Printable View
setup: during the second punic war, scipio africanus major of rome, invaded africa and was opposed by a larger carthahagnian army. using envoys as spies during insincere truce talks, he gained knowledge of the organization of the enemy camps. he suddenly attacked them one night and burned their camps causing the destruction of his enemy.
under castra cornelia here.
http://www.fenrir.dk/history/index.p...4_-_201_BCE%29
A great, if very underhanded tactic (and I don't belive all is fair, even in war). Still can't deny that he show much skill in war.
The first rule in war:
Don't fight fair if you don't have to.
Scipio was a nifty tactician.
So then what happens in the future when all your envoys get killed as spies?
Romans don't care. ~:) Romans take that as the perfect excuse to go to war. "You killed our envoy, barbarian! You violated our diplomats under the flag of truce* and we will righteously avenge them! (just don't mention that we used them as spies before)"Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
:book:
*I know "diplomatic immunity" wasn't exactly a concept set in stone back in the day, but the whole idea of respecting the messenger had a long history I think.
I'm not sure it can be counted as an as ugly trick as it might seem. After all, the Carthies allowed the envoys to enter their camps while they could just as well have held the negotiations elsewhere. I'm not even sure that the action would violate modern rules of diplomacy - after all everyone these days (and in the Cold war era) had their diplomats carry out some limited spying activities (by reporting everything their hosts would allow them to see).
On the other hand, it may have been a worse offense in these days, when there wasn't anything close to an agreement on which rules would apply. Say, promising the opponent negotiations for a fair peace and forgiveness, to throw them off guard and accept a meeting in their camp, then exploit that they're off guard and feeling safe because they thought peace negotiations were in progress...
Never said anything about fighting fair, more about not everything is fair to use. I could give examples if wanted.Quote:
Don't fight fair if you don't have to.
Gas? Nuclear Bombs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurkhal
Using civilians as humans shields
Pretend to surrender and open fire thereafter
Use peace talks as a screen to preapere for military objectives
Shoot and/or torture of prisoners of war
Extermination of civilian populations
Rape/murder/plunder/torture of civlians
Now I am well aware that possibly people with real experience of war will tell me that none of the one's mentioned above are in truth considered to by wrong by anyone involved in a real war. And I am not doubting the effectiveness of any of the examples mentioned above, only that I can't consider it to be "fair", to do it in war.
And also, I am fully aware that if I would be thrown into a war, its very likly that I would engage in a least a couple of these things. But that would make me an amoral person rather than making it, "fair" to do.
Here's another non-battle victory, this time, won by the Carthaginians:
The Romans decided to take the offensive and clash with the Carthaginian army, I don't remember where though. They built a fort and prepared for the battle, however, Hannibal Barca wanted to avoid the upcoming battle, so he ordered his men to gather all the boars they could and tie them up. After the orders were carried out, Hannibal ordered that all the boars be burned and pointed towards the hills, where the Roman fortress was located. When the boars were spotted by the guards, they immediately alarmed the whole fort and claimed that it was demons that were attacking them. Thus, avoiding the battle.