Self-interest and Profits of War (only a small part of the chapter)
Earlier in this chapter the poem of Bertrand de Born was quoted. It gives a remarkable insight into the true motives which prompted participation in wars. Bertrand wished that rich lords would hate each other, because a rich man is nobler, more generous, and benevolent in time of war than in peace. As soon as hostilities were announced, he said cynically : 'We can laugh, because the barons will love us, … but if they want us to stick to them, they will have to pay us well.'139 But it was not just high pay that made Bertrand anxious to fight. War offered other prospects as well that were far more alluring and entailed less danger. It was a good time for 'taking goods away from usurers', for robbing burghers and merchants on the highways. The riches were there for the taking. The poet belonged to the class of humble vavassors, whose possessions and fiefs were very small. War, and the plundering raids it involved, helped these impoverished knights make ends meet. When Bertrand offered his services to the count of Poitiers he was already wearing his helmet, and had his shield slung round his neck. But then the problem of equipping himself for a campaign, seeing that he had no money, arose. In another expedition, the campaign of Jean de Beaumont in Scotland in 1327 with the army of Edward III —for which more volunteers turned out than had been expected, since all of them were hoping for very high pay—Jean Le Bel, who was a member of the expedition, summed up what was necessary for a military campaign: 'Everybody started to buy according to his rank and status: tents, little horses used in the country, and they found enough of them at reasonable price, pots, kettles, and so on, necessary in a campaign. It cost a great deal of money for a knight to be able to go out completely equipped, especially considering his expensive horses. The financial problems of petty vassals are understandable too, but of course this does not excuse their actions as robber-knights.
NB These "robber-knights" are mentioned quite a few times in the book, either by that name or as "robber captains" and were held in such disdain by their "betters" they were forbidden have there men wear livery for many years.
(part of a chapter on commanders)
A well-informed chronicler, William of Poitiers, made an interesting comparison between the ways in which Caesar and William the Conqueror commanded their armies. 'In Caesar's case, it was sufficient for his fame and importance simply to issue orders while he was fighting the Britons and Gauls: only rarely did he take part in the fighting. This was the custom in ancient times, as is evident from the Commentaries. For William it would have been neither honourable nor effective merely to give orders in his conflict with the English, if he had not at the same time fulfilled his obligations as a knight, as he had always done in other wars. In every battle he fought with his sword, either as the first man or at least among the first.'158 That medieval concept was inspired by the customs and usages of chivalry, but it wasalso a natural consequence of the very small size of knightly armies. Because of this, the commander as a rule stayed very close to his knights. The hierarchy in such matters was not very strict: Tancred's biographer, Ralph of Caen, says that he looked upon his knights as his treasure, and often took over guard-duty from wounded or exhausted men in his retinue, while never letting his own turn go by.159 On the march the commander always had to be prepared to reach his destination with the last knights, and if the enemy laid an ambush, he had to fight with some of his troops. His example always inspired the other knights. In flight or in retreat he had to keep the enemy at bay with the rearguard, as Tancred and the young Louis the Fat did, with the best troops in the army.
Many of the best knights are taken prisoner.
Know full well that this is the custom:
The bravest fight in the rearguard
If there is a flight.
The others do not worry about this,
But try to save themselves
By fleeing headlong.160
Two English kings had tremendous influence as leaders: Richard I and Edward III. Edward I might
also be mentioned, but he won no victories on the continent. The Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal says of Richard I: 'The bravest were so fearless (under his command) that since that war thirty of our men have dared take on forty Frenchmen, a thing quite unheard of till then. It is plain from this that men who have a good leader are far more courageous and become a better fighting unit.'162
