my objection was only against applying modern standards of humanity to the events which took part 200 years ago.

I do not deny at all that most of what we consider a crime today was considered a crime, or morally bad, also by educated people of the early 19th century.

But if contemporaneans described the barbarism of French soldiers and did not use the word "genocide", we shouldn't use it either. Imposing our modern moral categories on people of the past doesn't help to understand them. (Understanding them doesn't necessarily mean we should like them.)

And, as Ralph has already pointed out concerning Kellerman's statement about the treatment of Beja, some acts which would be a crime today, in those times were considered justified, even if barbarious. This doesn't make them better, of course.

In this context, it is not important whether there had really been an uprising of the whole town of Beja or not. The fact that Kellermann publicly claimed there had been one, in order to justify putting Beja to the sword, plainly shows that spilling the blood of civilians in order to suppress their rebellion was generally considered justified (even if barbarious).

Respectfully,

Oliver