Postby s_taillebois » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:44 pm
M. Munoa used a very appropriate example. The armour plated aristocracy, and their followers, had a situational ethic which was quite different from a modern norm.
In a warfare sense, their killing was neither the modern concept of total war (courtesy of Napoleon and W.T. Sherman), nor romanticized medieval chivalry.
They could show some restraint, as many of the 'codes' were intended to slow loses amongst the aristocracy. But the lower orders, or those not remaining within the social stratus, or those outside the generally understood social order (ie Moslims) were usually exempted from any restraint. Examples of this would be the massacres of the Cathars (some of whom did not resist), the Jews usually murdered at the onset of a crusade, the massacre at Jerusalem or the peasant massacres of the 14th/15th centuries.
It seem's that any their attempts to limit the killing, in a war time sense, often occurred prior to, and well after the engagement. For example, in one siege, Saladin refused to fire on a tower (wherein a wedding was located) located within an outremer castle under siege. Or Henry the 2nd's occasional reluctance to finish off enemies...including his rebellious queen and sons, or the two French kings he so vexed.
But, normally, during the period of direct contact of forces, these kinds of chivalry were very rare.
But, due to their technological limitations, the modern concept of total war would have been quite alien to them. Essentially, their technologies/and stratified social order dictated an inability to sustain complete warfare-in the modern sense. That's why, as nasty as their warfare was, we don't get what amounts to as a world war, until the beginning of the modern era (ie the Napoleonic wars). The groups which did lose to the point of disappearence, often were absorbed into the victorious side-as a subclass. Examples here would be the Briton's, the various groups losing to the Turks, and such... IE although Charlemagne did massacre quite a few Saxons...the concept of a tribute power did tend to leave a few alive.
Concerning judicial combat, another matter entirely.
About the modern context for swords, chivalry and such...aside from use as a moral's builder, and a discipline...not that relevant in terms of the question at hand.
Obviously swords, rapiers, pikes, staffs and etc, have generally been superceded as the weapons of choice. So the use of such, in a lethal context would be a very rare event.
Knifes and such, obviously used a lot in our society. But often these weapons are being used frequently by those who'd have little concern about the parameters of this discussion.
Steven Taillebois
