Human shield challenge before 1900

Fenestella

Banned
Is it possible for state actors or quasi state actors well before 1900 to hide behind/among their own civilian population to make a militarily superior enemy hesitate to strike?

Emphasis: belligerent A using A's own civilian population as human shield to deter A's enemy
 
Last edited:
Is that even feasible in a world without global conventions on war and human rights not yet being declared as such? Certain important people can be taken hostage, but entire groups of people used as shields?
 
Human shields are more used in case of airstrikes, which can be less precise than men on the ground. So before mass airstrike, human shields would not be used in the same way
 
There are instances of human shields used in early modsern warfare, but they were usually hostages or prisoners. I find it hard to envision a state actor using its own people and the enemy caring.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Would uprisings like the American Revolutionary War count? That involved a lot of the Patriots hiding among the populace, if only by being hard to distinguish.
 
Would uprisings like the American Revolutionary War count? That involved a lot of the Patriots hiding among the populace, if only by being hard to distinguish.

That seems like it would be the only situation in pre-modern warfare where people would care. Some might in 19th century warfare (pre-Geneva Convention), but otherwise no one cared if you used human shields because violence against civilians was to be expected in warfare.
 
Lots of cultures have used hostages to secure arrangements. But that is A using B's kin to secure B's cooperation (even if B is also using A's in the same way at the same time).

Before the late 1800s, when looting your way through the enemies population is acceptable practice, the OP is going to be tough. Why would B care about A's population?
 
Top