Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
What a lot of people don't realize is that the legal definition of genocide is very strict and imposes a burden that's very tough to meet (somewhat appropriate as genocide is the worst crime you can be convicted for). It's much easier to prove a charge like "mass killing" or "ethnic cleansing" than it is to claim that genocide occurred, which is also why it's such an uphill battle to prove that the Armenian Genocide was a genocide (even though it obviously was).
Similarly, the Harrowing of the North doesn't look like it perfectly fits this definition, as it was done with the intent to subjugate Northern England through total war (a more extreme version of what that Unionist brute Sherman did to the great state of Georgia) and not specifically to exterminate any racial/ethnic/national/religious group in its entirety.
Edited 7/14/2015 02:54:23