Noble Ideals and Bloody Realities;Warfare in the Middle Ages
The relationship between ideal and reality in warfare has always been a complex and sometimes tortuous one- and perhaps never more so than in those lands owing allegiance to the Latin church during the medieval centuries Authors like Richard Kaeuper have fruitfully explored the difficult relationship between the chivalric ideals articulated in contemporary literature and social realities [1] but there is clearly scope for much more examination of these issues. The present volume, however, displays the familiar problems of the “collected conference paper” genre; a rather loose focus, contributions which, whatever their merits, only touch in the most marginal way on the nominal subject and essays of variable quality. It is perhaps unfortunate that (reflecting the specialisations of the editors) most of the dozen relatively brief contributions relate to the fields of Holy War and Crusading, an area where relationships between ideals and reality were especially complex- and potentially prone to present-centred appropriations.
The heart therefore sinks when David J Hay starts the opening piece with quotations from those noted medievalists George W Bush and Saddam Hussein. To be fair, this is unique in the volume and Hay's essay (despite its arguably anachronistic references to "collateral damage") is a non-tendentious examination of the ways in which medieval intellectuals sought to define and limit legitimate targets for military aggression. This covers movements like the Peace and Truce of God (though unfortunately Hay does not engage with the sceptical view of these developments articulated by French historians like Dominique Bartelemy [2]) and leads into a discussion of the origins of Crusade ideology which underlines the initial doubts about this innovation held by important elements of Western Christian society.
Kelly DeVries seeks to demonstrate that medieval western warfare set a uniquely high value on human life. This is a radical statement indeed and sadly the essay is not one of his best. Like Hay's contribution, it very much plays down the total nature of medieval warfare. It may be that the "Vegetian" warfare based on ravaging and sieges rather than battle (which they both broadly accept as the medieval norm pace authorities like Cliff Rogers) was less socially damaging than other approaches but such a view is distinctly counter-intuitive in the context of an economy ultimately based on subsistence agriculture. It would require a great deal more evidence of the long term impact of warfare on specific populations than is currently available to sustain it- one doubts whether, for instance, the populations of Northern England ravaged by the Normans in 1069 would have subscribed to the view that medieval warfare was a limited activity. Even within DeVries' definitions the comparative dimension is largely absent. Medieval Europe was not the only society to use individual body armour and fortifications and have effective military surgery (the three practices upon which he bases his argument). What made it unique? Apart from claims that the Ottomans played by different rules (founded, however, on their practice of killing rather than ransoming captives- which was itself far from absolute and even if correct might just suggest that medieval European fighters had stronger "guild consciousness" than their counterparts elsewhere) and that the arrival of gunpowder weapons changed things in Europe by introducing weaponry where the selection of targets no longer mattered (but the same could be said of English longbowmen and even Scottish, Flemish or Italian communal spearmen) there is little attempt to establish criteria for inter-cultural comparison.
Niall Christie examines how Muslim writers in the years immediately following the First Crusade explained the motivations of their Frankish enemies and finds remarkably little open recognition that these might have had a religious basis. The demonstration is convincing though the reasons for this apparent blindness are unclear; Christie speculates that his authors may have been reluctant to grant the Crusaders the legitimacy which an analogy with jihad might have afforded them but admits that this cannot be proved.
The most substantial contribution comes from Peter France and examines Crusader strategy. In addition to looking at the strategic choices made by the rulers of the Crusader states, he looks in depth at Papal strategies. France sees these as consistently favouring alliance with Byzantium and the use of Byzantine lands as the preferred axis of approach to the Holy Land over the maritime options offered by the Italian cities. He takes a radically "Papalist" view of crusading origins, which he takes back to the pontificate of Gregory VII. Indeed he suggests that a coherent theology of Holy War was initially developed for employment against the Christian enemies of the Reform Papacy of the mid 11th century and only turned against Muslims at a later date in an almost opportunistic manner. France's view of Crusading origins will not convince everyone. It could be seen as excessively minimising the clash of religions involved in Crusading. Were western Christian elites really so ignorant of Byzantium and innocent of hatred of Islam in the 1090's as France suggests (86)[3]? If so, how were so many persuaded to set out on an unparalleled and dangerous expedition- particularly if, as France argues, equal spiritual benefits were on offer to those who fought in Papally supported wars close to home (81)? If the theology of the Holy War was evolved initially to legitimise an aggressive assertion of Papal primacy at the expense of alternative Christian traditions why did the Papacy remain committed to an alliance with Byzantine schismatics for so long? This is however a very substantial essay and one with which future historians of the Crusades will have to engage.
The remaining essays, though interesting and informative, are rather slighter. Piers Marshall examines the torture of military captives in a Crusading context. He finds that this was relatively commonplace and undertaken within religious and ethnic groups as well as across the dividing lines between them- though some observers were unhappy at Christians using the worst forms of torture on each other. Deborah Gerish examines the almost invisible figures of royal wives in the First Kingdom of Jerusalem and concludes that they were marginalised by writers like William of Tyre because (mostly) eastern in origin and only of interest to the extent that they brought resources to the Crusade. This sounds plausible, though her claim that Crusade ideology "made no place" for Greek aid (122) sits awkwardly with France's views. Paula Stiles looks at the continuing military role of Muslim and, to a lesser extent, Jewish communities in 13th and 14th century Aragon and Valencia. Derived from the terms on which towns had yielded to their new Christian overlords, this function illustrates a society in which solidarities within a long-established community could trump religious identities- at least when it came to defending that community against outside attackers of any faith.
The two contributions with least Crusading flavour come from David Sylvester (on communal piracy in the Cinque Ports) and Ilana Krug (on 14th century English complaints about the abuse of taxation and purveyance in times of war). Both tend to reinforce rather than challenge conventional understandings of the shortcomings of English royal government in action.
Returning to the Middle East but going back several hundred years, Hugh Kennedy suggests that Lynn White's much-debated thesis relating the invention of the stirrup to changes in warfare and society may have merit in the Islamic world. He makes a strong case for this development underpinning the rise of the professional horse archer during the civil wars of the Abbasid Caliphate- a rise with devastating social and political consequences. Warren Treadgold contrasts a Byzantine reluctance to fight external wars with a penchant for civil war and relates this both to the political structures of the Empire and an imperial ideology with some resemblances to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven (military defeat against external foes called the Emperor's legitimacy into question while if a usurper won a civil war and took power then God was self-evidently on his side). His argument seems broadly convincing, though some may feel his depiction of a Byzantine empire defensive to the point of passivity in its dealings with hostile neighbours verges on caricature and might wonder how such an apparently dysfunctional polity lasted as long as it did. Finally Marcus Milwright offers an intriguing and admittedly speculative explanation of why Reynald de Chatillon may have sought to capture and remove the bones of the Prophet Muhammed from Medina- observed reality in those parts of the Islamic world which he knew from personal experience could have suggested that Muslims were as much given to the veneration of holy relics as their Christian contemporaries whatever orthodox teaching might say.
As so often, this collection of essays is a rather mixed bag whose contents have to stand or fall on their own rather variable merits. The conference environment has an invaluable role in allowing scholars to fly trial balloons and float ideas which, on examination, turn out to be in need of much refinement; it is however a much more open question whether it is useful to publish such papers in a form which their own authors might no longer subscribe to.
1 Richard Kaeuper "Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe" Oxford and New York 1999.
2 Notably in "L'an Mil et la Paix de Dieu; La France Chretienne et Feodale 980-1060" Paris 1999, subsequently amplified in "Chevaliers et Miracles; La Violence et le Sacre dans la Societe Feodale" Paris 2004. Indeed he also overlooks the important if controversial work of Jean Flori, e.g. "Guerre Sainte, Jihad, Croisade; Violence et Religion dans le Christianisme et l'Islam" Paris 2002.
3 John Tolan's "Saracens; Islam in the Medieval European Imagination" New York 2002 indicates widespread ignorance of the doctrinal content of Islam at this time but nevertheless a good deal of hostility to what were seen as pagan usurpers of Christian lands among intellectuals and writers of epic alike.