Unlawful and Unacceptable Tactics in Medieval Warfare: Legal and Ethical Constraints

Medieval warfare was governed by complex and deeply entrenched rules, designed to uphold personal honor and protect civilians. Certain tactics were considered unlawful or unacceptable, reflecting a sophisticated understanding of both ethics and strategy. This article delves into the legal and ethical constraints that medieval warriors had to adhere to, providing a clearer picture of the era's unlawful and unacceptable practices.

Sacking a Town or City that Had Surrendered

In the context of sieges and surrenders, there were strict rules that warriors had to follow. According to these rules, if a town or city had surrendered without a siege, it was to remain peaceful, with only the rulership changing hands. However, if the surrender was following a battle or a siege, for example, as occurred in Visby in 1361 and Jerusalem in 1187, the inhabitants were often required to pay a fire-tax. This meant that the town experienced financial hardship but was not subjected to further violence. Sacking was permitted only if the town was taken by assault, as was the case in Jerusalem in 1095 and 1099, and in Constantinople in 1204 and 1453. In such instances, invaders could rape, plunder, and loot for a period of three days and nights.

Attacking Unarmed Non-Combatants

It was considered inhuman to attack unarmed non-combatants, including heralds, peasants, bourgeoisie, clergy, women, and children. These individuals were not part of the actual combat and were thus granted protection. Violations of this rule could lead to serious consequences, both in terms of public opinion and the honor of the warrior.

Using a Crossbow Against a Christian Enemy

The crossbow was renowned for its devastating effectiveness, leading to its prohibition in the Lateran Council in 1137. While the ban was aimed at restraining its use among Christians, it was not extended to Heathens, Muslims, and schismatics, who could still legally employ crossbows. Interestingly, the crossbow was known in Arabic as qaws Ferengi, which translates to "Frankish bow," highlighting its association with the Western (Frankish) warriors.

Killing Prisoners

The murder of prisoners was not just an ethical violation, but also a pragmatic one. The ethical reason was that it was immoral to kill those who had surrendered and placed themselves in the offender's mercy. Economically, the murder of prisoners was unwise since nobles could be ransomed, mercenaries could be hired, and levies could be disarmed and sent home. This practice was not merely the act of stupid or amoral brutes, as the medieval people were quite intelligent and pragmatic. Killing prisoners contradicted the values of honor and chivalry that were deeply ingrained in the society.

Treachery and Breaking an Oath

Treachery and breaking an oath were considered the lowest forms of conduct. Historically, this type of behavior carried severe consequences, including capital punishment in many countries even today. The importance of honor and fidelity to oaths is still maintained in modern military and civilian codes, as evidenced by the phrase "officer and a gentleman," which continues to carry significant weight. Breaking an oath was considered an immediate and unforgivable breach of honor, often resulting in immediate execution.