Si Deus Nobiscum: A Polish-Lithuanian Scion Quest

Voting is open
Reader mode
That was an incredibly bloody battle. I'm surprised it was 'only' 7000 men, as we were told that many were in the main host, not including the army waiting in the camp for an ambush.

From the description I thought the Poles had taken about 800-900 casualties, that they took 1,400, over a third of their cavalry force, is horrific, most armies break at 5-10%.

Overall however, I would urge people to refrain from killing all the hostages. Quite a few are 'nobles', and could fetch a good random, or otherwise sparing them could improve relations, while slaughtering them could attract reprisals, hostages would also mean their families would not be willing or would be less willing, to Mount raids, while corpses mean the opposite.

Finally, our poor lad is already having issues with the massacre of this battle, let's not potentially break him by straight up mass executing prisoners like at Agincourt. We've got the Prince, we've got a grand victory, we got the glory of being the spearhead twice, we don't have to get further renown on mass corpses, remember, we are playing a Humanist, even if we have a body count of over a dozen now.
 
Last edited:
McLuvin said:
Overall however, I would urge people to refrain from killing all the hostages. Quite a few are 'nobles', and could fetch a good random, or otherwise sparing them could improve relations, while slaughtering them could attract reprisals, hostages would also mean their families would not be willing or would be less willing, to Mount raids, while corpses mean the opposite.

Finally, our poor lad is already having issues with the massacre of this battle, let's not potentially break him by straight up mass executing prisoners like at Agincourt. We've got the Prince, we've got a grand victory, we got the glory of being the spearhead twice, we don't have to get further renown on mass corpses, remember, we are playing a Humanist, even if we have a body count of over a dozen now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am swayed by this. I had a sudden premonition that having a reputation of a peacemaker might be good for us in the long run.

We could really use the coin, too. The funerals of the notables alone will be very expensive.

[X] Spare them all: hold them for ransom and as hostages.
 
Come on lads. We should do what tradition says. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We want to be remembered as a manly man, not a merciful coward
 
Bangben said:
Come on lads. We should do what tradition says. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We want to be remembered as a manly man, not a merciful coward
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Henry V's actions at Agincourt, where he began executing the thousands of French prisoners he took (almost larger than the army he had left iirc) was purely pragmatic, as he believed the French would attack again the next day. Nonetheless, while understood, even at the time the act was seen as unnecessarily brutal.

Now we have more leeway due to it being Muslim Tartars we've captured who have been raping and slaving and burning Polish Crownlands, but nonetheless no one would condemn us or see us as weak for ransoming or keeping them hostage, that's what the a lot of commanders did. Exceptions were made for 'infidels' and 'heretics' of course, but still.
 
[X] Spare them all: hold them for ransom and as hostages.

They may not be Christian but neither were the brave Lipka upon whom the worst of the battle's burdens were laid- and hell that is what the perpetrators of the Huguenot massacres back in France all but proclaimed, that the heretics weren't Christian and weren't even human. Stanislaw now understands better the strange madness of battle, the energetic delirium that makes all notions casual and almost languid- and all the better to gird oneself against its evils and temptations.
 
Well, remember a couple of chapters ago after our raid on Muscovy and they counter-raid, and the decisive battle where we ransom their commander and the common soldiers were turn into serfs? The people immediately killed them all. I fear the same thing will happened here.
 
Bangben said:
Well, remember a couple of chapters ago after our raid on Muscovy and they counter-raid, and the decisive battle where we ransom their commander and the common soldiers were turn into serfs? The people immediately killed them all. I fear the same thing will happened here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
our prisoners here are almost all nobles and nobles' retainers under the Mirza, they're almost all ransomable
 
Bangben said:
Well, remember a couple of chapters ago after our raid on Muscovy and they counter-raid, and the decisive battle where we ransom their commander and the common soldiers were turn into serfs? The people immediately killed them all. I fear the same thing will happened here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's because people chose to have them settle right next to their victims, instead of taking them into the household or setting them free.

Presumably, we will not be doing that again when we ransom them or keep them hostage.
 
[X] Kill all of them except for their commander, Saadet. Hold him for ransom and as a hostage.

the middle ground, send a message but very random money to reward our troops
 
[X] Kill all of them except for their commander, Saadet. Hold him for ransom and as a hostage.

I don't think we're gonna get away with sparing all the nobs, practically or politically. The Khan seems to like Saadet, though.
 
Devildog said:
That was a very brutal battle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

McLuvin said:
From the description I thought the Poles had taken about 800-900 casualties, that they took 1,400, over a third of their cavalry force, is horrific, most armies break at 5-10%.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed indeed -- note that I was like "oh Zamoyski's people only lost one in ten" and implied that that's much more normal. Losses were disproportionately high among the 500 Lipkas and Konstanty's 500; both were absolutely savaged by what was meant to be the Tatars' flanking force. Meanwhile, the ambush within their camp and the ensuing close-quarters fighting (and attrition from constant arrow barrages) is what led to your flank losing up to a quarter, as men were quite literally ripped from their horses and thrown into the dirt in the chaos. Ah, the dangers of being an advance guard.
 
McLuvin said:
That was an incredibly bloody battle. I'm surprised it was 'only' 7000 men, as we were told that many were in the main host, not including the army waiting in the camp for an ambush.

From the description I thought the Poles had taken about 800-900 casualties, that they took 1,400, over a third of their cavalry force, is horrific, most armies break at 5-10%.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Rolman said:
Indeed indeed -- note that I was like "oh Zamoyski's people only lost one in ten" and implied that that's much more normal. Losses were disproportionately high among the 500 Lipkas and Konstanty's 500; both were absolutely savaged by what was meant to be the Tatars' flanking force. Meanwhile, the ambush within their camp and the ensuing close-quarters fighting (and attrition from constant arrow barrages) is what led to your flank losing up to a quarter, as men were quite literally ripped from their horses and thrown into the dirt in the chaos. Ah, the dangers of being an advance guard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aye, that was a brutal fight. However, we should remember that only the losses among our household hussars are a problem. The rest of our men are hired mercs and they are expected to take the brunt of the casualties. Of course we will placate them with money and a bonus perhaps from the ransoms, since they have earned it.

I'm not sure this is the end of the problem. There may be other war-camps and this is just the beginning. 10k Tatars are enough for a raid of a single bey or two, but not an apocalyptic attack we've been hearing about.

Our Prince after today can call himself a true warrior now. Not only did he lead from the front and took part in a serious battle, but also had two horses killed under him.
 
[X] Kill all of them except for their commander, Saadet. Hold him for ransom and as a hostage.

Seriously, given what they did to people, bloodletting has to happen.
 
Sertorius said:
Aye, that was a brutal fight. However, we should remember that only the losses among our household hussars are a problem. The rest of our men are hired mercs and they are expected to take the brunt of the casualties. Of course we will placate them with money and a bonus perhaps from the ransoms, since they have earned it.

I'm not sure this is the end of the problem. There may be other war-camps and this is just the beginning. 10k Tatars are enough for a raid of a single bey or two, but not an apocalyptic attack we've been hearing about.

Our Prince after today can call himself a true warrior now. Not only did he lead from the front and took part in a serious battle, but also had two horses killed under him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The raiding party we chose not to follow, which, iirc, numbered around 2000 was heading in the opposite direction, so there may be another camp further southwest at least.

However, you yourself noted that one of the key strategies used against Cossack and Tartar raids is to seize the camp and wait for raiding parties to return. We basically have to sit tight and destroy the returning parties piecemeal, unless there is a second camp. If I remember correctly, a majority of the strength of a raiding party like this would stay raiding while a minority defended camp.

We also just captured the heir of the heir of the Khanate. If we combine that with all the other nobles he seemed to have around him, that should be enough to force a considerable faction of the Crimeans to turn against continued war, either through diplomacy or threat of killing hostages.
 
McLuvin said:
However, you yourself noted that one of the key strategies used against Cossack and Tartar raids is to seize the camp and wait for raiding parties to return. We basically have to sit tight and destroy the returning parties piecemeal, unless there is a second camp. If I remember correctly, a majority of the strength of a raiding party like this would stay raiding while a minority defended camp.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is true, yet with the burning of said camp, which can be seen for miles all around, I'd be worried that some raiding parties might have second thoughts. Anyway, you are right. We will probably wait in an ambush somewhere.

McLuvin said:
We also just captured the heir of the heir of the Khanate. If we combine that with all the other nobles he seemed to have around him, that should be enough to force a considerable faction of the Crimeans to turn against continued war, either through diplomacy or threat of killing hostages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't be that optimistic, mind you. Sure, they will offer good money, but the loss of an heir is not that big of a deal, when he has probably 6 brothers and 12 nephews.
 
Last edited:
Sertorius said:
Aye, that was a brutal fight. However, we should remember that only the losses among our household hussars are a problem. The rest of our men are hired mercs and they are expected to take the brunt of the casualties. Of course we will placate them with money and a bonus perhaps from the ransoms, since they have earned it.

I'm not sure this is the end of the problem. There may be other war-camps and this is just the beginning. 10k Tatars are enough for a raid of a single bey or two, but not an apocalyptic attack we've been hearing about.

Our Prince after today can call himself a true warrior now. Not only did he lead from the front and took part in a serious battle, but also had two horses killed under him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm seeing a pattern where our daredevil maneuvers lead the forces under our command to take more casualties than usual. Was it the case in this period that a force, mercenary and otherwise, would refuse to accept a contract from a commander with a reputation for incurring more losses than usual?
 
[X] Kill all of them except for their commander, Saadet. Hold him for ransom and as a hostage
 
Baltika9 said:
I'm seeing a pattern where our daredevil maneuvers lead the forces under our command to take more casualties than usual. Was it the case in this period that a force, mercenary and otherwise, would refuse to accept a contract from a commander with a reputation for incurring more losses than usual?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course.

Soldiers of fortune would never willingly follow someone they knew would lead them to certain doom. What's the point of fighting for money if you can't live to spend it? However, word travels very slowly, especially abroad, therefore for this to be a problem for a rich guy, like a Radziwiłł, it would have to be a chain of pyrrhic victories or crushing defeats (with him clearly in command) for them to spit at his large vault full of gold. Naturally, exceptions do happen.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Back
Top