OR (assuming he gave that order which makes no sense whatsoever. you say dead or alive, you don't say dead or dead slowly).CostinMoroianu said:
They chose torment. They are responsible for it.
They chose torment. They are responsible for it.
Ah, and you would then waste manpower on ensuring she would be surprised. I only see a waste of resources when the invasion is already straining them already. Not effective.
The middle ages did not have a good prison system, nor a good judicial system in general that was capable of handling such cases.
The middle ages did not have a good prison system, nor a good judicial system in general that was capable of handling such cases.
I'm confused, then. So if a woman is caught looting and preying on the weak it's fine to put her to death, but when the whole frigging Nilfgaardian army invades the North, bringing war and destruction and creates conditions that either force or encourage her to assume such behavior (note that I did not divulge on her motives), with the same logic they all also should be put to death (not only those three, but whole Nilfgaardian armies). So if the woman kills the helpless wounded Nilfgaardian soldier - that is precisely what Nilfgaard sows.vivaxardas said:
It's not a waste if she provides something useful. And it certainly is not wasteful if I want to cultivate the image of a benevolent conqueror, which would pay dividends in both the short term and the long term.CostinMoroianu said:
Humanity has always been half assed when considering the long term, only thinking as far as their noses. Very animal like in fact.
The point I was trying to make that they were not mortally wounded, and could recover. Killing them in such a case is a murder. Also every army has field hospitals, and soldiers find and bring their wounded mates to be healed. Army is an organized entity, not a wild horde of animals. There are always field hospitals in a war zone, and you do not need to go to LA, London, or Moscow in order to get medical help. And just because some, or may be a lot, of the wounded may die in hospital does not give anyone right to cut a throat of every wounded man he or she finds.Wichat said:
Let's say invasion is not justified. Yes, they should be stopped. But do not confuse two things - a responsibility for personal actions, and responsibility for starting a war. Those who are guilty for the invasion are Emhyr and his generals, not meager soldiers in his army. Killing them as a punishment for invasion? It is like killing citizens of some country for misdeeds of their government. Woman's actions of murder, looting and cannibalism were committed during war time and in war zone, but it does not absolve her in any way. Crimes committed by others do not absolve persons from their crimes.Wichat said:
Which they had the legal right to do. Not exactly efficient I'll grant you but the Nilfgaardians weren't committing some unspeakable atrocities by the standards of their era.Wichat said:
Would I argue that it would be more efficient to just hang her? Yes it would be, but I see no reason to intervene besides some narrow minded vision of justice.
It also sends a really bad message to the north that you will escape rightful execution for a heinous crime which deserves it. Whereas you see rising popularity I see unrest and lawlessness. The people who did actually go through the invasion and did not resort to such acts to survive would be especially angry.
The North will never consider Emhyr to be a benevolent conqueror so it's a wasted effort. Better to be feared then loved.
If my land is being invaded by them, my family murdered by them, and my fields ravaged because of them, you'll bet that as a civilian with no other recourse I'd seek to kill them when they are wounded. Are they supposed to wait for them to get better so they can go back killing and slaughtering?vivaxardas said:
Strange how one can justify mass atrocities on the basis of pragmatism, but stop being able to do so when it concerns them.
Working with no payment for a period of time is punishment enough.CostinMoroianu said:
Of course were I in this situation, I would have done my best to make sure people wouldn't need to resort to such things in the first place.
They never will if he doesn't try.
And this "better be feared than loved" is simplistic one-dimensional BS that has survived too long in political thinking.
Given the time period and the vastness of the land you would be hard pressed to. Besides there have always been looters, ALWAYS.
That strategy never works unless you manage to convince your enemy to surrender his cities to you peacefully without a fight. It was clear the North was not going to do that and instead resist as hard as they could. In that situation the benevolent conqueror strategy will not work given that people will despise you since you've killed their brothers, friends and siblings on the field of battle in army fights. It's only to be expected really.
in that situation the only recourse is to rely on "fear" or rather harsh order without lenient laws on those who resort to looting, murder and so on.
So no it's not one dimensional political bullshit.
Why? Because of what the Empire and Emhyr did to Cintra. The city surrendered and he still massacred it.CostinMoroianu said:
So Emhyr can be a man and claim responsibility for his failure, or he can go fuck himself.
Since we are talking about the hypothetical of what I would do, I would not have been an idiot in the first place.
Then he claims responsibility for putting idiots in charge. I have no respect for leaders who make excuses.CostinMoroianu said:
It then surrendered.CostinMoroianu said:
Resistance is inevitable, but when you drive them to their knees you help them get up. You don't just massacre them and then expect others to ever think you are benevolent.
Had the empire set a positive example in Cintra, and done a whole lot more to provide incentives and use the carrot, not just the stick, its conquest would have been easier to accomplish.
But like so many in their time and now, they think what the masses think and feel is irrelevant. It's nothing short of political idiocy.
It didn't surrender. They fought a battle for the valley. The entire Cintrian army against Nilfgaard then the remnants of the Cintrians sought to defend the city. They did resist as hard as they could.
In the case of Cintra they put up a fight for the city despite having no chance in hell. From the wiki
In the case of Cintra they put up a fight for the city despite having no chance in hell. From the wiki
Calanthe chose to commit suicide rather then surrender. I understand the value of helping an enemy who goes to his knees getting back up, but they did not go to their knees.
So you are claiming that just because they are enemy soldiers, they somehow gave up their humanity and human rights, and people can do whatever they want with them, including murder and cannibalism? Well, obviously it is not how I see things, and I doubt I will be able to convince you otherwise.KnightofPhoenix said:
And then they stopped and the Nilfgaardians massacred the city, systematically. From what I've read at least. It was not a merely a siege getting out of hand, but a calculated and systematic massacre.CostinMoroianu said:
When they are defending their lands and their lives, yes.vivaxardas said:
It's unpleasant, but the primary responsibility falls on the aggressor, especially if they did no effort to minimize the suffering of the conquered.