Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Pauly]

The other issue is the armor levels of their opponents.

By 79 AD Romans were facing more opponents with low levels of armor, such as the Germanic tribes, the Thracians and Britons. The need for armor piercing tips would be less than when they were fighting more heavily armored opponents such as the Carthaginians and Macedonians. This is more true in the North and West of the Empire than the East, as there were still more heavily armored opponents in the Eastern borders of the Empire.
Forging a long pointed sword tip is more time consuming and difficult than a shorter less acute tip. If there is much less need for it then I can see the economics moving sword production to the shorter less acute blade tip designs.

[Max_Killjoy]

From a practical standpoint, if a sword has a point it will eventually be used to thrust, and if a sword has edge(s) it will eventually be used to cut, chop, or slice. Combat doesn't honor nice clean intentions of weapon use.

[Grim Portent]

Does anyone know of any records of armies bringing livestock with them as a more mobile form of food?

I'm certain I read about some instances of it in the past, but I'm having a hard time finding anything, my attempts to look it up just bring up the usage of animals as beasts of burden for armies or for more direct military functions. In particular I think I read about Henry VIII having livestock in the baggage train of some of his military endeavours to provide fresh meat.

[fusilier]

Does anyone know of any records of armies bringing livestock with them as a more mobile form of food?

I'm certain I read about some instances of it in the past, but I'm having a hard time finding anything, my attempts to look it up just bring up the usage of animals as beasts of burden for armies or for more direct military functions. In particular I think I read about Henry VIII having livestock in the baggage train of some of his military endeavours to provide fresh meat.

My understanding is that it was pretty common. Union plans outside of Petersburg were disrupted by a Confederate raid that ran off with their cattle herd. If you can remember the campaign of Henry VIII, it might be easier to find a specific reference.

[Martin Greywolf]

I'm going to ask something that requires a degree of speculation, because I know that a lot of the information to factually answer the question doesn't exist.

I'd like to know how the Roman Legions around the year 79AD might have learned how to fight. In particular, how one might train with the Pompeii pattern sword, and how much training a legionary might receive before combat. I'm also interested in exactly how recruitment worked, and how much training revolved around the use of javelins or daggers as opposed to the sword.

I'm interested in this topic partially because I own a replica of a gladius excavated from Pompeii, and my untrained arm has some thoughts. Logically, I know that the legionaries generally used the thrust as opposed to the cut. However, the sword feels like it would be a pretty effective chopper, and the point, while certainly looking like an effective stabbing point, doesn't look quite so good for splitting mail as other gladius blades do. Like, this image illustrates that:



My sword has a longer tip than the picture shows, somewhere between the Pompeii and the Fulham, but it still has a stubbier point than any of the other shapes shown here. Which would seem to indicate a sword that's not quite as oriented towards thrusting as the other designs. Whereas when holding the sword, it feels like it would easily remove anything unarmored and exposed. Yea, I'd stab a barbarian with it, but I'm not really convinced that this is a sword meant predominantly for thrusting, especially with earlier gladius designs having points clearly better suited for that.

What say you guys?

Images illustrate nothing. Many a mistake has been made by looking at the side profile of a blade and making assumptions - the only way to be sure is to either have the original or a very, very accurate replica, and both of those are excessively hard to get. If you have a gladius, does the blade have the exact same dimensions as the original, with half a millimeter precision? If so, we are probably safe to make assumptions based off of it, if not, we can't. That Pompeii type can well be better for nible thrusts than any of the others by being nimbler or having better weight distribution.

As for cut versus thrust, if we assume trained soldier, only thing that matters is opportunity - do you have an opening you can safely strike with an attack? With longer swords, using it for parries is a thing (is parry with thrust in opposition better than a counter-cut?), but gladii clearly aren't meant to be defensive.

With that in mind, cardinal rule of sword and shield fighting, no matter what type, is to protect your hand with your shield, lest it be cut off. Look at Roman shields paired with that type of gladius, and look at what types of attacks you can make easily while the shield is protecting you nad your hand, and you'll get somewhere. Another thing to consider is that if your opponent is too close, you can't cut effectively and have to either use false edge cuts to back of the head/leg, or thrusts.

And finally, a good reason for a choppier sword in a shield wall may not be to hurt your opponent directly. There were several times where an ally of mine delivered a heavy enough blow on the shield of some hapless enemy to pull it aside momentarily, which I used to thrust a spear into a sensitive spot. I'd argue that first line of soldiers would be primarily be staying alive, and secondarily doing this, not necessarily attacking people, but take that with a grain of salt, as thrusts to the face are banned in events I frequent, on account of all of us wishing to stay alive.

[Grim Portent]

My understanding is that it was pretty common. Union plans outside of Petersburg were disrupted by a Confederate raid that ran off with their cattle herd. If you can remember the campaign of Henry VIII, it might be easier to find a specific reference.

I think it might have been during the Italian War, the English campaign in France specifically, but I'm not certain.

Regardless the Civil War raid you mention is sufficient for my purposes as I was able to track it down.

[Vinyadan]

In Machiavelli's Art of War there are some hints at ancient armies being accompanied by herds of livestock. He also refers to using them as a way to lure the enemy by appearing to have left provisions undefended.

[Pauly]

It’s documented inMoari warfare in NZ that they took slaves to carry supplies, and when the supplies ran out the slaves were next on the menu.

[Tobtor]

It’s documented inMoari warfare in NZ that they took slaves to carry supplies, and when the supplies ran out the slaves were next on the menu.

Really? The few things I have read on it didn't seem to suggest this. There are some controversy over the whole cannibalism thing in general. Most documented cases seem more cultural cannibalism rather that a way of living, and many are outright false accusations to make "heathens" acceptable targets. For instance when enslaving indigenous people in the Americas was outlawed, the Spanisg made an excepmtion for people who where "cannibals", thus the Spanish then used Cannibalism as an excuse.

While there might be cases of genuine cannibalism, we have very few sources so document the traditions behind it (and maybe discussing it in itself a to controversial topic for this forum?)

[Pauly]

Really? The few things I have read on it didn't seem to suggest this. There are some controversy over the whole cannibalism thing in general. Most documented cases seem more cultural cannibalism rather that a way of living, and many are outright false accusations to make "heathens" acceptable targets. For instance when enslaving indigenous people in the Americas was outlawed, the Spanisg made an excepmtion for people who where "cannibals", thus the Spanish then used Cannibalism as an excuse.

While there might be cases of genuine cannibalism, we have very few sources so document the traditions behind it (and maybe discussing it in itself a to controversial topic for this forum?)

Read this for one example

https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...hatham-islands

[AdAstra]

The concept of fair and humane treatment of prisoners is fairly recent, and to this day not really followed to the standards set out in law. Back before the colonial era, generally your best bet to even be taken prisoner in the first place was to be a noble important enough to ransom for a hefty price. Most of the time, at least in Europe, captured regular soldiers were just executed, since it was too much trouble to feed, house, transport, and guard them, especially for armies that typically moved frequently and relied on pillaging or demands to nearby settlements to gather supplies. There were other places where slavery was more common (Rome and many African states practiced this if I'm not mistaken), or in some cases, ritual sacrifice. The Mongols were known for using Chinese siege engineers to design and build weapons for them, but chances are those guys weren't captured on the field of battle. They were also known for using prisoners as the first wave of assaults, to soak up arrows and attention that would otherwise be used against the Mongols themselves.

[Vinyadan]

An interesting item recently unearthed in Pylos: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019...y=90&auto=webp

It's an agatha stone carved around 1450 BC. It's quite incredible because of the level of craftsmanship it required. You can take a good look at the fallen sword in particular, and the oversized shield. The scene is present in other items, and it's possible that it was based on a famous wall painting that is now lost to us.

The anatomy is really, really good. I actually would have thought that it was from the Classical era, if it wasn't for a clearly different feeling of movement and the oddly-shaped weapons. But I would never have imagined that it was that early.

It was first described here (I haven't read the article): https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972...6.4.0583?seq=1

The concept of fair and humane treatment of prisoners is fairly recent, and to this day not really followed to the standards set out in law. Back before the colonial era, generally your best bet to even be taken prisoner in the first place was to be a noble important enough to ransom for a hefty price. Most of the time, at least in Europe, captured regular soldiers were just executed, since it was too much trouble to feed, house, transport, and guard them, especially for armies that typically moved frequently and relied on pillaging or demands to nearby settlements to gather supplies. There were other places where slavery was more common (Rome and many African states practiced this if I'm not mistaken), or in some cases, ritual sacrifice. The Mongols were known for using Chinese siege engineers to design and build weapons for them, but chances are those guys weren't captured on the field of battle. They were also known for using prisoners as the first wave of assaults, to soak up arrows and attention that would otherwise be used against the Mongols themselves.

For what I remember, Classical Greece had a standard where you could kill the enemy soldiers immediately after the battle, but, once you made them prisoners, you were expected not to kill them.

E.g. Euripides, Heracleidae:

Alcmene
...For we should be killing you [960] several times over, since you caused us so many griefs.

Servant
It cannot be that you shall kill this man.

Alcmene
Is it for nothing that we have taken him prisoner?

<Servant>
<For nothing, if to kill him is your wish.>

Alcmene
But what law is it that prevents his being killed?

Servant
It is contrary to the will of those who rule this land.

Alcmene
[965] What is the meaning of this? Do men here not find it glorious to kill their enemies?

Servant
Not an enemy they have taken alive in battle.

Alcmene
And did Hyllus put up with this decision?

Servant
He ought, no doubt, to have disobeyed this land's orders.

Alcmene
Eurytheus ought not to be living, looking on the light of the sun.

<Servant>
<It would be an injustice to kill a man we spared.>

Alcmene
[970] The first injustice he suffered was not being killed then.

<Servant>
<What was done then cannot be undone.>

Alcmene
Is it not still a fine thing for him to pay the penalty?

Servant
There is no one who shall put him to death.

Alcmene
I shall. I claim to be someone.

Servant
You will be much dispraised if you do so.

This of course didn't necessarily mean that they would have a good time. There are two examples from the Peloponnesian War: the Athenians captured by Syracuse and turned into forced labour in terrible conditions in the Latomiae (subterranean mines), and the 292 Spartans captured at Sphacteria, who were humouristically described by contemporaries as the only Spartans interested into peace talks, and who were kept as leverage during the war.

[fusilier]

The concept of fair and humane treatment of prisoners is fairly recent, and to this day not really followed to the standards set out in law. Back before the colonial era, generally your best bet to even be taken prisoner in the first place was to be a noble important enough to ransom for a hefty price. Most of the time, at least in Europe, captured regular soldiers were just executed, since it was too much trouble to feed, house, transport, and guard them, especially for armies that typically moved frequently and relied on pillaging or demands to nearby settlements to gather supplies. There were other places where slavery was more common (Rome and many African states practiced this if I'm not mistaken), or in some cases, ritual sacrifice. The Mongols were known for using Chinese siege engineers to design and build weapons for them, but chances are those guys weren't captured on the field of battle. They were also known for using prisoners as the first wave of assaults, to soak up arrows and attention that would otherwise be used against the Mongols themselves.

With the rise of mercenary warfare in Italy during the late middle ages, it became commonplace to parole most soldiers taken prisoner after stripping them of their arms and horses. Nobles and officers were usually ransomed. This was basically a professional courtesy, which was not always extended, and invading foreign armies often received short-shrift.

[AdAstra]

With the rise of mercenary warfare in Italy during the late middle ages, it became commonplace to parole most soldiers taken prisoner after stripping them of their arms and horses. Nobles and officers were usually ransomed. This was basically a professional courtesy, which was not always extended, and invading foreign armies often received short-shrift.

That era of mercenary warfare was certainly unusual. There was simultaneously a certain chivalry to it in terms of how armies fought each other, and a certain lack of honor when it came to actually fighting for the nations that hired them.

[fusilier]

That era of mercenary warfare was certainly unusual. There was simultaneously a certain chivalry to it in terms of how armies fought each other, and a certain lack of honor when it came to actually fighting for the nations that hired them.

The condottieri commanders may have had a reluctance to risk their soldiers in battle, because they were paid by the head, and destroying an army, even in a successful battle, could ruin a career. This led often to complicated battle plans intended to entrap the enemy while reducing the risk to one's own soldiers. When successful it typically netted large groups of prisoners. The competing mercenary captains, often saw themselves as fellow professionals -- so the idea that prisoners were paroled made sense as good for the profession. It further encouraged a defeated army to surrender, rather than fight to the bitter end, as it saved soldiers on both sides.

However, this is kind of the ideal situation -- battles between mercenaries could also be very bloody, and the reluctance to fight has been exaggerated by writers like Machiavelli (it should be noted he was a Florentine, and Florence treated its mercenaries comparatively badly). Protecting an army from damage had to be balanced with failing to achieve the employer's goals -- an ineffectual commander could be replaced.

[Sapphire Guard]

Super open ended question that may not be answerable, but can anyone tell me what kind of costs are attached to running a low end attack helicopter?

Scenario:

Mercenary company is hunting someone with substantial price on their head, but not so substantial as to justify a helicopter attack. I need this conversation to happen.

Fugitive after surviving attack: Bounty on my head is X. Outfitting that helicopter costs nearly as much as X, therefore their motive for hunting me isn't money. (they have a fortified home, that wasn't prepared for air attack)

What kind of range does that bounty need to be for the conversation to make sense? Obviously the answer is 'it depends', but I'm looking for a ballpark figure that doesn't sound obviously wrong.

Said helicopter was found abandoned after a government fell, the mercenaries didn't need to buy it, just fuel and arm it. The model has to carry at least fifteen (crew and passengers) but be able to attack ground targets.

This may be impossible to answer given all the variables, but if anyone has any ideas I'd appreciate hearing them.

[AdAstra]

Super open ended question that may not be answerable, but can anyone tell me what kind of costs are attached to running a low end attack helicopter?

Scenario:

Mercenary company is hunting someone with substantial price on their head, but not so substantial as to justify a helicopter attack. I need this conversation to happen.

Fugitive after surviving attack: Bounty on my head is X. Outfitting that helicopter costs nearly as much as X, therefore their motive for hunting me isn't money.

What kind of range does that bounty need to be for the conversation to make sense? Obviously the answer is 'it depends', but I'm looking for a ballpark figure that doesn't sound obviously wrong.

Said helicopter was found abandoned after a government fell, the mercenaries didn't need to buy it, just fuel and arm it. The model has to carry at least fifteen (crew and passengers) but be able to attack ground targets.

This may be impossible to answer given all the variables, but if anyone has any ideas I'd appreciate hearing them.

Depends on what the attack helicopter is. An AH 64 Apache costs about 3850 USD per hour of flight, presumably not counting munitions. However, about 3400 of that is for repair and part replacement costs, only ~450 is for fuel. If spares are plentiful, you could conceivably discount much of the maintenance costs. However, an Apache can’t really carry troops. A Blackhawk will cost you (using 1996 figures, so definitely more nowadays) ~1600 USD, of which ~1250 is repairs. The weapons themselves will be an additional expense, however. A single hydra 70 rocket costs close to $3000, but again, cheap surplus changes things a lot. 7.62x51 mm ammo used in a minigun might cost 50-90 cents or so per round if you’re getting it reasonably cheap, so fired at 3000 rounds per minute you’re talking at least 25 dollars of ammunition per second of sustained fire.

Just as a note, 15 on one aircraft is a bit much for most helicopters that can typically be fitted for an attack role (as a reference, an Mi-24 Hind, one of the few purpose-built attack/transport helicopters, can carry eight soldiers. A UH-60 Blackhawk and UH-1Y Venom, transport helicopters that can be fitted with a decent amount of weaponry, can carry ten. Blackhawks fitted for a gunship role typically don’t carry passengers, instead putting extra fuel tanks in the space)

However, a cost I think you’re not taking into account is the mercenaries and the helo crew themselves, who probably don’t work for free, or at least want some meaningful cut. 15 guys, that bounty would probably have to be in the tens of thousands at minimum to be even slightly worth it.

$10,000 would definitely be too low to be pursued for profit by an outfit like that, for sure, unless they expected to catch him in like an hour.

[VoxRationis]

What do those figures look like for non-US (and preferably non-NATO) helicopters?

[AdAstra]

What do those figures look like for non-US (and preferably non-NATO) helicopters?

Unfortunately I have no idea where one would acquire that info, and any figures may be somewhat sketchy/variable due to, for example, discrepancies between export and domestic costs, and the variable cost of labor in different countries. A lot of arms manufacturers being wholly or partly state-owned might cut down the costs some as long as corruption's not too bad.

It doesn't help matters that the attack/transport helicopter could be anything from an MI-24, a purpose-built attack/transport, to a regular military or even civilian transport chopper outfitted with guns and maybe stub wings with ordnance attached. Such different aircraft are likely to have sufficiently different costs as to give a LOT of wiggle-room. I will say, cost per hour of flight is highly unlikely to be less than hundreds of dollars, even if you're getting spare parts and munitions for a pittance.

I should also point out that helicopters have pretty lackluster endurance. Only a few hours or so, which coupled with their fairly slow speed means you're talking about a combat radius of a few hundred miles. Just a note.

Luckily, as I stated earlier, the factor of mercenary pay could probably be enough to do the "scene" well enough. If it's 15 people, that means whatever left after operational costs is being split at least 15 ways (since those might not be the only members of the outfit).

[Brother Oni]

For what I remember, Classical Greece had a standard where you could kill the enemy soldiers immediately after the battle, but, once you made them prisoners, you were expected not to kill them.

Out of curiosity, did taking prisoners increase a warrior's kleos more than taking heads, or am I confusing the Greek eras again?

[Sapphire Guard]

Prices are always tricky because they vary so much, so thanks all. If I was to say $30,000, does that immediately strike anyone as weird?

[Vinyadan]

Out of curiosity, did taking prisoners increase a warrior's kleos more than taking heads, or am I confusing the Greek eras again?

Kleos from war is typically associated with the characters from Homeric poems, so it would be a time before Classical Greece (the Trojan war supposedly happened around 1200 BC, and Homer* probably lived around 750 BC). In the Iliad there are two examples I can make against sparing the enemies, however. One is that Achilles sacrifices a dozen Trojan prisoners on the pyre for Patroclus. The other one is in Book X, aka "Dolonia", after the character of Dolon, a Trojan who is found by Ulysses and Diomedes while they are out on a secret mission during the night. The whole book is very unusual for the Iliad (it just "feels" different), and it has been suggested that it's a piece from a different author that was inserted in the Iliad. It could be interesting for this thread because it describes in great detail pieces of armour that were chosen to be hard to see at night. Anyway, Dolon begs the two Greeks to spare him, and they don't:

And mighty Diomedes rushed upon him with his spear, and called: [370] “Stand, or I shall reach thee with the spear, and I deem thou shalt not long escape sheer destruction at my hand.” He spake, and hurled his spear, but of purpose he missed the man, and over his right shoulder passed the point of the polished spear, and fixed itself in the ground; and Dolon stood still, seized with terror, [375] stammering and pale with fear, and the teeth clattered in his mouth; and the twain panting for breath came upon him, and seized his hands; and he with a burst of tears spake to them, saying: “Take me alive, and I will ransom myself; for at home have I store of bronze and gold and iron, wrought with toil; [380] thereof would my father grant you ransom past counting, should he hear that I am alive at the ships of the Achaeans.” Then in answer to him spake Odysseus of many wiles: “Be of good cheer, and let not death be in thy thoughts. But come, tell me this, and declare it truly. [385] Whither dost thou fare thus alone to the ships from the host in the darkness of night, when other mortals are sleeping? Is it with intent to strip one or another of the corpses of the dead? Did Hector send thee forth to the hollow ships to spy out all, or did thine own heart bid thee?” [390] To him then Dolon made answer, and his limbs trembled beneath him: “With many infatuate hopes did Hector lead my wits astray, who pledged him to give me the single-hooved horses of the lordly son of Peleus, and his chariot richly dight with bronze;

Spoiler: not that relevant

Show

and he bade me go through the swift, black night close to the foemen, and spy out [395] whether the swift ships be guarded as of old, or whether by now our foes, subdued beneath our hands, are planning flight among themselves, and have no mind to watch the night through, being fordone with dread weariness.” [400] Then smiling upon him Odysseus of many wiles made answer: “Verily now on great rewards was thy heart set, even the horses of the wise-hearted son of Aeacus, but hard are they for mortal men to master or to drive, save only for Achilles whom an immortal mother bare. [405] But come tell me this, and declare it truly: where now, as thou camest hither, didst thou leave Hector, shepherd of the host? Where lies his battle-gear, and where his horses? And how are disposed the watches and the sleeping-places of the other Trojans? And what counsel devise they among themselves?—to abide [410] where they be by the ships afar, or to withdraw again to the city, seeing they have worsted the Achaeans?” Then made answer to him Dolon, son of Eumedes: “Verily now will I frankly tell thee all. Hector with all them that are counsellors [415] is holding council by the tomb of godlike Ilus, away from the turmoil; but as touching the guards whereof thou askest, O warrior, no special guard keepeth or watcheth the host. By all the watch-fires of the Trojans verily, they that needs must, lie awake and bid one another keep watch, [420] but the allies, summoned from many lands, are sleeping; for to the Trojans they leave it to keep watch, seeing their own children abide not nigh, neither their wives.” Then in answer to him spake Odysseus of many wiles: “How is it now, do they sleep mingled with the horse-taming Trojans, [425] or apart? tell me at large that I may know.” Then made answer to him Dolon, son of Eumedes: “Verily now this likewise will I frankly tell thee. Towards the sea lie the Carians and the Paeonians, with curved bows, and the Leleges and Caucones, and the goodly Pelasgi. [430] And towards Thymbre fell the lot of the Lycians and the lordly Mysians, and the Phrygians that fight from chariots and the Maeonians, lords of chariots. But why is it that ye question me closely regarding all these things? For if ye are fain to enter the throng of the Trojans, lo, here apart be the Thracians, new comers, the outermost of all, [435] and among them their king Rhesus, son of Eïoneus. His be verily the fairest horses that ever I saw, and the greatest, whiter than snow, and in speed like the winds. And his chariot is cunningly wrought with gold and silver, and armour of gold brought he with him, huge of size, a wonder to behold. [440] Such armour it beseemeth not that mortal men should wear, but immortal gods.

But bring ye me now to the swift-faring ships, or bind me with a cruel bond and leave me here, that ye may go and make trial of me, [445] whether or no I have spoken to you according to right.” Then with an angry glance from beneath his brows, spake to him mighty Diomedes: “Nay, I bid thee, Dolon, put no thought of escape in thy heart, even though thou hast brought good tidings, seeing thou hast come into our hands. For if so be we release thee now or let thee go, [450] yet even hereafter wilt thou come to the swift ships of the Achaeans, either to spy upon us, or to fight in open combat; but if, subdued beneath my hands, thou lose thy life, never again wilt thou prove a bane to the Argives.” He spake, and the other was at point to touch his chin with his stout hand [455] and make entreaty, but Diomedes sprang upon him with his sword and smote him full upon the neck, and shore off both the sinews, and even while he was yet speaking his head was mingled with the dust.

It's interesting that Dolon points out the uncountable ransom. Agamemnon is also offered an uncountable ransom (same words) at the beginning of the Iliad (Book 1) to release Chryseis, which he refuses. And in Book 6:

But Menelaus took Adrastus, good at the warcry, alive; for his two horses, coursing in terror over the plain, became entangled in a tamarisk bough, and breaking the curved car at the end of the pole, [40] themselves went on toward the city whither the rest were fleeing in rout; but their master rolled from out the car beside the wheel headlong in the dust upon his face. And to his side came Menelaus, son of Atreus, bearing his far-shadowing spear. [45] Then Adrastus clasped him by the knees and besought him: “Take me alive, thou son of Atreus, and accept a worthy ransom; treasures full many lie stored in the palace of my wealthy father, bronze and gold and iron wrought with toil; thereof would my father grant thee ransom past counting, [50] should he hear that I am alive at the ships of the Achaeans.” So spake he, and sought to persuade the other's heart in his breast, and lo, Menelaus was about to give him to his squire to lead to the swift ships of the Achaeans, but Agamemnon came running to meet him, and spake a word of reproof, saying: [55] “Soft-hearted Menelaus, why carest thou thus for the men? Hath then so great kindness been done thee in thy house by Trojans? Of them let not one escape sheer destruction and the might of our hands, nay, not the man-child whom his mother bears in her womb; let not even him escape, [60] but let all perish together out of Ilios, unmourned and unmarked.” So spake the warrior, and turned his brother's mind, for he counselled aright; so Menelaus with his hand thrust from him the warrior Adrastus, and lord Agamemnon smote him on the flank, and he fell backward; and the son of Atreus [65] planted his heel on his chest, and drew forth the ashen spear. Then Nestor shouted aloud, and called to the Argives: “My friends, Danaan warriors, squires of Ares, let no man now abide behind in eager desire for spoil, that he may come to the ships bearing the greatest store; [70] nay, let us slay the men; thereafter in peace shall ye strip the armour from the corpses that lie dead over the plain.” So saying he aroused the strength and spirit of every man.

So it looks like they were aware that taking prisoners meant stopping the common fight for private interest, which was looked negatively upon. It's very different when it's about non-combatants. Apollo punishes the Greeks with the plague for not having given Chryseis back to his priest Chryses for ransom. Zeus sends Achilles a messenger, telling him that he is angry, because he won't take the ransom and give back Hector's body.

So literally taking heads was out of the equation. You could strip the body, but that was it. Alexander the Great, who came from a family that represented itself in the Homeric mould, was sent by his father to give back the ashes of the Greek dead after he had defeated them. If you read the Antigone by Sophocles, it's all about proper burial (and human vs sacred law). There is one episode in which Tydeus (the father of Diomedes) actually was thrown the head of an enemy he had just killed, and started eating its brain. Tydeus at that point was mortally wounded, and Athena was about to save him, but she stopped when he saw that and left him to die. The exception is with outright monsters, like the Gorgon.

But killing seemed to be held in higher regard than ransoming during battle. However, I think it's important to consider that this was a massive, exasperatingly long war (in a smaller conflict that didn't involve a siege, taking prisoners could have been reasonable) and that both Agamemnon and Ulysses weren't considered good role models in general (I mean, there isn't much black and white in the Iliad).

There also was a strong no-no about killing supplicants, which, again, normally were civilians, not soldiers. Dolon was about to touch the chin of Diomedes to become his supplicant.

*Homer is an open question. Some say scholars he lived, some say he didn't, some simply don't discuss the matter because they are aware that it's a question with no answer. I personally think that there was one person who composed most of the Iliad, because the story is too complex and tight to have appeared randomly. This author however definitely didn't spring out of nowhere fully equipped, and would have been part of an ancient tradition of oral performers.

[HeadlessMermaid]

For what I remember, Classical Greece had a standard where you could kill the enemy soldiers immediately after the battle, but, once you made them prisoners, you were expected not to kill them.

I think you were expected to enslave them, and possibly ransom them if they were rich/important.

I'm reading a book about slavery in Byzantium right now, and it says that exchanging prisoners of war after a truce or peace treaty was "an [8th century] innovation in the Mediterranean world and developed especially during the Arab-Byzantine wars. Exchanges of prisoners, whether soldiers or civilians, played a key role at that time. Simultaneously, however, sources continued to cite cases of prisoners of war who were not held for exchange but were sold as slaves."

Roman law found it perfectly legit to enslave captives of war (soldiers and non-combatants), and even Roman captives who were enslaved and then escaped or otherwise got back in the Empire didn't technically have a freeman status, and their owners could claim them back. Rome basically expected to keep winning forever, so hey, vae victis. Plus, the Senate was always more interested in protecting property than protecting people. So for centuries, no state seems to particularly care about its own people getting captured, or tries to get them back. It's just considered a natural outcome of war. (Grain of salt for this one, because the sources revolve around Rome. Maybe only Rome doesn't care and the others can't do anything about it, or maybe we don't know what was happening in wars where Rome wasn't involved. I'm not sure.)

With the Arab-Byzantine wars things are different, first because we're long past the age where the Romans kept winning. Second because we have a constant back-and-forth of borders, where regions keep passing from Empire to Caliphate and then back again. And third because religion as an identity starts to become significant enough to challenge the notion that property should be protected above all else. Somewhat independently, Christians, Muslims, and Jews begin to care about their co-religionists getting enslaved by The Other Guys, and occasionally attempt to buy them back or liberate them via exchange of prisoners. Getting enslaved by Their Own Guys (in war, for debt, or from inheritance) doesn't seem to upset them, and no one appears to challenge the institution of slavery itself. Jews have a (not too rigidly followed) rule that they can only enslave other Jews, and must manumit them after seven years. The others sometimes manumit their slaves in their will, but it's not obligatory and it usually involves only house-slaves.

So in the 11th century everyone still considers it normal to enslave captives of war, and to keep them for labour or sell them for money, except that now it's also acceptable to exchange them, if the two sides come to an agreement. I'm not sure when this mentality ended, but I think it persisted for quite a while...

All of the above focus on the [Eastern] Mediterranean, and come from a single source: Youval Rotman, Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World (Harvard University Press, 2009). I've just started researching this, it's fascinating and frightfully complicated, book suggestions are welcome btw.

[Vinyadan]

Spoiler

Show

I think you were expected to enslave them, and possibly ransom them if they were rich/important.

I'm reading a book about slavery in Byzantium right now, and it says that exchanging prisoners of war after a truce or peace treaty was "an [8th century] innovation in the Mediterranean world and developed especially during the Arab-Byzantine wars. Exchanges of prisoners, whether soldiers or civilians, played a key role at that time. Simultaneously, however, sources continued to cite cases of prisoners of war who were not held for exchange but were sold as slaves."

Roman law found it perfectly legit to enslave captives of war (soldiers and non-combatants), and even Roman captives who were enslaved and then escaped or otherwise got back in the Empire didn't technically have a freeman status, and their owners could claim them back. Rome basically expected to keep winning forever, so hey, vae victis. Plus, the Senate was always more interested in protecting property than protecting people. So for centuries, no state seems to particularly care about its own people getting captured, or tries to get them back. It's just considered a natural outcome of war. (Grain of salt for this one, because the sources revolve around Rome. Maybe only Rome doesn't care and the others can't do anything about it, or maybe we don't know what was happening in wars where Rome wasn't involved. I'm not sure.)

With the Arab-Byzantine wars things are different, first because we're long past the age where the Romans kept winning. Second because we have a constant back-and-forth of borders, where regions keep passing from Empire to Caliphate and then back again. And third because religion as an identity starts to become significant enough to challenge the notion that property should be protected above all else. Somewhat independently, Christians, Muslims, and Jews begin to care about their co-religionists getting enslaved by The Other Guys, and occasionally attempt to buy them back or liberate them via exchange of prisoners. Getting enslaved by Their Own Guys (in war, for debt, or from inheritance) doesn't seem to upset them, and no one appears to challenge the institution of slavery itself. Jews have a (not too rigidly followed) rule that they can only enslave other Jews, and must manumit them after seven years. The others sometimes manumit their slaves in their will, but it's not obligatory and it usually involves only house-slaves.

So in the 11th century everyone still considers it normal to enslave captives of war, and to keep them for labour or sell them for money, except that now it's also acceptable to exchange them, if the two sides come to an agreement. I'm not sure when this mentality ended, but I think it persisted for quite a while...

All of the above focus on the [Eastern] Mediterranean, and come from a single source: Youval Rotman, Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World (Harvard University Press, 2009). I've just started researching this, it's fascinating and frightfully complicated, book suggestions are welcome btw.

A Roman citizen who was taken prisoner was indeed considered a slave by Rome. He lost all rights, from property to citizenship to patria potestas (capitis deminutio maxima), and his marriage was dissolved. However, Rome had a right called "postliminium", from "limina" (borders), which meant that the captured Roman soldier who got back inside the borders of Rome would gain back his rights as a free citizen (he still lost his possessions and marriage, however).
(Probably) Sulla later made a law that instituted what was called the "fictio legis Corneliae": once a Roman soldier was captured, his will and testament was read and applied as if he had died the day of his capture (earlier, even the testament of the captured soldier lost its validity). Other changes were present in Justinianean times; by then, the marriage wasn't considered annulled until five years had passed from the capture, and the captured didn't lose property, just his control over it.
A Roman taken by pirates instead wouldn't be considered a slave, and was in a much better legal situation. This famously happened to Caesar.

There were worries by Greek states. A polis would occasionally give citizenship to a foreigner who had paid the ransom of his enslaved/kidnapped citizens. Pirates in particular were a frequent menace, and they preferred to get the money for the ransom when possible. There also was a practice called syla (Attic syle, whose opposite is asyla), which meant that a private person (a foreigner) who considered himself damaged could or simply would kidnap and imprison the damager (or his goods, or commit piracy against his ship, especially among merchants) until he had been satisfied.

But these can be seen as private endeavours. Instead, there are a few treaties we know about.
One is by Herodotus:

Among the Peloponnesians there is a fixed ransom of two minae to be paid for every prisoner. (Hdt. 6.79.1)

We have a treaty between Miletus + Heraclea ad Latmum and Magnesia on the Meandros + Priene. Each of the sides were to look for prisoners from the other side who were now slaves in their territory, and ransom them. Flamininus ordered the Greek cities to ransom Roman prisoners sold in Greece by Hannibal.
We then have a written epigraph, the long Code of Gortyn. It said that those who had been ransomed would be indebted (subjected) to their ransomer until he had been given his money back. Athens had a similar law.

And we have another treaty between a variety of Greek cities.

About the idea of us vs them, there was something similar developing in Greece, although it obviously was very limited and I doubt it saw any application. But some philosophers did think that Greeks should fight and enslave Barbarians, rather than other Greeks. I haven't really gone and look at the sources, but I think it's in Plato.

About slavery between different peoples, you can find something a bit earlier than the rise of Islam, especially in the Second Synod of Mâcon (582), which forbade Jews from owning Christian slaves. Even earlier, C.Th.3.1.5 in 384 AD forbade Jews from buying Christian slaves, and an earlier law (C.Th.16.9.2 in 339 AD) forbade Jews from buying any slave. However, they could own Christian slaves, as long as they didn't circumcise them, in which case they would lose all of their slaves, which were to be redeemed by other Christians. These laws would be confirmed in the Visigothic Kingdom, which would later become very antisemitic.

[KineticDiplomat]

Let’s define “attack helicopter” here. If we’re talking the pinnacle of the type, the tank killers of modern armies, the price of even owning one can be prohibitive to a mercenary company. Even older hinds are 8 digit prices per unit, and prices only go up from there. On top of that unit price, even the venerable Hind-D comes with expectations that you have a reasonably diverse array of technical maintenance support. Avionics, missile techs, ammo handlers, mechanics and so forth - plus the parts for fixing them are rarely uncontrolled sales.

So unless you live in a world of big budget mercs with significantly degraded weapons control, a bounty hunt with these is...unlikely.

That said, at the other end of the spectrum you have things like the MD-500, which has a sticker price like that of a nice house in a good neighborhood and has lots of civilian part comparability and a reasonably standard avionics package. You might not be spewing a dozen laser guided anti tank missiles from 5 miles away, but if you just need something to hook some machine guns, AGLs, or even mini-guns or reduced rocket pods to...well, it’ll do that just fine. You just kind of aim by pointing. Something like that? Mercs might have it, and you can keep it running cheap enough that it has a successful civilian market as well.

[AdAstra]

Prices are always tricky because they vary so much, so thanks all. If I was to say $30,000, does that immediately strike anyone as weird?

I think that would probably be considered worthwhile to pursue, even for an outfit like that. Maintenance and fuel for the helicopter's probably not more than $9,000, maybe as much as $15,000 if they expend a couple rockets. That would leave $1000 for each participant (assuming they aren't part of some larger organization that distributes pay instead), which is a very solid payout considering the engagement's liable to last less than a day.


If you wanted that kind of bounty to make sense, you'd probably have to see the mercs empty a hydra pod (7 or 19 rockets) into the guy's house, or something along those lines. In addition to being excessive enough to likely spur some suspicions of malice (that along with sending 15 guys in a transport loaded for bear), chances are those are tens of thousands in munitions.

[jayem]

I think that would probably be considered worthwhile to pursue, even for an outfit like that. Maintenance and fuel for the helicopter's probably not more than $9,000, maybe as much as $15,000 if they expend a couple rockets. That would leave $1000 for each participant (assuming they aren't part of some larger organization that distributes pay instead), which is a very solid payout considering the engagement's liable to last less than a day.

It probably depends how they are set up, if it's just another day they can crank out (or they are desperate) then that sounds pretty good.
If they had to spend a week in preparation, and there's reasonable risk of retaliation (or police involvement) then I think it's sounding less attractive.

[Vinyadan]

There are/have been some mercenary companies with helicopters. The company previously known as Blackwater owns an aviation company called EP Aviation, which operates transport helicopters.

Executive Outcomes used some helicopters by Ibis Air, which operated, among other aircraft, the Mi-24 Hind. However, it's possible that they were relying heavily on state support for the upkeep.

[Brother Oni]

Kleos from war is typically associated with the characters from Homeric poems, so it would be a time before Classical Greece (the Trojan war supposedly happened around 1200 BC, and Homer* probably lived around 750 BC).

Thank you very much for both detailed posts. That's pretty much answered every question that I had (and has shown I really need to brush up on my Greek history!).

[AdAstra]

Let’s define “attack helicopter” here. If we’re talking the pinnacle of the type, the tank killers of modern armies, the price of even owning one can be prohibitive to a mercenary company. Even older hinds are 8 digit prices per unit, and prices only go up from there. On top of that unit price, even the venerable Hind-D comes with expectations that you have a reasonably diverse array of technical maintenance support. Avionics, missile techs, ammo handlers, mechanics and so forth - plus the parts for fixing them are rarely uncontrolled sales.

So unless you live in a world of big budget mercs with significantly degraded weapons control, a bounty hunt with these is...unlikely.

That said, at the other end of the spectrum you have things like the MD-500, which has a sticker price like that of a nice house in a good neighborhood and has lots of civilian part comparability and a reasonably standard avionics package. You might not be spewing a dozen laser guided anti tank missiles from 5 miles away, but if you just need something to hook some machine guns, AGLs, or even mini-guns or reduced rocket pods to...well, it’ll do that just fine. You just kind of aim by pointing. Something like that? Mercs might have it, and you can keep it running cheap enough that it has a successful civilian market as well.

It's been established that the mercs acquired the aircraft from a defunct government. With that we could also assume that spares are plentiful enough as well, and given that they're able to operate an attack helicopter at all, one can assume that whatever local government (if any exists), lacks the resources or willingness to stop them. If the story takes place in the country where the mercs acquired the helicopter, then chances are high they'll be able to get away with it, what with the fall of the government and all.