Obviously not everyone put whole communities to death, but for those that did, do we have records for how it was done?
It seems like it would be a logistical nightmare, having to round everyone up then go through the process of killing each individual by hand, especially if you had just won a hard fought battle.
Would people allow themselves to be corralled? Did soldiers get assigned a certain quota, in order to divide the labour equally and get it over with quicker? If so, how did the brass check to make sure everyone was killing the required number of people?
If there are records of such things, does anyone stick out to you as doing it more effectively than the rest?
I suppose in the end I'm asking about the logistics of genocide without gas chambers or guns, which is dark as hell, but I'm hoping that the question has a good enough answer to warrant such a morbid topic.
A reply to /u/CarlosWeiner
As far as 16th-17th century Europe is concerned, when a city is sacked, the goal was not to kill off all the occupants, but rather a city is sacked because the victorious invaders allowed their soldiers to sack the city for loot and to vent their frustration.
I wrote here about the Sack of Antwerp in 1585. The Spanish army had been owed 6 years' wage in arrears. When the local governor of Antwerp tried to bring mercenaries for safety against the mutineers, the Spanish army broke to a fight and in their frustration sacked the city.
In the Sack of Rome in 1527 was due to a combination of missing payments and frustration due to the death of one of their commanders in the assault on Rome.
It was common for the besiegers to ask a city to capitulate and/or pay a fee such that they would not be sacked. Otherwise, traditionally a victorious besieger' soldiers are allowed three days to sack a city in order to loot and make up for their losses. To besiege and assault a city is a very messy and deadly affair, and attackers can expect significant casualties. This is one reason why the tradition was what it was.