Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Top Gun
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Topic: franks Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 10:02 |
I read somewhere that the frankish accepted raping and slauchtering of enemys
is that so
Edited by Top Gun - 13-Feb-2007 at 14:59
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 10:30 |
Things like this depend on a lot of factors, like time period, region and specific circumstances. The Frankish empire was very big and existed for quite some time...
Overall, I'd say that in the history of mankind, raping and slaughtering of enemies was commonplace rather than exeption. When we read in a source that a king forbade his troops to rape, plunder and slaughter, it is written down because this was exeptional, not the norm...
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Top Gun
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 11:12 |
wich generals did then prevented these war crimes
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 14:17 |
When we read in a source that a king forbade his troops to rape,
plunder and slaughter, it is written down because this was exeptional,
not the norm... |
Hmm, i'd say that rather, it was common for kings/leaders to not want their men to do this, as it is in their interests to capture a place a intact as possible, as it is most valuable this way (also it ensures that the leader gets first pick of the booty). Rather, i think tales of kings putting a stop to looting/etc. stand out because in the hieght of victory, keeping control of badly behaved soldiers typicly comes low in the list of piorities.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 19:07 |
Heck, we still do it in modern time.
|
Join us.
|
|
Top Gun
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 04:42 |
but why stands it low in the list of priorities
and was it true that napoleon prevented the acts of crime I read it somewhere on his campaign on italy
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 11:26 |
Any number of reasons, if morale was low towards the end of a siege say with the leaders not wanting to act too soon, or perhaps the sheer impracticality of putting stop to largescale looting following the cunfusion that can follow a victory. Also renember that sometimes there might be mercenaries who have not been payed, i believe the sack of Antwerp during the 80 years war, and a few sackings of German cities during the 30 years war can be put down to unpaid mercenaries just helping themselves. Again in that instance, ho ever is leading might figure that it is better for said lotting elements to get to it, rather than risking a fight between loyal soldiers and mercanries (who may well be more experienced fighters).
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
Top Gun
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 11:34 |
yes but the french revolutionary army didn't existed anymore of mercenaries
and you sugest the most of looting came of mercenaries and at long going sieges and if there wasn't a siege and the soldiers could pass through it was there then looting
I have also seen at sharpe that wellingtons army looted cities of their spanish allies I see that as a realy bad ally but I must remember this is just a based film on a book what do you think Cywr
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 11:54 |
I suggest in certain instances it was down to mercanries, not always.
What do i think of Colonel Sharpe, they are works of fiction, but yes, Wellington had issies (back in India already) with soldiers looting (indeed, the word Loot is itself Indin in origin), and, though he disapproved of the practice and at times put a stop to it, i guess in other circumstances it wasn;t always practical to do so.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
Top Gun
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 13:28 |
was the worst looting the germans in the hunger winter or was it something else
but ive a soldier got a good treatment would it then loot
and where the romans looting or wasn't much to loot
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 14:47 |
Many times raping and slaughter after a siege was done to make a point. This was the case with William the Conqueror who when a certain city (the name of which I am remiss to say that I can not remember) taunted and rfeussed to surrender to his army allowed his army to slaughter all inside. This was done not only because of ill will but because he was trying to make the point "Don't taunt me and my army and when I say surrender you better surrender or this will happen."
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 16:37 |
Originally posted by Top Gun
but why stands it low in the list of priorities
and was it true that napoleon prevented the acts of crime I read it somewhere on his campaign on italy |
He may have tried, but he would have changed his mind anyway. In Napoleon's time, his grand army mostly got the payment from the pillages, and the invaders needed shelters and food to sustain themselves from overstretching the supply route. Maybe he wanted to spare such fate to Italy because it used to be his nation... but I don't know. Actions are louder than words.
|
Join us.
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 16:39 |
Originally posted by King John
Many times raping and slaughter after a siege was done to make a point. This was the case with William the Conqueror who when a certain city (the name of which I am remiss to say that I can not remember) taunted and rfeussed to surrender to his army allowed his army to slaughter all inside. This was done not only because of ill will but because he was trying to make the point "Don't taunt me and my army and when I say surrender you better surrender or this will happen." |
Yes, but it did not always work that way. Remember Hitler's Operation Barbarossa? If Germans came as liberators rather than conquers... perhaps even iron-willed Stalin may had to surrender. Remember, vast number of Russians surrendered to Germans, hoping that they would liberate them from Stalin's "Great Purge". When they realized that Hitler is no better than Stalin, they sided with Stalin. At least Stalin favored Russians... Hitler wanted another genocide against Slavik race... since the only thing Hitler hated more than Slavik people were Jews.
Edited by pekau - 28-Jan-2007 at 16:40
|
Join us.
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 18:02 |
My point was not that making a point was the only reason for raping and slaughter vast conquered populations but rather that it was one possibility. A possibility that is evident in William the Conqueror's campaign to reassert the power of the Duke of Normandy over the Duke's (William's) vassals.
|
|
Top Gun
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 09:04 |
you mean that it was all meant to spread fear
|
|