Organized marauders, a serious thorn in the back of regular armies

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Now, since we all was no longer accepting orders from higher, and we was setting up our own fiefdom, were we marauders, or something else?

I think the word we are now looking for is "warlord," perhaps to be shortened to "lord." Assuming the historians of the future like you.

IMO, once a marauder band gets really big, and settles down, and is too big and fortified to be rousted out, it becomes a local or regional force to be reckoned with, perhaps a warlord. Then, the local military command can either spend a lot of supplies and blood to attack them, or try to deal with them as diplomatically as possible. Or send in a special team of agents (you know, PCs) to assassinate the leadership.

The royal fellow in Raciborz and the guys in Krakow come to mind. They're both behind Soviet lines, but since they aren't causing any direct problems, the Soviets are following "live & let live."

[Mohoender]

Adm Lee is probably right when you know that most of the nobility in the world (if not all) descend from marauders, tribal leaders...

[95th Rifleman]

A small, highly motivated and well armed group of military veterans is perhaps the deadliest fore known to man.

When you look at the American war of independence, the Spanish guirellas in the peninsula during napolean's invasion and the Viet Cong, it's clear that such a threat can and will topple entire armies if under-estimated.

Today's marauder band could become tomorrow's bandit nation.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I think the word we are now looking for is "warlord," perhaps to be shortened to "lord."

That reminds me of something.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words --- 'mank' and 'ind'. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

[simonmark6]

Well, in the UK in some regions Mank means filthy and unpaletable:

There's no way I'm going to that club again it's well manky.

That toilet is full of mank.

And ind is short for independent.

So mankind must mean self-determining filth...

Hm...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

Well, in the UK in some regions Mank means filthy and unpaletable:

There's no way I'm going to that club again it's well manky.

That toilet is full of mank.

And ind is short for independent.

So mankind must mean self-determining filth...

Hm...

Really? That is interesting.

BTW, that was one of Tom Handey's quotes. Usually they are just nonsensical dry humor, but I guess this one has some truth to it.

You should be an English teacher Mark



Edit - added smiley to show that I know that Mark actually is an English teacher.

[Abbott Shaull]

As the supply lines dry up from the rear, there would be very little difference in marauders/raiders/allies. As the original v.1 state that at first Allies refrained from raiding allied units in 1998 and 1999 but by 2000 it would be plausible. I think this is where the Warsaw Pact would split. As units who haven't received much from their quartermaster units would look at who was closest to raid and which would be most like to succeed. Considering you would be expecting an allied unit to conduct a raid your lines. It would help explain why units were refusing orders at times too.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As the supply lines dry up from the rear, there would be very little difference in marauders/raiders/allies. As the original v.1 state that at first Allies refrained from raiding allied units in 1998 and 1999 but by 2000 it would be plausible. I think this is where the Warsaw Pact would split. As units who haven't received much from their quartermaster units would look at who was closest to raid and which would be most like to succeed. Considering you would be expecting an allied unit to conduct a raid your lines. It would help explain why units were refusing orders at times too.

When you are running low on food and meds you won't care too much if the guys in the supply convoy are speaking German or Russian when you shoot them.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As the supply lines dry up from the rear, there would be very little difference in marauders/raiders/allies. As the original v.1 state that at first Allies refrained from raiding allied units in 1998 and 1999 but by 2000 it would be plausible. I think this is where the Warsaw Pact would split. As units who haven't received much from their quartermaster units would look at who was closest to raid and which would be most like to succeed. Considering you would be expecting an allied unit to conduct a raid your lines. It would help explain why units were refusing orders at times too.

An interesting point. At what point does pilfering supplies from a neighboring allied unit become armed robbery? At what point does foraging become raiding? It's a fine line that would surely blur over time. When excessive/deadly force is used, that line is crossed.

[Sanjuro]

Without aviation units, or sufficient fuel to mount a pursuit, perhaps an effective defence for an area against marauders is to copy Alfred the Great's defence of Wessex against the Vikings:
Starting from a defended core, each outlying township is fortified in turn (Alfred called them burhs) to the extent that each can defend themselves in the short term; reinforcements can be called from the neighbouring burhs while the defenders keep the marauders busy. This sort of static defence would be almost useless against a modern army, but against lightly armed marauders (who would probably be unwilling to take serious losses) it might work.