In another life time I was a military legal officer with an interest in
what is called the “Law of Armed Conflict”. My role as a Brigade legal officer
was to advice the commander (and his staff) on rules of engagement, targeting,
treatment of prisoners etc. My bible was the Geneva Conventions and the
plethora of International Law that had grown up around the conduct of wars.
It may be surprising to know that there have always been rules around the
conduct of wars.
For example Deuteronomy 20:19-20 limits the amount of acceptable
collateral and environmental damage:
When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to
take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against
them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the
tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege: Only the trees
which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut
them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with
thee, until it be subdued.
Killing babies |
In the early 7th century, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, whilst instructing
his Muslim army, laid down the following rules concerning warfare: Stop,
O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield.
Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate
dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm
to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.
Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass
by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.
There were practical reasons not to lay waste land through which armies
passed...you may well find yourself returning that way!
Basic rules of respect for the wounded, prisoners of war, laws against
looting, treatment of dead bodies, respect for women have been known throughout
history - often more honoured in the breach than the observance but offences
against basic rules of humanity have always provoked outrage and made for
valuable propoganda.
I could find little written about “war crimes” committed in the English
Civil War, but there is no doubt they went on. For example one of the
crimes cited against Charles I at his trial was the massacre of civilians
in St. Berteline’s church in the village of Barthomley in Cheshire on December
23 1643.
St. Bertheline Barthomley |
A Royalist raiding party from the Chester garrison led by Major
Connaught entered the village of Barthomley. A number of the villagers fled to
the church for shelter and when the royalist troops entered the church, they
retreated to the steeple. The royalists started a fire with the intention of
smoking them out and when the party in the steeple called for quarter,
Connaught granted it.
“...But when hee had theim in his power, hee
caused theim all to be stripped starke Naked; And moste barbarouslie &
contr[ar]y to the Lawes of Armes, murthered, stabbed and cutt the Throates of
xii of theim;...& wounded all the reste, leavinge many of theim for
Dead....” (Malbon)
Of the twenty male civilians, 12 died on the spot and the remaining 8
were badly wounded. The massacre had occurred within the curch.
Lord Byron, the royalist commander at Chester was unrepentant saying in
a letter to the Marquis of Newcastle “...The Rebels had possessed themselves
of a Church at Bartumley, but wee presently beat them forth of it, and put them
all to the sword; which I finde to be the best way to proceed with these kind
of people, for mercy to them is cruelty...”
There are other accounts of the massacre that indicate that the men
within the church had been actively resisting the royalist attack and a call to
surrender had been refused. Once an offer of quarter had been refused, there
was no obligation on the attacking force to grant quarter to a
surrendering force. Other sources suggest one of the villagers wounded or
killed a royalist soldier, negating any agreement.
Re-enactors at Hopton Castle |
In 1654 Connaught was tried for the murder of one of the villagers, John Fowler. The jury heard that Connaught, with a battleaxe (valued at 6d) in his right hand, had caught hold of Fowler and struck him on the left side of his head, inflicting a wound which, though only one inch long and one inch deep, was instantly fatal. The jurors found the case proved, Connaught offered nothing in mitigation and John Bradshaw, who five years before had presided over the king’s trial, passed sentence of death. Connaught was hanged at Boughton, on the outskirts of Chester, on the aftemoon of Tuesday 17 October 1654. According to the diarist, Henry Newcome, he went to the scaffold protesting his innocence.
Another famous “war crime” was recently featured in one of my favourite television programs, Time Team. I had researched the siege of Hopton Castle in Shropshire for one of my current WIPs so I became unduly excited when Tony Robinson announced that they had “just 3 days” to uncover the fate of the defenders of Hopton Castle.
In 1644 Hopton was one of the few parliamentary strongholds in a royalist county. Samuel Moore and his 30 defenders found themselves besieged by Sir Michael Woodhouse with a royalist force of over 500. After holding out for some weeks, Moore eventually surrendered on agreed terms. As the garrison marched out, Woodhouse seized Moore and ordered the garrison to be massacred. The men were bound together in pairs and their throats slit and the bodies thrown into the moat. Other accounts say they were clubbed to death. There does not seem to have been any justice meted out to Woodhouse for this gross abuse of the fundamental laws of war.
Hopton Castle, Shropshire |
The following video is based on Samuel Moore's account of the siege of
Hopton Castle and is worth a watch.
The Parliamentarians were not above committing war crimes. The massacre
of the Welsh camp followers following the Battle of Naseby (see my post of 20 June 2010) remains one of the saddest events of the English Civil
War.
Propaganda coming out of Ireland about the atrocities committed by
Irish Catholics on Protestant settlers in the rebellion of 1641 were used
extensively to justify the Cromwellian atrocities in the 1650s.
Sadly in any war, the losers are often the innocent.
Alison Stuart B.A LL.B
Great post, Alison - just goes to show that winners interpret the rules and that what one person might call a war crime, another can argue is a justification for defending their cause at all costs.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Elisabeth. These two incidents are just the tip of the iceberg. When I posted this over at Hoydens and Firebrands, I had some commentators list other incidents. The massacre of the Welsh camp followers after Naseby on the grounds the parliamentarians "thought they were Irish" is one of the saddest incidents of the whole war.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fascinating subject and I'm sure there is a PhD in it for someone (not me!)
"Sadly in any war, the losers are often the innocent" - history repeats itself! Great post Alison
ReplyDelete