View source for Military Theory of Negotiation and War

Below is a summary of a lecture by Aster Argosy of Brogendenstein, recorded by Eijaa Caecilia Agiliadottir Stonesoul. Argosy's experience in military matters includes but is not limited to: taking the death tolls of military casualties, reading a vast amount of literature on the subject, selling a significant amount of weapons during war campaigns, experience as a soldier and fought in many battles, and as scholar and a bard with expertise in military matters.

Two of the tenets on tactics and strategy include: 'least casualties' and 'minimum force'. These tenets apply to your own forces, but they can also apply to your enemy. Why?

1. Wars are waged between two primarily self-interested parties over a long period. As the wars continue and as both sides endure massive casualties, both will have an increasing investment in winning the war over reconciling, due to already having lost resources. The greater the lost resources the more determined to finish the war as a winner. By causing fewer casualties and fewer lost resources, the enemy will have more reason to back down, regroup, and concede. By using minimum force, your army will be on the moral high ground and gain advantages in negotiations for surrender, truce, and other peaceful conclusions.

A particular example is the war between the Accord and the Myon-Cordor alliance. This war did not see a single fight after the declaration, and the war itself did not see any fallen on either side. The war ended rapidly in a ceasefire.

CONTINUES... 2. In order to negotiate the state of war, which conditions must be fulfilled? First, a common language. Secondly, to negotiate with a foe requires assurance that they will not double cross you - such trust is often lost by continued warfare. In summary, a genuine interest in the negotiations and possible outcomes. The negotiated result must offer a net gain over continuing to war in regards to resources for both parties for it to be accepted.

All creatures value certain necessities, such a food, shelter, life, fluids, community - these can be used to bargain in negotiations. When coming to the negotiating table, having something with which to bargain will help ensure a success. Knowledge of the enemy's culture is of utmost importance to know what they want. Negotiations do not have to be just for peace, they can be for cease-fires or for specific resources; trading something the opposition wants, especially if you do not need it, for something that your party wants.

Argosy makes an argument for why monster and Underdark races should deserve mercy and should be reasoned with. One argument is that even the worst of monsters can be negotiated with to cease hostilities in a uneasy truce, because monsters often resort to violence as an act of revenge or pre-emption to posture their strength. The second is that every mortal values their own survival and the survival of their offspring, while war endangers both of them.

Of note is also the value of those that you negotiate with. The samman of Brogendenstein are known to always keep to their word when given. Trustworthiness enhances negotiations as even enemies of Brogendenstein can come to the Golden Halls knowing that once their word is given they will have safe passage. This is the opposite of when negotiations occur with the Underdark, where the concern of betrayal is real, creating a more difficult negotiation atmosphere. Every creature values something, even if just their necessities, and when in a position of strength, offering their lives can be sufficient. When in a position of weakness, if you have nothing to offer, then admitting defeat is your main recourse.

When defeated, it is wise to not take a raw deal. When your troops are routed and diminished, surrender poses a great risk as it invites further assailants, diminishes your credibility as a threat, and can even reduce your legitimacy to continue to rule your domain, which in turn can lead to civil unrest. Similarly when winning by entirely diminishing the opponent, you can cause them to rebel and draw out the war to prevent losing face. Always consider what the goal of the war is and judge your actions accordingly. If the goal is to delegitimize your opponent, then they should look weak at the end. If you goal is to prevent future hostilities, then allowing them to exit gracefully and with pride intact can lead to a more peaceful result. Additionally, the harshness with which you treat your opponent will impact your relations with other nations or groups.

Words are all-important when negotiating terms of peace. They give an understanding to the populace of how the negotiations are going, who the winners are, and are therefore integral to the self-esteem of either warring party. Using the appropriate word to convey the appropriate meaning of the measure being used is important.

Glossary of military terms: Peaceful Words: Peace, Alliance, Defense Agreement, Accord, Treaty Neutral Words: Truce, Ceasefire, Non-aggression Hostile Words: War, Limited War, Skirmish, Embargo, War Reparations, Engagement

In summary, by applying the concept of 'least casualties' and 'minimum force' to your foes you can outright prevent a costly war for your party while still achieving your goals.

[[Category:No Date]][[Category:Bendir Dale‏‎]][[Category:Reports & Records]]