ECW troops really bad people - rape and pillage?

[Destraex]

I notice that the villager farmer bands description states that their were bands of men dedicated to defending their homes from both sides!

I know that many a war is based on rape and pillage.... however a civil war in ones own country, and a suposedly religious one at that. I would expect less instances of plunder, rape and pillage.

Were Royalist troops worse than the Parliment troops? Was rape really widespread in this war? Did commanders really have so little contol over their men?

I certainly remember reading about how seriously this kind of thing was treated in the British Army of Napoleonic times.....

Obviously it will never be truly stamped out of war, but how bad was it really?

I guess their are three levels of badness to my mind:

1) pillage for food - armies even had special terms for doing this and I partially understand this. Some armies "lived off the land"
2) pillage for gold and valuables - a big no no
3) Rape\murder - yes i put em in the same category. The worst and hopefully the rarest occurance during this war.

[AlphaDelta]

The bands of clubmen formed to protect themselves, their families, their assets, their homes etc etc. They would not have needed to form if there was no threat from the Royalists or Parliamentarians.

There's quite a lot about how ill-disciplined soldiers were in this documentary about Cromwell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaNWRbQpslI

Cheers

[leonn]

indeed,it was a terrible war where bad things were done on both sides.parliament armys were given authority on paper to search for arms and no more.but it was used to plunder at will.

[Destraex]

I guess I am wondering whether the population suffered in a Russian Front kind of way.
As in the number of Rapes was on the ridiculous level.

[SAF_Biffa]

I'd actually totally disagree, one of the things I've always noticed historically is that atrocities in civil wars are usually far far worse. Concentration camps aside but that again is genocide and that is more common with people who don't want 'them' on their doorstep.

Take Yugoslavia and Rwanda even in the modern age, and anything religious/cultural is usually even worse. I've never really fully understood why but I think it is to do with the thought that a captured foreigner will go back to his own home in his own country whereas a fellow countryman may go back to living next door to you!

Apart from the usual Civil war victims (women and children) there was an especially harsh treatment for any captured 'Papist' Irish. Following this reasoning I'd say they were usually massacred because, they could live next door but they were foreigners 'over here' and ofcourse they were 'Papists', worst of all worlds in the mindsets of the times.

All my own opinion and possibly rubbish, but the only good exception to this rule I've found so far is the American Civil War.

[Destraex]

I actually thought the american civil war was pretty bad for that sort of thing?
I'm more interested in England than the irish for rape. Wanted to know whether it was common or whether discipline was strongly enforced

I still remember that Braveheart rubbish about the right to the first night with a scottish wife
that sorta stuff hardly matters these days offcourse, I don't think many wemon stay virgins till their married.. lol

[AWZC]

I actually thought the american civil war was pretty bad for that sort of thing?
I'm more interested in England than the irish for rape. Wanted to know whether it was common or whether discipline was strongly enforced

I still remember that Braveheart rubbish about the right to the first night with a scottish wife
that sorta stuff hardly matters these days offcourse, I don't think many wemon stay virgins till their married.. lol

Your in the wrong time peiod with Braveheart, the American civil war and (from your first post) the napoleonic era. Remember in different times come different attitudes and customs - for example just 60 years on, the German Army does not mass kill jews, yet that was the norm in WWII. And the difference intime from the ECW to the Napoleonic Wars for example is 3 times that. Just putting it in perspective

[Destraex]

Your in the wrong time peiod with Braveheart, the American civil war and (from your first post) the napoleonic era. Remember in different times come different attitudes and customs - for example just 60 years on, the German Army does not mass kill jews, yet that was the norm in WWII. And the difference intime from the ECW to the Napoleonic Wars for example is 3 times that. Just putting it in perspective

I realise that its the wrong period for Braveheart. Just an example of how hollywood movies dramatise things to the point of being plane wrong. An example of history twisted. They are all examples of other wars and attitudes.
What I want to know is the attitude in this time period..... whether it was worse or better than others with regard to rape.
In general I want to know whether soldiers had good morales for the most part in this period.

Forming bands to protect from common pillage is one thing, from common rape is another entirely. I would assume that rape was rare but something always in the minds of the common people.

[Odovacar]

Braveheart is fake anyway, jus primae noctis did not exist at all...

[Sol Invictus]

The American Civil War was relatively civilized compared to most wars. It only approached the bestial level in Kansas and Missouri between the guerrila bands. There were also some incidents of Black Union soldiers being killed after capture but they were isolated incidents. The main armies back East were quite well behaved for the most part, aside from the expected pillaging. Rape was extremely rare.

[Destraex]

The American Civil War was relatively civilized compared to most wars. It only approached the bestial level in Kansas and Missouri between the guerrila bands. There were also some incidents of Black Union soldiers being killed after capture but they were isolated incidents. The main armies back East were quite well behaved for the most part, aside from the expected pillaging. Rape was extremely rare.

Thanks for the info.... thats an example of my ignorance due to not knowing much more than what I have seen in the movies on the subject. I am remembering that nicole kidman film black mountain or something.

[AWZC]

The American Civil War was relatively civilized compared to most wars. It only approached the bestial level in Kansas and Missouri between the guerrila bands. There were also some incidents of Black Union soldiers being killed after capture but they were isolated incidents. The main armies back East were quite well behaved for the most part, aside from the expected pillaging. Rape was extremely rare.

Guys, this mods for the English civil war. A whole continent and 200 years apart I'm afraid.

To answer the question, rape and looting was rather popular in the ECW, as were massacres of towns (that often tied into the activities above). Of course, nowadays it is hard to tell what was propaganda and what was fact; this puritan pamphlet section(http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...ges/picw10.gif)
shows a drawing of royalists murdering children. Whether this was widespread or not is contentious, but the chances are it had some basis in fact. In the cases of soldiers being billeted in civlians houses, the men would often rape the daughters of the household - there was a petition to parliament to stop this.

So yes, by all means the ECW was bloody, brutal and violent. 1/10 British people died in it - many civilians, and the soldier were often to blame. Remember, unlike the napoleonic era, these men were (at first) no professional army, but conscripts, riff raff and militia. As such, discipline was often low, and offcers sometimes turned a blind eye to looting as to keep morale high; after all, this was a war where sometimes soldiers would change sides several times, so commanders had to give there troops an incentive for staying.

I hope this has been useful

[Destraex]

you make it sound like Rape was almost expected. I find this hard to believe.
I would expect that open rebellion would have been the result.
The organised bands in the game I guess result from this.

I now want to defect to the clubman faction.... the faction of revenge.
I have no respect for either side if both were religious and prayed before battle but then went and raped every second girl in England.... did none of these men have wives? Did none of them have morales?

From what you are saying this was the worst war for rape ever.

[aduellist]

Not wanting to stir up a hornets' nest here, but I fundamentally disagree with the propositions that "many a war is based on rape and pillage". Rapine and pillaging did (and do) occur, but they are/were not the basis for wars. They were side effects.

Civil wars, especially where irregulars are involved, tend to be far nastier than wars against a foreign enemy. Religious wars tend to be nastier still. Combine the two, throw in underpaid, underfed, undisciplined troops, and you've got a recipe for atrocities. That doesn't make the soldiers "bad people", just human beings operating in extreme circumstances.

[aduellist]

I think you're getting a bit carried away here. The ECW certainly had nothing on the scale of, say, the Eastern Front in WW2 or the Rape of Nanking. You also seem determined to view historical events through a modern lens.

This is a game. I don't recall a "rape the wimmenfolk" button in game. If it disturbs you that much, never do anything other than occupy conquered settlements. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to push the "sack" or "exterminate" buttons. Even better, never ever play a strategy game set in anything other than current times and never play any faction other than a Western democracy.

As a wise sergeant once said: "Remember, men, it's pillage, rape, then burn. It's awfully hard to rape a burning woman!"

[Destraex]

lol aduellist, I think your getting carried away.
I'm just trying to understand the period......

And yes, I don't like rape.... ummm sorry

[SAF_Biffa]

I think Aduellist and AWZC put it perfectly and give some great reasons why the troops behaved why they did, who are we to judge and why does that make them so bad.

More worrying is the fact that most of these guys were God fearing, imagine a scenario similiar today when most people wouldn't even have that to curb their actions?

[Destraex]

u think rape is not bad? I think no matter what period you live in it was considered "bad"
Usually if u do things that are considered bad then you are ummmm bad.

I can understand that it was a different period and a different mindset, that does not mean I have to like it. I still want to understand the extent of it though.

U guys can understand that?

[AlphaDelta]

Raping and looting have been the bounty of war for thousands of years. I dont understand why any student of history would be suprised to read that these actions happened during the English civil wars.

Cheers

[Destraex]

I'm not really surprised.
Just wanted to know how bad this war was. Some wars are worse than others.
I know that in some wars commanders were able to prevent it happening for the most part. Where an army was disciplined enough or where the local populace needed to be kept as allies.
As other people have mentioned, there was a certain amount of propaganda too. In an age of propaganda and the printing press u really would have thought restraint would have been a started to become a major part of "hearts and minds".

I don't like RAPE in general, if it happened it happened. I understand that.
I don't have to like it though.