The more barbaric form of massacre?

[Hammer]

(These example draws from the Texas Revolution, due to the fact that one point of the arguement was caused by the other i.e., massacre A generated massacre B.)

Which is the more barbaric form of massacre?

During the battle of the Alamo, approx 250 Texans (including Texan colonists, American supporters, and a few Mexicans) held off several thousand Mexican soldiers under the command of General/President Santa Anna for days until they Mexicans finally stormed the mission, killed most of the Texans (although accounts of casulties vary widely) and executed the surviving revolutionaries, famed frontiersman Davy Crockett amoung them. Many in Santa Anna's command openly objected to this, but were overridden and his command carried out. The same procedure was then carried out after the battle of Goliad when several hundred surrenduring revolutionaries were also executed for their part.

This would be an example of subordinated disagreeing with his commander's order to commit an atrocity, but carrying through with it anyway.

On the other hand, following the Battle at San Jacinto, the Mexican army was caught off guard during siesta by Sam Houston's group of enraged Texans howling for revenge. (This is where the cry "Remember the Alamo!" came into American frontier pop-culture) The actual battle lasted only minutes, the killing went on for serveral hours afterwards. Many Mexicans, cut off by a bridge that the Texans had destroyed just prior to the battle, were bayonetted and shot as they attempted to surrender. Others were shot in the back as they tried to flee. Despite orders by the officers to halt, the Texans pushed forward, continually killing surrendering and fleeing Mexicans before the officers regained control. (Santa Anna was later found dressed as a Mexican private and was taken prisoner as such. His men, angry at him for a variety of reasons, pointed him out to their Texan captors.)

This would be a demonstration of massacre due to a poor chain of command and impassioned subordinates disobeying their superiors.

So the argument is as thus: which is worse? A massacre perpetrated by unwilling subordinates at the command of their officer, or enraged, impassioned subordinates killing in direct disobidience to their officer's commands?

[Sea Skimmer]

One that was ordered is worse. Most seem to agree with this, which is why most nations have stiffer penalties for planned murders as oppesed to spur of the monment killings.

And in any case, once your enemy has begun executing prisoners I don't particularly care if you start killing there's. Killing those attempting to flee is fine, until the weapons on the ground and the hands in the air there fair game. The rules of war are only binding if both sides follow.