What is the republic's policy towards Tories?

tourist wrote:

JimHacker wrote:As a side note, most Americans don't connect the Tories of the Revolution with the Conservative Party of today, possibly a deliberate move on the Conservatives' part.

Part of that may have to do with the convoluted political history of the United States. Since the term "Tory" had bad connotations dating to the Revolutionary war era, the various political parties that might be said to have represented a "conservative" view (although it might be more correctly called "Classical Liberal" after the founders of the Liberal philosophy like Edmond Burke, not to be confused with the Progressive philosophy which goes under the name "Liberal" today) used different terms. The present day Republican Party was born from the ashes of the Whig party, and there is probably reason to suspect that the current political parties in the United States today may morph into something new (or perhaps even collapse and be overtaken by new parties like the Democrat party emerged from the collapse of the Federalist party and the Republicans emerged from the collapse of the Whigs).

Certainly the economic, demographic and technological changes of the last 50 or so years have stressed the political apparatus and institutions that emerged from the Great Depression and the "Great Society" of the 1960's to the point where they simply no longer have effective answers to the issues of today.

Many political parties have collapsed and died or undergone radical changes in many Western nations, and history and political enthusiasts can and should study these events.

I have been unfortunately half hoping that the siddermarkain republican side will be rather harsh and violent, probably won't be official policy but I have found that the "good guy" side has been way too well behaved and far too easily convinced not to strike out at those who are advocating their torture and murder.

This is also I think connected with my confusion of the times the Empire's side has threatened the mass murder of prisoners without ever doing so and yet the threat still works, I can't see how you can play so much the good guys and have such threats taken seriously.

tourist wrote:

JimHacker wrote:While I guessed that might be why, 'tory' is a term with different connotations in not just the UK, but Canada, parts of Africa and I believe Australia as well. It can get confusing across international boundaries. Especially for those who don't know their ACW history.

Assuming that ACW stands for American Civil War, you are actually in the wrong era. Tories, or Loyalists are from the American Revolution, which admittedly was a civil war, but is known in the US at least as a revolution because the rebels won. Also, the connection to the political party is no coincidence, as the Tory euphemism was slapped on the Loyalist population to help associate them with the party in power in England, which had somehow fallen into disfavor with the American Patriot faction. A similar thing occurred during the American Civil War in the South, when suspected union sympathizers were labeled Black Republicans. There being a general lack of political parties on the Go4 side however, the "Tories" would likely just bear epithets like traitor, collaborator, or some version of inquisition suck up.

As a side note, most Americans don't connect the Tories of the Revolution with the Conservative Party of today, possibly a deliberate move on the Conservatives' part.

Doh! I knew that and used the wrong abreiviation!

gantrakk wrote:I have been unfortunately half hoping that the Siddarmarkian republican side will be rather harsh and violent, probably won't be official policy but I have found that the "good guy" side has been way too well behaved and far too easily convinced not to strike out at those who are advocating their torture and murder.

This is also I think connected with my confusion of the times the Empire's side has threatened the mass murder of prisoners without ever doing so and yet the threat still works, I can't see how you can play so much the good guys and have such threats taken seriously.

If you read the summation of the Sword of Schueler at the end of HFaF, you'll see it's pretty clear that neither side in the Siddarmarkian civil war was taking prisoners. The same is said early in MTaT. In fact, Hanth is the only commander specifically mentioned to have captured prisoners from the armies of the CoGA - the Siddarmarkians (both sides) simply kill any prisoners taken, and in the CoGA's case, that's if their commanders are being nice. If they actually follow orders, they're supposed to turn prisoners over to the Inquisition, where they will be tenderly administered the entire Punishment of Schueler. Green Valley is also taking prisoners, but we haven't seen specific textev where he does it yet.

As for situations where Charis "bluffs" about slaughtering men who have surrendered, two specific instances come to mind. The first is in OAR after Thirsk and the Dohlaran and Desnairan fleets are defeated at Crag Reach, and Cayleb gives Thirsk the option of putting his men ashore with one ship left to send for help, or resuming hostilities until this fleet is destroyed. Cayleb was not bluffing. Both of the kingdoms whose fleets he had just destroyed had signed on with the Go4 to destroy his kingdom, and he was in no mood to be generous. Thirsk capitulated, and 13,000 sailors spent a few months living on Opal Island while Thirsk sailed back to his bosses with the bad news.

The second instance of Charis "bluffing" is at Iythria, where Commander Yairley and Hektor met with the commander of what was left of the NoG after the ICN cleaned their clocks. There were still dozens of enemy ships who had surrendered, with some 30,000 sailors aboard. Yairley pointed out that during jihad certain rules of war were put aside by the Book of Schueler (gotta wonder what's in that book!) and by simple reciprocity Charis could follow the same rules. That meant they could legally set fire to all those ships with the sailors still aboard.

Fortunately the Desnairan commander caved (and emigrated to Charis) so the sailors were released without parole, since it was clear none would be honored, but in return the ICN was allowed to completely destroy every structure and business associated with shipbuilding, and it burned or took all the supplies. Archbishop Staynair's brother was the fleet commander, and he probably wouldn't have burned those sailors, but the Desnairans didn't know that. The ICN pretty much could have shelled and burned the entire waterfront, with the loss of much more of the city and the likely causing the deaths of hundreds or thousands of civilians. (Plus the Desnairans would have realized their cavalry was obsolete before LaMA, but it will be more fun when they abruptly learn that sad fact in a huge battle.)

Charis wasn't bluffing in either of these cases - Cayleb would have killed every enemy sailor to the last man if Thirsk hadn't surrendered every galley and ship, and Staynair would have burned much of Iythria to the ground if the Desnairans hadn't capitulated so that only military targets were destroyed. The ICN's only bluff was threatening to burn the captured warships with their 30,000 sailors still aboard.

Yes, the EoC tries to be the good guys, and their terms in victory are severe but fair. Thus far nobody has refused to surrender to them, because the EoC actually does take prisoners. In Siddarmark they're the only ones who do - and they can always threaten enemy commanders who are reluctant to surrender to the ICA that they'll be more than happy to turn them over to their Siddarmarkian allies, who most certainly are not in the mood to take prisoners. (No Siddarmarkians on either side have taken prisoners thus far.)

Either Silverlode or some island in Howell Bay is likely to get tens of thousands of prisoners dropped off to terraform and grow their own food, or to pitch in and work on whatever else Charis might want them to do on Silverlode.

As I was reading McGuiness's last post, it struck me. How are the EoC or anyone else going to be able to ship thousands of prisoners anywhere? What are they going to do? Chain them up like slaves and cram them into a hold? The death toll would be incredible. Transport them 25 to 50 at a time? How many hulls are available to do this? What about the wounded? How many medical personnel are going to be willing to assist with this? Until some thought is given to the logistics of moving that many hostile soldiers, I don't see it happening. Even if the voyage is only a couple of days, there are an incredible number of problems to overcome.

KNick wrote:As I was reading McGuiness's last post, it struck me. How are the EoC or anyone else going to be able to ship thousands of prisoners anywhere? What are they going to do? Chain them up like slaves and cram them into a hold? The death toll would be incredible. Transport them 25 to 50 at a time? How many hulls are available to do this? What about the wounded? How many medical personnel are going to be willing to assist with this? Until some thought is given to the logistics of moving that many hostile soldiers, I don't see it happening. Even if the voyage is only a couple of days, there are an incredible number of problems to overcome.

KNick, you have overlooked the fact that Australia's 162K non-voluntary settlers arrived after a completing an ~14,000 mile, ~6-8 month sail from England. You can cram an awful lot of people on board an 18th Century-design sailing ship (especially if you don't REALLY care if they actually arrive [sorry for any modern sensitivities - the true objective was to empty English prisons - the convicts actually arriving healthy enough to build a new colony was a secondary objective])

gantrakk wrote:I have been unfortunately half hoping that the siddermarkain republican side will be rather harsh and violent, probably won't be official policy but I have found that the "good guy" side has been way too well behaved and far too easily convinced not to strike out at those who are advocating their torture and murder.

This is also I think connected with my confusion of the times the Empire's side has threatened the mass murder of prisoners without ever doing so and yet the threat still works, I can't see how you can play so much the good guys and have such threats taken seriously.

SPOILER ALERT

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

S
p
o
I
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e


Okay. The following partial snippet, which has had four words edited to file off the serial numbers of exactly where it goes, may have a little something to say to the point of tender Siddarmarkian sensibilities:


**************************************

The signal rocket arced heavenward, riding a ribbon of smoke, and exploded almost directly above the enemy lines.

Byrk Raimahn watched it burst, and the flower of flame was greeted by a deep, hungry baying. It snarled up from deep in the men’s bellies, and then the ICA’s bugles gave it wings. They sounded clear and sharp, the signal to advance falling in the cascade of their notes, and the 1st Glacierheart Volunteers’ Charisian-trained buglers took up the call in turn.

There were no bugles from the 37th Infantry. The RSA used drum calls, and their deep-throated thunder was an earthquake rumble under the high, insistent chorus of the buglers. Yet even though Siddarmark used drum signals, each regiment had its pipers, as well, and they too could be used to pass orders upon occasion. Like this one, Raimahn thought, as the notes of ‘The Pikes of Kolstyr’ rose in the fierce, skirling voice of the 37th’s war pipes.

“The Pikes of Kolstyr” dated from the first war between Desnair and the Republic, which had begun so disastrously for Siddarmark that the Desnairians had been certain the ultimate victory would be theirs. To encourage the Republic to acknowledge the inevitable, a Desnairian commander had accepted the surrender of the thousand-man garrison of the Siddarmarkian town of Kolstyr, four hundred miles inside Shiloh Province, on honorable terms. And when the garrison had marched out and stacked its weapons, he’d chosen one man in ten . . . and not killed him. Then he’d burned the town and sent the hundred survivors of its garrison back to their fellows minus their right hands as a pointed warning of what would happen to the Republic as a whole unless it abandoned the struggle.

Unfortunately for the Desnairian Empire, the Republic had taken a rather different lesson from his message, and “The Pikes of Kolstyr” was the result. In peacetime, it was a somber reminder of the price of duty; in wartime, it was the march the war pipes played when the Republic of Siddarmark intended to take no prisoners. Siddarmark had never been especially atrocity prone, but neither had it been shy about reprisals in the face of someone else’s atrocities. The Desnairians had learned that lesson the hard way; the men of the 37th Infantry intended to teach it to its current foes, as well.

RFC you already posted this snippet months ago in response to something else, I remember reading about “The Pikes of Kolstyr” quite some time ago, maybe before you started with the more formal snippets.

Well just to let you know.

Charles83, be gentle with RFC. He's working on multiple series after all, little things like what snippets he's already posted are unimportant compared to finishing his next book in order to satisfy the ravenous hunger that most of have for his work.
Speaking of which, RFC, please tell us that your next set of manuscripts are progressing well. Please? Pretty please? With whipped cream and a cherry on top?

Hi Michael Everett,

You're quite right, but Charles83 is also correct, it was snippet #8 on April 4th, or 5.5 month's ago.

But I enjoyed both of them, and the new information indicates the reconstituted 37th regiment is fighting in the Glacierheart -Hildermoss province areas (more the latter I think) if not more specifically the Green Cove Trace, not in Shiloh province, as I had previously supposed.

The 37th is still has no special additional distinguishing title such as "Guard"; is it because "Republican Guard", in the opinion of the publisher, might possibly still be too much of anathema for many American readers?

Did the 37th travel entirely by canal barge?

Was it towed by steam tugs?

Or did it march west from the North Siddar River to the Gray Wall River etc, about 270 miles in 7-8 days to save ~1020 miles and ~26 days in the barges?

These and other points of interest await further light and knowledge from RFC.

L

Michael Everett wrote:Charles83, be gentle with RFC. He's working on multiple series after all, little things like what snippets he's already posted are unimportant compared to finishing his next book in order to satisfy the ravenous hunger that most of have for his work.
Speaking of which, RFC, please tell us that your next set of manuscripts are progressing well. Please? Pretty please? With whipped cream and a cherry on top?