AH Riot control

The police is not the army. And using lethal force is a no no in general times, even in a more distant past than you think; the british cops by example use truncheons since at least Victorian times, no guns if I am right.

Even criminals have civic rights.

Well, barely. Les Miserables kind of pointed out the attitudes at the time in France.
 
The police is not the army. And using lethal force is a no no in general times, even in a more distant past than you think; the british cops by example use truncheons since at least Victorian times, no guns if I am right.

Even criminals have civic rights.
I'm pretty sure the Union Army didn't use truncheons to put down the New York Draft Riots, and I'm pretty sure nobody would say they were unjustified. So Kiat kinda has a point there.
 
The police is not the army. And using lethal force is a no no in general times, even in a more distant past than you think; the british cops by example use truncheons since at least Victorian times, no guns if I am right.

Even criminals have civic rights.

That might be so for Britain, but other parts of the world are a little more hardcore. Some regimes are more likely to meet a riot with machine guns than anything else. I think even Napoleon turned cannons loaded with grape shot on rioters during the mess that was the First French Republic. Civilized? Perhaps not. Effective? If your intent was to cure the disease by killing the patient, then I guess so.
 
That might be so for Britain, but other parts of the world are a little more hardcore. Some regimes are more likely to meet a riot with machine guns than anything else. I think even Napoleon turned cannons loaded with grape shot on rioters during the mess that was the First French Republic. Civilized? Perhaps not. Effective? If your intent was to cure the disease by killing the patient, then I guess so.

Basically, you had until the National Guard got called out. Then it was open season.
 
That might be so for Britain, but other parts of the world are a little more hardcore. Some regimes are more likely to meet a riot with machine guns than anything else. I think even Napoleon turned cannons loaded with grape shot on rioters during the mess that was the First French Republic. Civilized? Perhaps not. Effective? If your intent was to cure the disease by killing the patient, then I guess so.

Yes, but time changed gradually.. dependig on how is the riot, and who riot I give it to you.
 
That make me think of the Paris Commune. Probable that anti-cavalry measures had been attemtped then.
I don't think that the Paris Commune counts as a riot, armed rebellion would probably be closer to the mark. Also hadn't Napoleon III rebuilt Paris to stop barricades? On topic I reckon that the best force for suppressing riots would be light cavalry.
 
I don't think that the Paris Commune counts as a riot, armed rebellion would probably be closer to the mark. Also hadn't Napoleon III rebuilt Paris to stop barricades? On topic I reckon that the best force for suppressing riots would be light cavalry.

Ironically, yes. The government still had to tunnel around them.
 
Considering the what modern riot police gear is like, i wonder if an equivalent of Roman infantry might be best, with a shield wall of scutums, and swords replaced with truncheons, spear butts and/or mallets (wooden maces, if you would).
 
I think the Tercio or other pike based formation would be best, if you had the man power a wall of pikes is much better for defending in a narrow space like a city street.

If you could pick any pikemen from history, imagine the look on rioters faces when Alexander the Great's phalangites advance down the boulevard.
 
The modern police force dates from the 19th century, before then riots were the domain of the army. In a pre-modern (and by association, rather feudalistic) society, I'd say the best force would be something akin to a Flemish urban militia.
 
The modern police force dates from the 19th century, before then riots were the domain of the army. In a pre-modern (and by association, rather feudalistic) society, I'd say the best force would be something akin to a Flemish urban militia.

I am not sure relying on the citizenry to stop the citizenry from rioting is going to work. It's all right for keeping the lower classes in their place, but generalised discontent could be a problem.
 
During the time before firearms the rights of rioters had little weight. Belisarius during the Nika riots was an example taken to extremes (if the rioters hadn't gathered in an area with few exits the total number of deaths would have been far lower), but not unique. Although intelligent emperors/mayors/kings etc realised, as already have been mentioned, that to harsh measures could lead to increased violence and/or increased resistance.

For riot control in cities I suppose that Roman legionaries would be best. Big shield, good armour, high level of discipline and the ability to manuver and split into smaller units - you don't want 15 feet pikes in slum areas where the "street" turn each 10 feet. Dash rioters with the shield/fist/flat side of the sword as long as they behave.

In the open country cavalry is far better, at least psychological. Scare and divide the rioters and the problem is probably over.

For a later, pre firearms, riot unit the Shanghai Municipal Police during the Shanghai Concession era seemed to have been good at quelling riots without creating full scale war/bigger riots.
 
you don't want 15 feet pikes in slum areas where the "street" turn each 10 feet. Dash rioters with the shield/fist/flat side of the sword as long as they behave.

That's a good point, I was thinking that the pike idea would only work in Modern cities where the boulevards are wider. Again the pikes could only really be entirely effective if you knew where the Rioters were heading and could gather your men in time.

In reality the idea of pikes and setting up a denial zone, has been supplanted by Razor wire. Which as the armies in WWI learned stops charges very effectively.
 
Top