That's far more what I was asking for. Thank you ! At least we see what a Prussian soldier, writing in 1829, thought was "in bounds".

It is interesting to me to note that the part about the inhabitants' treatment is applicable when acting without orders.
Do you read this to say that orders might be ("legally") given for pillaging the locals as reprisal, foraging against them without payment for supplies, threatening them to get information about the enemy, holding hostages (assumedly on pain of death) to compel locals to act as courriers or spies, etc. ?

Thanks again !