Was it acceptable to commit war crimes in days gone by?

Post Reply New Topic

I might have made a similar thread on this subject but I can't quite remember now but I seem to remember reading from one of the books I have about dictatorial leaders that leaders from early history such as King Herod, Genghis Khan and Shaka Zulu have been argued that the periods in which they lived, their actions were not as heinous or unlawful as more modern rulers in later centuries. I even remember an interview in which the British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore was discussing his book he wrote which I've got called Monsters: History's Most Evil Men and Women and the interview John Humphreys explained to him why Henry VIII was in his book, alongside Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and so on and Montefiore explained it was because of the executions of two of his own wives and a large number of other opponents he executed but Humphreys said ''Well, I would think that most people did in the 16th Century.''

The thing is though for example, Why then is Vlad the Impaler notoriously known as ''The Impaler'' when other rulers including his rivals which he was at war with, the Ottoman Sultans like Mehmet II who also used impalement as a means of execution. Mehmet II isn't called Mehmet the Impaler, he's known as Mehmet the Conqueror. People say the reasons for the behaviours of rulers in those days was that it was a different and violent time and did whatever they had to. I know obviously was a different era and there were no United Nations, Geneva Conventions or Human Rights councils in those days even though there were evidence of codes of conduct in war and human rights going back as far as the time of Ancient Egypt when the Egyptians created the Code of Hammurabi, and in the Middle Ages, there was Magna Carta from 1215.

The Geneva Convention is only ~100 years old, The Code of Hammurabi did not apply to war, King Henry VIII basically declared himself to be a god in his own right, Vlad The impaler didn't break any laws in existence during his time, The Magna Carta would only have applied to a civil war within the UK - so again, there was no war crime there either. Atrocities as we would consider them now, where pretty much fair game. So in a sense yes, it was more acceptable. As were the crusades. All kinds of behavior can be rationalized by anyone who thinks themselves "righteous"

In other words it helps to remember that:

A) War sucks

B) People suck

C) People in power suck

In "days gone by" there was also no united nations so whatever codes were drawn up could easily be ignored. There was also no cameras, pictures or paperwork to document crimes. One of the ironic flaws for the Nazis is while they took great pains to cover up physical evidence of their war crimes in the dying days of WWII, they kept meticulous written records which were used to prosecute high level players in the Nuremberg trials.

So was it acceptable? Hard to say? its not just soldiers, there were civilian militia and of course civilians who participated in war crimes. Prior to WWII let's just say there was very little accountability but some structures were in place (League of nations for example holding the Turks accountable for genocide against civilians but little could be done at the time). After WWI you had the concept of reparations which Germany was compelled to pay to the countries they invaded.

Whether or not it was socially acceptable is secondary, there was no means by which to enforce any sort of restrictions.

Then again, both Chinggis Khan and Dick Cheney will face similar levels of justice, so what's changed?

I think that just because nothing could be done about war crimes in the old days doesn't mean that people were ok with it especially if they were on the recieving end of having their city brutally sacked.

100%

There were always authorities that would condemn at least some war crimes, they just lacked the power to do much. If you were Catholic the pope could excommunicate you until an appropriate donation was made. If your victims were Muslim they could argue a holy war against you was required, supposing enough of their Muslim neighbours even cared.

Beyond that, they didn't have much.

To quote the ancient Romans: "Inter arma enim silent leges". Loosely translated: In times of war, laws fall silent.

War crimes are fairly modern as a concept. Things weren't really codified as such until the 19th century. The Napoleonic Wars really convinced the political establishment of Europe that steps needed to be taken to make wars less frequent and less destructive.

As has been said, historically, people were "fine" with war crimes as long as they did not happen to them personally. Conversely, there was always a recognition among some that the more atrocities you commit, the more motivated your enemy will be to commit their own atrocities on you.

There were still some standards for the conduct of war depending on the time, place, and people. In the middle ages, European nobles and knights were afforded something called the privilege of ransom. A high-born prisoner of war could expect to be kept alive by his captors so his lord or family could pay to have him released. This meant fewer dead nobles, which was something the nobility really liked. If you refuse to ransom your prisoners, then the enemy might refuse to ransom theirs, and just a few dead nobles can send a kingdom into political chaos.

In pre-modern Europe, especially before Protestantism, there was an understanding that at the end of the day those people you are fighting are your fellow Christians; you can't just treat them however you want without consequences from the church or state. Pope and bishops would sometimes intervene to mediate conflicts to prevent Christian blood from being spilled. This happened off and on depending on the individual Pope and how much power and respect that position held at any given time. Being Christian naturally was still not a guarantee of safety. The Fourth Crusade infamously abandoned their mission to fight in the Holy Land and chose instead to conquer Constantinople--the capital of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire--and tried to establish a Catholic Latin Empire. The Pope at the time viciously condemned this, but the crusaders and many others saw this as divine punishment against those who rejected Catholicism. Orthodox Christians generally enjoyed better treatment from Catholics than this, but the same could not be said for minor, "heretical" Christian groups. The 'heretical' Cathar Christians, for example, were mercilessly cut down during the medieval Albigensian Crusade. Basically, you were barely safe if you were a fellow Catholic--if you're not even Christian then you'll be lucky if they take you alive at all.

There existed similar standards in other parts of the world. Like Christians, Muslims in general were more merciful to their fellow Muslims. Hindus in general were more merciful to other Hindus. Etc., etc., etc. This is not to say that giving no quarter to infidels was the norm. Conquerors throughout history have known that those you conquer will be more cooperative if you do not antagonize them needlessly. A gentler hand means fewer rebellions means fewer wars means more money to spend on things besides wars means a more prosperous state. (Of course, a gentler hand also gives potential enemies more time to prepare, and many conquerors erred on the side of caution and crushed those who could become a threat later.)

While there was often little moral or legal reason to treat your enemies with mercy, military philosophers throughout history have recognized that there are often pragmatic benefits to not being evil to the enemy. Ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in the Art of War states that it is always better to capture a city in tact than to destroy it; it is always better to capture an enemy army than to kill it in battle. That city you captured could give you valuable resources and tax revenue if you don't burn it to the ground. That general you captured could help your side if you can convince him. That army of men you captured could become your allies once this current conflict dies down (or they could make great slaves if you're into that). Even the famously callous Machiavelli states that, unless you are ready to be really thorough in destroying a conquered enemy, you should treat them with decency or even kindness so they are less likely to take revenge against you.

But yeah. While there were no international laws regarding conduct of war before the 19th century, there were still some standards at least some of the time. No international organization (unless you count the Pope I suppose) was going to step in to make sure you treat prisoners and civilians with dignity.

You know what's ironic? War crimes still pretty much go on today and not much gets done about them.

Absolutely. We've come a long way in many ways, but international law is only effective when governments actually pressure each other to follow them. The most powerful nations very often find the need to commit war crimes, so they continue. If a country is powerful enough to dictate the rules to others, then it is powerful enough to ignore those rules with impunity.

It is also usually the crimes of the defeated side in a war that are scrutinized. Both sides in both world wars committed atrocities, but the war crimes of the US, UK, and France are swept under the rug in those country's educational systems and public consciousness. I'd be willing to bet cash that most Americans could not think of even one American war crime in WW2. This isn't helped by the fact that the Axis powers really went the extra mile with their war crimes.

To be "fair" (NOT to the Axis), it is almost impossible to wage a war without someone committing some kind of war crime. A desperate defender will protect their home by any means necessary. An imperial aggressor does not care about the well-being of the civilians of the country they are invading. Each side in a war is going to have thousands or millions of soldiers--you cannot realistically guarantee that none of them will commit a war crime.

Outside regular soldiers, there are unofficial combatants on any side that are even less likely to play by the rules than guys in uniform. Militias, armed criminals, resistance fighters, terrorists, angry civilians--these sources of unofficial violence are not held to the same standards as official armies. Countries will often avoid being held responsible for war crimes by secretly having any kind of paramilitary group do it for them. That way there is plausible deniability: "We didn't tell them to do that." Further, because they are not official governments, they are not legally protected by international treaties regarding war crimes. (This is why it is illegal under international law to use tear gas during war, but it is perfectly legal to use on your own civilians). It's factors like these that make paramilitary groups so easy to demonize. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, they are willing to do violence to make it happen. When an entire ethnic group, like the Kurds or Chechens, has no recognized government or state to legitimize their armed struggle, then it is easy to demonize that entire ethnic group as inherently violent. This demonization then makes it even easier to justify committing war crimes against them. "They don't fight fair, so why should we?" This is why so many people around the world think 30,000+ dead Palestinians is a fair trade for 2,000 dead Israelis. Fighting fair is an option that an underdog rarely has. When you are forced to fight to survive, you are not going to play nice. When you force someone to fight to survive, you do not get to play victim when they kick you in the groin and throw sand in your eyes.

So really, if you don't want war crimes, don't make war and don't oppress others.
Someday I'll learn to be brief I promise

How about 4.5 million dead Arabs and Afghans being a fair trade for 2996 dead Americans?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... stan-iraq/

Let's not forget a "fair trade" of over 25,000 Ukrainian civilians (and nearly 200 foreigners from 24 countries) killed for a few thousand Russian ones. And also, a "fair trade" of Putin literally bombing Ukraine and trying to Blitzkrieg the country for what? Just because a small amount of Russians were killed over the course of eight years from 2014 to 2022 as if Putin's nationalist rhetoric would make him any less of a devil?!

Putin is at least honest that he's a nationalist. America claims to want to keep world peace but has more arms > Russia.

I thought that the concept of just war was developed in the classical or middle ages. And the development of the European version of it was closely related to Catholic theologians at that time. Basically that there needed to be three overarching criteria for a war to be justified and the intention was to be self-defense and not for conquest. I don't know or think if the areas taken during the crusades by the Christian side can count as conquest, since what they were doing seemed to be merely retaking what the Muslims conquered.

Of course! Very fair trade! An even more fair trade was the 1 million+ dead Iraqis for 0 dead Americans!

It's stuff like that that really speaks to the moral rot in our society. LMFAO just yell "Western Civilization!!" Then Westerners will remember they're the most specialest special snowflake civilization in the history of the universe, so it's perfectly okay to commit war crimes on those uncivilized non-Westerners!

Kinda off topic but it's nonsense that this that wore down my respect for my parents' generation early on. When I give my bully what he has coming to him, I get chewed out, forced to apologize, and told "Violence is not the answer". Do they think I'm stupid? Did they think I shut off my brain when I see them talk about politics and foreign policy? Violence isn't the answer when it teaches my bully a lesson (he never messed with me after this incident lol), but when it results in millions of dead civilians--well that's just the price we pay for safety and freedom! Ha! Nothing makes Americans safe like killing civilians overseas in nonsensical forever wars! I would have thought they would have learned that from 'Nam, but nooooooooooooooo...

Many years ago I read several books by an African economist named Samir Amin who proposed that since so called "de-colonisation" the essential post-colonial economic global structure has largely remained the same. He published his work in the 1960s but essentially 2024 the relationships are the same. You have central economics seats of power in the west and the so called periphery which were colonies where resources (both natural and human) are exploited. Since 1945 the only shift is greater global power of the United States and a slight shift in power toward east Asia.

The reality is the periphery is still a source of exploited labour and the volume of exploitation as (if anything) increased over the last 80 years. Natural resources are being pulled at an alarming rate to feed out voracious appetites resulting in pollution and deforestation. Child and slave labour has increased and human trafficking continues.

The war crimes you speak of is where this relationship is put in peril. The rise of dictators (who were cultivated by western powers) who go rogue result in retaliation. Same happened in colonial days. Famine and war continue to plague the periphery.

When you look at things at a macro-level then much hasn't changed. It isn't a moral rot. It's just business as usual. The players may have changed (stars and stripes, hammer and sickle and rising sun > imperials) but the exploitation persists.