Pt 7 (last part)
Rough Manners and Knightly Customs
The more primitive the soldiers, the rougher their manners, and less civilized they were, the more bellicose as a general rule. Rough manners were much in evidence in the many private wars of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and in the first Crusade. Enemies were beheaded and their heads thrown into the beleaguered cities, bodies were dug up in the search for booty, Crusaders impaled the heads of fallen enemies on lances to terrorize the enemy, and so on. The knights met with this later themselves, when they had become more civilized but had to fight against rough and primitive foot-soldiers in Ireland. At the beginning of the fourteenth century they were complaining bitterly about the brutish customs of the Flemish, Swiss and Scottish foot-soldiers.
Obviously in a time of violence such as the tenth and eleventh centuries fighting was particularly reckless, because human life was not then as highly esteemed as later. It is a great pity that we do not know more about the usages of the period, particularly as regards battles and the taking of prisoners. But a passage from Orderic Vitalis is instructive about the behaviour of the knights. In his account of the battle of Brémule in 1119, he says that only three French knights were killed, but 140 were taken prisoner. This was attributable to the fact that their protective equipment was so good, and to the fact that the knights 'spared each other, and tried not so much to kill as to capture the fleeing enemy. Christian warriors had no desire to shed the blood of their brothers.'
Orderic's statement reflects the general notion that was part of the knightly code of honour, that the beaten enemy should be spared, since he was a knight and therefore a brother-in-arms. But there was money in it for the victor too; the captured knight could ransom himself for an enormous sum. The text can also be interpreted in another way: the enemy would be less likely to resist when he knows that he would probably be taken prisoner and not killed during pursuit by the victor.
Ferdinand Lot rightly points out that the Anglo-Norman and French knights did not always fight in a humane fashion, so that we must not generalise from Orderic's statement, nor apply it to all fighting. In the battle of Worringen Jan van Heelu laments bitterly that the brave Schavedries family had to leave so many of its members dead on the battlefield. It would have been better to take them prisoner. However, if the knights knew that no quarter would be given, they would fight even more stubbornly:
Anyone who knows that there will be no prisoners Fights stubbornly in such a battle.
Everything here depends upon fortuitous circumstances, and the general attitude of the army. It is possible that the knights fought more bravely to sell their lives more dearly; it is also possible that they fled before it was too late, or to avoid battle against brutal and merciless adversaries.
Rough customs produced the type of knight who endured physical suffering and who probably did not worry much about death. As the knights became more civilized and refined, their manner of waging war was modified. It became more ruthless again as soon as the foot-soldiers were strong enough to stand up to knightly armies. As for being captured, the knights had to solve this dilemma: to save their honour by offering resistance and not fleeing, which increased the danger of being killed, or to leave the battlefield, with the concomitant shame, but without having to ransom themselves for enormous sums and without further danger. So knights had to choose between honour and self-interest.
Faith and Religious Conviction
The art of war in the Middle Ages shows a deep religious strain running through all the customs and usages of the period. Mass was celebrated before practically every battle, with confession and communion beforehand. This happened at Thielt, Courtrai, Mons-en-Pévèle, and most other battlefields. As soon as the English and their mercenaries from Hainault, Liège, Brabant and Flanders found out where the Scottish army was, on the expedition which Jean le Bel accompanied, the knights went to confession, attended mass and took communion, and also made their wills, for the coming battle, uppermost in their minds, was a matter of life or death.
The influence of this deep faith is best expressed in accounts of the Crusade, and in chansons de geste. While Christian mercy and chivalrous customs, together with a well-understood self-interest, led to the more merciful conduct of war in the west, battles were still conducted in the east with the utmost cruelty. This was partly necessary to protect an army in a far-off land, where a heavy defeat would have meant annihilation and where spreading fear among the enemy troops weakened the Moslem capacity to resist, but this resistance might also be stiffened if they were convinced that no quarter would be given. The Holy War was fought with unheard of-ferocity and brutality on both sides, which must have spurred on the knights to make extra efforts in battle, lest they should fall into enemy hands.
As for the battle itself, it was of great importance for a knight to know that his sins were forgiven, and that death in battle promised eternal bliss in Paradise. Instead of losing his soul in unholy wars against other Christians, he saved it on a Crusade.
But, as always, human weakness must be taken into account. In a letter to his wife Stephen of Blois wrote: 'Many Christian brothers-in-arms were killed in action: their souls have come to know the joys of Paradise.' Stephen was too weak himself to endure privation and mortal danger during the siege of Antioch, and the deeply devout Joinville preferred life to the death of a martyr.
The service of God was however one of the major reasons for fighting against the Moslems, whose value as fighting men was soon correctly assessed by western knights. This is quite a normal phenomenon in war: the common soldier sees no reason why he should not fraternize with his enemies.
In the first Crusade this respect for the enemy was very clearly expressed by an anonymous knight who left us a remarkable account: 'Who can be so wise or learned that he is bold enough to describe the expertise, the martial virtues and the bravery of the Turks?… They say that they are descended from the Frankish race, and that no one, except the Franks and they themselves, has the right to call himself a knight. I shall tell the truth and no one can dispute it: if the Turks had held to belief in Christ and in holy Christendom… then it would be impossible to find a people surpassing them in might, bravery, and military genius… And yet by God's grace they were beaten by our men.'
In the chanson de geste it is always the knights' task to spread Christianity. Vivien speaks to his nobles in these words: 'As long as we live, we must not fail to kill Saracens and wipe them out, spreading God's law and putting our souls in the hands of God.' But there is also respect for the good warrior: 'If he would believe in Jesus and worship Him, no better knight could be found.' And again: 'If he were to be held over the font and be baptised, no such warrior could be found in the Christian world.' So there are paradoxes here as in other aspects of the knight's life, great cruelty on the one hand, and on the other generosity and respect for the enemy.
The influence of religion on warfare is shown again clearly in the customary war cries: Diex aie, the French translation of the earlier Byzantine cry: Adiuta Deus; Saint sépulchre; Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat. German knights used to march into battle singing 'Christus qui natus'. The Holy Lance and the Cross were carried as emblems before the troops. On the Italian carroccio a splendid monstrance was borne aloft with the consecrated Host, and priests always went with the lagoon. The outcome of the battle was often regarded as a judgment of God, and the belief of many people of that time in the intervention of the Virgin is shown by the number of times it is mentioned.
Religious feeling helped knights to overcome their fear. As soon as they found themselves in trouble they invoked the help of God, of the Virgin, or of the patron saint of warriors. In all the Crusades, particularly the First, faith played a great part in overcoming fear, and the Crusaders thereby brought their expedition to a successful end: once they had started, their greatest hope of salvation lay in their ceaseless striving to accomplish their chosen task. When a monk spoke encouragingly before a battle to Simon de Montfort, leader of the crusaders against the Albigensians, he answered: 'Do you think I am afraid? The cause of Christ is at stake. The whole Church is praying for me, and I know that we cannot be beaten.'
This concludes the brief survey of the fundamentals of the knightly urge for battle. We have discussed the influence of his personal interests, a knight's sense of honour, the rude manners and knightly customs and the role of religious conviction. Actually these motives underlying the attitude of the knights cannot be separated; two or three of them will operate simultaneously.
But not all factors are constant: self-interest may yield to the common good, or may function in a broader framework to the common advantage. Leaders may be brave or cowardly, the personal sense of honour may be subordinated to the advantage of the honour of family or country, religion does not always play a great part in every case. These motives thus seem less important than the two essential factors which will be discussed below, namely the arming of the knights and the confidence which their armor gave them to overcome fear, the inner cohesiveness of the knightly families and the close ties binding the vassals to their lord.
NB I'll start a thread dealing with those other factors sometime in the future.
