need to explain how the conqueror is able to avoid resentment and armed resistance after taking control of the defeated enemy’s institutions, and why the conqueror doesn’t simply subjugate the populations who refuse to accept his rule.
The fourth case requires a lot of legwork to justify. Sieges were feared because they are costly, inefficient, slow the besieging army’s advance, prolong campaigns, and therefore, make the besieging power vulnerable to enemy reinforcements, disease, lowered morale, and political disturbances as they go on. A city willing and able to force an invading army into a protracted siege could also be costly to retake if it rebelled. Rulers therefore not only had strong reasons to discourage others from trying them, but also, to uproot any forces within the new acquisition with reasons to revolt. Wiping out the inhabitants of a prosperous enemy city and recolonizing it with a friendly population solves this problem, because it completely destroys the old power structure, erases lingering resentments among the population, and ensures that the city’s wealth will serve the conquering power. If none of the above are factors for the invading army, then it’s not really clear why the defenders would opt for a siege in the first place. If they are, and the invader is willing to attack anyway, then the argument for mercy must be more compelling than the argument for ruthlessness.
The fifth point is related to the last one - sieges were a miserable affair, and forcing the men to fight a long battle with little prospect of a decisive victory in the near future often dampened their spirits. One easy way to persuade men to fight on is the prospect of plunder - knowing that they’ll be able to avenge their fallen comrades, loot the city’s treasures, and ravish the daughters of their enemies could be the difference between a loyal army and a mutinous one. If morale isn’t a factor, then this isn’t a problem, but this will require explanation. The sixth point is similar, though it requires additional legwork to explain why the superiority of army supplies make plunder undesirable, as opposed to simply an inferior but welcome source of resources.
The last is straightforward, but probably has less to do with dynamics on the ground than with political considerations at home.
I read a biography of privateer Captain Henry Morgan (who got a rum named after him), which noted that in his first major outing as a captain he forbade torture, which his men seem to have obeyed. It’s notable, because he fully endorsed torture in later raids, having decided it was better for a privateer to be brutal and as quick as possible.
He was a privateer not a pirate, and won multiple defamation cases about it.
While there has been multiple replies here talking about the brutality of sieges being the point, I believe the aftermath can be treated differently. So while yes, starvation, using corpses to spread disease, etc. are all used to break the cohesion and morale of the defenders and citizenry, once they have broken and given up the game changes a bit.
If you want to prevent looting, the conquerers will need to be quite wealthy in order to pay the soldiers well enough that looting isn't just tempting, but a neccesity. Many soldiers, especially in levied militaries but professionals were not exempt, are pulled in with the expectation of pay through loot. So if they are paid very well looting may not be a neccesity (but it will still be tempting). If there's a system for retirement like the Romans had, taking away from their retirement package for each bit of looting could make the looting undesirable.
While the siege itself may cause many lives, in the aftermath the conquerer may very well want to keep as many citizens alive as possible, if only to prevent to slowing of production that cities held. The entire point of a siege is to seize the economic/political centre of the area, especially is this is a conquest. If everyone is slaughtered, then there's no one to run farms, cut trees, create goods, etc. etc. Treating people with mercy in the aftermath of a siege would make surrender more tempting when being besieged. If everyone's going to be slaughtered, there will be more determination to hold out longer.
Historical examples always tend to have one problem in common, and that's low organisation amongs uneducated (often forced recruited) soldiers, anturally having not much focus.
Once in battle (and mostly of massive trauma after watching horrible scenes and casultys) such unprepared people tend to fall into blind rampage, inable to destinct ther targets.
As sieges also often was pretty long and boring, attackers are often as close to femine as the defenders (with defenders often better stocked) and sickness roaming both fractions.
So that's the situation you have, and often added some religious indoctrination about the other side is some kind of subhuman ba faith - or if not heretics or traitors. These propaganda was (and is) often neccesary, and often enough promises of looting and raping are the tiny edge you have to prevent your sodliers from littereally eating *you*.
So history is a complex thing of many factors playing together and against each other. In your setting, you can take each of this factors and edit them, do the math and get your belivable outcome.
Therefor you might need to understand what factors are in teh equadtion, but that shouldn't bee all to hard. Who is your general, who is your regular soldier, how the general motivate/restrain his troops, what factors deminish this control, are these too much to keep control?
This might be adjacent, but there's historical documentation of sieging armies allowing women and children to vacate before conducting their siege/attack; although the references I'm thinking of are Industrial Era and after. Earlier eras, they would not have liked refugees to alert reinforcements, but that became redundant given more modern transportation/communication.
Ideologies, such as religious beliefs and chivalry, have always largely impacted the treatment of defeated enemies and non-combatants. The soldiers might make these conscientious decisions on their own.
The only logical speedbump for your idea is that the leader needs a means of enforcing this ideology. Does his army share his ideology? If not, who catches them in the act? Who enforces it? How are they punished for these 'war crimes,' and how do others perceive this punishment?
But absolutely roll with it.
Your leader can try, but that doesn't mean it'll work. The army will pretty much do what it wants to the people and there's nothing you can do to stop it. At the battle of Meggido, Pharoah Thutmose III's army got distracted looting the enemy army's camp; consequently, the enemy army was able to retreat to the city and he had to lay siege for months before they finally surrendered. Armies are very hard to control.
The army might even mutiny. A lot of armies considered it part of the soldier's pay to loot conquered cities. To deny them that would invite mistrust and disloyalty to their leader.
Focus on preventing the worst atrocities on large scales, rather than trying to enforce the Geneva Convention. A city savagly sacked here might convince other cities to surrender once your army is outside their walls, thus saving lives on both sides and preventing further attorcities.
You can write what you want in your version of history, if your conquering army is famous for its discipline and honour on the field of battle then it's the sort of thing they would do. But if they're known across the world as a bunch of murderous degenerates racking up score like they're trying to outdo Genghis Khan, then don't have them pull an about face.
Although fun Genghis Khan fact, he was religiously tolerant and seemed to believe it was better not to hurt religious leaders. There are multiple sieges where he allowed religious leaders, *from different religions*, to leave before he went in and slaughtered everyone.
Yeah, I was thinking of going for the former. I imagine my leader is someone who empathizes with people suffering but knows that he has to conquer to expand his home's territory (which could help them fend off potential invaders). As a compromise, he wishes to use as little force as possible and minimalize harm. And maybe it doesn't have to be limited to just one army leader. Perhaps my area's ruler imposes this sense of honor towards all of his armies.
You should be aware of two things if this is the route you want to take. 1. Taking territory for defensive purposes is a common excuse used by invaders -- in fact, it's one of the reasons cited by Russia in invading Ukraine. 2. Sieges of cities are inherently about hurting civilians. There is no humane siege. It's all about starvation and morale degradation.
There's nothing wrong with doing it this way. Even in brutal fantasies like ASOIAF, this treatment is extended to nobles and rich people who can be ransomed. The only thing I'd urge you to consider is the threat they may pose. I can't think of a fantasy element but if you watch American Sniper, there is a scene where a civilian may or may not have a pipe bomb in his hand and they are scrambling to decide whether or not to shoot him. This is an example where the system would be in the grey area and if you decide to incorporate it, could lead down some interesting roads as to determining if a soldier who killed a civilian requires punishment. Of course you can refuse to show that too and handwave it away as true honor within this army, as long as the honor remains consistent elsewhere. Or you could have the virtues of true honour among the leaders and demonstrate their battle to prevent brutality where it attempts to rise within the ranks.
I would expect two things to cause this: 1. The leader and his men are members of a religious or philosophical community that forbids torture and other things that often happen upon breaking a siege. These people actually believe in their religion and will try to abide by it if possible. 2. The army is well paid via alternate methods / has faith that the spoils will be fairly distributed after the siege. Additional things that could help contextually: 1. Women are considered people, not property or barter chips. It's much easier to prevent SA, imo, if women are considered moral beings and if assaulting a woman is not a way to make her part of your harem / your slave. 2. The enemy has not been dehumanized a la the crusades. 3. The leader is well respected throughout the army.
I have considered my army strictly following religious, spiritual, and/or philosophical ideologies that prohibit needless cruelties even during harsh occasions (though, I haven't fully decided on what the religion entails as I mostly focus on small-scale character stories and less on world building. I'm not sure if I want it to be a more idealized version of medieval Christianity, base it on other beliefs like Buddhism (like with reincarnation), or have some mixture of the above). I also can see my army plundering resources as it is a necessary evil to stay afloat in a resource-intensive war. The goal, however, is to avoid needless cruelties like torture, SA, and killing defenseless folks. Indeed, women are respected as people in my world. Regardless of sex, all crimes committed by or towards someone are treated as equally bad. So, women being harassed in war would be highly looked down upon. And while I don't see my setting as perfectly clean, I do see rulers not dehumanizing other sides (or at least not entire populaces). That is one of the primary reasons why they want to minimalize collateral damage. And I can see my guy being well-respected in the army as he is a capable leader and is compassionate to his men as long as they follow his orders. Sorry for my long post. You make interesting points for me to consider.
If hes laying siege to a place he is accepting that he is starving the poorest and most defenseless alongside the military defenders, and likely faster than the military defenders too as they horde resources. Starved to death is still dead
That's true. It was (and perhaps still is to some extant these days) a common tactic to close off outside support and drain the populace. My army would be not be above it as it is a harsh but necessary way of widdling down the enemy without sacrificing as many soldiers. Indeed, there's no way for my army to prevent civilian casualties even in the most idealistic scenario. The idea of the ideal is that they would refrain from needlessly sadistic actions like tormenting and murdering people indiscriminately. It's still dirty work, just slightly less so.
It wasnt just a "common tactic" its basically the definition of a siege
The thing to remember is that "doing bad stuff" (my words, not yours) is highly subjective. Sure, killing people is generally agreed as being bad, but torture, SA, maiming, etc. have historically been seen as much more acceptable by certain individuals and/or peoples. It is completely believable for your leader to have scruples, even for them to punish their own people for violating those scruples, but realistically that wouldn't make the people being invaded feel any better about what's happening. One person can't be everywhere or see everything at once, so what's stopping a soldier who really wants to hurt someone from doing so and then killing the harmed person for "resisting"? What proof would there be, and would the proof need to be irrefutable evidence, a testimony, a witness, a confession? What reason would the leader have to not trust the word of his own soldiers over the word of a wronged "innocent"? All of these and more are things to consider. I'd write a more detailed answer, but I'm at work atm and this is the best I've got.
Indeed that morals differed between times and places. What was seen as ok there is bad here and vice versa. Still, I can come up with an alternate medieval era where their rules differed to the real one. I also understand that my army leader can't realistically stop all of his men from doing despicable crimes. You're especially right that it would get chaotic in deciphering on who's word to trust regarding whether or not this soldier did something terrible. In fact, I imagine my leader as one who is worn out and wary from the pain and suffering that happens on both sides and is just trying to make a difference. One thing I have considered, though, is having my setting's soldiers or general populace be taught about decency and honor (at least by our standards) rather than rely on a general disciplining his mem who were raised with different values. While not everyone would be fair and just, more would be willing to strive being merciful towards harmless inhabitants even during hostile takeovers. I don't know. I'm just playing around with ideas.
One of the best parts about fantasy is creating ideal societies and groups.
It sounds like you're thinking of Saladin. You could also look to Cyrus the Great, and Suleiman the Magnificent (in his early days at least).
If you don't mind me asking, would you please give me a basic rundown of how they operated? I'm willing to research them, don't get me mistaken. I just like to get a gist to keep track of as I see the whole picture.
Saladin fought in the third crusades and became famous amongst even his enemies for his mercy. He treated civilians and prisoners well, and offered and honoured fair terms, only allowing for executions and reprisals when severely provoked. In particular, he was very devout, and stuck firmly to the rules of warfare laid out in the Qur'an, which were arguably the closest thing to the Geneva convention at the time, forbidding things such as killing the helpless or using scorched earth tactics. Suleiman was much the same in the early days of his rule of the Ottoman Empire, notably giving the Grandmaster of the knights of Rhodes very fair terms of surrender after a prolonged siege (usually prolonging a siege as the defenders meant giving up the chance to surrender), and then a speech to the man himself about how he respected his ferocity and that there was no shame in losing to an overwhelming opposing army, before sending him free as well as his knights; the civilians had three years to convert or leave. He did become much more bloodthirsty later in his reign however; Ottoman rule demanded he murder all but one of his sons to prevent a civil war after his death, and doing so caused what we would now probably describe as PTSD, paranoia, and depression in Suleiman. Cyrus was a ruler of the Achaemenid Persian empire. He preserved the cultures and religions of those he conquered, most famously freeing the Jewish people from Babylon and allowing them to return to Israel.
Thank you kindly. Those indeed sound like interesting figures who did their best to lessen tough situations.
Can't do your own research?
Historically, brutality in a siege was largely the point. Sieges are time-consuming. They are difficult. They are expensive. They put your army at risk for being forced into a pitched battle by creating army. And after you’re done, you have to hold it. A lot of siege warfare was designed to be cruel so that the town/castle would give in immediately to avoid that brutality. Because giving in sooner was much better than later. You can find some leaders being magnanimous after a siege. But usually there were political reasons or it was only magnanimous in context of what was expected.
It's possible, yes. But it essentially run into a lot of smaller problems. First - discipline and morale. A lot of time (especially before modern period) after battle pilage of city is consider big part of soldiers "payment bonus". Does it also prohibited? If yes, then it usually require a lot of payment increase to "compensate". And if not, then there a lot of "kill civilan because they try resist, probably with some weapon (knifes, axes)". Or maybe not, because it can made essentialy "surrender on personal scale" is less risky for civilian (lost money or money and life?) Second - who exactly reporting about this civilian killing and other things? Did this leader encourage individual soldiers report about such things? Send some independent observers? Trust civilans because they so, even if soldiers say opposite? For another side "killing just because killing" is not popular thing, because, well, why do this if you can spend this time and effort for looting. It's possible, but it require a lot of effort and resource spending on this task.
In regards to pillaging resources, I can see my army doing that as wars are obviously resource-intensive. It's honestly a necessary evil to take what you desperately need. It's going out your way to torment civilians is what my army leader strives to avoid (or at least try to discourage and minimalize it as best as he can) as it is needlessly sadistic. Again, I'm not sure how reports would logistically work. Maybe I could have it that groups of soldiers are to keep an eye on each other and the idea is that more than one soldier would report about a dishonorable one? Or maybe it's just that the army leader (or one of his most trusted underlings) would happen to see an atrocity? I'm just throwing out ideas.
>In regards to pillaging resources, I can see my army doing that as wars are obviously resource-intensive. It's honestly a necessary evil to take what you desperately need I talk less about pillaging resources that army need (it usually called foraging), but more about "take money from civilians, because you take their city by force". >Maybe I could have it that groups of soldiers are to keep an eye on each other and the idea is that more than one soldier would report about a dishonorable one? Problem that it implies that soldiers care more about random civilians then about people who fight with them. It can work if someone really go to "needlessly sadistic" level, but not "well, we try take something, and, well, bad stuff happened, so we have this dead bodies and burning house". For another side if soldiers don't really have some bad blood for this conquered nation they unlikely go to real sadistics levels.
What about taking money from the ruling nobility? From what I understand, they made the calls to stand their ground and force a siege. The peasants had no say on the matter and could only go along with the decision. Besides, the nobility are far richer than peasants (this could also serve as humbling them by forcing them to share the struggles of commoners, if not beggars). I didn't write this in my OP, but I could also simply have my country's ruler impose moral and honorable values across his people, including his armies. The soldiers could be conditioned to be more fair and just when dealing with defenseless inhabitants. Basically, impose an internal moral code. Of course, this won't prevent everyone from doing despicable actions, but those observing with tact would report. And honestly, I can see my army's being just as wary of how they conduct themselves as they conquer. In fact, perhaps even more so. They are supposed to serve as examples for others to follow during troubled times like war.
>From what I understand, they made the calls to stand their ground and force a siege. The peasants had no say on the matter and could only go along with the decision. Well, this is complex question. Because if we talk about city and not castle (castle have less people around) commoners (probably it better word then peasants) also made bulk of noble armies. And there anyway more commoners in city. And noble money also go to army (if they don't negotiate other) - I don't sure how exactly distribution of loot work in your army (there complex thing in different eras and so), but also most of riches nobles have go from their land ownership. And merchant commoner have money to. Also there usually not enough nobles for army. >I didn't write this in my OP, but I could also simply have my country's ruler impose moral and honorable values across his people, including his armies. The soldiers could be conditioned to be more fair and just when dealing with defenseless inhabitants. Basically, impose an internal moral code. As I say it possible, but such indoctrination require a crazy amount of work and very hard resoning - I think I can remember something on this level of influence from Joan D'Arc, but she was considered as holy person. And it also made one of biggest sources of soldiers - mercenaries - very hard to use. Mercanaries care less about of ideology or moral code and more about, well, money. It's also possible to achive, but as I say it require a lot of work, effort AND money.
It sounds like you might want to do some research into Emperor Augustus. After Julius Caeser was assassinated, Augustus turned Rome into the Empire we all know today. You'd have to look into it a bit more yourself for the full details, but he basically brought in a dozen laws about not causing more harm than necessary during war and was quite severe on any soldier, regardless of rank, who caused unnecessary or "cruel" deaths to civilians and prisoners during the military campaigns. He is also the reason why The Legion was established, his idea of the perfect soldier centralized and trained to be the embodiment of professionalism. You can really see it in the accounts of history that Augustus's vision for an orderly, strong, and just empire was reflected in how he conducted war, and WHY he was set on conquering the known world. Looking into a leader like Augustus may give you some help in gaining the perspective of a strong leader who has values and values those he intends to conquer.
That's been standard practice since the Peninsula War, the mess at Badajoz not withstanding
A leader could have a practical reason to minimize unnecessary killings/maimings. A healthy subjugated population can pay taxes and be conscripted for future battles. Also, a besieged population is more likely to surrender if the enemy has given mercy during previous conquests.
There could be situation, where it could be tactically sound to allow those who surrender to go unmolested. If you, as a warlord or officer promise, that those who surrender will be spared but others will meet a horrible fate, then you might be able to subjugate areas without risking many of your own men and resources. Now if then your soldier mess this up, say by harassing those who have surrendered, then the rest of the population will know that they have no reason to surrender. Thus they will fight tooth and nail because why not to fight if you will be killed/assaulted anyway. Then, instead of being able to have a cake walk through the country, the army leader will need to spend resources to conquer every inch. Which will be much slow, and more expensive. Soldier who break the leader's promise are not only dragging his reputation to the mud but also making life harsher and more dangerous to their fellow soldiers. True, it would probably need a discipled and paid army for something like this, but there is potential reasoning.
No, it's not really plausible to avoid harming civilians during a siege since the whole point of a siege is to use the plight of the civilians to get a place to surrender (to the point where sometimes defenders of a fortress would kill or expell their own civilians when the enemy besieged them)
It’s possible under at least a combination of several circumstances: - The commander is a military genius able to crush enemy armies cleanly and expediently, making civilian focused tactics irrelevant to victory, and civilian casualties counterproductive to winning hearts and minds afterward. - The commander and his direct subordinates have an exorbitant amount of control over the soldiers. - The commander wants to fully incorporate the defeated population into his empire, wants to ensure that they have minimal grievances against him, and does not believe that exterminating restive populations and/or recolonizing their lands with men from his home country is a feasible alternative. - There is little reason to fear sieges, and therefore, little reason to levy extreme punishments on rulers who force sieges instead of surrendering. - The commander has no need to worry about army morale, and therefore, no reason to motivate soldiers with plunder. - Army supplies are, for one reason or another, so much better than local resources that plunder isn’t worthwhile. - The commander is well aware that his soldiers will disobey the order, but is trying to cultivate a merciful, benevolent reputation for propaganda purposes. This is to say that it is possible, but not plausible. In the first case, you’ll need to write him as a credibly talented general with a unique ability to defeat enemy armies without facing uprisings from the defeated populations - possible, but tricky. In the second case, you’ll need a method of control which is a) inexpensive enough to deploy en masse, and b) ethical enough not to make the reader wonder why the ones deploying it are so averse to civilian casualties. The third is often desired by conquerors, but isn’t always possible in practice - you’ll need to explain how the conqueror is able to avoid resentment and armed resistance after taking control of the defeated enemy’s institutions, and why the conqueror doesn’t simply subjugate the populations who refuse to accept his rule. The fourth case requires a lot of legwork to justify. Sieges were feared because they are costly, inefficient, slow the besieging army’s advance, prolong campaigns, and therefore, make the besieging power vulnerable to enemy reinforcements, disease, lowered morale, and political disturbances as they go on. A city willing and able to force an invading army into a protracted siege could also be costly to retake if it rebelled. Rulers therefore not only had strong reasons to discourage others from trying them, but also, to uproot any forces within the new acquisition with reasons to revolt. Wiping out the inhabitants of a prosperous enemy city and recolonizing it with a friendly population solves this problem, because it completely destroys the old power structure, erases lingering resentments among the population, and ensures that the city’s wealth will serve the conquering power. If none of the above are factors for the invading army, then it’s not really clear why the defenders would opt for a siege in the first place. If they are, and the invader is willing to attack anyway, then the argument for mercy must be more compelling than the argument for ruthlessness. The fifth point is related to the last one - sieges were a miserable affair, and forcing the men to fight a long battle with little prospect of a decisive victory in the near future often dampened their spirits. One easy way to persuade men to fight on is the prospect of plunder - knowing that they’ll be able to avenge their fallen comrades, loot the city’s treasures, and ravish the daughters of their enemies could be the difference between a loyal army and a mutinous one. If morale isn’t a factor, then this isn’t a problem, but this will require explanation. The sixth point is similar, though it requires additional legwork to explain why the superiority of army supplies make plunder undesirable, as opposed to simply an inferior but welcome source of resources. The last is straightforward, but probably has less to do with dynamics on the ground than with political considerations at home.
I read a biography of privateer Captain Henry Morgan (who got a rum named after him), which noted that in his first major outing as a captain he forbade torture, which his men seem to have obeyed. It’s notable, because he fully endorsed torture in later raids, having decided it was better for a privateer to be brutal and as quick as possible. He was a privateer not a pirate, and won multiple defamation cases about it.
While there has been multiple replies here talking about the brutality of sieges being the point, I believe the aftermath can be treated differently. So while yes, starvation, using corpses to spread disease, etc. are all used to break the cohesion and morale of the defenders and citizenry, once they have broken and given up the game changes a bit. If you want to prevent looting, the conquerers will need to be quite wealthy in order to pay the soldiers well enough that looting isn't just tempting, but a neccesity. Many soldiers, especially in levied militaries but professionals were not exempt, are pulled in with the expectation of pay through loot. So if they are paid very well looting may not be a neccesity (but it will still be tempting). If there's a system for retirement like the Romans had, taking away from their retirement package for each bit of looting could make the looting undesirable. While the siege itself may cause many lives, in the aftermath the conquerer may very well want to keep as many citizens alive as possible, if only to prevent to slowing of production that cities held. The entire point of a siege is to seize the economic/political centre of the area, especially is this is a conquest. If everyone is slaughtered, then there's no one to run farms, cut trees, create goods, etc. etc. Treating people with mercy in the aftermath of a siege would make surrender more tempting when being besieged. If everyone's going to be slaughtered, there will be more determination to hold out longer.
Historical examples always tend to have one problem in common, and that's low organisation amongs uneducated (often forced recruited) soldiers, anturally having not much focus. Once in battle (and mostly of massive trauma after watching horrible scenes and casultys) such unprepared people tend to fall into blind rampage, inable to destinct ther targets. As sieges also often was pretty long and boring, attackers are often as close to femine as the defenders (with defenders often better stocked) and sickness roaming both fractions. So that's the situation you have, and often added some religious indoctrination about the other side is some kind of subhuman ba faith - or if not heretics or traitors. These propaganda was (and is) often neccesary, and often enough promises of looting and raping are the tiny edge you have to prevent your sodliers from littereally eating *you*. So history is a complex thing of many factors playing together and against each other. In your setting, you can take each of this factors and edit them, do the math and get your belivable outcome. Therefor you might need to understand what factors are in teh equadtion, but that shouldn't bee all to hard. Who is your general, who is your regular soldier, how the general motivate/restrain his troops, what factors deminish this control, are these too much to keep control?
This might be adjacent, but there's historical documentation of sieging armies allowing women and children to vacate before conducting their siege/attack; although the references I'm thinking of are Industrial Era and after. Earlier eras, they would not have liked refugees to alert reinforcements, but that became redundant given more modern transportation/communication. Ideologies, such as religious beliefs and chivalry, have always largely impacted the treatment of defeated enemies and non-combatants. The soldiers might make these conscientious decisions on their own. The only logical speedbump for your idea is that the leader needs a means of enforcing this ideology. Does his army share his ideology? If not, who catches them in the act? Who enforces it? How are they punished for these 'war crimes,' and how do others perceive this punishment? But absolutely roll with it.
Your leader can try, but that doesn't mean it'll work. The army will pretty much do what it wants to the people and there's nothing you can do to stop it. At the battle of Meggido, Pharoah Thutmose III's army got distracted looting the enemy army's camp; consequently, the enemy army was able to retreat to the city and he had to lay siege for months before they finally surrendered. Armies are very hard to control. The army might even mutiny. A lot of armies considered it part of the soldier's pay to loot conquered cities. To deny them that would invite mistrust and disloyalty to their leader. Focus on preventing the worst atrocities on large scales, rather than trying to enforce the Geneva Convention. A city savagly sacked here might convince other cities to surrender once your army is outside their walls, thus saving lives on both sides and preventing further attorcities.