I am not sure I follow your reasoning. You seem to be implying that if armies are starving, that gives them a licence to commit atrocities such as Porto de Mos. Could you clarify that.

I am not denying that British troops were guilty of misconduct in the Peninsula as they were, and the worst case was Badajoz in 1812. But even the most cursory perusal of Wellington's general orders, 1808-1814, will demonstrate that, wherever and whenever possible, offenders were caught, court martialled and, if found guilty, punishes severely, the usual sentence for harming civilians being death or 800-1200 lashes depending on circumstances.

Can you tell me how many French troops who murdered or robbed Portuguese or Spanish civilians were apprehended and punished for their crimes?

The suppression of the 1798 rebellion in Ireland was harsh, nobody denies that although there were atrocities on both sides, but the fact was that it was a rebellion, not a war, and those rebelling (whether you support their cause or not)had taken up arms against the authorized government and had offered support to an invading foreign army. I might add that the greater part of the British forces involved in suppressing the rebellion were not regular troops but militia and even the regulars were mostly fencible (or home defence troops)not regiments of line.

Compare and contrast with the French republican suppression of the Vendee rebellion where the scale of atrocities was even worse.

DG