occupy, sacking, killing.

[konny]

In this case you should have a massive moral minus for your army too for not letting them plunder the rich and hughe city (would vary from faction to faction).

[overweightninja]

Is this something that could be implemented with traits for the conquering general of a city? We already have enslaved own people and restless sleeper traits, I would be interested to know if this idea is possible
Nice ideas Craziii & Konny
Cheers

[konny]

Yes certainly you can give him a trait that has "-6 unrest" and "-6 troopmoral", for example. You would also need the respective antrait in case of him becoming a butcher later.

[General Appo]

Hmmm... a "Forbade Looting" and "Merciful Conqueror" could perhaps work, though with some careful tweaking.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

To some degree wouldn't it depend on the culture you were, and the one you spared. I mean some cultures were always trouble because of a high sense of independance, Iberia was always trouble. I get the idea being gentle wouldn't be repaid in kind. Certainly the Romans were brutal at times there, to pacify areas.

But if you were for example a Greek culture taking a Greek based culture, then perphaps being gentle could well pay off.

What I presume EB cannot do is transmit the effect of a massacre to cower an enemy, or to the world stage, ie Alexanders don't mess with me destruction of Thebes(or was it Corinth-sorry I can't remember)durring the Greeks rebellion, after the death of Phillip.

[Jaume]

Certainly, massacring and robbing were a very common activities when a city was conquered. Generals who don't allow that (like Scipio the African) had a reputation of strange man, I mean his soldiers were disconcerted.

Our history teacher told us that aplying modern ethic and moral to the ancient times is absolutely wrong, I mean in ancient times people ""believe"" (if it's possible to say so) that when you conquer a city, you have the right to pillage. Not robbing them would be considered more an stupid act than a benevolent act.

PD: Forgive my poor English speaking.

[craziii]

hmm, if what jaume stated is true, then my idea is kaput :(

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Certainly, massacring and robbing were a very common activities when a city was conquered. Generals who don't allow that (like Scipio the African) had a reputation of strange man, I mean his soldiers were disconcerted.

Our history teacher told us that aplying modern ethic and moral to the ancient times is absolutely wrong, I mean in ancient times people ""believe"" (if it's possible to say so) that when you conquer a city, you have the right to pillage. Not robbing them would be considered more an stupid act than a benevolent act.

PD: Forgive my poor English speaking.

Honourable conduct in ancient times (in the Greek world) was this:

A city could surrender and be treated decently provided it did so before the first siege weapon (ram or tower) reached the city wall. If it still resisted after that, then the city would be subject to a sack, massacre and enslavement.

[artaxerxes]

But if you were for example a Greek culture taking a Greek based culture, then perphaps being gentle could well pay off.

That would be REALLY historical - how the Diadochi (notably Antigonos I and Demetrius I) tried to become 'the defender of the greeks' - perhaps, in a far-off future when new total war games make it possible, you could, by sparing Greek cities, get a general order bonus in all Greek cities (incl. enemy), while massacring greek cities would do the opposite all over the place... Then you would also have to choose BETWEEN order bonus OR money, instead of either choosing order bonus + money OR nothing! ;)