Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Atrocities after battle?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
What are the most notorious (by today's standard) post-battle/siege atrocities committed by one army or force upon another?
During the Crusades, after some battles and especially the 1099 siege of Jerusalem, the victorious Crusaders would sometimes slice open dead or alive Saracen enemies to find golden coins and jewellery, which they had heard rumours of them swallowing to avoid detection.
Medieval chronicler Fulcher of Chartres;
'in order to extract from their intestines the bezants [gold coins] which the Saracens had gulped down their loathsome throats while alive'Β
In other eras of history, didn't some soldiers sodomise their enemies (dead or captives?) after battle? -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
Smyrna 1922?
-
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
"...In other eras of history, didn't some soldiers sodomise their enemies (dead or captives?) after battle?..."
Being rather coy about putting the terms necessary into my search engine, I do recall some historical reports whereby the victorious king required the enemy king to give his sons over for said treatment. Sorry, can't recall where though. I believe it occurred in the ancient world, though.
The obvious modern example of post battle atrocity is the Soviet treatment of females in the areas they occuied.
The Germans and the Japanese also committed atrocities, but these were different in nature, being pre-planne acts ofoppression, condoned from the top.
The level of outage, both at the time and even now, largely depends on the political background. Cromwell in Ireland committed what we would now call atrocities, but, in fact, they were standard for the day. Similar things were done by the English to the English only a few years before. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
Another famous after-battle attrocity is the blinding of 10,000 Bulgarian POWs by Emperor Basil II named Bulgaroktonos (i.e. killer of Bulgarians), after the battle of Kleidi in 1014. Though even by modern standards that act cannot be termed as an attrocity since even modern POWs are treated worse than being blinded and set free - while by the standards of the day it had been a most lenient punishment for soldiers of an army that had invaded the Empire as looters and commited a form of genocide on the people. What is most funny is that the quasitotality of people ignore the reason Basil used this rather unexpected short of punishment:
Well unsprisingly Byzantines did run the Roman Empire and as such they abided to Roman Law. The Bulgarian kingdom was not officially recognised by Basil II who saw Bulgarians as treacherous subjects. The good old Roman punishment for treason was blinding (thus the habbit of Roman Emperors and generals and aristocrats and their Byzantine descendants to blind each other all the time...) and thus Basil, punishing Bulgarians for... rebellion against the state and the monarch and for treason, he ordered their blinding letting 1 half-blind over each 100 to set them free and back to their capital (unimaginable propaganda trick). -
Message 5
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
What are the most notorious (by today's standard) post-battle/siege atrocities committed by one army or force upon another?Β
I'd suggest that some of the most notorious atrocities don't correspond to the most extreme atrocities. Many older examples that we know today have been lovingly propogandized and mythologized to serve a political purpose. That's not to say that the atrocities didn't take place, just that less politically useful ones have been forgotten.
The campaigns of Timur have to rank up there with the worst - entire cities of hundreds of thousands of people exterminated, huge swathes of central asia had irrigation systems destroyed so that even today they're arid wasteland. -
Message 6
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
Though even by modern standards that act cannot be termed as an attrocity since even modern POWs are treated worse than being blinded and set freeΒ
Are you comparing this to something specific today? War crimes are not excused by "someone did worse than me!"
Basil II's order would definitely constitute a war crime by modern standards. The Geneva convention explicitly prohibits mutilation of prisoners.
By the standards of his day however, the Bulgarians might have expected worse. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Well yes, corporal punishment is not on the line today for many armies (apart the likes of armies like the US, Chinese, Turkish, Indonesian etc. etc.) but then still the punishment of Basil II on Bulgarian raiders-genociders was very lenient by today's standards if we take into account that for example only 40 years back British had hanged publicklyu 17 years old boys for arms possession (but no crime committed!!!!) inside a current EU member state (and not any jungle...), that is Cyprus while on the very same island the Turkish army would slit-throat 3000 Greek POWs (soldiers and citizens) for absolutely no reason at all during their invasion of the island...hence no-one can ever establish that the punishment of blinding and setting free of the Bulgarian prisoners was anything harsh for men that manned a terrorist raiding army that had massacred an enormous number of citizens in the Greek peninsula (it is said that during the raids invading Macedonia and moving down to Thessalia and Peloponesus they had massacred about 40% of the population (partly replaced by forced repopulations from South Italy - something that weakened the Byzantine possessions there of course), the amount of massacre committed being of course enormous.
Of course one has to note that Basil II knew very well what he did:
1) himself he showed being moderate in punishment
2) he applied the law on the prisoners thus automatically calling all of Bulgarians Byzantine subjects in 1 go
3) he of course knew very well that few of the 99 100s blinds led by 100 half blind would eventually arrive safe in Ochris, base of the Bulgarian king as the local Greek citizens, survivors of the wars they would meet in their way would certainly take easy (but understandable) revenge on them - though without Basil II being part of it
Still Basil's punishment is indeed lenient even by the standards of today. And was an act of genius of course. -
Message 8
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Omdurman 1899:
-
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Still Basil's punishment is indeed lenient even by the standards of today. And was an act of genius of course.Β
An act of genius it may have been, and certainly lenient by the standards of his day. But it is not lenient by the standards of today as required by international law. It may seem lenient compared to other illegal atrocities, but those illegal acts are not the standards of today, they are internationally unacceptable crimes. "I'm not as bad as someone else" has never been any sort of defence in law. If someone beat you up and stole your wallet on the way home, you wouldn't excuse him because someone else in the DRC was raping, genitally mutilating and leaving a woman to die from the wounds. Nor would you forgive the Nazis for their occupation of Greece because the occupation was comparatively lenient compared to that in Russia.
There are war crimes trials in Sierra Leone for chopping off hands of prisoners, how is blinding people acceptable when other mutilation isn't? -
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
The rape of Nanking comes to mind
but I would guess there are really too many examples to choose from.
As far as siege warfare is concerned there is an ancient convention that if a city resists an attacker the conquerers have carte blanche to take it out on the civilian population. Examples of this can be found all thru history -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Still Basil's punishment is indeed lenient even by the standards of today.Β
Nik, I think I might have got the wrong end of the stick in my previous reply. Do you mean that it's a minor atrocity compared to other atrocities?
I think I misunderstood and thought you were saying this would be an acceptable act today. -
Message 12
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
The seige and sack of Badajoz in the Peninsular War was pretty terrible.
Yes, the seige and storm of the city had cost a terrible number of British and Allied lives, but the 72-hour sack of the city was one of the low-points of British military history. -
Message 13
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
"...In other eras of history, didn't some soldiers sodomise their enemies (dead or captives?) after battle?..."
Being rather coy about putting the terms necessary into my search engine, I do recall some historical reports whereby the victorious king required the enemy king to give his sons over for said treatment. Sorry, can't recall where though. I believe it occurred in the ancient world, though"
After the Fall of Constantinople the Sultan was attracted to the fourteen year old son of Duke Notaras. When the son and Duke refused the Sultan's advances the Sultan had the Duke and both of his sons beheaded. -
Message 14
Posted by MattJ (U14594816) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
The Rape of Nanking and the Russian treatment of women in Berlin are both pretty notorious, although they've both been mentioned.
The massacre of prisoners by Henry V at Agincourt and Sherman's 'March to the Sea' are two others. -
Message 15
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
"In other eras of history, didn't some soldiers sodomise their enemies (dead or captives?) after battle?2
From distant memories of reading Norman Mailer's Ancient Evenings, mainly set in the reign of Rameses II, there was a lot of sodomizing of vanquished enemies. I'm guessing that this was based on historical fact, though it did seem a bit of a recurring theme with old Norman. -
Message 16
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
I'm guessing that this was based on historical fact, though it did seem a bit of a recurring theme with old Norman.Β
...the more recurring and vivid, the more factual and historical. -
Message 17
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
hi Nik
the smyrna incident was amazing - just googled it !!
wasnt it the mongols who cut one ear off all the inhabitants of a conquered city ??
st -
Message 18
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Hmm, some pretty sickening examples. Has anyone mentioned Ghengis Khan's terrible month-long sacking in 1215 of Peking, which had resisted him in a particularly brutal siege?
answer 12- the town of Badajoz still hasn't forgiven the British, and refuses to mount a commemorative placque to the fallen Britons. -
Message 19
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
answer 12- the town of Badajoz still hasn't forgiven the British, and refuses to mount a commemorative placque to the fallen Britons.Β
Possibly not surprising. The complete loss of discipline shocked even members of Wellington's army.
Captain Robert Blakeney commented: "...Every house presented a scene of plunder, debauchery and bloodshed committe with wanton cruelty ...every species of outrage was publicly committed..." -
Message 20
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 27th August 2010
The massacre of prisoners by Henry V at AgincourtΒ
Yes - it certainly takes the shine of that victory somewhat. -
Message 21
Posted by faaty (U14586814) on Friday, 27th August 2010
I believe Genghiz khan is the cruel leader that killed almost all the inhabitans of the cities he conquered.
When he conquered Semerkand there was 100,000 families living, Mongols slaughtered 3/4 of them, and destruct all the cultural heritage in Middle Asia. -
Message 22
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 27th August 2010
The killing of the prisoners seems a bit more complex than a simple massacre. The English thought the French were regrouping for another attack and a large number of prisoners were a threat to them especially as there were plenty of arms on the battlefield that they could have used.
-
Message 23
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 27th August 2010
I do not think Henry's action at Agincourt was in any way 'cruelty', but what was seen as a necessary precaution at the time. He was afraid of the large numbers of captives re-arming themselves, and taking his already exhausted men 'in the rear' as it were. (Steady, lads - nothing to do with sodomy!)
I am certain he and his men did this very reluctantly, as the captives represented a huge amount of 'cash on the hoof', in the form of ransom money. Any of the common soldiery who had been lucky enough to capture a French nobleman could be looking at a substantial sum, and were killing their own 'pension fund'!
It was in no way comparable to Ghenghis Khan or Temurlane 'teaching the locals a lesson', or killing them just for the hell of it. -
Message 24
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 27th August 2010
What are the most notorious (by today's standard) post-battle/siege atrocities committed by one army or force upon another?Β
Leaving aside Abu Ghraib
Andersonville
The actions of the US 101, "Wounded Platoon"
And the mass rapes and murder by hoes and hammers, now going on in eastern Congo;
...the behaviour of a few German mercenaries in the Mexican war of reform (185
is particularly vile.
They are said to have sucked-out the eyes of prisoners, leaving them to wander around with their eyes now hanging by their optic nerves, still with some degree of degraded and chaotic vision, trying, unsuccessfully, to re-insert their eyes back into their sockets before the optic nerve shrivelled and died.
I believe there's some oblique reference to this in one of Cormac McCarthy's novels from the "Border Trilogy". Possibly "The Crossing"?
But for sheer scale, Himmler and Genghis Khan must surely win this horrible contest. -
Message 25
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 27th August 2010
The Wars of the Roses?
In these merciless and bitter conflicts, there were numerous battlefield post-action executions and mutilations, which degenerated with each battle in tit-for-tat atrocities.
This culminated in the huge and horrific battle of Towton, Britain's bloodiest, fought for over 10 hours in a raging snowstorm on March 29th 1461, in which both sides ordered there to be no prisoners.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.