The Massacre of the Qurayzah

I enjoyed today's conversation about the different takes on the extermination of the Qurayzah. Not, of course, about the actual exterimation, which was an atrocious act, but rather the dialogue we had between what the author of The First Muslim, Hazleton, and Armstrong had to say about the subject. The former argued that it was an extreme measure, incredibly rare; it was a clear show of strength and a desperate move to quell any further resistance. Armstrong, on the other hand, argues a little more charitably, stating that, while it was still an atrocious act by today's standards, that type of act was not unheard of, and Muhammad did it more out of necessity. Moreover, Muhammad himself did not make the sentence himself (a technicality because his consent was still needed, but true nonetheless), but rather S'ad did. As professor Silliman stated today, this type of act was not a common practice, and the slaughter of close to 1000 people is not an easy act to carry out. What I wonder, though, is if this type of act may have been carried out on smaller scales; because there were so many Bedouin tribes at that point in time, I would assume that there were several smaller tribes, ones that could be wiped out without much resistance. If this could be the case, then the massacre of the men and selling of women and children into slavery might have been more acceptable, as Armstrong argues.

I only bring this up as a possibility, with the thought that the Qurayzah were simply a large and better known tribe, and as such, that type of sentence would not have been as acceptable. I'm just thinking of possibilities that would make Hazleton's and Armstrong's arguments reconciliable. What do you guys think?