Ultimate Death Toll Rankings

[Craving Peaches]

@Aldarion and @Alester Florent, you are knowledgeable about military history. What do you think about casualties for the WotFK? More similar to the Wars of the Roses or the Thirty Years war?

[SeanF]

To us it is.  But medieval people drank from, and washed in, rivers. There was some knowledge that boiling water, or mixing it with alcohol, made it safer, but no one had any knowledge of germs till the late 19th century.

The fact that large numbers of people died of water-borne diseases, in urban areas, points to widespread lack of knowledge of the causes of dysentery and cholera.

In terms of the general rankings, I rate body counts on the basis of one’s deliberate acts, orders one gives to others, acts one permits one’s subordinates to carry out, and harms that one has a fairly good idea will flow from one’s actions and orders.

i don’t hold honest mistakes, or failure to appreciate how savage one’s enemies would be, if offered mercy, against a character.

[Hugorfonics]

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Do you have a source for this?

Im surprisingly finding it hard. And i gtg but Ill try to find something for you later

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I have read that the Hessians were often demonised by the Americans for propaganda efforts.

Thats certainly possible. I mean the Americans were freaking out as soon as they learned they were coming which is assuredly nothing but propoganda.

19 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not saying they weren't acting like typical mercenaries but they were well-known for their discipline so I think comparing them to the Bloody Mummers is a bit much.

Idk, they still have a pretty bad rep over here. And for sure the massacres in PA is also ascribed to Loyalists (prelude to battle of Trenton) but its said they wouldnt have snitched/ taken matters into their own hands without Hessian support. Then the martial law of NYC was designated by the crown and probably supported by some loyalists there but its still the Hessians who ran a city like a prison cell. Very Harrenhal like.

23 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Also, if they treated the Americans so brutally, why did the American government try to convince them to fight for them instead?

You know how to aim a gun? Aim for red?
The Puritans were quick to jump in bed with His Most Catholic Majesty and His Most Christian King (France and Spain), the war for independence became much more pragmatic. (some, not many, Native American tribes fought for America too)

24 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Why where they treated relatively well as prisoners?

Why not? 

25 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Why did many of them settle without incident in America after the war?

Because I think the call for Liberalism and Republicanism was and is a strong harbor for all peoples.

[Alester Florent]

@Craving Peaches I'd say probably closer to the WotR than the TYW, but with some caveats. For all the chaos in the Riverlands, most of the intentional damage across the 7K has been directed at castles rather than population centres. The brutal, kill-'em-all sacks of the TYW which resulted in the massacres of entire towns or cities don't seem to be a major feature of the WotFK. Even in the Riverlands, Lord Harroway's Town seems to have emerged largely unscathed, and Stoney Sept, while it's been hurt, has survived. No cities have been sacked (yet) and only King's Landing has even been directly attacked.

But it has I think been more brutal than the Wars of the Roses at ground level. From what I understand, property destruction and general pillaging of the civilian population was not unheard of in the WotR but was still at a relatively low level because the armies in question were all fighting on something approximating home turf so the incentive to inflict violence upon the locals who may well have been subjects of one of the lords in your army was minimal. And a lot of the armies even in major battles were relatively small, so the need for forage (a major cause of damage to civilians) was lessened. (Obviously, that doesn't apply to all battles - Towton being the most obvious exception).

In the WotFK we have intentional attacks on the Riverlands civilian population by Tywin, who can pillage with impunity because it's not his land. Saltpans is sacked, as is Maidenpool, repeatedly.

If I had to pick a war to compare it to in terms of casualties (in the Riverlands, anyway) I would suggest the Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years War (in the north, rather than in Gascony). The idea of striking principally at military targets and attempting to force decisive engagements while simultaneously encouraging small parties of mobile troops to raid and pillage the civilian population to cause demoralisation and degradation of the enemy support structure is reminiscent of the methods used by Tywin in the Riverlands, and possibly (though less certainly) Robb in the Westerlands.

Outside the Riverlands, though, civilian casualties have probably been at a relative minimum. The ironborn raided the Northern coast but mostly were attacking castles and the like, and most of the North was left unscathed. The only fighting in the Reach so far has been in the Shield Islands and elsewhere off the coast; there has been some fighting in the Crownlands, but none of any significance in the Stormlands and none at all in the Vale or Dorne.

 

[Craving Peaches]

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The Puritans were quick to jump in bed with His Most Catholic Majesty and His Most Christian King (France and Spain)

When you say 'The Puritans', who exactly do you mean? Lots of people had issues with getting close to France because they were Catholic.

12 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Why not? 

Because if they had treated American prisoners horribly why would they be treated well?

12 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Because I think the call for Liberalism and Republicanism was and is a strong harbor for all peoples.

Yes, but if they treated Americans so badly in the war, why were they allowed to just settle peacefully? Why did neighbours  etc. not take issue?

[Alester Florent]

15 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Im surprisingly finding it hard. And i gtg but Ill try to find something for you later

Thats certainly possible. I mean the Americans were freaking out as soon as they learned they were coming which is assuredly nothing but propoganda.

Idk, they still have a pretty bad rep over here. And for sure the massacres in PA is also ascribed to Loyalists (prelude to battle of Trenton) but its said they wouldnt have snitched/ taken matters into their own hands without Hessian support. Then the martial law of NYC was designated by the crown and probably supported by some loyalists there but its still the Hessians who ran a city like a prison cell. Very Harrenhal like.

From my outsider perspective (although I did briefly attend school in the US) the founding mythology of the USA is such a sacred cow that it hasn't ever been seriously re-examined and much of what was essentially propaganda at the time remains largely unchallenged at least at the level of popular understanding.

So I would also be interested to see some sources, as I suspect this might be one of those things that "everyone knows" but which on closer examination turns out to have been greatly exaggerated.

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

When you say 'The Puritans', who exactly do you mean? Lots of people had issues with getting close to France because they were Catholic.

The Americans lol. (or really just the New Englanders). But yea, all of America was super anti Catholic and therefore hesitant to jump in bed with France.

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because if they had treated American prisoners horribly why would they be treated well?

Because they arent Vargo.

7 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, but if they treated Americans so badly in the war, why were they allowed to just settle peacefully? Why did neighbours  etc. not take issue?

The whole issue was extremely decisive, it was a real civil war pitting family against each other. But wars over, gotta heal. Like the black dragon.


So I really do have to go, like Im late lol, but episode 121 of the American Revolution Podcast by Michael Troy, Battle of Iron Works Hill, touches up on some of these issues. (I googled cuz I was curious about Mercenaries/ Wagner/ Hessians and it did reinforce Michael Troys tellings, that the Hessians were hardly paid anything and plunder became a means of survival. Im sure i can refind that article, but later lol,sry 

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

So I would also be interested to see some sources, as I suspect this might be one of those things that "everyone knows" but which on closer examination turns out to have been greatly exaggerated.

I had that impression as well. I am not saying that the Hessians are saints but it does sound like something that would be exaggerated. If the Hessians were as prone to plunder and treating people awfully to the extent of the Bloody Mummers then, aside from the other doubts I had, their reputation as being disciplined would not make sense.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[SeanF]

This is what I posted in October 2021, and I'd stand by it.

"I think those percentage figures are too high.

We've got an idea of the impact of total war, waged by the Mongols.  The population of Northern China fell by two thirds, but that was over the course of 21 years.

John Mann estimates that over the course of three years, the population of Khwarazem (Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan) fell by 25%.

The War of the Five Kings is brutal, but not even Tywin Lannister is as brutal as Genghis Khan.

I would estimate losses at 10-15% for the Riverlands.  The  Riverlands suffered the worst.  I think estimates for the population are plausible at  4 to 8 million.  So a minimum of 400,000 to a maximum of 1.2 m.

The Westerlands took heavy losses in battles (perhaps 40,000) and suffered a harsh raid from Robb Stark.  But, there was not much fighting otherwise.  Robb's Chevauchee lasted a matter of weeks,  Including starvation through pillage, I find it hard to envisage more than 100,000 dead. Assuming a similar population to the Riverlands, that's 2 to 3%.

The North suffered 15,000 deaths of fighting men, but few civilian casualties.  That's under 1%.

Ditto the Stormlands.  Add in assorted civilian casualties at Kings Landing, the Kingswood, the Crownlands, I think you're looking at 600,000 to 1.4 m in total."

On reflection, I think Northern losses would probably be higher, due to the Ironborn, and due to losses caused by famine, in a region where the margin between having sufficient to eat, and famine, is a narrow one.

There are a lot of pitched battles in TWOT5K (far more than were typical in medieval warfare).  Deaths, directly, and due to wounds and disease, likely exceed 100,000.  Army sizes are at 17th century levels (20-100,000), not medieval sizes.  That means not only that casualties will be much higher than in medieval conflicts, but the harm inflicted on the civilian population, in terms of pillage, will be far greater.  The local peasants can survive 5,000 men, and their horses, marching through their locality far better than 30,000.  

The impact of pillage is regularly overlooked, but it kills more people, in terms of deaths to starvation and disease, than direct murder does. An army of 30,000 would require 45-60,000 pounds of bread per day, perhaps 30,000 pounds of meat, and 150,000 pints of ale, or 30,000 quarts of watered wine. Obtaining such a vast supply of food is a formidable undertaking. And that was just the soldiers. All armies had vast numbers of draught animals, cavalry horses, oxen. Typically, such animals eat 1.5% to 3% of their body weight every day. A draught horse, weighing perhaps 2,000 pounds, will therefore eat 30 to 60 pounds of food per day. Much of that is supplied by grass, eaten along the way, but vast supplies of oats, barley, and hay would be required as well.  Meat is usually eaten as stew.  That means firewood is required, and that firewood frequently comes by way of dismantling peasant homes.

Just think through the impact, on the inhabitants of the Riverlands, of 60,000 Lannister soldiers marching through their territory, 18,000 Northmen, and perhaps 40,000 Riverlands soldiers. 

This is not in any way comparable to the War of the Roses, where most armies were in the range of 5-15,000, and most campaigns lasted a few weeks.

That’s why comparisons to the Thirty Years War are fair.  Big armies, living off the land, mean huge casualties.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by SeanF

[SeanF]

To continue, 120,000 men in the Riverlands require 180-240,000 pounds of bread, per day, 120,000 pounds of meat, and 600,000 pints of ale, or 120,000 quarts of watered wine.

That could mean about 30,000 chickens, per day, being slaughtered to feed the soldiers, or about 240 beef cattle (allowing for the fact that medieval cattle weighed much less than our own), or 2,000 pigs, or some combination of the above.

There's a lot of peasant suffering in those numbers.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

This is not in any way comparable to the War of the Roses, where most armies were in the range of 5-15,000, and most campaigns lasted a few weeks.

That’s why comparisons to the Thirty Years War are fair.  Big armies, living off the land, mean huge casualties.

 

But a war that lasts less than three years can't be compared to the Thirty Years War either!

Medieval army sizes also varied a lot - a lot - by location and time period. The Wars of the Roses came during a population trough, which obviously restricted the size of armies. At the wars' start, the population of England was about as low as it had ever been post -Norman conquest, and less than half the size it had been a century earlier (largely thanks to the Black Death, which had hit England unusually hard). The WotR also came at the end of a century of development of an English model of warfare which relied heavily on relatively high-quality infantry rather than mass feudal levy... and of course, being a civil war, neither side of what was a relatively small kingdom population-wise (around 2 million) could call upon the whole of its resources. Even then, at Towton, both sides probably managed to put armies of at least 20,000 into the field.

Elsewhere, at Varna in 1440, the crusaders managed to field at least 20,000 men and the Ottomans many more than that. Both sides at Nicopolis in 1396 had hosts of around 20,000 men. The French took over 30,000 men into Italy in the 1490s and were opposed by armies which numbered similarly.

That's post-Black Death and post-Great Famine; given that the population of Westeros at the end of a long summer is probably at a relative peak, we could go back before it to the 1200s and 1300s. The French probably had upwards of 20,000 men at Crécy, and At Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 the Almohads fielded well over 20,000 men; the Aragonese alone assembled a host of similar if not greater size to march into the Languedoc the following year.

Now, it's true that armies the size of Renly's preposterous host were hardly the norm. But they weren't unheard of, either. Romanos IV had around 100,000 men on the Manzikert campaign. Philip III invaded Aragon with more than 100,000 men in 1284.

As to the number of pitched battles, per se, not counting sieges, there might not be so many as we think:

• Golden Tooth
• Riverrun
• Mummer's Ford
• Green Fork
• Whispering Wood
• The Camps
• Oxcross
• The Crossings
• King's Landing
• Torrhen's Square
• Winterfell

The Camps and Oxcross are not really pitched battles, more like raids. Winterfell... I don't even know how to classify that. I can't think of a historical precedent for half an army turning on the other half in the middle of a castle assault, and neither army was that large (the Boltons numbering only 600).

The Mummer's Ford and Torrhen's Square were both small battles, little more than skirmishes, with probably under a thousand men per side.

Whispering Wood was a relatively small battle with a sizeable Stark/Frey contingent but a very small Lannister one.

So in terms of large pitched battles, we have five: the Golden Tooth, Riverrun, Green Fork, the Crossings and King's Landing, in the space of at minimum a year, and probably more like 18 months.

Over the most intense period of the Wars of the Roses, meanwhile, from June 1460 to March 1461, there were five major battles (Northampton, Wakefield, Mortimer's Cross, St Albans 2, Towton), in just nine months.

I do think GRRM has mashed up a few different conventions of warfare, and the whole thing has been scaled up to the extent that while the conflict may resemble the WotR in some respects it does far exceed it in size. Some of the logistics are decidedly ropey in places. But I don't think it's completely insane or implausible either. 

[SeanF]

On 9/8/2023 at 11:40 PM, Alester Florent said:

But a war that lasts less than three years can't be compared to the Thirty Years War either!

Medieval army sizes also varied a lot - a lot - by location and time period. The Wars of the Roses came during a population trough, which obviously restricted the size of armies. At the wars' start, the population of England was about as low as it had ever been post -Norman conquest, and less than half the size it had been a century earlier (largely thanks to the Black Death, which had hit England unusually hard). The WotR also came at the end of a century of development of an English model of warfare which relied heavily on relatively high-quality infantry rather than mass feudal levy... and of course, being a civil war, neither side of what was a relatively small kingdom population-wise (around 2 million) could call upon the whole of its resources. Even then, at Towton, both sides probably managed to put armies of at least 20,000 into the field.

Elsewhere, at Varna in 1440, the crusaders managed to field at least 20,000 men and the Ottomans many more than that. Both sides at Nicopolis in 1396 had hosts of around 20,000 men. The French took over 30,000 men into Italy in the 1490s and were opposed by armies which numbered similarly.

That's post-Black Death and post-Great Famine; given that the population of Westeros at the end of a long summer is probably at a relative peak, we could go back before it to the 1200s and 1300s. The French probably had upwards of 20,000 men at Crécy, and At Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 the Almohads fielded well over 20,000 men; the Aragonese alone assembled a host of similar if not greater size to march into the Languedoc the following year.

Now, it's true that armies the size of Renly's preposterous host were hardly the norm. But they weren't unheard of, either. Romanos IV had around 100,000 men on the Manzikert campaign. Philip III invaded Aragon with more than 100,000 men in 1284.

As to the number of pitched battles, per se, not counting sieges, there might not be so many as we think:

• Golden Tooth
• Riverrun
• Mummer's Ford
• Green Fork
• Whispering Wood
• The Camps
• Oxcross
• The Crossings
• King's Landing
• Torrhen's Square
• Winterfell

The Camps and Oxcross are not really pitched battles, more like raids. Winterfell... I don't even know how to classify that. I can't think of a historical precedent for half an army turning on the other half in the middle of a castle assault, and neither army was that large (the Boltons numbering only 600).

The Mummer's Ford and Torrhen's Square were both small battles, little more than skirmishes, with probably under a thousand men per side.

Whispering Wood was a relatively small battle with a sizeable Stark/Frey contingent but a very small Lannister one.

So in terms of large pitched battles, we have five: the Golden Tooth, Riverrun, Green Fork, the Crossings and King's Landing, in the space of at minimum a year, and probably more like 18 months.

Over the most intense period of the Wars of the Roses, meanwhile, from June 1460 to March 1461, there were five major battles (Northampton, Wakefield, Mortimer's Cross, St Albans 2, Towton), in just nine months.

I do think GRRM has mashed up a few different conventions of warfare, and the whole thing has been scaled up to the extent that while the conflict may resemble the WotR in some respects it does far exceed it in size. Some of the logistics are decidedly ropey in places. But I don't think it's completely insane or implausible either. 

There was also Duskendale. And Randyll Tarly kills a couple of thousand Florent men, at Bitterbridge.

Casualties at Whispering Wood were 2,000, at The Camps, 8,000, and at Oxcross 10,000, the latter two of which are heavy, by medieval standards.  I think that an estimate of 100,000 for losses in the fighting is a fair one (excluding civilian deaths).

As for civilian deaths, Tywin orders his goons out to cause mayhem,  at the outset, and after the capture of Jaime. And, he supports his army at Harrenhall by pillaging the countryside.  The Bloody Mummers murder, rape, and pillage enthusiastically, on behalf of both sides. Maidenpool is sacked three times, and Saltpans once.  The Northmen burn villages on the march to Duskendale and Stannis burns villages in the Kingswood. Robb pillages the West, and men like Karstark likely do worse than pillaging.  The Tyrell’s starve the capital, resulting in famine. Refugees place a further burden on dwindling food supplies.

With regard to famine, it doesn’t take much, in terms of pillaging crops and livestock, or killing men and women of working age, or interdicting food supplies, to tip a district into falling below subsistence level, at least for a lot of people.  Food prices shoot up.  The upper classes, and people with weapons, will seize or purchase what food there is, leaving the whole burden to fall on the poor and weak.  Food can be shipped from areas of plenty to areas of famine, but pre-railway, it can’t be transported far inland.

The Freys and BWB are engaged in an insurgency, which is bound to take a toll of civilians, and Euron practices total cruelty, in his own raids on the Reach coast.

Famine is now a problem in the Riverlands, and in parts of the North.  I think one could easily reach a million civilian casualties.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by SeanF

[The Lord of the Crossing]

1. Ned Stark.  It was within his powers to prevent the war.  His choices made differently could have avoided the war altogether.
2. Jaime Lannister.  The attempt on Bran's life helped start the family feud.
3. Catelyn Stark.  For taking aggressive actions against the Lannisters when she took Tyrion prisoner.
4. Renly Baratheon
5. Robb Stark.  His campaigns through the riverlands killed, maimed, and orphaned thousands. 
6. Stannis Baratheon.  The attack on the city killed a lot of people

Arya, Bran, and Jon will top them all though.  Jon and Arya are berserk with rage and revenge.  Bran will be as well.  Arya will poison the city's water supply or ignite wildfire in King's Landing.  Bran will send the Wights to the south after Jon opens the gates for the White Walkers.  Millions will die. 

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

1. Ned Stark.  It was within his powers to prevent the war.  His choices made differently could have avoided the war altogether.
2. Jaime Lannister.  The attempt on Bran's life helped start the family feud.
3. Catelyn Stark.  For taking aggressive actions against the Lannisters when she took Tyrion prisoner.
4. Renly Baratheon
5. Robb Stark.  His campaigns through the riverlands killed, maimed, and orphaned thousands. 
6. Stannis Baratheon.  The attack on the city killed a lot of people

Arya, Bran, and Jon will top them all though.  Jon and Arya are berserk with rage and revenge.  Bran will be as well.  Arya will poison the city's water supply or ignite wildfire in King's Landing.  Bran will send the Wights to the south after Jon opens the gates for the White Walkers.  Millions will die. 

Yet, Tywin's campaign of total war gets never a mention...

[Aldarion]

On 9/8/2023 at 8:33 PM, Craving Peaches said:

@Aldarion and @Alester Florent, you are knowledgeable about military history. What do you think about casualties for the WotFK? More similar to the Wars of the Roses or the Thirty Years war?

Honestly? It is hard to say. But the scale of armies and behavior - especially what Tywin did in the Riverlands - rather suggests something more similar to the Thirty Years War.

[SeanF]

38 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Honestly? It is hard to say. But the scale of armies and behavior - especially what Tywin did in the Riverlands - rather suggests something more similar to the Thirty Years War.

Even in the Thirty Years War, or The Deluge, most civilian deaths came about as a  result of pillage, rather than murder.  Simply, big armies needed to obtain vast supplies, through foraging.

My own study is the Peninsular War.  Something as banal as the French confiscating one fifth of the wine crop in La Rioja, in 1810, would devastate local farmers.  10% of the Spanish died in 1808-14, mostly due to famine caused by the Imperial armies.

[Craving Peaches]

5 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

1. Ned Stark.  It was within his powers to prevent the war.  His choices made differently could have avoided the war altogether.
2. Jaime Lannister.  The attempt on Bran's life helped start the family feud.
3. Catelyn Stark.  For taking aggressive actions against the Lannisters when she took Tyrion prisoner.
4. Renly Baratheon
5. Robb Stark.  His campaigns through the riverlands killed, maimed, and orphaned thousands. 
6. Stannis Baratheon.  The attack on the city killed a lot of people

Arya, Bran, and Jon will top them all though.  Jon and Arya are berserk with rage and revenge.  Bran will be as well.  Arya will poison the city's water supply or ignite wildfire in King's Landing.  Bran will send the Wights to the south after Jon opens the gates for the White Walkers.  Millions will die. 

I'm sorry, but this is a thread for serious discussion based on the text, not ridiculous fanfiction only based on your dislike of certain characters. Please take this to one of the many 'Arya the Psycho' threads if you must rather than try and derail a mature discussion.

[SeanF]

Don’t forget the shit, either.  A big reason why so many soldiers fall victim to disease is that they have to march through tons of the stuff, deposited by cavalry horses and draught animals.

Once soldiers march out of their immediate locality, you’re lucky if half of them return home.

[Hugorfonics]

On 9/8/2023 at 3:10 PM, Alester Florent said:

From my outsider perspective (although I did briefly attend school in the US) the founding mythology of the USA is such a sacred cow that it hasn't ever been seriously re-examined and much of what was essentially propaganda at the time remains largely unchallenged at least at the level of popular understanding.

So I would also be interested to see some sources, as I suspect this might be one of those things that "everyone knows" but which on closer examination turns out to have been greatly exaggerated.

 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:22 PM, Craving Peaches said:

I had that impression as well. I am not saying that the Hessians are saints but it does sound like something that would be exaggerated. If the Hessians were as prone to plunder and treating people awfully to the extent of the Bloody Mummers then, aside from the other doubts I had, their reputation as being disciplined would not make sense.

I cant find these mass graves which is like frustrating me to no end lol. Not their oppression on NYC. But as far as then being a bunch of bloody mummers, that's eaiser (but I swear they did go in during both instances.)

 

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/hessians/

Quote

there was the promise of booty (money earned through the sale of captured military property) and plunder (property taken from civilians). Officially plunder was verboten (forbidden), but officers, who also had a taste for looted goods, often looked the other way.

https://marcliebman.com/what-were-the-hessians-paid/

This article is more about how much money they made and explains why like in that podcast episode I recommended they pillaged and raped and ran a muck. 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Hugorfonics

[Craving Peaches]

57 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

I cant find these mass graves which is like frustrating me to no end lol. Not their oppression on NYC. But as far as then being a bunch of bloody mummers, that's eaiser (but I swear they did go in during both instances.)

 

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/hessians/

https://marcliebman.com/what-were-the-hessians-paid/

This article is more about how much money they made and explains why like in that podcast episode I recommended they pillaged and raped and ran a muck. 

 

I don't see anything here which indicated that they were anything worse than regular mercenaries. Just plundering (which was officially banned). None of this suggests to me that they are as bad as the Bloody Mummers. I don't think mercenaries with a good reputation for being disciplined would be like the Bloody Mummers.

59 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

cant find these mass graves which is like frustrating me to no end lol. Not their oppression on NYC.

If you'll forgive me, I'm afraid I can't accept that as fact without a source; since I have read what happened was exaggerated/distorted for propaganda efforts I want to be careful.