A most interesting post and very heartfelt.

Some years back I put forth the argument that the actions of the French army in Portugal in 1810-1811 constituted g*n*cide (genocidia in Portuguese) but was shouted down by the supporters of NB and admonished by the WATCHERS not to be inflammatory.

Now you have stated that Massena's troops were guilty of crimes against humanity and Mr Reinertsen has supplied the modern definition of a war crime. Of course, "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" are late 20th and early 21st century constructs and cannot be applied to 1810-1811.

There were however, laws/customs/usages of war in 1810-1811 generally accepted by most civilized European nations concerning the proper treatment of unoffending civilian populations. I think if you search early in this string I actually provided a definition of these laws, etc. of war and other commenters provided extracts from Vattel and Martens, perhaps the two leading period authorities on the subject. The emphasis, of course, must be on the word "civilized."

I have come to the conclusion that the French army in Portugal in 1810-1811 was not an army of a "civilized" nation but nothing more than a poorly-led, ill-disciplined group of uniformed thugs. The soldiers mistreated civilians because their officers did not stop them and their officers did not stop them because they knew the senior officers did not really care what the troops did. If the senior officers issued orders to prevent mistreatment of civilians, which friend Kiley says is true, I have yet to see any evidence that these orders were actually enforced.

I doubt very much that they were and since command responsibility goes up, not down, the true guilty party is the man that sent them there in the first place which is Bonaparte.

The irony of all this is that Massena's army was in Portugal to annex it to that man's empire. Murder, arson, rape, pillage and plunder are not -- to my mind at least -- a good way to advertize the benefits of belonging that empire.

dg