Overall it tends to be more of COIN warfare feature. Obviously some exceptions to the rule especially Confederates vs USCT. Ft. Pillow really set the stage for some tit for tat. Lets not also forget when General Pickett executed captured North Carolina Unionist soldiers who had deserted from the Confederate Army.
There seems to be a number of random examples which I have come across, and I initially started this thread with the understanding that a 'no quarter' order had been given in the initiation of the fighting at Fredericksburg with the crossing of the Rappahanock by Federal forces. It was a hazardous crossing, and greatly impeded by the rebels, but I am yet to find any firm evidence of this. Thus, it has led to a general discussion around the Order, but there are a couple of examples given in this thread where the Order seems to have been in operation, originally as a deterrent to guerillas on the Federal side, and more as a 'retaliatory' measure on the Confederate side. That's not to say that both sides didn't act in retaliation at times, and no one is blameless. The 'total war' response of the Federals also has me wondering whether that could be considered 'black flag' in its nature, but that is just an impression of mine for now. Obviously the Lieber Code made allowances for all the actions of the Union army in the heat of battle, and as a means to bring the war to an end. I am interested to know if the Confederates enacted any similar Codes that defined their method of fighting, but it seems the leeway provided in the Lieber Code provides scope for the majority of the actions of the Confederate army as well.
I'll tell you an interesting story which relates to the end of your post. Many years ago, I went to see a 'psychic' who, to cut a long story short, told me in my past life I had been a 10th Century warrior (somehow I have the impression it was in Britain) who had taken my own life rather than accept capture by the enemy. Going by what you have said, such an action is a distinct possibility, though I had never considered such a thing before! Now, I don't put much store by such people and what they say, but...
Interesting, the Anglo Saxons were fighting the Danes during the 10th C.
Interesting, indeed. The Danes must have been ferocious fighters...were they Vikings, or is it too late for the Vikings then?
The Danes were a Germanic tribe, the word Viking is misunderstood, Viking wasn't used to describe who you were it was used to describe what you did, for example, he raised an army and went 'Viking', its a bit like using the term Norsemen (men from the North). So, in the 10th Century, we had Scandinavians but that term wasn't used until many years after the so called Viking invasions. Its probably easier to say various Scandinavian and Germanic tribes were in Britain during the 10th C. And yes, they were all very good at the art of war and killing.
Will do...God only knows what I was up to a Millenia agoThe Danes were a Germanic tribe, the word Viking is misunderstood, Viking wasn't used to describe who you were it was used to describe what you did, for example, he raised an army and went 'Viking', its a bit like using the term Norsemen (men from the North). So, in the 10th Century, we had Scandinavians but that term wasn't used until many years after the so called Viking invasions. Its probably easier to say various Scandinavian and Germanic tribes were in Britain during the 10th C. And yes, they were all very good at the art of war and killing.
My house is built in an area of an old Anglo-Saxon stronghold 'King Alfred', just down the road from me is King Alfred's tower which was built to commemorate his victory over the Danes'. On a clear day you can look down across the old battlefields and imagine thousands of Danes heading for a fight, it must have been a terrifying sight.
Just so we don't stray to far from the original OP, I would hazard a guess and say that definitely no quarter would have been given.
If you want to have a chat about that particular piece of Brit history, please feel free to PM me.
The Danes were a Germanic tribe, the word Viking is misunderstood, Viking wasn't used to describe who you were it was used to describe what you did, for example, he raised an army and went 'Viking', its a bit like using the term Norsemen (men from the North). So, in the 10th Century, we had Scandinavians but that term wasn't used until many years after the so called Viking invasions. Its probably easier to say various Scandinavian and Germanic tribes were in Britain during the 10th C. And yes, they were all very good at the art of war and killing.
My house is built in an area of an old Anglo-Saxon stronghold 'King Alfred', just down the road from me is King Alfred's tower which was built to commemorate his victory over the Danes'. On a clear day you can look down across the old battlefields and imagine thousands of Danes heading for a fight, it must have been a terrifying sight.
Just so we don't stray to far from the original OP, I would hazard a guess and say that definitely no quarter would have been given.
If you want to have a chat about that particular piece of Brit history, please feel free to PM me.
And I had been meaning to look that one up! Thanks for providing a timely explanation around Jayhawking
Interesting how terms come into common use, and we often don't know how or where they originated. Same goes for Vikings @Waterloo50
I thought Jayhawkers were from Kansas and that they fought primarily against Border Ruffians, I'm confused.
And I had been meaning to look that one up! Thanks for providing a timely explanation around Jayhawking
Oh no, Fighting Joe Hooker was a prostitute, now I'm really confused.
Oh no, Fighting Joe Hooker was a prostitute, now I'm really confused.
I can't remember the source, but this is a good tale: A Kansas raider (of Irish origin) was seen crossing back into Kansas with some Missouri plunder. One of his friends asked: "How did you get all of that?" The reply was: "I jayhawked it."
Good question...lol
Forum Host
Bringing the