in varying times, was there anything considered a war crime or 'dishonorable'?

Like say... I think around the time of the American Revolution, the Americans used the 'dirty' tactics of aiming for officers and hiding amongst civilians. I believe the british considered such actions dishonorable and barbaric.

In general I've thought that Chinese warfare was 'no holds barred', crossbows flying and running away to fight another day, etc.

Killing envoys was normally frowned upon. Mistreating and abusing the civilian populace was also discouraged and would be punished by conscientious commanders.

Massacring surrendered prisoners could be considered a bad thing. Li Guang once consulted a diviner about why his career had stalled and he had not received as much recognition or promotion as less accomplished peers and even junior officers. The diviner asked if there was anything he had ever regretted doing. Li answered that his only regret was massacring a large group of surrendered Qiang rebels on one occasion. The diviner said this was the reason for his lack of advancement - there was nothing more cursed in war than killing those who surrender.

Other than that, there were no hang-ups about aiming at officers, or shooting at horses, or conducting ambushes. War was too serious to be obsessed with playing fair.

Applying Just War Theory:

Aiming for officers is not wrong as long as the war itself is just, for officers are certainly not innocent. A similar logic would apply to ambushes, as long as the war itself is just, ambushes are also justified, for any method that would help to fight a just war more effectively would also be considered just.

Using civilians as human shields would be wrong (unless the civilians volunteered...) for the civilians are innocent.

According to ancient Chinese military discipline and standards, in theory killing civilians, stealing from them, raping them etc would all be considered wrong. As Yun said, killing envoys and surrendered prisoners are considered as wrong as well.

Chinese rules and philosophies of warfare were actually more similar to those of the Byzantine Empire than those of medieval Western Europe. I quote here from a presentation paper I prepared in 2004 on Just War theories in the Byzantine context:

In contrast to the glorification of bloodshed and individual bravery in the Medieval West, Byzantine military thought emphasized the minimizing of bloodshed on either side, and the use of stratagems rather than direct assaults so as to avoid pitched battles.

“While warfare could be justified, … loss of life on the Roman side in particular was to be avoided or minimized, if at all possible. The emperor Constantine V characterized as ‘noble’ his campaign into Bulgaria in 772-73 because no Roman soldiers died…”

Much of the need to minimize casualties, and also to avoid war where possible in the first place, was based on practical, rather than ethical, limitations:

“Military handbooks and treatises dating from the 6th to the 11th centuries make it apparent that the imbalance in resources between Byzantium and its enemies was recognised. Generals were exhorted not to give battle in unfavourable conditions, because this might lead to waste of life and resources; indeed the dominant motif in these works is that it was the Byzantines who were compelled to manoeuvre, to use delaying tactics, to employ ambushes and other stratagems to even the odds stacked against them; but that it was clearly a main war aim to win without having to fight a decisive battle. … Wars were costly, and for a state whose basic income derived from agricultural production… they were to be avoided if at all possible. … from a Byzantine perspective, they were always outnumbered, and strategy as well as diplomacy needed to take this factor into account in dealing with enemies. One way of evening the balance was to reduce enemy numbers: delay the enemy forces until they could no longer stay in the field, destroying or removing any possible sources of provisions or supplies, for example, misleading them with false information about Byzantine intentions, these are all methods which the military treatises recommend. … The emphasis placed by Byzantine writers and governments on effective and intelligent diplomacy is not just a question of cultural preference informed by Christian distaste for the shedding of blood: to the contrary, the continued existence of the state depended upon the deployment of a sophisticated diplomatic arsenal.” (Haldon)

“Aware of the perils of combat and of the potential loss of life, even in victory, Byzantine military experts recommended against open assaults on enemy forces. The sixth-century Strategikon of Maurice advised, instead, that commanders use stealth and cunning to trap the enemy. Just as a hunter used nets careful stalking, and ambushes, so too the wise commander employed stratagems, not sheer force. According to the Strategikon, ‘Apart from extreme emergency, it is ridiculous to try and gain a victory which is so costly and brings only empty glory.’” (Miller)

According to Miller, “The warrior nobility of the West developed a radically different view of how one should fight. The true knight never stooped to employing stratagems, but he plowed straight ahead into battle, heedless of the odds.” In the 13th century, Aquinas was still addressing the question of whether ambushes were ethical even in a just war, in his Summa Theologica (Secunda Secundae Partis, Question 40, Article 3).

In the Tactica of Leo VI, soldiers are instructed in engagements with Arab cavalry to shoot poisoned arrows not at the riders but at the horses, because “Arab horses were so valuable that their loss would discourage the marauders from future expeditions” – such a tactic would have been unthinkably dishonourable to Western knights.

Other features of Byzantine conduct in war:

1) The relatively humane treatment of prisoners of war. Prisoners were not executed, only on some occasions blinded to prevent them from fighting or rebelling again. The most famous example of this is Basil II (the “Bulgar-Slayer”) who blinded 15,000 captured Bulgar troops in 1014, leaving only 150 with one unblinded eye to lead the others home. The routine massacre of prisoners by the Crusaders disgusted the Byzantines, who saw no point in such indiscriminate killing. In Byzantine sieges, when a castle or town was captured after refusing all appeals to surrender, only those carrying weapons would be put to death, rather than the whole population. Non-combatants would be allowed to leave the castle or town if they so wished, in order to avoid rebellions. However, prisoners of war could be interrogated for information, used as food tasters to detect any poison left by the retreating enemy, or even used as human shields in the hope that the enemy would not shoot at their own people.

2) Restitution of prisoners. “One of the main points in negotiations with the Arabs concerned the exchange of prisoners. This usually took place along the border on the River Lamos. The system adopted was to construct two bridges, one for the Greeks and the other for the Arabs, so that simultaneously each side sent a prisoner across, the stipulation being that the number exchanged would be exactly the same. In 845, however, the exchange did not proceed according to plan. The Muslims detained by the Byzantines totaled 3,000 men, and 500 women and children. The prisoners held by the Arabs were fewer in number, and the Byzantines were not prepared to accept old men in exchange for young ones. The Arab officials had to scour the markets of Baghdad and Raqqa to buy Greek slaves to make up the number, but as these were not sufficient, Kaliph Watiq [the Abbasid caliph] had to release some Greek women from his harem.”

3) Diplomatic immunity. “The negotiations began first with the exchange of envoys between generals of opposing parties. On this point, the Tactica advises the general not to be intransigent, but to accord them every respect, for theirs is a sacred task… Indeed, ambassadors were protected by customary law and enjoyed immunity. It was therefore considered an act of barbarism to retain envoys, as King Symeon of Bulgaria was in the habit of doing. Once these preliminary negotiations had proven successful, they were taken up at a higher level between governments, and in this second instance it was appropriate to exchange gifts.”

This more sophisticated, practical and probably more humane Byzantine approach to war actually contributed much to the widening cultural rift between them and the Crusaders. The Western ‘Latins’ saw the Byzantines as cowardly and treacherous, for example when the Byzantine court maintained diplomatic relations with the Fatimids in Egypt even as the Crusaders were fighting them. The Byzantines regarded the ‘Latins’ as cruel and irrational barbarians. The mutual animosity came to a head with the sacking and occupation of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, and thereafter most ‘Greeks’ and ‘Latins’, despite being fellow Christians, were mortal enemies.

It's one of those funny things of history that Byzantine is remembered as cowardly, sneaky, and that 'blinded those prisoners, how cruel!' event (forgetting that the usual alternative was "kill them all")

Was there a reason that the 'latins' waged war in such a 'crude' way? It seems so counter-intuitive to just say "it's clobberin' time!" and run down at each other.

You know, it is ironic.

Of all the cultures in the world, China have been most sterotyped as being the one that fights for 'honour' and 'glory'.

Yet there is nothing in the military philosophy of Chinese warfare that actually talks about those two. The only thing they really ever talk about is merits and rewards.

China is perhaps the most practical of all cultures when it comes to warfare as morality on an absolute level flys out the window. All 'moral conduct' for the enemy are never justfied by morality. But by instramental benefit. For example, not killing the messenger is so that people can keep negotiations opened in case you want find that you can't win. Not killing surrenedered enemies is because if you do that, no one will surrender to you and make future wars much more costly. Not killing civilians is so that you will get popular support for your invasion and thus greatly benefitin intelligence gathering and recruiting spys from the other side.

There is nothing 'honourable' about chinese warfare, only benefitual.

There is no war crimes in the modern sense. Killing civilians are frowned upon, but not punished as long as the general achieve military victories.

Q: Has there ever been war crime trials in Chinese history?

Wujiang: Bingo. ***** you, for stealing my points.

Have you never read this?

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7715

其九：所到之地，凌虐其民，如有逼淫妇女，此谓奸军，犯者斩之。

west-european soldiers have very different morality as american soldiers.. (killer mashine vs. citizen in uniform <-- very abstract..)

Humans are Humans and it give much more methodes to control a territories.. some State learn his Soldier to control territories by pressure and constantly presence..
other State let learn his Soldier to control only tactical points and for good contacsts with local people..

wich methodes are better?

hm.. i cann't say it.. sometimes is it better to do pressure, sometimes to have good contacts..

In Irak USA do control sunite territories and "tomys" shiite territories.. suntite do have loose much more as shiite majiority.. noone of sunite mulhas and shejcks want to working with USA, therefore must USA do controle all teritorries and people in Arabian-Irak by himself and Britans only a head of shiite Majority..

another fact.. britanians soldiers were better prepare for this war as usa-marines and ordinary soldiers.. (you can see it because many of them have learn arabian and persian language and customs of irak people. they can reackt better and faster on new problems as usa soldiers)

and last but not least.

USA-firms control american politcans and goverment, and therefore they do control american army..

in britan a state himself do control his army and therefore they can do plan better into future as american army..

that was my private view about..

Like they Told me in Combat training " You throw break down the door,and throw in a grenade. a** soon as it blows run in and shoot EVERYONE. Men, Women, Children, Dogs". I think i would have a hard time executing non combatants, but in the heat of action i would take all precautions to cover myself by leaving a wake of corpses.

The Chinese never operated on Honour or Glory system. It worked on a merit system. And no, they are no where near the same.

Why do you think there is an 'honour' system in China ? Why are to so fixated on it ? Is it because you looking at Chinese history from a European point of view. Trying to understand China by that particular cultural view.

If you do that, sure, you will find an 'honour' system there. But that is nothing less than twisting the words of history. Read the historical texts without these cultural perceptions and you will see how the Chinese military truely was.

It isn't that the Chinese 'honour' system is more pragmatic. It is that the Chinese are have a practical way of doing things.

Promotion, punishment, rewards are determined by merits and faults layed out of laws and regulations. Nothing about honour exists in that at all.

question: do you actually KNOW what honour means ? As in 名譽.