Medieval warfare has always been known as a violent affair, which in most cases studied is entirely accurate. In the earlier period, fighting consisted of opposing sides decimating land, homes and sowing chaos and violence against civilians. Then there was sometimes a pitched battle in which many people were maimed and killed, either during the battle itself or afterwards by the victors. The killing and mutilation of defeated opponents was usually carried out to mark a victory. But also harm the capabilities of a kingdom or individuals by destroying their armies, removing leaders and figureheads. Generally, the victors would seek to eliminate those who could cause them the most problems in combat, such as archers, because their effectiveness was a concern, especially since elite men could be killed by low status men, this which could harm their prestige. This was especially important in battles related to rebellions, as removing figureheads could completely derail a rebellion and destroy remaining armies. Additionally, killing and mutilating defeated opponents had a deterrent effect on others. For example, William the Conqueror and the "Harry of the North" in 1069-1070, following the rebellion in the northern part of the country involving the last English claimants, the Danes and northern subjects. The scale of the carnage inflicted by William's forces led to famine and emigration. Henry of Huntingdon stated that William “sacked the town and committed a great massacre of the rebellious inhabitants”. Which indicated that William had every right to decimate the North, since the Northerners were rebels, so William was not only punishing them but showing others what happened if they rebelled against him by not sparing his adversaries. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Chivalry is a fluid concept for historians, so it is difficult to fully determine what was deemed chivalrous and what was not. is not, so in this discussion I am referring to chivalry as a set of rules and ideals followed by knights and elite men. His possible ideals and changes in the way elite men were expected to behave impacted the way battles and warfare were fought. These new ways of thinking place greater emphasis on the value of life and the body. This is one of the reasons why siege warfare was used more than pitched battles in the early Middle Ages, because it potentially resulted in fewer casualties, whereas in pitched battles anyone could be killed intentionally or in crossfire. Mercy was a key chivalric ideal for elite men, so they had to decide whether they wanted to be seen as merciful and spare defeated opponents or risk being judged unchivalrous, which could result in a loss of honor. For example, Orderic Vitalis's discussion of the Siege of Rochester, which states that William II was moved by his English subjects to kill the castle's defenders, but that others in his army urged him to demonstrate of mercy, because he had already beaten them. which was enough. This is linked to the context of the event because, due to the political climate, William II was not in a particularly strong position, which had an impact on his behavior, as he needed support which he wouldn't get if he killed his opponents. However,Less than chivalrous acts could be excused if there was a justifiable reason, such as Richard I extorting large ransoms from captured adversaries to obtain funds for war against the French king. As Roger of Wendover says, "he received a suitable ransom, for he was eager for the money of each of them in his state of necessity." It is important to keep in mind the narrative strategies used by medieval authors, because in this example Roger is trying to ensure that readers do not have a low opinion of Richard, by using justification. With this in mind, it might be considered acceptable that defeated opponents would not be spared, should they choose to hold out against the attacker provided that the attacker gives the defender the opportunity to surrender or enter into a truce . The key point is that the defenders had to be allowed to surrender, otherwise the attacker might be seen as the unchivalrous party, as surrender and truces were a general convention of war in this period. As Geoffroi de Charney said in his book The Book of Chivalry, men who were not worthy of being knights were men who waged war without good reason, those who stole, injured and killed without reason. It was relatively common that if opponents surrendered relatively quickly during a siege, they were more likely to be treated mercifully than if they resisted for a long period of time. For example, in 1138, Stephen I had Arnulf of Hesdin hanged for refusing to surrender. Stephen's men therefore had to be put in danger, which meant, in Stephen's eyes, that the lives of the defenders were lost. It must be remembered that Arnulf had little land and did not own the castle, which begs the question: did status have an impact if the men were spared? When talking about sieges, it is important to look at the bigger picture, as those under siege could defend themselves. against an invader and therefore they are loyal to their lord, so it would be unchivalrous to cede their lord's lands. Like men who held Richard I's castle against him because they were unaware of his return to England, but 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. But it could also be considered chivalrous to surrender if there was no way for the defenders to win, as both sides would want to avoid battle. Therefore, if one side was sure of winning, the weaker side would call a truce. This shows that the ideals of chivalry and social norms created a function of sparing opponents, because they showed the winner as a chivalrous person. Which in those days was very important to those of higher status because it created status and prestige, but it also dictated how people were supposed to behave, and sometimes that wasn't respected. This is proof that the function of sparing adversaries did not remain the same and changed depending on the situation. Another situation could be a rebellion, if the defenders refused to surrender to their lord who they were rebelling against, they were already considered traitors and therefore unchivalrous in nature and did not necessarily require chivalrous treatment in return. For example, the Battle of Evesham, where Simon de Montfort was killed and mercilessly maimed, and many were killed rather than ransomed, which went against the idea of ​​chivalry and general conduct in battle at the time. 'era. But this shows how chivalry..