Greetings!

I'm always reminded of lessons from ancient history whenever people glom on about how "great and powerful guerilla campaigns are", and how "untrained, ill-equipped, common people figting valiantly for their freedom!" can easily defeat an invading enemy.

Well, in thinking about developing guerilla movements in your campaigns for the PC's to get involved with, or whatever, it is interesting to note that guerilla campaigns and irregular warfare, asymetrical warfare--that stuff only works in the long run if the invading army insists on playing nice. Ancient History shows us, however, that the invading power does not have to "play nice." In being absolutely ruthless such rebellions have been utterly defeated, and victory achieved in forging a lasting peace.

--Ancient Spain: Spanish tribes resisted Rome for say, 40-100 years. In the end, they were crushed. The Romans hunted them down, wiping out entire villages, condemning whole communities to the lash of slavery. Where to their advantage, they recruited Spanish chieftains and made them into immensely powerful nobles, embraced within the Roman system. Eventually, Spanish resistance was nothing more than a faded memory, as Hispania became one of the strongest and wealthiest provinces in the Roman Empire.

--The Celtic Gauls: The Gauls fought open battles, as well as extensive guerilla campaigns agaainst Julius Ceasar. After some 10 years, Gaul submitted. Ceasar crushed any open military force; he sent flying columns of Roman and Germanic cavalry to sweep into Gaulic villages suspected of resisting Rome, and slaughtered them all. Ceasar himself records that he slaughtered at least 1,000,000 Gauls, and sent many more in chains to Rome as slaves. Within 100 years of Ceasar's wars against Gaul, Gaul was a prosperous, wealthy province of the Roman Empire.

--Queen Boudicca and the Britons: After a fierce rebellion, led by the valiant Queen Boudicca, Boudicca and her large barbarian army were literally annihilated by the Romans. The Romans lost maybe 1,000 legionnaires, and slaughtered 100,000 Britons. Not only was the rebellion crushed, but the Romans sailed over to the Isle of Man, and hunted down all of the Celtic Druids, and wiped them out as well. The Druidic Religion was outlawed as an unlawful and dangerous faith to the Empire. The Roman Governor of Britain then proceeded to slaughter, rape, and burn his way through all of Britain with such a ferocious frenzy for over a whole year, just going crazy on the Britons, that the Roman Emperor had to recall him to Rome, and transfer the Governor to a different province. Britain had been made a flaming, sobbing wasteland.

--The Jews: The Jews rebelled against the might of Rome, and after some years of prosecuting a successful guerilla war--Jerusalem was laid siege to, and stormed by the Roman legions. When the Romans were done, 1.5 million Jews had been slaughtered; Jerusalem was annihilated; the Temple was burned so hot the flagstones were melted, so the Romans could get to the gold that had melted between the stones. Everything was burned and sacked; it was a savage disaster of epic proportions. The Jews "wandering years" as a people without a home--began here, after 66 AD. Rome banned the rebuilding of the temple; and even Jews were banned from living in Jerusalem or the province of Judea.

--The Bactreans: Before the rise of the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great and his Greek and Macedonian armies encountered the Bactreans, and related mountain tribes. The Bactreans were a fierce, independent Horse-people that lived throughout northern Afghanistan, and beyond. They sought to resist Alexander the Great, and the Greek armies, fresh from overthrowing the ancient world's greatest superpower--the Persian Empire. For some three years, their fierce guerilla war, hit and run tactics, using mountain troops, and bands of horsemen sweeping in with clouds of arrows before retreating--these tactics and ferocity gave Alexander and the Greeks hell for three years. Alexander eventually broke up his strict armies of large formations, and started a counter-guerilla war, using flying columns of swift cavalry, supported by elite units of infantry and specially recruited and trained mountain troops. One by one, Alexander hunted each Bactrean village and town down, and had all their men and children slaughtered, and their women taken as slaves. The slaughter was savage and unrelenting, as Alexander pursued this campaign in the day or night, in the summer as well as in the winter. Finally, the proud mountain and steppe tribes got on their knees and submitted to Alexander the Great. Alexander also, like Ceasar later, mixed in spies, bribery, always corrupting a chieftain here, a band of warriors there, to keep the pressure on against the resisting enemies. Eventually, they surrendered, and there was peace as they acknowledged their Greek masters. (Greek colonists and culture in the region, as well as at the city of Samarkand, flourished for a long time afterwards, and a interesting, hybrid culture developed which embraced both Greek and Central Asian customs and traditions)

So, that is just a few examples from the ancient world where guerilla campaigns were not successful. The invading power embraced all means necessary to crush the rebellion, and overall, these operations were immensely successful.

In a game campaign, the terrain, geography, resources, climate, all of these things are important considerations. However, given enough determination, even super-fanatical guerilla movements and rebellions can be defeated. There is many possibilities for drama and roleplaying with pc's being involved as members of a rebellion, making attacks and raids, negotiating with ambassadors and soldiers, espionage, imprisonment and escapes--there are many outstanding urban and wilderness adventures that can be developed from a campaign featuring a guerilla campaign or a rebellion. Likewise, as an occupying force--the PC's can embrace a wide variety of adventures and roleplaying dramas, developing families with local tribal people, having wives and kids, relatives and in-laws that hate and oppose you; tribal politics and divisions; even struggles the PC's can have with nobles and military and civilian leadership of the occupying power. Lots of very cool adventures can be developed in this kind of milieu!

What do you all think? Have you used any themes like rebellions or invasion and occupations in your campaign world?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There is a lot of good literature these days about guerilla warfare. From what I can see, it began to be a viable tactic following the development of the idea that noncombatant civilian populations had a right to be left alone. If the occupying power can't conduct large scale extermination-level reprisals against the civilian population without losing legitimacy in the eyes of others who matter, then guerilla warfare can work. Small scale reprisals tend to push civilians into supporting the insurgency.

Most successful guerilla warfare has involved substantial outside assistance, such as partisans operating behind the lines. In the 20th century it was often successful in persuading an occupying imperial power to leave, but was not normally a feature of pre-modern warfare for the reasons you note - the usual pre-modern response to insurgency was to exterminate, enslave, or otherwise remove the rebellious population.

I have had invasions and occupations in my games, but nothing resembling a modern insurgency, for that reason. What I do see is often a dominant power can't directly garrison claimed territory, so a rebellion physically occupies that territory, like the Skyrim Stormcloak vs Imperial conflict. But not really insurgency within occupied territory. IMC when Hakeem led the struggle against the brigand warlord Yusan (his father) he did a lot of alliance building on the fringes of Yusan's held territory, and the struggle was decided by a conventional battle or pair of battles (two close together on same day) resulting in the death of Yusan and most of his leading cadres. Likewise when Hakeem then led the struggle against the Black Sun of Neo-Nerath the war involved a lot of politicking and shifting alliances, culminating in a conventional military campaign - though no large battles; the Empire of Neo-Nerath basically collapsed in line with Tsun Tzu's dictum that to win a war without battles is the pinnacle of strategy. One reason the Black Sun were defeated was their genocidal Nazi-esque ideology; whereas Hakeem convinced the Nerathi that he could be trusted not to genocide them in turn.

In our old RQ2 Gloranthan game, we effectively waged a guerrilla war against the Lunars and it worked really well.

It's interesting that the Galactic Empire of Star Wars based its anti-insurgency strategy on using the Death Star to destroy entire planets and then didn't know how to proceed without it (except to try and build another). This is despite the fact that they possessed a huge fleet of ships.  As few as three Star Destroyers could raze the surface of a planet and destroy everything on (or dug into) the surface in a matter of hours. This meant that the Death Star was just overkill, and that the Empire really could have just scorched planet-ed their way to victory since, following the destruction of Alderaan, they really didn't care about looking like villains.

Quote from: S'mon;1059849There is a lot of good literature these days about guerilla warfare. From what I can see, it began to be a viable tactic following the development of the idea that noncombatant civilian populations had a right to be left alone. If the occupying power can't conduct large scale extermination-level reprisals against the civilian population without losing legitimacy in the eyes of others who matter, then guerilla warfare can work. Small scale reprisals tend to push civilians into supporting the insurgency.

Most successful guerilla warfare has involved substantial outside assistance, such as partisans operating behind the lines. In the 20th century it was often successful in persuading an occupying imperial power to leave, but was not normally a feature of pre-modern warfare for the reasons you note - the usual pre-modern response to insurgency was to exterminate, enslave, or otherwise remove the rebellious population.

I have had invasions and occupations in my games, but nothing resembling a modern insurgency, for that reason. What I do see is often a dominant power can't directly garrison claimed territory, so a rebellion physically occupies that territory, like the Skyrim Stormcloak vs Imperial conflict. But not really insurgency within occupied territory. IMC when Hakeem led the struggle against the brigand warlord Yusan (his father) he did a lot of alliance building on the fringes of Yusan's held territory, and the struggle was decided by a conventional battle or pair of battles (two close together on same day) resulting in the death of Yusan and most of his leading cadres. Likewise when Hakeem then led the struggle against the Black Sun of Neo-Nerath the war involved a lot of politicking and shifting alliances, culminating in a conventional military campaign - though no large battles; the Empire of Neo-Nerath basically collapsed in line with Tsun Tzu's dictum that to win a war without battles is the pinnacle of strategy. One reason the Black Sun were defeated was their genocidal Nazi-esque ideology; whereas Hakeem convinced the Nerathi that he could be trusted not to genocide them in turn.

Greetings!

Very interesting, S'mon! How many players were in that campaign of yours? Did the players devise such a strategy themselves, or did you need to help them with that? What has since happened to the Neo-Nerathi Empire? How have the victors fared?

As for the incidence of rebellion in ancient times, compared to modern eras, yeah, there's a big difference. I'm always amazed by the massive power Rome had for enforcing peace--without ever killing a single person. For example,

In Egypt, the Ptolomy's were ruling, and fighting the Seluecids in some war. The war was affecting *trade* and many small nations and kingdoms, allies and friends of Rome, complained to Rome, asking for help.

The Senate sent a Roman ambassador to see the Ptolomy King. As it is related, they were in a garden. The Ptolomy king, when questioned about if he would obey and cease the war, the Roman ambassador stood up, and taking his stick, drew a circle around the Ptolomy King, and saying, "Take as much time as you desire to consider Rome's proposal. When you are finished, you must step out from the circle with your answer for me. If you decide to answer NO--then you should know, the Legions of Rome will be sent from Rome to come here. There shall be no mercy, no turning back."

The Ptolomy king thought for just a few moments, and agreed to Rome's proposal. The war ended, and peace was restored to the region.

What's most remarkable about the scenario is the subtext--The Ptolomy King knew that Rome had a long established reputation for absolute brutality and ruthless domination. Once the Legions were sent out, there would be no negotiation; there would be no backroom dealing and seduction. The Legions would arrive, and prosecute war against their enemy until the enemy was utterly annihilated, and begging on their knees. Their whole freedom would forever be stripped from them, as they would be permanently incorporated as a Roman Province; the population would be slaughtered, and the women carried off as slaves. The nation's resources would be systematically stripped, and plundered for the glory of Rome. You were fucked, forever then. Known as a provincial, always begging Rome for mercy and a better life. The Ptolomy king knew this, in the back of his mind, with absolute certainty. The key factor in much of Roman diplomacy, even long before the official establishment of the Empire, was the long tradition of total war--and the ruthless willingness to use it. Enemies and potential enemies--all took this into consideration, and was a chief element in Rome's successful diplomatic and cultural power over the Mediterranean World.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1059971Greetings!

Very interesting, S'mon! How many players were in that campaign of yours? Did the players devise such a strategy themselves, or did you need to help them with that? What has since happened to the Neo-Nerathi Empire? How have the victors fared?

The strategy came from the players, mostly the Hakeem player. They were however aware of a previous PC group's failure who had adopted more of a "kill them all" strategy which had aided the growth of the Black Sun, which probably made them more determined to take a diplomatic approach.

Following the defeat of Neo-Nerath, Hakeem briefly established the Empire of Altani-Nerath with himself as ruler, but proved as incompetent at rule as he had been brilliant at alliance-forging. After resigning the kingship in a huff (connected to another PC attacking a dragon without permission), then trying to come back (and then vanishing), he was replaced by the Nerathi noble Lord Bronze who had himself crowned King of Nerath, while various others left the empire - the Altanian tribes, Ghinarian Hills, and town of Ahyf ruled by Hakeem's wife Queen Malenn.  On his resignation Hakeem had granted the empire to Bronze and to Chief Minars Rapak of the Altani to rule jointly, but Bronze sought to take all of it; he ended up with the Nerath territories but not most of the area with personal allegiance to Hakeem.

That was 18 months or so ago in game, slightly less IRL, and the political situation has been stable since.

Americans are drawn to the "rebellions work" mythologizing because of our own history (including noting Vietnam's success against us). However, its important to consider how brutal a regime might become to crush a rebellion. Of course, its also important to see how the rebellion is being funded and supported by outside forces, aka is it a proxy war?

One of the problems I'm having with the OP's hypothesis is that some of the historical examples listed weren't actually guerrilla wars. The (First) Jewish Revolt, for instance, involved siege warfare against fortified towns and open battles between regular formations. The 3rd Jewish Revolt (135CE)--the one which actually banned Jews from living in Judea (not just Jerusalem)--was also not really a guerrilla war: the Jews had formed a revolutionary government, minted coins, and inflicted enough casualties that the Romans ended up disbanding two legions.

A revolt might just be an open revolt, rather than a guerrilla war, after all.  Just because the Romans exterminated whole villages and enslaved populations doesn't mean that they were fighting a counter-insurgency. Also, it is worth noting that casualty figures from the ancient world are unreliable, often by an order of magnitude or more. That's just demographics.

However, I do agree with the point that modern states often lose guerrilla wars because they are unable or unwilling to enact policies ruthless enough to crush their enemies. I can think of two notable counter-examples though:

Russia in Afghanistan: the Russians were openly brutal, quite willing to be ruthless, and still lost in Afghanistan. This probably was a consequence of the slow economic decay in the USSR during the 80s, which forced the Soviets to withdraw. And yes, probably Stinger missiles helped.

The Chinese Civil War: It cannot be argued that the Japanese military was anything other than brutal, or even genocidal. But here, I think, is where guerrilla warfare knew its limits. Mao had a plan to move from a guerrilla war phase to a regular open conflict with the Japanese (and KMT) to take control of China. So maybe it's about having a plan and being able to put it in motion that allows guerrillas to move from what is essentially a defensive strategic outlook to a more conventional, offensive war with open military formations.

The USSR in Afghanistan was there in support of the national government, so there was no question of them carrying out large scale genocide. Their behaviour was similar to USA in Vietnam more than Japan in China - minus bombing Pakistan.

Quote from: S'mon;1060039The USSR in Afghanistan was there in support of the national government, so there was no question of them carrying out large scale genocide. Their behaviour was similar to USA in Vietnam more than Japan in China - minus bombing Pakistan.

Soviet coup much?

Quote from: Heavy Josh;1060051Soviet coup much?

Apparently they were overthrowing the Communist revolutionary government that had sparked off the rebellion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War - I was pretty young at the time, so I'll take Wikipedia's word for it.

Here in the UK the leftist BBC was always pretty sympathetic to the secular-Communist Afghan government. This was before 9/11 caused the Western Liberal elites to kowtow to radical Islam; the mostly radical Islamist Mujahadeen tended to be seen more as the bad guys, being backed by those nasty right-wing Americans. We got lots of pics of brave Afghan female soldiers defending Kabul against the Islamists. The Syrian Arab Army puts out the exact same pics, but the Western media never shows them - they do show the (also Communist) Kurds' YPJ version. Personally I always tended to prefer the Commies to the Islamists, even when that was the BBC view too.

I have a pulp campaign, so of course I have gorillas... Giant gorillas, intelligent gorillas in a classic Romanesque society, mechanically augmented gorillas...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1060009Americans are drawn to the "rebellions work" mythologizing because of our own history (including noting Vietnam's success against us). However, its important to consider how brutal a regime might become to crush a rebellion. Of course, its also important to see how the rebellion is being funded and supported by outside forces, aka is it a proxy war?

Greetings!

Hello, my friend! Indeed, on occasion rebellions have been successful--though as S'mon astutely observed, moreso since the Modern Age than in ancient times. Certainly. It is intriguing to notice, however, that rebellions to actually be *successful*--must reach a point of critical mass, where they functionally cease being a "rebellion" and become a *Revolution*. In our Modern Age, of course, we've had several successful, large-scale revolutions--The American Revolution; The Mexican Revolution in the 1800's; The French Revolution; and of course, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and the Communist Revolution in China during the 20th Century.

I should note, even in the Ancient World, Revolutions could be successful--the Socii Wars of the ancient Roman Republic. The wars were so ferocious and bloody, eventually the Senate agreed to the demands of the People, also joined by Italian allies throughout the frontiers. The revolution was so savage, that even the mighty Senators agreed to come to the table, and work out agreements that satisfied everyone, and ended the Socii Wars. The Senate still retained much power, but with the treaties and changes in laws, taxation, citizenship, and the leadership of the people's Tribunes, it must be regarded as a successful revolution, even in ancient Rome.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1060060Apparently they were overthrowing the Communist revolutionary government that had sparked off the rebellion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War - I was pretty young at the time, so I'll take Wikipedia's word for it.

Here in the UK the leftist BBC was always pretty sympathetic to the secular-Communist Afghan government. This was before 9/11 caused the Western Liberal elites to kowtow to radical Islam; the mostly radical Islamist Mujahadeen tended to be seen more as the bad guys, being backed by those nasty right-wing Americans. We got lots of pics of brave Afghan female soldiers defending Kabul against the Islamists. The Syrian Arab Army puts out the exact same pics, but the Western media never shows them - they do show the (also Communist) Kurds' YPJ version. Personally I always tended to prefer the Commies to the Islamists, even when that was the BBC view too.

In Canada in the 80s we were bombarded with lots of American pro-Mujahadeen nonsense.

Thinking about it now, communists fighting islamists isn't a bug, it's a feature.

The various rebellions throughout Chinese history are absolutely fascinating to be sure. From the Yellow Turbans all the way to the Boxers.