Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 18th, 2016, 06:03 PM   #1

Darth Raidius's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Kingdom of Sweden
Posts: 558
Did anyone actually care about war crimes in the past?


Throughout history (before the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907), were there any serious consequences for committing "war crimes"? Would countries not involved in a conflict care at all how brutal you were to your enemies before the Age of Enlightenment?

For example, after the Battle of Narva in the year 1700, Karl XII captured an astonishing 20,000-30,000 Russian soldiers, and allowed them to leave in peace. But what if he had executed them all in a huge massacre? Would that have had any international consequences?

What about mass enslavement of enemy civilians or prisoners of war? Organized mass rape? Or outright genocide?

Note that I don't consider loss of reputation to be a serous consequence. I mean political actions taken by other countries against you, such as trade embargoes, supplying your enemies or actively joining them in the conflict. I also assume that these "war crimes" are committed by and against European nations.
Darth Raidius is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 18th, 2016, 06:28 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,598

The Battle of Narva was not the last battle in the Great Northern War. If the Russians had won any future battles they could have masacred their Swedish prisoners.

'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you' is a fairly common principle in European military history which draws upon a tradition of chivalry. The fear of retaliation usually kept both sides pretty honest.

Popes sometimes criticized the way wars were being fought, but they were usually ignored. Off the top of my head I can't think of any wars prior to the 20th century where a neutral took serious action against the perpetrator of an attrocity. I'm sure there are a few examples.
Chlodio is offline  
Old November 18th, 2016, 09:58 PM   #3

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,666

No, it's a 20th century concept.

To be honest there aren't really any consequences now, despite the idiotic gravity which news reporters put on it.

"That might be a war crime" - well whoopee, tell us something we didn't know!!

You might get put in a cosy jail just before (or after) you die after 10 years on the run and 10 years on trial in the Hague, costing millions.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old November 18th, 2016, 11:55 PM   #4

Tercios Espanoles's Avatar
Gonfaloniere
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
Posts: 6,509
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
No, it's a 20th century concept.
I want to agree, but I'm not so sure.

They didn't name it a crime as such in the past, but stepping outside the accepted rules of warfare - whatever they happen to be at any given time - has always invited condemnation and usually retaliation.

Attempting to deal with it judicially, that is certainly a 20th century concept.
Tercios Espanoles is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 12:24 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: Spain
Posts: 5,372

No, Crimen War is a concept invented after WW2...not Crimen War before as Not Internet or Cyber-Sex in 876 Anno Domini...
martin76 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 01:05 AM   #6

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,622

Yes. And no.
There was no war crime concept.
There was however a code of conduct that applied, at least amongst white people, on how to conduct war/civilians/prisoners.

Breaking it would not result in criminsl charges though. Just a damadge reputation.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 02:56 AM   #7

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Yes. And no.
There was no war crime concept.
There was however a code of conduct that applied, at least amongst white people, on how to conduct war/civilians/prisoners.

Breaking it would not result in criminsl charges though. Just a damadge reputation.
The normal response to a breach of the conventions of war was retaliation in kind--eg. The Americans burn York (Toronto) the British burn Washington.
If prisoners or surrendering troops were slaughtered by one side--there would be no quarter in the next engagement.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 03:03 AM   #8

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 23,005
Blog Entries: 19

It happened that Romans were very brutal. Mass enslavements, deportations, massacres ... In their age the consequences were rebellion and vendetta. Other powers aided the rebellions only if there was an interest in doing this.

Anyway Romans were able and ready to erase an enemy [think to Carthage] so that they hadn't to mind about negative consequences ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 06:18 AM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: Spain
Posts: 5,372

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Yes. And no.
There was no war crime concept.
There was however a code of conduct that applied, at least amongst white people, on how to conduct war/civilians/prisoners.

Breaking it would not result in criminsl charges though. Just a damadge reputation.
Right. A set of non-written rules that in those days it was known as Code of Honour.
martin76 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 06:46 AM   #10

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,219

While certain acts were considered unacceptable in warfare for a long period beforehand, the legal concept of war crimes was only established in the mid to late 19th century when a series of international treaties were signed and ratified by the major powers on the subject. The first was the Paris Declaration of 1856 on maritime law in warfare, but the most important was the Hague Convention on land warfare of 1899 which formed the legal basis of what acts were considered war crimes throughout the 20th century.

Last edited by redcoat; November 19th, 2016 at 06:53 AM.
redcoat is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
care, crimes, genocide, intervention, past, war, war crimes



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WW2 crimes Seweryn European History 1 May 1st, 2015 06:47 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.