Thread: Russian troops.

Russian troops.

  1. #1

    Russian troops.

    Was looking over the just added army description for Russia over on TAFN (by the way, awesome work)

    Anyway, to the devs, or Vic, or whoever, wouldn't it be more accurate to name Recruits as Partisans ?

  2. #2
    Not at all.

    Briefly:
    Soldiers were recruited from the village community, where a group of elders would decide which ones would go... should any of those desert, the community would have to provide new ones. Joint responsibility.

    Also, most russians had almost no rights at all, besides being cared for by the nobles who owned them (the peasants thus "owned" their land, but had to pay taxes to their lord, who in turn had an obligation to feed them in times of famine).

    The army was a huge break from this, the only way the russian peasant could be "free", and have actual rights of appeal and such.

    Recruits is nice, and if someone feels radical.. call them "citizens", as they where the only real citizens of that empire, every one else was either a craftsman, noble or serf.
    --------------------------------------------------

    City dwellers had something similar, but not quite.Individual freedom was greater, but by no means large.. no joint responsibilty there, mostly recruted as musketeers. ( those had been hereditary as "streltsy", but that system was abolished in the early 1700s by Peter the Great).
    -----------------------------------------

    Another intresting group are the Cossacks, written as "nomads from the times of gengis.." well, sure, but only partially true.
    Remember the lack of freedom.
    Many russians fled from this, embracing "volia", anarchistic freedom in short... a freedom in the open steppes as opposed to being tied to a plot of land.

    Sure, various Turkish nomadtribes and mongols where there too, but this group is more of a social strata than a racial group. Easily over half where, and are, russian.

    Also not that theese had their own lands, and had to give a certain amount of troops to the tsar. Very much like medieval feudalism... The only thing that they would recieve from the tsar would be guns and ammo, and they would get to plunder too. That, and keeping their land.

    Also, they were all the staunchest defenders of holy mother church, guardians against the infidel mussulmen... the ever dangerous invaders from the south. This role of defending the truly enormously vast blkeeding southern border was their real reason to exist.

  3. #3
    Right, no need to explain serfdom to me like I'm 10, but I'll let that slide.

    First of all, serfdom was not as bad as slavery - people owned the land, they lived on it, there were villages, etc. Most never met their "owner".

    When you were recruited into the army, you were recruited for 25 years, which is basically your life.




    As such, I would count recruits as the Army, ie the Musketeers, the cavalry, the artillery, etc. The Regular Army in short.

    What they represent as recruits is essentially a mob of people protecting voluntarrily their land, here's the description for the Recruit:

    "Beyond paying service to their Nation and Master, Russian people have often been forced to assemble an army to defend their land from invaders. Possessed of no firearms, Recruits attack hand-to-hand; their strength lying in their sheer numbers."


    When Napoleon invaded, and later when he retreated, there was constant harassment from the Partisans, which would seem appropriate for this unit. PArtisans were loosely connected with the Regular Army, and would fit, in my opinion, perfectly with the description provided.

  4. #4
    i agree with you willmore except for one point the descriptions says "their strength lying in sheer numbers" from my understanding of partistans they would sabatoge supply lines and disrupt enemy communications, and on occasion if they had enough advantages attack small groups of the enemy. This makes it sound as if they are going to fight standing side by side with the regular army. I may be wrong since im a little rusty on this subject but im pretty sure partisans never relied on numbers to attack an enemy.

    if this is incorrect feel free to chew me out

  5. #5
    True, they used ambush, and hit-and-run tactics mainly. Still, they were the only type of Army unit that would possibly fit the description of an untrained paramilitary type. They didn't wear uniforms, they didn't have government issue weapons. I saw some examples - ranging from Flales and spiked clubs to hunting rifles and outdated muskets.

  6. #6
    how about militia. that might fit their description a little better better, though i think the reason they used "recruit" was because they couldnt think of a beter word to describe them with.

    well those are my thoughts.

  7. #7
    Russian Militia was called Opolchenie, but these were different from Partisans.

  8. #8
    i know they are different than partistans we are trying to come up with better names for the recruit unit of russia, and i thought that militia might describe them better. it would be even better if they used the word that they was actually used, Opolchenie.

    thanks for the contribution LordUxbridge.