Sino-Vietnam war

Really? From what I got from reading three Kingdoms etc. captured troops were sometimes treated well and sometimes treated nasty, just like in Europe or the middle east.

However China never developed the "ransom industry" that became apperant in Europe.

It could have something to do with Chinas leadership not also beeing its military, in Europe, the Kings/Dukes often had to fight (both for morale and for political reasons, troops you are leading yourself are less likely to stage a coup), so they faced the possibility of beeing captured themselfes (Quite a number of famous Kings got captured at least once, Richard Lionheart beeing a prime example), while the Chinese heads of state were, iirc, by far less likely to be captured by virtue of not directly participating in battles.

On the other hand, Japans leadership was also its military, and they didnt fancy surrendering at all.


I am beginning to see why service in dynastic militaries would often be unpopular, fairly few rights to pillage (a European King would be very hard pressed to demand "no pillaging" from his soldiers, if he was very respected and his armies well fed, which happened rarely, than the city might be spared of the pillage), no opportunity to gain ransoms (since opponents didnt like to surrender, and/or were poor and/or the ransom would not go to the grunts own pockets) and your supreme commander would be unlikely to ransom you back should you be captured. Even if a soldier would advance through the ranks, as a general he would apperantly be 2nd grade compared to the beurocracy.
That would make running away when the commander died (which happens absurdly often, in 3 Kingdoms at least) a very smart choice for the average grunt, since fighting means to risk your life for little to no personal gain.

In the West, you become a POW, you come home a hero.

Click to expand...

I think it is more due to the political environment at the time. For the US, the Vietnam war POW initially treated as heroes, but latter on some of those who spoke against the war effort almost got tried in a military court. I think one of them committed suicide, then the government decided to let the rest go.

three Kingdoms etc. captured troops were sometimes treated well and sometimes treated nasty, just like in Europe or the middle east.

Click to expand...

This is different from Li Ling's situation. During his time, the Hans and the Huns were century old mortal enemies. Three kingdoms etc are mostly Hans fighting amongst each other.

Hmm, fighting an old mortal enemy? That would be the Saracens then, and, although the Muslims were relativly benovelent considering what the Crusaders were doing, someone who was captured and got away was usually not seen as a traitor.

However, even the crusaders usually viewed the Muslims as "an equal civilised power", I doubt that the Han ever viewed the Huns/Mongols as that.

On the other hand, in the old antique times, Rome and Carthage heavily punished those who surrendered, in Carthage even the surrenderers childs may get ceremonially killed.

Mightypeon said:

It could have something to do with Chinas leadership not also beeing its military, in Europe, the Kings/Dukes often had to fight (both for morale and for political reasons, troops you are leading yourself are less likely to stage a coup), so they faced the possibility of beeing captured themselfes (Quite a number of famous Kings got captured at least once, Richard Lionheart beeing a prime example), while the Chinese heads of state were, iirc, by far less likely to be captured by virtue of not directly participating in battles.

On the other hand, Japans leadership was also its military, and they didnt fancy surrendering at all.

Click to expand...

Having the government leader fighting personally on the frontlines is detrimental for a large nation. The kings/dukes in Europe controlled limited territory, they can afford to win the affection of their troops through personal endeavors. On the other hand, the Emperors of China/Rome cannot afford to ride into battle, because that usually creates a power void near home that will tempt powerful royalty/noblemen to try and stage a coup.

In the case of Japan, their leaders didn't fancy surrendering, but there's nothing stopping the soldiers from defecting.

Mightypeon said:

Hmm, fighting an old mortal enemy? That would be the Saracens then, and, although the Muslims were relativly benovelent considering what the Crusaders were doing, someone who was captured and got away was usually not seen as a traitor.

However, even the crusaders usually viewed the Muslims as "an equal civilised power", I doubt that the Han ever viewed the Huns/Mongols as that.

On the other hand, in the old antique times, Rome and Carthage heavily punished those who surrendered, in Carthage even the surrenderers childs may get ceremonially killed.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Huns is that they never really had any solid political system or line of succession, their Chanyu is just the biggest bully at the time. It is very hard to make a treaty with them, or even to reason for that matter(they tried, but it fell apart as soon as the reigning Chanyu was displaced), so the Chinese had no choice but to fight them.

Chinese had severe punishment for treason, the executions were often not only limited to the traitors' immediate family, but usually extends to the rest of his relatives.

One reason is because this make their troops fight harder and resist surrender out of fear for their family. Another reason is that China never lacked talent, and it's all too easy for a talented man who feels mistreated to be drawn to the foreign promises of power and riches.