Lessons on Looting from the Total War Series

For most of human history, soldiers grab as much loot as they can get their hands on whenever they succeed in taking an enemy city. This serves as a repayment for the risk of assaulting the walls of an enemy fortress and for the months of waiting around for siege equipment to be assembled or for the besieged town to run out of food and supplies. Many generals have allowed their men these few hours of rape, slaughter, and loot gathering as they serve as a great celebratory morale boost for an army, building their motivation to continue the war in hopes of gathering more wealth.


As depicted in the famous painting "Pillage of a Village."

The promise of loot has also historically been used as a way to bankroll wars. It does cost a lot to keep an army in the field, but imagine all the wealth behind the walls of Constantinople! Once we take the city it will all pay off. But is looting really an efficient way to finance a war? Let's take a look at how the Total War series simulates looting to see.

Looting in Total War
Whenever you take a city or fortress in Medieval Total War 2 you have three options once you take it. You can occupy the city, which gives a meager sum of money but leaves all the citizens and buildings intact. One may also choose to sack the city, which kills a small portion of the population and generates the most money. Finally, the city can be exterminated, killing 3/4 of the population and generating slightly more money than occupying the town.


Choosing to sack Antwerp yields 3,780 florins and kills about 1,200 people. 3 florins a person is a bargain!

The instant cash infusion generated by sacking a city makes war seem quite profitable, particularly when you take one of the famous large cities like Rome or Constantinople that can get you 20,000 florins or more. (For a point of reference, most military units in the game cost around 300-400 florins each, so 20,000 florins is enough to buy and supply an entire army). However, there are a few problems with relying on looting as a means to finance your conquests in a Total War game. The largest is simply that it is a one time cash yield. You can't really re-loot a town's priceless artifacts and gold stash.


Most towns aren't in a hurry to replenish their supply of easily portable valuables after they're stolen.

A second problem is that looting damages some of the buildings in the town, so if you're planning on holding on to the town you better pay to repair those buildings. That comes directly out of the looting profits.


I imagine it also makes a general look foolish when his troops rip all the copper wiring out of a building to melt it down and sell it and then he has to send engineers back next week to replace it.

A third problem is that castles and towns don't all have the same looting value. Many of the smaller cities and fortresses just aren't worth that much, meaning that the upkeep cost of maintaining an army besieging the town already cost more than the town was worth.


Some towns just don't offer great looting opportunities.

The final problem is more of an opportunity cost. The large number of people butchered in a sack of a town are people who don't generate revenue in the future, which will eventually add up to more lost funds than the looting generated. Also, towns are dependent on population growth in order to be upgraded and allow better military units to be purchased. Killing the population of a town means that it will take longer for the town to improve, potentially leaving you stuck with a bunch of towns that can't build more than unarmored guys with spears while your foes have full plate armor clad swordsmen cutting them apart.

Looting in the real world
That look at looting in the Total War series also reveals some of its problems in the real world. It's just not a great way to finance a conquest because it's undependable, who knows how much money each city you're invading contains? Another issue not represented in the Total War series is how much money undisciplined looting can squander. When you have a bunch of battle weary soldiers who are basically released to do as they wish for a few hours, most of the fragile valuable loot is likely to be shattered on the pavement or set on fire, limiting the value of a conquest to a considerable degree. It's hard to prevent this without a plan set in place by the commanding general(s) before the city is taken.


Every conquering army needs the services of Henry the Looter.

An additional issue is that rampant looting is not approved of by the world community in modern times. The suggestion made by some before the Iraq War that it could be financed through Iraq's oil revenues was silly, that would never have been allowed by the world community. Soldiers are expected to protect towns from looters nowadays, meaning that there isn't any money to be made by taking a city anymore. The only people who profit from a city's takeover are opportunistic citizens who take advantage of a lack of order to go to town stealing unguarded property.


Such as these delightful fellows looking for copper wiring in this burnt out car.

Conclusion
Looting cities is tempting and profitable in the short term, but it's a one-time yield of funds that should not be relied on to finance anything important. It also contributes to a lack of discipline in attacking armies as soldiers murder civilians and each other while grabbing everything valuable they can get their hands on. There's also the risk that the entire city will be burned to the ground by careless looting, as occurred many times in history.


Oops.

It's better to rely on the longer term more reliable income generated by taxes and the work of citizens in the town, especially in modern times. All of the loot taken by the Germans in WWII from Italy and other areas they sacked didn't add up to much compared to Germany's own tax and manufacturing base. A look at Iraq after the US occupation reveals another major issue-rampant looting actually can cost an occupier a significant amount of money because people destroy important buildings and infrastructure that has to be replaced, usually at a cost far greater than the value of the precious metals found by tearing out the wiring and plumbing systems of a city.