I bought this book a week or two ago, because I was
interested in finding out about the level of mercy and brutality that medieval
warfare involved.
The book is divided into several sections, which include
placing brutality in warfare in context by explaining how pervasive violence in was in medieval peacetime, battles and sieges. The first chapter on violence during peacetime
is deliberately concise, but does a very good job of providing a useful
background for the warfare sections.
In addition, it was fascinating to read about the medieval
perspective that a strong king, unafraid to be brutal, was actually a good thing, as viewed by those who lived under his reign. This was because the law and state was weak
and violence commonplace, and it was felt that only by extreme measures could
deterrence prove effective.
Even more intriguing were the competing powers of mercy and
brutality. Both are shown to be successful or not at different times. For example,
slaughtering the garrison of a castle that doesn’t surrender can prompt others
to simply give up. On the other hand, sparing men could mean that behaviour
being returned by the enemy, whereas killing prisoners could demoralise the
army as they knew they’d likely face the same if they’re ever captured.
The focus in the book is England
and France,
although there are forays into the Holy Land, Ireland,
Scotland and Wales.
This is partly because England
and France were
more cohesive and centralised nations than their rivals at the time,
emphasising the authority and approval of kings when it came to atrocity.
Perhaps surprisingly the bits I found most extreme were in the initial
peacetime section.
There are three maps, all at the start. For this sort of book
I view maps as a nice extra rather than something essential, but it’s still
useful to include them, particularly for the Holy Land.
The writing style is clear and easy to understand, and good
use is made of sources. The author has his own views regarding traditional and
revisionist schools of thought (about King John, for example) and is quite open
about it, which I like. He also explains why Philip Augustus, despite being
hugely successful, isn’t nearly as celebrated as Richard the Lionheart or Saladin.
I don’t have much bad to say about this book. I’m not too
fond of pointing ahead to future chapters/atrocity examples (I’d rather just
read as it comes). That’s about it, to be honest. The book’s interesting, easy
to read, explains why brutality was so commonplace and the balance between
brutality and mercy. It more than met my expectations.
Thaddeus
No comments:
Post a Comment