If raping and pillaging were policy instead of war-crimes

[edaw1982]

If the militaries brought back the policy of 'go to foreign land, and rape and loot' would there be more people likely to enlist because of the potential for pussy and profit?

[Thanas]

This is either a troll or the most stupid question possible.

[Broomstick]

Treating this as half-serious for 2 seconds - I would assume a very sharp drop in enlistment of women in such armed forces.

Treating it as it deserves: what the hell sick fantasy prompted that shit?

[Thanas]

It is fucking stupid because historically generals noticed that somehow discipline drops when troops get easy access to drink and women. Which somehow causes your forces to be less effective in battle. And it doesn't help when all kinds of people, including your own public, somehow starts to hate you.

It would even be more stupid in case of them having to operate heavy machinery.

[Ahriman238]

Look, edaw, for the majority of (European) history armies were sort of like roving natural disasters. They carved a swath of destruction through their own lands as much as the enemies'. They "foraged" for supplies rather than having advanced logistics, which mostly meant they seized whatever food or money they could on the basis that "we're armed and there's a lot of us" and yes, a certain amount of rapine went on there. All this is nothing compared to what would happen in a sack.

This largely went away with the rise of professional armies, composed of trained volunteers as opposed to peasant conscripts who tried to minimize the resentment caused by supplying their own food or paying back the owners of whatever they had to seize. Renouncing these policies now would essentially be giving up on the concept of professional disciplined armies, and whoever did that could expect to lose, badly, the first time he fought a war.

Plus, a majority of governments try to avoid going on foreign adventures to rape and loot, because wars are freaking expensive and, best case scenario, you "win" a land you've spent a considerable time and effort wrecking, full of people who resent you.

[Thanas]

Case in point, the people who were saying how Iraq would pay for itself due to all the oil that was expected to be looted and sold were wrong because war is just that expensive now.

Well, now imagine the Iraq war with everyone hating you (and not just a fraction of the populace) and the people at home not going all rahrahpatriotism but instead "oh, we lost a few of those murderous scumbags who trash the town everytime they are on liberty? Good riddance."

In fact, there is nothing like a good ole-fashioned occupation to quickly sour relations. Napoleon was very much admired by the Spanish and German elites and populaces. That sure changed quickly after his army marched through both territories a few times with the end result of there being massive popular uprisings and massive popular support for the war against him. In fact, the conduct of the french armies was a direct reason why Napoleon was not able to get any support after the invasion of Russia failed, everybody was thoroughly sick of him and his merry band of thugs.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As interesting aside Thanas, at what point did the "living off the land" and so on stop being universally accepted policy? Ahriman mentioned the emergence of professional, volunteer armies but did that stop the looting, raping etc. from occurring within that army?

[fgalkin]

As interesting aside Thanas, at what point did the "living off the land" and so on stop being universally accepted policy? Ahriman mentioned the emergence of professional, volunteer armies but did that stop the looting, raping etc. from occurring within that army?

Well, "raping and looting" was still alive and well as recently as WW2, so....

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Eternal_Freedom]

I meant in terms of official, "organised" (for want of a better term), sanctioned looting/pillaging/raping.

[fgalkin]

I meant in terms of official, "organised" (for want of a better term), sanctioned looting/pillaging/raping.

See above. Unless you claim that things like the Rape of Nanking were not officially sanctioned? Then we still have the organized looting of Germany by the Soviets, and the organized looting of everywhere else by Germany.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Eternal_Freedom]

Ok, I'll refine my question. At what point after the adoption of professional, volunteer armies did "living off the land" and it's associated problems stop being official policy?

[Broomstick]

It's still a fallback position. If supply lines are cut, or just stretch so thin that front line troops are not getting adequate food, they will start scavenging for dinner, at the very least.

The German looting of "everywhere else" during WWII was probably connected at least in part to the view that everyone else was a lesser species of human being. The Soviets raping as they over-ran German positions towards the end of the war definitely had an element of reprisal to it.

We aren't going to eliminate looting and raping by armies, all we can do is reduce it. After all, we haven't been able to stop theft and rape in peace time civilian populations, either.

[Irbis]

Well, "raping and looting" was still alive and well as recently as WW2, so...

WW2? Try Balkan Wars. Or about virtually every single war in SA, Asia, or Africa in last 30-40 years. Finding exceptions outside of wars fought by USA/Europe/India/China is hard.

I meant in terms of official, "organised" (for want of a better term), sanctioned looting/pillaging/raping.

Actually, quite a few wars (especially ethnic ones) in last 25 years had planned, organized rapes on everyone seen as enemy ethnicity. Looting was just a bonus for executing that policy.

Well, now imagine the Iraq war with everyone hating you (and not just a fraction of the populace) and the people at home not going all rahrahpatriotism but instead "oh, we lost a few of those murderous scumbags who trash the town everytime they are on liberty? Good riddance."

In fact, there is nothing like a good ole-fashioned occupation to quickly sour relations. Napoleon was very much admired by the Spanish and German elites and populaces. That sure changed quickly after his army marched through both territories a few times with the end result of there being massive popular uprisings and massive popular support for the war against him.

Unless you happen to be the Mongols. They can't hate you if they are already dead or too scared of making themselves next on the 'to be dead' list.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ok, I'll refine my question. At what point after the adoption of professional, volunteer armies did "living off the land" and it's associated problems stop being official policy?

I think "official policy" is important to have here.

The rape and loot thing still happens to this day, in every active military. It's illegal as hell to do either, even in a country you're currently invading, but that doesn't mean they're terribly good at enforcing it. I'm sure we can all think of news articles about one atrocity or another committed by soldiers. And odds are good you know someone who picked up a neat little trinket while they were in Iraq or Afghanistan. Prying a little thing off the wall and shoving it in your pocket isn't the sort of thing a CO is going to be especially concerned about when there's so much other shit going on.



As to the OP question: The people who went into the military would just end up being the worst of the worst, for the most part. And there's already plenty of shitheads who went into military service because they think it will be "exciting" and appease their appetite for carnage. Most of the people in the armed forces are good people, but we really don't need any more shitheads.

[Thanas]

Thing is, the raping and pillaging as official policy can only be found in the western world as aberrations in the 20th century. They are not the accepted way of waging war anymore. As to when that changed, the peace of westphalia would be a good starting point. After 1648 armies changed to smaller, more strictly policed armies and people made a conscious effort to limit the devestation of war. Napoleon is a huge aberration because his way of war dictated living off the land. This is why he was able to move that many men so quickly in the first place and why the allies - who did not have such a policy (and were also fighting on their own territory) lost so many battles to him - with no supply train he was able to amass large forces more quickly than they were.

The following wars by western powers did not use similar policies, most likely because it did not make much sense. The Crimean war did not feature it heavily because there was not a lot to get in the first place, the wars of 1862, 66 and 70/71 did not because one party was pretty much fighting on their own turf and the other partiy (Prussia) had a very sophisticated supply train which made victualing off the land pretty useless (also the rapid pace of advances did not allow much time for those activities). In fact, one of the very first things Prussia did after signing a ceasefire was transporting food to the population of Paris.

And ever since, raping and looting has not been an accepted way of warfare. Soldiers do it, but outside the Nazis (and maybe the soviets but that issue is cloudy to say the least) and the ethnic balkan warfare (which is another outlier) it is very hard to find raping and looting to be official policy. Are armies lax in enforcing the rules of war? Maybe, but that does not mean it is official policy.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Thank you Thanas, most interesting.

[edaw1982]

Much obliged for the replies. I didn't intend for the question to spike the intial outrage but it was intended as a serious query.

[madd0ct0r]

I think, as a straight response to your initial question, more shit heads would volunteer and less professionals would.
Since the current US army is much larger then the number of people in prison for raping and pillaging ( i think) it suggests you'd have a net loss. I'm ignoring the people who manage to live in society but would join up for the plunder. Can't think of a good way to estimate them.

( prison pop for violent crime, as opposed to weed, which would not an effective soldier make),

[Thanas]

You might get some more cheap cannon fodder (assuming those idiots would find the army a superior career alternative to the criminal world, which I find doubtful) but you would scare away the true volunteers. Cannon fodder also is useless in modern warfare.

So in short, you'd probably wreck your army. To paraphrase an English Admiral, building a unit takes a few years, but building a tradition takes centuries.