Sacking Cities

[Yaropolk]

When you sack a city, does the money you receive come from the other player's treasury directly or from the buildings/people of the city. (In other words, are you damaging your enemy further by sacking the city vs occupying it)

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is only a guess, but I've noticed when I lose a city and it presumably gets sacked, I lose no money.

More compelling evidence is when you sack the city of a "bankrupt" nation and get tens of thousands of florins. That should tell you it's not coming from the opponent's treasury. Especially when they spawn new troops when they would have been thousands in debt.

[Kobal2fr]

I'd say it's spontaneously generated money. Case in point : when you buy out another faction's merchant, you get a ton of cash (I think it was something like 150 or 250 florins per point of Finance of the loser), but if your own merchants are sacked, you don't lose any money. Same should go for cities. Plus, theoretically, the "sacking" loot comes from the citizen's personnal possessions, not from a share of the sacked nation's treasury...

[Didz]

It never occurred to me that this money was coming from the enemies treasury. I just assumed that this was cash generated by the looting of the citizens of the city, probably mostly the jewish merchants and money lenders.

If anything the thing that puzzles me is how my faction leader manages to get his hands on it. Logic would suggest that most of it in reality would disappear into the pockets and backpacks of the soldiers who looted it, and the rest would probably be buried as soon as possible for later recovery.

[WhiskeyGhost]

Well, i always assumed that my boys go out on a fun little romp of pillage and destruction when i sack a city.....and that it hurt the income of the city temporarily but gives you a nice influx of cash, as apposed to occupy which leaves the economy intact, and exterminate which of course causes long-term economy damage (mostly due to less tax payers)

[Joshwa]

I don't get it when you get less money for exterminating than you do for sacking. Surely you get to swag ALL their stuff if they're dead!

[Gorm]

It never occurred to me that this money was coming from the enemies treasury. I just assumed that this was cash generated by the looting of the citizens of the city, probably mostly the jewish merchants and money lenders.

Are they always Jewish? And in Cairo?

[Didz]

Are they always Jewish? And in Cairo?

Based upon what little I know the Jewish merchants were the masters of the trade routes during the period depicted. They were also major financiers of the wars of this period including the Reconquista in Spain.

As I understand it part of the reason for this was that many Christian factions considered the lending of money (Usary), and in particular the charging of interest on the principal lent to be a sin.

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender" -- Proverbs 22:7

"For the love of money is the root of all evil" -- II Timothy 6:10

This in effect meant that any non-Christians in the community had a potential monopoly upon the business of lending money, and provided this service to everyone from the King to the lowliest peasant.

This was compounded further in some countries by other laws which prevented Jews from owning property. Thus, a Jew could not own a shop, house, cart, ship, or even a horse and so could only survive by the lending of money for profit. The classic depiction of this is the story of 'The Merchant of Venice.'

Indeed, the very growth of Venice as a major trading nation can be partly attributed to re-settlement of Jews from Spain following their expulsion after the Reconquista, as indeed can the rise of Amsterdam as major trading port. The explusion of the Jews from Spain also signalled a major decline in Spains role as a trading conduit for Europe.

It therefore, follows logically that if a bunch of soldiers are looking for large quantities of gold coinage then their best bet is probably to head for the Jewish quarter of the city they are sacking. The added advantage being that they are probably not going to meet much opposition, in so far as most of the people of the city who owed the Jews money were only too willing to have their debts written-off by the death or explusion of their creditor.

[diotavelli]

Are they always Jewish? And in Cairo?

Didz is of course correct that the Jewish diaspora community acted as one of the most important finance networks of the medieval period. And that the Christian communities they lived near often interacted them in a hugely hypocritical fashion.

As for Jews in Cairo: AFAIK, for the majority of the past two thousand years there have typically been more Jews in Egypt than anywhere else. The Jewish community there during the Roman period was enormous and no real effort was ever made to dislodge them until after the foundation of the modern state of Israel.

Added to which, Muslims have historically been far more tolerant of Jewish minorities in their midst - not exclusively but certainly for the most part. So, yes, expect that the largest (and probably richest) minority in Cairo during the M2TW period would have been Jewish.

All of which makes the current situation in that part of the world all the more depressing......

[Shahed]

When you sack a city, does the money you receive come from the other player's treasury directly or from the buildings/people of the city. (In other words, are you damaging your enemy further by sacking the city vs occupying it)

In all probability it comes directly from the buildings/people of the city.

[khaos83_2000]

I read it some where regarding it and it seems correct from my gameplay.

There's 3 option when u occupy a city.

1) occupy
2) sack
3) exterminate


1) Occupy
Do nothing to the city and get little $$$

2) Sack
Kill a few civilians and get a some $$$. Buildings get minor damage in the process

3) Exterminate
Kills a large percentage of the civilians in the city and get loads of $$$. Buildings get major damage and may even downgrade.


I do not know where did the TS get the idea of the $$$ coming from the enemy treasury. but it certainly doesnt come from them.

Since we r in this topic. Why cant take over a enemy faction's teasury when we were took over it's LAST city. The $$$ just disappear! Talking about hidden treasures...

[Kobal2fr]

Something just struck me : perhaps the increased "value" of sacking as opposed to extermination is related to something that was and important mechanism in RTW but has disappeared in M2 : slavery.

Since population doesn't work the same way, and medieval slavery was much less... I don't know, pervasive ? institutionalized ? than in Ancient Rome, it would make sense to remove the option to enslave cities... but still, maybe the pop that "dies" when you sack the town is not killed but sold to slave merchants. And it's hard to sell a corpse (except if you live near a medical school that is ).

BTW khaos, you've got it backwards : sacking nets you a lot more instant cash than extermination (which is what puzzles the OP)

[Didz]

BTW khaos, you've got it backwards : sacking nets you a lot more instant cash than extermination (which is what puzzles the OP)

My take on this is that it depicts the difference in motivation behind the action.

EXTERMINATION: As a the label justs is little more than the wanton slaughter of anyone and everyone you come across. Sort of 'kill first ask questions later.' Consequently, as dead men tell no tales the haul of gold is going to be limited to that which can be found in a mans house and on his person.

SACKING: I assume is a bit more of an targetted affair. Here your troops are deliberately looking for gold and so having smashed their way into a victims home their first order of business is not to kill him and his family but to persuade him to reveal where he has hidden his money. It was common practice at this period (and for sometime afterwards) for people under threat to bury their riches, and so persuading the victim to show you where he has strashed his loot requires alternative tactic's. Killing his wife, or son might be a better approach than killing him and so the death toll is somewhat lower, but the results are more financially rewarding.

Incidently, my late father, a native of Bermondsey (London) taught me a similar strategy to protect my money from muggers. He always insisted that I emptied my wallet when we travelled to London, and leaving only a token note or two in it distribute the rest about my person in various pockets with at least one note large enough to pay for my ticket home hidden in my shoe. That way the theory was that a mugger might snatch my wallet and get a small haul but short of indulging in a major body search was unlikely to clean me out and leave me stranded. I'm sure similar strategies would have been common place in Medieval times and I suspect that multiple stashes would be an almost standard trick. If nothing else it would mean that if after paying off one bunch of looters, another came calling you still had money left to bargain with.

[Kobal2fr]

Incidently, my late father, a native of Bermondsey (London) taught me a similar strategy to protect my money from muggers. He always insisted that I emptied my wallet when we travelled to London, and leaving only a token note or two in it distribute the rest about my person in various pockets with at least one note large enough to pay for my ticket home hidden in my shoe.

Hehe, I wonder where that shoe business comes from. I know it's the *first* place Paris cops look for marijuana, because most kids tuck their stash in their socks since "they'll never find it there !". And I should know. French cops have the right to bodily search you in the street out of the blue, and I used to have long hair. You do the math :). Old habits die hard...

My auvergnat grandfather (if you don't know, Auvergne is France's Scotland in terms of miserly old men) always instructed me to keep money inside my underwear, because "even if they do find it in there, half the time they'll be too grossed out to take it"

My take on this is that it depicts the difference in motivation behind the action.

Precisely. And I suppose (never checked, come to think of it) extermination comes with a few turns worth of heavy bonus to public order, which certainly helped in RTW with the culture penalty (is it still in there BTW, or has it been totally replace with religious unrest ? I used to systematically replace/destroy every infrastructure in captured cities back in Rome, but with militias and dread/chivalry I never had to in M2)