People have no manners these days.

[LawL LawL]

...

Your romantic view on war is extremely amusing. Do you know why the Geneva Convention was even invented?

Spoiler

"It all began in June 1859, when a merchant named Henry Dunant was traveling through the war-ravaged plain of Normandia, north of Italia, after the battle of Solferino. Seeing thousands of wounded soldiers left dying in the mercy of fate, he appealed to the local inhabitants to come and help, insisting that combatants from both sides should be taken care of. There and then it crossed the Dunant's mind an idea about the creation of the Red Cross;. so he decided to tell the world about experienced horrors of war and wrote a book "A memory of Solferino", let it be mentioned here that with this work he initiated the news reports' epoch. In his book, published in 1862, he made two solemn appeals; firstly, for relief societies to be formed in the peacetime with nurses who would be ready to care for the wounded in wartime. Secondly, for these volunteers, who would be called upon to assist the military medical services, to be recognized and protected through an international agreement. These ideas soon materialized in the creation of the "International Committee for Relief to the Wounded", which later became the International Committee of the Red Cross."

http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm

That's how people were treated. Left to die on the battlefield, friend and foe alike. I think this goes to prove the mentality of those conducting these wars. The value of their own men was worthless so imagine how they saw the enemy. 

Most armies at the time were made up of criminals... People with a lack of morals as it is. Throw them into a warzone after filling their uneducated, (only the rich could afford an education at the time,) heads with propaganda and you will see what happens. This has happened throughout the ages and continues to this day. You think they tell soldiers out in Afghanistan that if they get into a spot of bother then it's best to surrender? Or do you think they tell them that this is to be avoided at all costs because they will be tortured and then murdered. Point me to cases of where an army initiated in battle and then half of them surrendered mid-battle while the rest fought on.  I doubt there is any. They either all surrendered, (and most of the time this would happen without any battle taking place,) or they broke and fled.

As for my comments on the "silly locals" that one seemed to go totally over your head.

If you're capable of actually producing an intelligent reply, why bother with the "silly locals" remark in the first place.

Also, during the Napoleonic wars and times prior, there was a sense of "chivalry" or "honour", though this didn't apply to peasants/serfs/lower class, the aristocracy stuck to it, hence the lack of major pitched battles seeing knights and nobles charging eachother during the Middle Ages.

I used a romantic view of it to see how you would respond, as its very obvious very few battles saw much decency. However, people weren't always treated as such once wounded on the battle field. If you need examples, look at Roman, Macedonian, and other ancient empires, and the surgeons who served in their armies. Furthermore, you didn't really reply very decisively, as I had said "...that rules weren't needed because..." and you mentioning the Geneva Convention also states that it only started AFTER people saw the horrors of wars of that period, but wars prior to that had never seen such devastation, and armies were never as large prior to "levee en masse." Wars were always brutal affairs, thats what happens when you try to kill other people and both sides have armies, but the difference between pre-levee en masse and post-levee en masse was simply that armies became so large, and so zealous and fuelled by Nationalism, regard for human life hit an all time low, and hasn't really risen since then.

Also, you say there were never mid battle surrenders? No name comes to mind, but I vaguely recall French Knights/Nobles surrendering during the Hundred Years War, initally accepted by the English, they were massacred later due to the fear of being freed by other French troops in the area. But the latter part of that is besides the point, which is that surrendering soldiers, who had taken part in combat, were accepted as prisoners, while not far from them allies were still active combatants.

Mind you the Geneva Convention was established, but never fully upheld during any given armed conflict, as the obvious chaos in a war, or simply the will to win it, was enough for one, and often both sides to just toss the useless most influential treaty aside and fight it out.

Now, one thing to sweep everything away, this is a game, when people implement rules and they also happen to own the server you're playing on, its best you follow those rules

 

[ProjectAngel]

Spoiler

If you're capable of actually producing an intelligent reply, why bother with the "silly locals" remark in the first place.

Also, during the Napoleonic wars and times prior, there was a sense of "chivalry" or "honour", though this didn't apply to peasants/serfs/lower class, the aristocracy stuck to it, hence the lack of major pitched battles seeing knights and nobles charging eachother during the Middle Ages.

I used a romantic view of it to see how you would respond, as its very obvious very few battles saw much decency. However, people weren't always treated as such once wounded on the battle field. If you need examples, look at Roman, Macedonian, and other ancient empires, and the surgeons who served in their armies. Furthermore, you didn't really reply very decisively, as I had said "...that rules weren't needed because..." and you mentioning the Geneva Convention also states that it only started AFTER people saw the horrors of wars of that period, but wars prior to that had never seen such devastation, and armies were never as large prior to "levee en masse." Wars were always brutal affairs, thats what happens when you try to kill other people and both sides have armies, but the difference between pre-levee en masse and post-levee en masse was simply that armies became so large, and so zealous and fuelled by Nationalism, regard for human life hit an all time low, and hasn't really risen since then.

Also, you say there were never mid battle surrenders? No name comes to mind, but I vaguely recall French Knights/Nobles surrendering during the Hundred Years War, initally accepted by the English, they were massacred later due to the fear of being freed by other French troops in the area. But the latter part of that is besides the point, which is that surrendering soldiers, who had taken part in combat, were accepted as prisoners, while not far from them allies were still active combatants.

Mind you the Geneva Convention was established, but never fully upheld during any given armed conflict, as the obvious chaos in a war, or simply the will to win it, was enough for one, and often both sides to just toss the useless most influential treaty aside and fight it out.

Now, one thing to sweep everything away, this is a game, when people implement rules and they also happen to own the server you're playing on, its best you follow those rules

I did touch on the upper classes playing by different rules. I have no doubts that if a bunch of nobles surrendered then they would be kept alive. Reason being that you can ransom these sorts of people back to their country. Just out of curiosity, was it just the nobles who surrendered while the rest of their men fought on? (Because if not I don't see how it was relevant.) Your arguments about the Geneva convention and levée en masse, (I assume you are referring to French Revolutionary Wars,) also go to prove my point further and contradict the argument you are trying to put across. You state that the Geneva Convention was introduced after seeing the horrors of the wars of that era right? The Geneva Convention came into play in the mid 19th century, which is post levée en masse, (by some 66 years.) You also are stating that regard for human life hit an all time low during the period this game is set in.

We both have our own opinion on this and I doubt either of us will change our mind.

The one thing I do agree with you on is that this is just a game and rules decided upon by the server owner should be followed. However, this doesn't mean that I have to be happy about the rules or that I shouldn't be able to share my opinion on them. If i see someone surrender at the end of the round then I am happy to let people put them in front of a firing squad. I even took part it my first execution the other day, and while I found it a little meh my computer didn't implode so there's no reason for me to get upset. The extra 30 seconds it takes doesn't bother me. It's just the people that expect you to watch them for an entire round that get on my nerves. Then there's also the idiots who like to hide the entire round, effectively putting your team a man down, just so they can be alive at the end to be put to a firing squad.

 

[Shyoto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_ship
Alright, so the conditions weren't great, but at least 13,000 of Napoleon's frenchmen (non-officers) surrendered to the British, and were accepted.

Also, I agree with dragoon.

 

[ProjectAngel]

I just checked the link and it takes me to an article about prison ships. I skim read it and couldn't see any mention to a battle where some of a force surrendered while the rest fought on. Please read my full arguments before trying to reply to part of them. Anyway, is this a case of where only some of the force surrendered? (If not then it still does nothing to go against any of the comments I made.) Also why did they surrender? Was it to do with conditions? What a great propaganda tool it would be to have so many enemies surrendering to you because the conditions with their own people are so bad.

I'd place a health bet that most of these men surrendered before a battle took place, as a whole after a battle had finished, or had been picked up as deserters.

 

[Shyoto]

Err... actually, I don't recall mentioning that I was replying to you in any way, shape or form.
What I was trying to point out is that plenty of ordinary folk did surrender during this period, and they weren't shot dead on the spot.

And also that I agree with the sentiments expressed by dragoon47.

 

[Royal_Marine_Machine]

I just checked the link and it takes me to an article about prison ships. I skim read it and couldn't see any mention to a battle where some of a force surrendered while the rest fought on.

The reason it's not reported is because it's so common....

Think about this LOGICALLY ffs man:

You've marched up a hill. You're mates are being shot all around you. Some people are running away. Then the guys who have been shooting at you come charging down the hill. There's not many of you left, so, you have a choice, throw down your musket & stick your hands in the air, or fight on. If you surrender then most men would take you back to the top of the hill, after going through your pockets. So you surrender & are taken prisoner - the battle is not over though, yet you have surrendered while some people are still fighting & have been taken prisoner. These guys are HUMAN, not machines, they will surrender while others are fighting, give me 1 good reason why not.

The difference between that situation & in-game (except for the obvious stuff) is numbers - the troops there can afford to have seven or eight guys (Generally they got the walking wounded to guard prisoners) guarding the prisoners because there's 600 in each battalion. Here there's 6 in each battalion, & it's easier for the surrendered people to pick up weapons again as you cannot move weapons or block them without killing them.

Don't compare the Taliban to soldiers btw, as a soldier I find that offensive. The Taliban are terrorist scum, not soldiers.

 

[ProjectAngel]

Spoiler

Err... actually, I don't recall mentioning that I was replying to you in any way, shape or form.
What I was trying to point out is that plenty of ordinary folk did surrender during this period, and they weren't shot dead on the spot.

And also that I agree with the sentiments expressed by dragoon47.

In that case I apologise. However, my point is that these men either surrendered in unison, (and in most cases before a battle took place,) or they routed. There was none of this cavalry riding over to attack a position, being dehorsed and then being allowed to surrender while the rest of his army fought on, etc. I'm saying this horseman and others in similar positions would have been killed on the spot.

Spoiler

I just checked the link and it takes me to an article about prison ships. I skim read it and couldn't see any mention to a battle where some of a force surrendered while the rest fought on.

The reason it's not reported is because it's so common....

Think about this LOGICALLY ffs man:

You've marched up a hill. You're mates are being shot all around you. Some people are running away. Then the guys who have been shooting at you come charging down the hill. There's not many of you left, so, you have a choice, throw down your musket & stick your hands in the air, or fight on. If you surrender then most men would take you back to the top of the hill, after going through your pockets. So you surrender & are taken prisoner - the battle is not over though, yet you have surrendered while some people are still fighting & have been taken prisoner. These guys are HUMAN, not machines, they will surrender while others are fighting, give me 1 good reason why not.

The difference between that situation & in-game (except for the obvious stuff) is numbers - the troops there can afford to have seven or eight guys (Generally they got the walking wounded to guard prisoners) guarding the prisoners because there's 600 in each battalion. Here there's 6 in each battalion, & it's easier for the surrendered people to pick up weapons again as you cannot move weapons or block them without killing them.

Don't compare the Taliban to soldiers btw, as a soldier I find that offensive. The Taliban are terrorist scum, not soldiers.

I'm saying that the guys charging down the hill would just plow straight through you if you dropped your gun. Armies routed, they didn't surrender mid battle unless it was the ENTIRE force doing so. Find me something that proves what I believe to be wrong then I will reconsider changing my stance.

I'll finish by saying your an idiot. Respect your enemy, (you should because they are winning that war.) We called the IRA terrorists but the Irish would say differently, (one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.) It's exactly the same in the case of the Taliban. Oh, and the Taliban never left the country they fight in... Some terror threat were, (until we invaded and gave them a good reason to throw money at Al Qaeda.) I think you also go to prove my point about uneducated people having their heads filled with propaganda so thanks for that.

 

[dragoon47]

The boys from Maryland under Stirling,  Battle of Long Island, charged the British line and surrendered to the Hessians while the army was in a fighting retreat. The counterpoint to this is how the Hessians bayoneted surrendering American soldiers for the propaganda about mercenary troops but that is another matter.

Also, wounded soldiers were often taken prisoner upon the final stages of the battle, ~290 at Camden for example. Granted, these are statistics and examples from decades before but given the rules for civilized warfare were still around they would still abide by them, and this is important, soldiers-willing.

That basically leaves us with the same thing we started. Only troops under control can be restrained. This is why in public games it's more likely that surrendering troops will receive no quarter for there is no one a public gamer will respect enough to accept restraint, ergo, we are left with a realistic battle simulation with those who will take and those who will not take prisoners.

 

[rokema]

Nothing stops you guys from shooting your teammates when they surrender...
Treason is dealt with death.

 

[Disparate]

except the admin saying stop tking

 

[ProjectAngel]

@ dragoon47 - So from the two examples given one group of surrendering soldiers was slaughtered, (while the rest of the arming was retreating - and so not continuing the battle?) and the others surrendered through lack of limbs etc? Thanks for proving my points.

@ rokema - I might just have to start doing that lol. The other day one guy surrendered right in front of me, I came up from behind and took out a couple of the guys charging him. If the coward hadn't have thrown his rifles to the ground then theres a strong chance we could of come out on top and both still alive. :/ Instead I saved his arse and got killed in the process.

 

[dragoon47]

Yes but if you noticed I proved my point as well and then went on to explain the reality of the battlefield and how it pertains to public server games and how prisoners being taken was in situations in which an officer was present.

You're also forgetting that I'm playing the neutral card here, so naturally I'm going to prove more than one point for better or worse  .

 

[ProjectAngel]

Yeh sorry, I was put on the defensive from other posts in here so reacted accordingly. xD

I think there is one thing we all agree on though, it's a game and we play to have fun. If that means some people want to surrender then fine, (but those people shouldn't expect everyone else to follow suit and roleplay with them.) Of course if it's the end of the round then there is absolutely no harm in giving the remaining people an execution by firing squad if they decide to surrender, (plus it's a server rule so if you fail to play ball then you run the risk of being kicked or banned.)

 

[Shyoto]

I heartily agree with both the above posts!

 

[Colonel_Hogan]

Another thing thats annoying is when you surrender they put you to a FS etc etc etc...... Then when you respawn some idiot with half-a-brain kills you then says "We shoot deserters and surrenders thems the rules." Desertion is publishable with death not surrendering, the they say we should get rid of that rule yada yada yada. I agree with and follow the server rules even if I don't like them, you cant make some random post saying "we should get rid surrendering its gay", its like the US Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and nothing can say otherwise, you can amend it but not change it entirely. Thus you can petition intelligently with facts and evidence and it would probably be looked over by the powers that be, it may be turned down (and it probably would) but at least you would be taken seriously. 

 

[Zah]

I kill people who surrender when the battle is still going on in-game,

 

[Kator Viridian]

I kill people who surrender when the battle is still going on in-game,

Huzzah for Zah

Also I've failed to see any evidence proving that one man was sparred at the end of battle for a firing squad, let alone 1 man in the middle of battle ... so really its all fictional rp.

The only cases of surrender are ENTIRE divisions, so if the entire team decides to surrender then go ahead, but if not I'm bayonetting anyone who surrenders mid battle for "Realism"

 

[crazyboy11]

When I surrendered in a game where nothing is at stake and at the end of the day we can retire to the forums and discuss things like adults (in some cases) I was shot dead on sight, despite having no weapon and having my hands up in the air.

are you seriously telling me that in a real war, where soldiers have everything to lose and have to fight for every minute of life, that when you come across someone who has been TRYING TO KILL YOU. that you're not going to kill them?

A quote I think is very appropriate here:

War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left.