>>20255738
I don't think they would quit after the government change their stance on /meat/. Someone has to maintain that new stance, after all... although some might see it fit to make their worship public once it becomes public permissible.
>>20255076
Yes, and /meat/ is quite open to new followers. Like they said, if you can't beat them...
That said, on a purely tactical and operational level, defending against /meat/ raid is not too difficult. Given /meat/'s raiding party design, they can probably overcome earthworks, palisade, and Roman forts, so something like motte-and-bailey castles would be a good line of what /meat/ raiders can sack. Medieval castles would be tough enough a target to deter /meat/ raids, let alone more advanced forms of fortifications designed in the age of gunpowder.
As such, if you want to make sure no one in your coastal area is taken like lambs to the slaughter (heh), all you have to do is build and man castles by every settlement that can be reached by sea, so that the entire population of the area can take shelter in it when a raid is spotted.
Of course, for pre-modern states, it will mean a significant investment in resources, possibly more than the protected settlements can ever compensate... and it would also provide local authorities with durable fortifications and arms that could threaten the control of the central government in the region, just like how local lords in medieval times (in a feudal setting, at least) can resist perceived unreasonable demands from their kings. With these concerns, perhaps the alternative is more tempting... it's not like /meat/ raids will fully depopulate the region, just like farmers won't kill all their animals. Plus, a weakened local authority will be more reliant on the central government for protection against these /meat/ raids.
t. advisor who may or may not secretly be a /meat/ cultist