First you’ve got soldiers going crazy and killing anybody they want to.
Then there was the Alamo where right off the bat the Mexicans raised a red flag (I think that was the color) which signified that the Texans were dead meat.
My question is about the following situation which (if I understand correctly) is what occurred at Ft Pillow during the civil war:
The Confederates have the fort invested. They clearly outnumber the Union forces. They give them the opportunity to surrender and prevent further bloodshed. They are told that the prisoners will be treated properly if they do so. If they don’t, and the Confederates are forced to incur casualties in taking the fort then they will be given no quarter.
Was that a common practice at the time? Wiki says that “no quarter” became against the rules of war at a Hague Conference in 1907.
“No Quarter” in the traditional sense equates to “no mercy.”
In the below example, the Confederated have upped the ante by, in essence saying, “if you cause us any trouble, we will cut every last single one of you down.” Providing quarter means that you will accept prisoners, feed them and tend to wounds, and will provide for their reasonable safety while they are in your custody.
“No quarter” means that you will not do that, and is usually conveyed in the context that the opposing commander actively thinks the enemy is dispensable, and may even take depraved pleasure in killing each last one of them, even if they are non-combatants when captured. Get wounded in battle and are out of the fight? Sorry–no quarter–off with your head!
Was it common practice? Well, yes and no. Some Privateers/pirates offered no quarter to captured crews, 'cause frankly its a pain in the ass to care and feed your own at sea, let alone a bunch of uncooperative ‘passengers’. I can’t offer specific examples, but it would depend on the context of the campaign, and whether or not the winning Commander wanted the political gains of showing mercy, or just wanted to leave survivors to spread the news.
Tripler
Although it does make a great Zeppelin song.
No quarter = No mercy = No surrender accepted = You’re All Going To Die. It means the accepted usages and rules of warfare are suspended, and individual and group surrender does not mean the attackers will spare their lives.
No quarter, by the way, is what flying any form of pirate flag - Jolly Roger or other - means. The pirates are not attacking under the rules of war; they are attacking, pure and simple.
In the case of Fort Pillow, the negro troops were doomed in pretty much any scenario that included the fall of the fort. The Confederates had a policy, official at some points IIRC, of executing former slaves or any blacks in uniform.
In the Texan War of Independence, the Alamo wasn’t the only instance of “no quarter.” The Mexican Congress had secretly passed a resolution that all armed foreigners taken in battle were to be considered pirates and executed. Under this resolution, hundreds of Texian prisoners of war taken in various battles (and who assumed they would be treated according to the usual rules of war) were summarily executed in the Goliad Massacre.
It was pretty common in siege warfare, especially in Europe through history to give garrisons the option of surrender, once there was a breach in the wall. If they didn’t take the offer, however, then generally no quarter was given to the garrison…and sometimes that went for the dependents of the garrison as well. It was part of the customs of war, since fighting on once there was a breach was pretty useless as you were inevitably going to lose at that point regardless, and you were just costing more lives. Besieging armies were pretty tense about taking serious losses once the victory was a forgone conclusion.
According to Forrest’s account of the Ft Pillow assault:
During the entire morning the gun-boat kept up a continued fire in all directions, but without effect, and being confident of my ability, to take the fort by assault, and desiring to prevent further loss of life, I sent, under flag of truce, a demand for the unconditional surrender of the garrison, a copy of which demand is hereto appended, marked No. 1, to which I received a reply, marked No. 2. The gun-boat had ceased firing, but the smoke of three other boats ascending the river was in view, the foremost boat apparently crowded with troops, and believing the request for an hour was to gain time for re-enforcements to arrive, and that the desire to consult the officers of the gun-boat was a pretext by which they desired improperly to communicate with her, I at once sent this reply, copy of which is numbered 3, directing Captain Goodman, assistant adju-tant-general of Brigadier-General Chalmers, who bore the flag, to remain until he received a reply or until the expiration of the time proposed.
“Unconditional surrender” is not the same thing as “no quarter”.
Union reinforcements were arriving shortly and he was attempting to take the fort before they arrived. (No one wants to fight a battle on two fronts if they can help it.)
There are other reports of the battle but those actually involved seem to be under the impression that the Union force did not surrender. After abandoning the fort, many Union troops attempted to retreat/regroup near the river where they expected to meet with reinforcements and be covered by cannon fire from Union gunboats. Reinforcements that never landed and canons that were out of ammunition.
Both the Romans and the Mongols had a rule that negotiations and surrender were options right up until the ram hit the wall. Then you’re dead.
“Total War”, in which there basically are no non-combatants and everyone is a target was the rule, not the exception, right up into the middle of the 19th century, if not into the late 20th.
I think that “No quarter” was understood between the two sides under certain scenarios. In fact, a common phrase was “no quarter asked, no quarter given”.
Loads of examples of this. Off the top of my head (sorry, posting from my phone so no link) would be Cromwell’s Siege of Drogheda during his Ireland campaign. Basically, the garrison had surrendered after the initial breach was made, but while Cromwell’s army was moving in there was still some resistance. The army basically took that to mean no quarter (there is some dispute as to whether Cromwell directly ordered the reprisal attacks or whether he just stood aside and let it happen)…and they gave none, massacring the garrison (many of who had in fact surrendered honorably) and many civilians (and a bunch of priests, IIRC, who were most likely the main instigators of events anyway). But you can find tons of examples especially during the 16th, 17th and 18th century in Europe, since a lot of that involved siege warfare. It was pretty common in earlier periods of history as well…and even during later wars it happened. There is a scene in Saving Private Ryan where, after a hard fought beach attack the defenders in the bunkers were basically given no quarter, and were summarily shot. It’s just a movie, but my understanding is that, while this wasn’t official, it did happen. And I think officially, the guys who were air dropped in the rear were told not to take prisoners (not that they could have), so that would also be a case of no quarter given.
Well, since this is GQ (and I’m at a computer for about 10 minutes), let me say that the above has some errors in it. I’m misremembering and conflating the Siege of Drogheda and the sack of Wexford. In my defense it’s been a few decades since I read about this stuff, and I’ve slept since then.
I did look up Drogheda and it’s got some stuff that speaks to the OP, however.
murum aries attigit - Sort of have to like their viewpoint. However it is incorrect that every living being in the city would die - they had a very large slave based economy and they needed warm bodies, not corpses. They did understand noncombattants and would take prisoners and coffle them back to the slave markets of Rome. Hell, they had so many slaves at one time you really had to be poverty stricken not to have a slave in your household in Rome.
It’s not really a conflation. The basis for the execution of the Goliad prisoners was that the Mexicans had declared “no quarter” against all the Texian insurgents. After the Alamo the few who surrendered were immediately executed, along with any wounded who were still alive. The execution of the Goliad prisoners just took place a few months after their surrender.
In the case of Fort Pillow, the Union forces were made up of partly black troops, which the Confederacy had the general policy of not taking prisoner, and the rest Unionist Tenneseeans, many of whom were former Confederates.
There are many reports of Allied soldiers refusing surrenders or killing Japanese prisoners during WW2. But while I’ve heard it argued that it was condoned by the higher ups, I don’t think it was ever officially endorsed.
And for the same reason: The Japanese had a well founded reputation for continuing to fight both after they had lost and after they had surrendered.
On the general topic: I understand that European garrison troops in both the first and second world wars were expectect to fight until they were all dead.
To be fair, sometimes there was no option as during the heat of battle the Allies might not have the men or facilities to guard large numbers of prisoners and to leave them behind your lines poorly guarded would have been suicidal.
To be honest I find that deeply unconvincing to the verge of absurdity. Wiki cites one book published almost half a century ago, and google turns up very little support.
On the other hand, two of the battles listed as having seen use of the oriflamme were major french victories, and neither is particularly famous for ‘no quarter’.
Indeed Bouvines is listed as the french having captured nine times as many as they killed. Given that this is the battle which ended King John’s hopes of regaining Normandy, triggered the baron’s rebellion and lead to the signing of the Magna Carta, I would think any notable variation from usual practices would have been very widely commented upon.
Lastly, think of what that wiki article is claiming - that the royal battle standard of the king of France also doubles up as notification that anyone on the field of battle is either walking off as a victor or staying as a corpse.
Seriously? Anytime the king of france takes the field, its automatically a fight to the death with no quarter given? That quite obviously did not happen. If the flag served such a function at some point in the past, it must have ceased to do so at some point before becoming the royal banner.
I assumed “no quarter” was issued when defenders refused to surrender simply because the attacker wants to save time, manpower, and resources. Basically - “You guys don’t want to die, and we don’t want to have to waste our efforts digging you out to kill you, so give up now and we’ll let you go. If you make us waste our efforts, you’ll pay with your lives.”
