The Role of Chivalry in Medieval Warfare

Medieval warfare has always been known as a violent affair, which in most researched cases is quite accurate. In the earlier period, battles constituted of opposing sides decimating land, houses, and wreaking havoc and violence against civilians. Then there would sometimes be a pitched battle where many were maimed and killed, either in the battle itself or afterward by the victors. The killing and mutilation of defeated opponents were usually conducted to emphasize a victory, but also to damage the capability of a kingdom or individuals by destroying their armies and removing the leaders and figureheads. Generally, the victors would aim to remove those who could cause them the most trouble in battle, such as archers, as their effectiveness was a cause for concern, especially as elite men could be killed by low-status men, which could damage their prestige. This was particularly important in battles relating to rebellions, as removing figureheads could completely derail a rebellion along with destroying their remaining armies. Furthermore, killing and maiming defeated opponents acted as a deterrent for others. For example, William the Conqueror and the ‘Harrying of the North’ in 1069-1070, as a result of the rebellion in the Northern part of the country involving the remaining English claimant, the Danes, and northern subjects. The extent of the carnage inflicted by William’s forces resulted in famine and emigration. Henry of Huntingdon said William ‘sacked the city, and made great slaughter of the rebellious inhabitants’ (Huntingdon, 1996). This indicated William was well within his right to decimate the North, as the Northerners were rebels, so William was not only punishing them but showing others what happened in cases of rebellion against him by not sparing his opponents.

The Importance of Chivalry in Medieval Combat

Chivalry is a fluid concept for historians, so it’s difficult to fully determine what was deemed chivalrous and what wasn’t. In this discussion, I am referring to chivalry as a set of rules and ideals which knights and elite men followed. It's possible that these ideals and changes in how elite men were expected to behave impacted how battles and warfare were conducted. These new ways of thinking put more emphasis on the value of life and bodies, which was one of the reasons why siege warfare was used more than pitched battles in the high medieval period, as it potentially had fewer casualties, whereas in pitched battles anyone could be killed either intentionally or in crossfire.

Mercy was a key chivalrous ideal for elite men, so they had to decide whether to be seen as merciful and spare the defeated opponents or risk being deemed unchivalrous, which could result in the loss of honor. For example, Orderic Vitalis’ discussion on the Siege of Rochester states that William II was urged by his English subjects to kill the defenders of the castle, but other members of his army urged him to be merciful, as he had already beaten them, which was enough (Vitalis, 1853). This relates to the context of the event because, due to the political climate, William II wasn’t in a particularly strong position, which impacted how he was able to behave, as he needed support which he wouldn’t get if he killed his opponents. However, unchivalrous deeds could be excused if there was a justifiable reason, such as Richard I extracting large ransoms from captured opponents to gain funds for the war against the King of France. As Roger of Wendover states, ‘receiving a fitting ransom, as he was greedily anxious after the money of each and all of them in his state of necessity’ (Wendover, 1841). It’s important to bear in mind the narrative strategies used by medieval authors, as in this example, Roger is attempting to make sure the readers didn’t think badly of Richard by using justification. With this in mind, it could be deemed acceptable for defeated opponents not to be spared if they chose to hold out against the attacker, providing the attacker gave the defender opportunities to surrender or make a truce. The key point is the defenders had to be allowed to surrender, otherwise, the attacker could be deemed as the unchivalrous party, as surrender and truces were a general convention of warfare in this period. As Geoffroi de Charney said in his book "The Book of Chivalry," men who were unworthy to be knights were men who waged war without valid reasons, those who robbed and wounded and killed without reason (Kaeuper & Kennedy, 1996). It was relatively common practice that if opponents surrendered relatively quickly during a siege, they were more likely to be treated mercifully than if they held out for a long period. For example, in 1138, Stephen I had Arnulf de Hesdin hung for refusing to surrender, so Stephen’s men had to be put at risk, which meant in Stephen’s eyes the lives of the defenders were forfeited (Crouch, 2002). It’s necessary to remember Arnulf had little land and wasn’t the owner of the castle, which creates the question: did status impact if men were spared?

Loyalty and Surrender

When talking about sieges, it’s important to look at the whole situation, as the besieged could be defending against an invader and therefore they are being loyal to their lord, so it would be unchivalrous to surrender their lord's land. Such as men holding Richard I’s castle against him because they were unaware of his return to England, but they then readily surrendered to him once they knew it was him. As Richard W. Kaeuper states, loyalty was one of the most common ideals associated with knights (Kaeuper, 2001). But it could also be deemed chivalrous to surrender if there was no way for defenders to win, as both sides would want to avoid battle. Therefore, if one side was sure to win, then the weaker side would ask for a truce. This shows that the ideals of chivalry and social norms created a function of sparing opponents, as it showed the victor as a chivalrous person. This was very important to the higher statuses as it created status and prestige, but it also dictated how people were expected to behave, and sometimes this wasn’t adhered to. This is evidence that the function of sparing opponents didn’t remain the same and changed depending on the situation.

Rebellion and Chivalry

Another situation could be a rebellion. If defenders refused to surrender to their lord who they were rebelling against, they were already deemed traitors and therefore unchivalrous by nature and didn’t necessarily require chivalrous treatment in return. For example, the Battle of Evesham, where Simon de Montfort was killed and ruthlessly mutilated, and many were killed rather than ransomed, which ran against the idea of chivalry and general conduct in battle at the time. But it shows how chivalry wasn’t always a requirement if the opposing side wasn’t believed to be worthy of chivalrous behavior. However, if rebels weren’t automatically seen as a threat, then punishments tended to be more merciful, even though it was still considered treason. For example, none of the men who rebelled against Henry II in 1173-74 or 1183 were executed or mutilated (Barlow, 1986). This is again evidence for changing functions depending on the context, which in this case is the political climate, as Henry needed to maintain support by adhering to the social norm of sparing his opponents.

Tactics and Ambush

Although chivalry played an important role in conduct, victory in war could rarely be won when based solely on chivalrous actions. Hence the reliance on tactics of ambush and general trickery without thought of chivalry. For example, William Marshal, who was the supposed image of chivalry, suggested to Henry II to pretend to disassemble his army then quickly reassemble and attack the French King (Crouch, 2002). In relation to this, it’s important to remember few battles were fought to a decisive victory; many ended in surrender to save lives and resources, so it’s possible unchivalrous tactics were not often used. In essence, sparing defeated opponents could have a chivalrous function and so be of use to an elite man as it could bolster their reputation as chivalrous, with the individual ideal/s changing depending on the situation, such as loyalty or being merciful. But it could also be used as justification for not sparing opponents, such as the previously stated situation of rebellion, and therefore showing that functions could interchange with the context of the event.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while chivalry was an important ideal that shaped medieval warfare, its application was far from consistent. The interpretation of chivalry often depended on the situation, political climate, and the perceived worthiness of opponents. This multifaceted nature of chivalry highlights the complexity of medieval warfare and the intricate dance between honor, necessity, and survival.

References

• Barlow, F. (1986). The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216. Longman.
• Crouch, D. (2002). William Marshal: Knighthood, War, and Chivalry, 1147-1219. Routledge.
• Huntingdon, H. of (1996). The History of the English People 1000-1154. Oxford University Press.
• Kaeuper, R. W. (2001). Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Oxford University Press.
• Kaeuper, R. W., & Kennedy, E. (1996). The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi de Charny: Text, Context, and Translation. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Vitalis, O. (1853). The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. H.G. Bohn.
• Wendover, R. of (1841). Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History. H.G. Bohn.