Captives

Ten years in the game and still so much unknown... (something of a plaudit for the game?) In fact I've never really fought a long-term war in all that time, and now have cause to wonder: in the aftermath of a battle there are of course casualties (losses) - but are there also (ever? often?) prisoners? Surrendered combatants held by the winning side?

Simple answer is, Yes

There can be captured units after an engagment, or seige. Some units may even see the writting on the wall & surrender without a fight, what you do with them is the 100 dollar question, will they transfer their loyalty to you? or do you use them as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the other side in the conflict.

The Revenant wrote:Ten years in the game and still so much unknown...  (something of a plaudit for the game?)  In fact I've never really fought a long-term war in all that time, and now have cause to wonder: in the aftermath of a battle there are of course casualties (losses) - but are there also (ever? often?) prisoners?  Surrendered combatants held by the winning side?

Reference the question of what to do with POWs possible options I have used (depending on position) include:

a) Slaughter the lot or a percentage..........only really acceptable in polite society if the captives as rebels, pirates or have broken earlier promises not to fight again.  Get this wrong and your honour score is going to drop badly and if you have this type of reputation foes are likely to fighter harder against you are not surrender fortresses on terms.  Also I can confirm that cutting off captives heads to fire into a besieged city "Turkish Terror Tactics" does not seem to undermine their morale and can give your own Army the "Plague".

b) Sale them into Slavery........leseer version of option above but you may make some cash. In some parts were military slavery is normal this is a occupational hazard.

c) Hold them captive in a goal........as hostages or with intention to free at a later date either in exchange for your men held by other side or as part of a peace treaty

For more polite and esp European Powers:

d) If you are really polite and your foe is honourable and trustworthy you set POWs free on their word of honour that they will not fight again unless properly exhanged for a captive of equal rank.  In last War between France and the Hapsburgs in G7 both sides kept embassies open and appointed commissionars for POWs to avoid any risk of someone fighting again before he had been marked off as exchanged.  The only problem was the French had about five general ranks held by named characters some of whom were only equal to a Spanish Colonel.

If you are really, really polite when you set captives free on their word of honour you also return officiers personal property and give POWs passage money to get home.  

The in game Advantage of being viewed as a honourable foe who does not mistreat POWs is that Fortresses and the like will often surrender fairly quickly.  

e) If you are polite but not that polite other option is you disband the captive unit either holding its captive officers home on porale or hold them in goal.  Then free the rank and file to make their own way home.

As these poor broke unemployed etc sailors/soldiers try and figure out how to get home they are then approached by a nice man who offers them a bonus and a new job.

If you read accounts of Soldiers of all levels in this period its remarkable how many swapped armies often more than one time.

F) Press gang the lot..........but pay bonus. This is rougher Naval version of e)

I'm just planning for invading troops lowliest to their commander, and this will be known to everyone soon, anyone who is captured will be permanently blinded by a headed iron rod and sent to their nations nearest colony that should eliminate any idea of invading Abyssinia. Abyssinia are not barbarians after all they can live a full life back with their people.

I was going to just slaughter the lot of them but well as a Christian nation some mercy can be shown.

But I might offer joining the Empire and agree to send for their families and provide benefits after all as a reserve force they could be of value, to some units, instead of blinding after say a few years indentured service (laws assuring their rights to basic care and no extending of contracts will be in place if they serve say two years its two years).

I will note as a neutral military peaceful power any invasion will likely be unprovoked and therefore the Emperor will be inclined to treat the survivors harshly but well is a practical man gaining skilled troops and hard working European women and their children can benefit the Empire, its better than the alternative.

The Leyerbey of Rumelia blinded a captured Moldavian Rebel Army in G2......and left every 100th man with one eye so he could guide the others back.

Oddly this decision did not seem to end the revolt or obtain a wide welcome. More like pouring oil on the fire!

I am generally of the opinion that sugar catches more flies than vinegar. My opinion only, but I do think Richard generally uses honour and other tools to ensure the game doesn't devolve into a nasty game of evil one-upsmanship.

I completely get the emotional satisfaction of dousing your enemy in oil and setting them alight though!

We are forgetting the English in G7 option, leave the rank and file alone but execute their leaders...less wasteful of recruits, doesn't need lots of eyes being removed, but does annoy other nations a bit...

You can try very clever ways to pour oil on your enemy and light it, but if you can bring yourself to do it, I do think that being generous and honourable to those that surrender encourages a lot more people to do so. Examples may need to be made, but if future opponents do not think they have a hope of mercy, they are not likely to comply....

I do agree, being generous to your defeated foes would seem the better option

Rebels are I think a different matter.
Example is the British handling of the Indian mutineers after the Indian Mutiny

They tied the captives to the muzzle of a loaded cannon & lit the fuse, crime & punishment meaning something in those days, also lowering chance of reoffending.

Mind you the Indian Mutiny was a conflict with what to day would be classed as war crimes commited by both sides.

J Flower wrote:Rebels are I think a different matter.
Example is the British handling of the Indian mutineers after the Indian Mutiny  

They tied the captives to the muzzle of a  loaded cannon & lit the fuse, crime & punishment meaning something in those days, also lowering  chance of reoffending.

Mind you the Indian Mutiny was a conflict with what to day would be classed as war crimes commited by both sides.

I suspect that as with many things in Glori it helps if you use the "Historic" punishments for your position and attempts to get creative or import fancy "foreign" punishments does your honour score no good at all.

If people show up with their kids to see a good old fashioned English hanging they expect some good last words and to go home knowing justice has been done and seen to be done.  The do not expect to have their second best coat covered in gore because some idiot Lord Justice has decided to import a Moghul Indian Punishment.

I have also found that what matters is not a reputation for mercy or brutality but being known as a man or your word. My Ottoman Layerbey of Rumelia had a moderately brutal reputation for a Ottoman but always followed a set pattern of a) Offering very good terms at the start of a siege b) Reasonable terms when a breach had been made but c) If he had to storm a city his troops were on a promise of a three day sack and defenders being cut down without option to surrender.

Other positions of mine have been played a lot nicer........esp those ultra nice and cuddly French Privateers in G10