Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

franks

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 11:12

wich generals did then prevented these war crimes

Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!!"
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 19:07
Heck, we still do it in modern time.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!!"
Back to Top
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!!"
Back to Top
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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."
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 09:04

you mean that it was all meant to spread fear

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.