You also don't write up rules of conduct, if they are generally accepted and also always observed. You write them down, because you want people to observe them.
Was medieval warfare fought more amicably compared to the modern era?
- Thread starter JoanOfArc007
- Start date
Joined Oct 2010
2,127 Posts | 350+
Wessex
It has been said that the 20th century was the most violent century in history, based on the number of people who died by violence.
One of the main differences between medieval warfare and 20th century warfare is the extent of the battlefield. The destruction and terror of an army moving across a country would be limited in the width of the destruction it could do. Away from the fighting, life could continue as if nothing unusual was happening. A bit like a maggot chewing it’s way through an apple leaving a path of destruction but the other parts are untouched.There was also a very different view about patriotism, it was much more local rather than national so less ideological except for religious differences.
But in Europe, war was often seen as a way of getting rich through pillage and ransom or taking someone else’s land, not so much noble causes.
So was medieval war more amicable than modern war? I doubt that. It way violent, nasty and close. Fear of being injured would have held many back, until the other side broke and then the real slaughter could begin, cutting down an enemy that is trying to run away. Sparing those that could be ransomed, and stealing everything possible from everyone else.
One of the main differences between medieval warfare and 20th century warfare is the extent of the battlefield. The destruction and terror of an army moving across a country would be limited in the width of the destruction it could do. Away from the fighting, life could continue as if nothing unusual was happening. A bit like a maggot chewing it’s way through an apple leaving a path of destruction but the other parts are untouched.There was also a very different view about patriotism, it was much more local rather than national so less ideological except for religious differences.
But in Europe, war was often seen as a way of getting rich through pillage and ransom or taking someone else’s land, not so much noble causes.
So was medieval war more amicable than modern war? I doubt that. It way violent, nasty and close. Fear of being injured would have held many back, until the other side broke and then the real slaughter could begin, cutting down an enemy that is trying to run away. Sparing those that could be ransomed, and stealing everything possible from everyone else.
I brought a specific counterexample.
And War of the Roses had very few sieges, in general. Yes, a famous one - the Men of Harlech... with a very small garrison.
From my understanding Hospitallers protected and gave medical help to pilgrims regardless of religion. Warfare was entirely different matter, e.g. during Hospitallers conquering of Rhodes (1307) they captured the citadel of Filerimos and massacred all 300 defenders after it had surrendered. Hospitallers were also present when Richard I ordered the execution of 2700 muslim hostages after Siege of Acre in 1189-1991 during the Third Crusade. But these deeds were not taught as chivalric to Saladin in the Song of Roland. These events are also not emphasized by Grousset, whose works you cite are almost a century old and written in totally different research ethos and context when compared to more modern academic history.
It should also be noted that there have been various codes of war during the 20th century (League of Nations, UN etc.). If they have not been followed, why should we assume medieval codes had been? There are plenty of opposite examples, even more frequent than examples from modern wars. Along this line of thought one could interpret poems and chivalric codes as propaganda about good Christians, moral superiority of the nobility as well as advertisement for the crusading movement (among other things). But I agree on that it is good to acknowledge both sides of the coin.
P.S. In terms of relative casualties it's hard to beat Paraguay in War of Triple Alliance (1864-1870).
Joined Jan 2025
2,713 Posts | 2,052+
United States
In the Wars of the Roses, there was relatively little raiding and pillaging, as to do so would harm both sides. They usually sought to bring the campaign to a quick end through a pitched battle. The battles were very bloody, such as at Towton, but the peasants did not suffer the effects of the war as much as peasants on the continent would.
Joined Jan 2025
2,713 Posts | 2,052+
United States
Joined Jul 2015
16,914 Posts | 9,355+
Netherlands
It is one of those rare instances, like with Bob Dylan, where the adaptation is leagues ahead of the original.
Joined Jul 2015
16,914 Posts | 9,355+
Netherlands
Now you have the ability to turn whole cities and countries into ashes, yet luckily most countries seem not to eager to want to do that.
Even with the war between possibly the 2 biggest homicidal maniacs since Stalin, Mao and Hitler (Iraq and Iran) they didn't turn to carpet bombing, though they dabbled with it a bit.
The UK could have nuked Buenos Aires in retaliation for the killed sheep, but for some reason they didn't.
The wars around Israel had every opportunity to turn into a civilian slaughterfest, yet they didn't.
I think it depends quite a bit on how the civilian population support the war and/or how close they are, plus of course the risk of retaliation.
Joined Dec 2015
6,662 Posts | 1,295+
Buffalo, NY
Last edited:
Those are fair points..Wrt the hospitallars considering we are talking about a 900 year history it only makes sense that there are a few bad eggs. Personnel from the US Army have been accused of war crimes in Vietnam, Korea, and other areas in the 20th century …There have been massacres recorded in history by pretty much every ethnic religious group we can think of. In general this specific organization The Hospitallars stands out as being tolerant and open minded…that’s reported by its founding message and multiple sources itt… that is a fair assessment we could look at different organizations of Knights to find that they were not as tolerant ie the Teutonic Knights.
To be fair just as you said, we can look at the more modern secular era and see that it was the most vicious time in human history at least because of World War II. The amount of bigotry from the Empire of Japan and third Reich is notable…maybe because it was industrial it was more destructive then any one 5 -10 year time period in history. People can rightfully talk about the torture methods employed by those in the middle ages like the wheel, the horses tearing about four limbs of someone. …but recall unit 731 of the EOJ and the holocaust by Germany in ww2. Even the worst actions by those of the middle ages would at least offer people the chance to convert or die….as cruel as that is it can’t compare to the extermination campaign of Nazi germany against the Soviets and Jews.
As for Grousset he is just as worthy as any modern historian… he is one of the most prized historians from France. He acknowledged poor behavior by Christians in his works. In the same sense we could also criticize some of modern historians for being too harsh toward how men and women conducted themselves in the middle ages.
The amicability of medieval warfare was often genuine, but as I said for the example of War of the Roses - think of the reasons. It was not about tolerance and open mindedness, it was more about agreement on common and limited goals.
Wars of the Roses were a civil war - in both senses, in some senses.
In a war, the "enemy civilians" might be:
- Vital military assets for the enemy and nobody else
- Neutrals who should not be antagonized
- Despicable accomplices of the enemy for giving the enemy aid and comfort and not overthrowing the enemy.
If the enemy civilians are traitors and despicable accomplices of enemy for not actively fighting on your side then damaging them out of spite is deserved even if militarily useless.
It is only if both sides believe in 2) that they are inclined to spare civilians.
And in War of the Roses, it was the case - both sides tried to resolve wars by targeting the opposing nobles and avoid offending the civilians. Henry VI was overthrown when Queen Margaret´s victorious army misbehaved in London, leading the citizens of London to defect to Earl of March (to be Edward IV).
A lot of the amicable behaviour of medieval European warfare derived from how it was civil wars of Carolingian Empire. The loose alliances meant an abundance of neutrals to antagonize. French conquest of Britain made wars in Britain and between Britain and France French civil wars too.
They are fictional stories.
You might as well watch cop shows to repudiate police corruption and violence.
Rules of Warfare are usually adopted and followed for pragmatic reasons.
Taking prisoners is not done becase it's humane it's done be cause of you don't and everyone fights to the death warfare is expensive.
Taking prisoners is not done becase it's humane it's done be cause of you don't and everyone fights to the death warfare is expensive.
Joined Feb 2017
1,295 Posts | 971+
Birland
Plus, even the stories don't necessarily practice what they preach, unless you're only familiar with later sanitised adaptations.
The very essence indeed.
The MAD concept is not what was once anymore, The public fear of it has diminished compared to the glorious times of the proxy struggle between the bourgeois oppressors & their low class puppets vs the dirty commies. The people today think that it is just huge firework or something.
The only "nice" thing about medieval warfare compared to modern warfare (ignoring greater offensive technology) is that it was less ideological. In medieval times, a battle could be avoided by instead, the two commanders dueling each other and the winner is the one true king or whatever. That's inconceivable in modern times. Like imagine Hitler challenging Stalin to a duel and the winner owns Eastern Europe, that's just so silly! But I wish that was actually the case, because a duel kills far fewer people than a battle.
There were also friendly rivalries and often respect for the nobles you wage war against. Again, that's not really the case in modern times. The USA has never respected any country it just fought a war against, regardless of the outcome. Foraging was devastating in medieval times, but medieval armies wouldn't take reprisals out on peasants based on what the nobles did, for they were just peasants. Nor was ethnic cleansing common.
And that's because views on what a country is are fundamentally different now than they were back then. Back then, kings was where power lay, and the lands they controlled was their personal property to be used or transferred or sold as they saw fit. That's the origin of sovereignty. Nowadays, a country is about the nation of people who live there, and the rulers are ideally figureheads who represent the nation's interests. The horrors Nazi Germany inflicted only make sense in a post-nationalist context.
Overall though, medieval warfare was still horrifying. Hell, off the battlefield, medieval warfare was tragic due to disease and famine and exertion and other stuff. It was even worse than modern warfare in that regard. And anything relating to King Arthur or songs are made-up fairy tales. Judging medieval warfare based on Robin Hood would be like judging WW2 based on Captain America.
There were also friendly rivalries and often respect for the nobles you wage war against. Again, that's not really the case in modern times. The USA has never respected any country it just fought a war against, regardless of the outcome. Foraging was devastating in medieval times, but medieval armies wouldn't take reprisals out on peasants based on what the nobles did, for they were just peasants. Nor was ethnic cleansing common.
And that's because views on what a country is are fundamentally different now than they were back then. Back then, kings was where power lay, and the lands they controlled was their personal property to be used or transferred or sold as they saw fit. That's the origin of sovereignty. Nowadays, a country is about the nation of people who live there, and the rulers are ideally figureheads who represent the nation's interests. The horrors Nazi Germany inflicted only make sense in a post-nationalist context.
Overall though, medieval warfare was still horrifying. Hell, off the battlefield, medieval warfare was tragic due to disease and famine and exertion and other stuff. It was even worse than modern warfare in that regard. And anything relating to King Arthur or songs are made-up fairy tales. Judging medieval warfare based on Robin Hood would be like judging WW2 based on Captain America.
Joined Nov 2010
14,406 Posts | 4,143+
Cornwall
But it happened. Sometimes crusaders killed everyone in a town, like Silves in the Algarve. Sometimes Almohads killed everyone, like one overenthusiastic general did at Niebla, or a couple of places in Ifriqiya.
These are 'ordinary people', 'peasants' is a ridiculously overused word on here.
Maybe slightly pre-medieval, buy Atilla devastated some cities in the Balkans so much that they weren't inhabited for 100 years.
There are many examples, the list goes on.
Single combat is more for show than deciding the fate of a battle. King Ferdinand forbade it in the War of Granada, as a stupid waste of good men.
El Cid famously fought 2 duels as what we would call a youth. 'A Knight from Navarra' and 'a muslim from Medinaceli ' - but no context is ever given, it's like he met them on the road. Maybe Changdao knows more, but they certainly didn't decide anything profound!
There is an issue with the thread title here: if you point out that Hospitallers stand out, you basically state that they were an exception to the general conduct of warfare and thereby can't really draw a conclusion based on their (supposed) behaviour that medieval warfare in general was fought "more amicably compared to the modern era". I also would ask why there is a need for such a generalized comparison?
The amount of deaths and various heinous acts is greater due to scale of modern wars compared to the previous eras. We also have much more information about them compared to medieval times due to their relative proximity.
The goal of most wars in Middle Ages was not genocide, whereas it might be argued that it was at least a partial goal for Germany in World War II. But there were wars in the Middle Ages with genocidal goals, e.g. Albigensian Crusade (see e.g. massacre of Beziers, 1209). Small-scale warfare was also more frequent in the Middle Ages than in modern times. And there are also cases of amicability from modern wars.
Well Richard I ordered the massacre of 2700 prisones at Acre because he thought Saladin did not react quickly enough. I will just add the anecdotal quote from Arnauld Amalric (commander, when asked on how to distinguish Catholics from Cathars at Beziers): "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. (Kill them all, for the Lord knows those that are His)." I do not see much difference compared to Koriukivka massacre in 1943.
Here comes the classic... developer of lobotomy won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1949. On a more serious note I agree that all reading should be done with some scrutiny. Source criticism is one of the methods of academic historical research.
Grousset's work is still a really good overall chronological representation of the Crusades. Most criticizing about his work is related to his interpretation/assumption about the aims and goals of the Crusades and his narrative being built on that. And his work is a general history, later research on Crusades has added a lot of knowledge on the particulars (which again has an effect on general histories of the Crusades written closer to the modern era). There are, for example, several articles on Hospitallers and role of women in their infirmaries as well as about their activities in Greece during the 13th century.
Joined Jan 2024
3,592 Posts | 5,495+
Spain
He fought the Navarran knight Jimeno Garcés in a judicial combat to solve a dispute about the castle of Pazuengos. I don't recall the details about the muslim from Medinaceli.
Joined Oct 2010
2,127 Posts | 350+
Wessex
Geoffrey Parker in his book the Military Revolution argues that warfare developed differently in Europe to the rest off the world. He draws on extensive research but was criticised by some for his conclusions.
He suggests that European battles were a lot more confrontational than in other parts of the world. Difficult to sum up his detailed thesis but in essence he felt that Greek warfare eventually influence most of Europe. His point was that wars had to be as short and decisive as possible because they were fought mostly by farmers and therefore they preferred an immediate clash (there are of course some obvious exceptions). He contrasted this to some non European battles that seem to involve a lot of arrows and javelins, a limited number of elite warriors and mass combat only happening when one side starts to give way.
He suggests that European battles were a lot more confrontational than in other parts of the world. Difficult to sum up his detailed thesis but in essence he felt that Greek warfare eventually influence most of Europe. His point was that wars had to be as short and decisive as possible because they were fought mostly by farmers and therefore they preferred an immediate clash (there are of course some obvious exceptions). He contrasted this to some non European battles that seem to involve a lot of arrows and javelins, a limited number of elite warriors and mass combat only happening when one side starts to give way.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-