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

[Targan]

And then you have units that higher command do not consider to be maurauders but actually are. One of the Polish Free Legions comes to mind. The details are a bit hazy for me but in 2000 they had a DIA or CIA liaison and were receiving intermittent NATO resupply but had in fact gone rogue.

[HorseSoldier]

Agreed that one man's marauder might be another man's "military unit requisitioning and foraging." It all pretty much probably boils down to shades of gray and the perception of the individual assessing what's going on.

[Legbreaker]

An armed and hostile group is an armed and hostile group no matter what uniform they may or may not be wearing. By 2000 almost everyone not friendly will be dealt with in the same manner.

[Rainbow Six]

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

To a degree I think it depends on whether or not you had been given any orders to obey from a higher headquarters.

If you're following the classic Escape from Kalisz scenario you could argue that the radio broadcast stating "Good luck, you're on your own" effectively gives you a fair amount of carte blanche to do as you please (going from memory I think that broadcast was made by the Commanding General of the 5th Division).

if, on the other hand, you're in a campaign where you were specifically ordered to do something and instead of doing that acting on your own accord you set yourself up as the Grand Duke of the Tirol then I'd say you're a deserter (at best).

Now whether being a deserter neccessarily equates to being a marauder is another matter altogether. In my opinion in the scenario you've outlined you're not acting as marauders. Likewise two men deserting from a unit in the US to try to make their way back to their homes and families aren't automatically going to become marauders. The actions that one carries out may have a bearing on one's fate if one is recaptured by the forces that one has deserted from. In your example rather than being shot out of hand (or hanged to save a bullet) you might be sent to a punishment detachment that gets all the suicide missions, whereas those caught raping, pillaging, etc would likely be straight off to the gallows.

Ultimately, as many have said it's all in the eye of the beholder...

[Adm.Lee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[95th Rifleman]

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.

To be honest, by the time folks are using this kind of system, organised, modern armies will cease to exist.

Nobody would be willing to take excessive casualties so it would work against not just marauders but enemy forces aswell.