Образы войны в исторических представлениях англичан позднего Средневековья

Images of War and Perceptions of History in Late Medieval England[1582]

The present book deals with the ideas, notions and attitudes of the late-medieval people of England towards the wars waged by English sovereigns. Among the numerous foreign policy conflicts of that period 1 have considered several principal ones: the Hundred Years' War, hostilities in Scotland and Flanders, and the two Castilian campaigns of 1367 and 1386. Without going into the details of foreign affairs, my aim is to examine the motives and circumstances behind each conflict through the eyes of the participants and their contemporaries, to scrutinize stereotypes, commonplaces and topoi created by the medieval historiographical tradition, and to raise the question of the influence of prolonged warfare on the English national identity of that period.

Analysis of royal official documentation, as well as court-initiated propaganda reflected in the works of late-medieval historians, clearly testifies that even in the Early Modem period, just as in the previous epoch, formal observance of conditions of the just war was extremely important. Any military conflict conducted without it was resolutely condemned by the Christian community as a sinful act. The full conformity of each conflict in which the English sovereigns took part to all the criteria of just war, as formulated by the Church Fathers and expressed in canonical law, was constantly accented in all propagandists and historical texts. Reasoning from justice as the main principle of organization of the cosmic order, English authors represented their kings' military campaigns as just acts directed not so much towards the defence of those monarchs' personal interests as the protection of the very foundations of that order. Thus, in all the official letters and proclamations of the English kings, the war against France was not only presented as a conflict between two pretenders to the French throne, but also viewed at a different angle as a struggle between law and lawlessness. The English opposed the ancient custom of the Franks which dismissed women and their descendants from royal succession, appealing to a higher law they saw as written in the Old and New Testaments and embodied in nature. Thus, in the conception of the English theologians and lawyers, the French who appealed to the Salic Law opposed the Law of the Lord and were apostates. This reinforced the notion that the English fought not only for the rights of their suzerain, but also for divine truth and justice.

The interpretation of war as accomplishment of a certain noble and just mission appears to have been an important factor which influenced English national identity. Justifying war against neighbouring Christian peoples, the English medieval theologians, lawyers and historians treated each battle as an ordeal, wherein the Lord sent victory to the just party, and each victory by one's countrymen became a verdict of divine justice. It is important to note that the English authors were ready to see signs of divine support to their side in any conflict, and as a consequence came to form a conception of the English as a chosen people. Historical notions of English righteousness did not change even in periods of military failure. For example, narrating the defeats inflicted by the French at the end of the Hundred Years' War, the English chroniclers blamed all troubles on unfaithful allies and poor military leaders, but never questioned God's benevolence towards the English side.

The measures undertaken by the royal administration had quite an effective impact on popular awareness, forming a patriotic attitude to England's wars. While I do not attribute a conscious desire to inculcate beliefs of national superiority to medieval monarchs and their "ideologists", I would argue that such beliefs came about as an indirect consequence of propaganda which had in fact been aimed at the achievement of quite specific goals: gathering of surtaxes, organization of border defences, recruitment of mercenaries, etc. Some elements of that propaganda, in particular collective prayers for the success of royal armies, and the streamlined system of dissemination of information through newsletters and proclamations, promoted the perception of war as a matter of the sovereign's honour by all subjects of English crown. Being obliged to support him as true vassals and true Christians, they were thus led to develop feelings of personal participation and individual interest in the successful end of the conflict.

Official propaganda not only engendered pride in feats of one's countrymen in English society, but also inspired fear of the enemy threatening to invade England itself and plotting enslavement of its population. It is necessary to note that the patriotic rhetoric urging the people to join in the struggle with the enemy and even accept death for the defence of the motherland (pro patria mori), testifies not only to the durability of ancient topoi, but also to a well-developed national consciousness. Following the authors of royal proclamations and engaged by authorised preachers, English chroniclers too worked at the "proper" image of the enemy. Comparing fellow-countrymen and "others" (who in times of war turned from strangers into enemies), historians inevitably placed the representatives of the conflicting sides at the opposite ends of the "scales" of mental and ethical and even physical parameters.

Naturally, the principal characters of medieval historical narration were sovereigns. Medieval authors were certainly quite far from creating "complex" depictions of historical heroes whose characteristic features, deeds and behaviours would all interconnect logically; nevertheless, it is still possible to mark out several key parameters distinguishing a good sovereign from a bad one. Perhaps the most important requirement for each monarch (who occupied the throne by the grace of God and for protection of the people from external danger and lawlessness) was the virtue of justice. In English medieval chroniclers' view, hostile sovereigns lacking in this virtue not only usurped thrones, impiously ignoring the will of God, but also egoistically tyrannised their own subjects. The absence of justice and piety generated hypocrisy, insidiousness, cruelty and other vices. On the contrary, guided by the quest for supreme justice, the pious English kings showed truthfulness, mercy and other positive qualities.

If justice was the central trait in the descriptions of those in power, above all the monarchs, then the defining positive quality of the subjects was, beyond any doubt, fidelity. It is important to note that during the period under discussion, subjects' fidelity was gradually depersonalised, emphasizing devotion less to the person of the king and more to the kingdom as a whole. All other evaluative parameters coincided with characteristic features of sovereigns and were assumed to be positive for one's own countrymen and negative for the "others". Thus, the typical representative of "our" community possessed a certain specific set of virtues, and the typical enemy a corresponding set of vices and weaknesses.

If official royal propaganda appealed first of all to vassal fidelity and patriotism, then "public opinion" was more guided by the private interests and individual expectations of the population. It is reasonable that, for each of participant of any war, there would be various individual motives causing them to take up arms. Representatives of all social strata without exception must have had a personal stake if they were to endure the hardships of war for years. The range of these private motives was wide enough: from aspirations to personal glory or fear of losing one's knightly honour, to materialistic desires to build up wealth by plundering enemy territory. This last circumstance particularly concerned the conflict with France, for during the period of the Hundred Years' War in English society the idea steadily developed that wars in France promised material welfare and prosperity to each Englishman individually and to the English kingdom as a whole. Already during the first stage of the war, the myth of successful commoners who gained not only martial honour and glory, but also titles and wealth through fighting, had arisen in the English society and become rather popular. As chroniclers testified, in the 14lh and 15lh centuries many young people in England dreamed of imitating the careers of glorified mercenaries and famous brigands. Even noble knights seeking fame did not forget about the lucre they could acquire in a successful campaign. Statutes and historical writings demonstrate that all strata of society were interested in ransom for captives, from peasants to kings. According to French sources, soldiers of the English garrison regularly kidnapped men and women and held them captives for the purpose of obtaining ransom. Pillaging and murder tended to be considered as crimes only when towards one's own country and in peacetime. Beyond the borders of the kingdom these actions were interpreted differently, namely as harming the prosperity of the enemy and hence serving the noble mission of re-establishing justice. From time to time the English prepared special military operations for the purpose of pillaging. As a rule, English chroniclers tried to explain such actions as the natural desire of their countrymen to avenge their suffering and losses; even the vengefulness and obvious cruelty of the English troops were described as evidence of the English tirelessly striving for justice.

Meanwhile, despite the popularity of the idea of war as a guarantee of English prosperity, it could never be reflected in official documents proceeding from the royal court. At each stage of every conflict the English crown invariably emphasised that war was the only means of achieving an honourable peace. In the framework of medieval mentality, for which the analysis of war into religious categories was typical, violation of divine law and justice was treated as a sinful act to be punished, even through armed conflict if necessary. Peace, just like war, directly depended on justice: abuse of the law required retribution. War was a way of establishing law and order and restoring lost peace, the foundation of peace rather than the alternative to it. Without restoration of violated justice, peace lost its value and was condemned in the same way as an unjust mercenary war. The theme of condemnation of any truce with enemies without the absolute restoration of justice was a major motive in English political and historical literature. Thus, English adherents of the conception of the just war resolutely condemned not only "the shameful peace" with Scotland concluded in 1328, or the truce with France in 1347, but also the treaty of Bretigny signed in 1360, which is traditionally viewed by modem scholars as a great success of English diplomacy. The fact that this treaty was unpopular in France is beyond question. However the sources tell us that many English people were also dissatisfied with this venture, interpreting it as a shameful renunciation of the ultimate goal — the return of the crown to the rightful king.

From the point of view of the majority of English authors the only worthy peace with France was concluded at Troyes in 1420: by its terms Henry V was proclaimed the successor and the regent of the French crown. It is noteworthy that after the ratification of this treaty, the English parliament practically ceased to finance military campaigns in France, assuming that the English had already discharged their vassal duty to the sovereign, and leaving the costs of suppressing "rebellions" entirely to the French.

Against the background of a stable official ideology, which was reflected in the chroniclers' conceptions of history, one might do well to ask whether the wars of the 14th and the 15th centuries, especially the Hundred Years' War, introduced something exceptionally new to the English national consciousness, whether there is a reason to believe that they affected English national identity differently than, say, earlier wars with France or Scotland. In my opinion, the main difference between the wars of the Late Middle Ages and the previous epoch consists in the appearance of the notion of a certain state interest, to which all members of the society (including the sovereign) were subservient. Thus, the Hundred Years' war, which began and was represented as a typically feudal dynastic conflict and was evidently aimed to restore the legitimate authority of the Plantagenets and their descendants on the French throne, at some point became every Englishman's business. In this context the case of Richard II is revealing, since his attempts to make peace with France were treated as treason. His refusal to continue the struggle for the French crown resulted in his losing the English throne. Henry of Lancaster is portrayed in historical works as the Lord's instrument for punishment of the traitor king who cruelly and unjustly tyrannised his subjects and disdained the divine law which all kings of England must protect. The king's aspiration to follow his own desires or convictions (including Christian peace) in the determination of the foreign policy appeared to his subjects as the first step on the path from true sovereign to tyrant. The beginning of this metamorphosis lay not in Richard's innate disposition towards vice, but in fact in the attitude, traditional for a feudal epoch, to the war with France as his own affair. From the English authors' point of view, Richard II was not merely a sinner and a bad ruler but also the enemy of his own people. The history of Richard's dethronement perfectly testifies that already in the 14th century prolonged military conflicts, in particular the wars in France and Scotland, were starting to be interpreted as pertaining to the state and national interest. Not that every war was so interpreted: for example, John Gaunt's Castilian campaign was laid out as a war for the purpose of protecting the rights of the true claimant to the throne, whilst remaining his personal business. The Duke of Lancaster had not only the full authority to wage this war, but also was permitted to finish it on any terms acceptable to him. On the whole the appearance of the notion of a certain state interest in foreign policy may be considered the main change introduced into English national identity by the wars of the 14th — 15th centuries.

At the same time, the English obviously experienced ambivalent feelings towards "their" France. On the one hand they aimed to conquer it, but on the other hand the ambitious aspirations of the crown to unite the insular and the continental possessions were resisted by English society due to the desire to cement their political isolation. English resistance to the threat of political unification with the other subjects of their monarchs extended primarily to the French, while the prospect of "merging" with the other peoples of the British Isles was less frightening. It is remarkable that even during the periods of greatest military success on the continent, English kings issued, under pressure from Parliament, protective statutes reinforcing the "national isolation" of the English Kingdom.

Returning to the problem of the formation of the idea of a collective state interest in English society during the 14lh — 15th century wars, it is significant that at the last stage of the Hundred Years' War, a new purpose arose for English foreign policy. At that time, certain authors began to contend that the true prosperity of England consisted not in possession of the French crown, but was limited to the British Isles and control of the seaways. Gradually, it was the kingdom of England and its national interests that became the major object of foreign policy, instead of the personal aspirations of sovereigns or the protection of an abstract higher justice.

One more change in the perception of military conflicts, outlined during the Late Middle Ages and further developed in the Modem period, consists in the idea of war as a "normal" element of foreign policy. During the 14th and 15th centuries, the interpretation of any war was traditionally accompanied by reasoning on human sins, divine punishment and the struggle for justice, but meanwhile there was already a tendency to understand military actions as a lawful way of defending national interests, as well as a logical and even "natural" way to achieve a given objective; a form of foreign policy only slightly more radical than diplomatic negotiations.

During the periods of extended foreign conflict when a community requires "proofs" of its hereditary superiority over the enemy, the interest of historians and other members of society in a heroic past invariably becomes stronger. The collective memory of the glorious events of national history is one of the most important factors of national self-consciousness. In the period of the Hundred Years' War, English collective ideas of the national past possessed a typical set of the characteristics inherent in ethno-political myths. Examples include identification of ancestors with a glorious ancient people; exaggeration of said ancestors' various achievements, etc. From its overall memory of the past, society selected the most vital and topical episodes of history, which in the course of time could fade into oblivion or receive new meanings. However, the mere fact of manipulation of history for propagandistic purposes does not testify to the maturity of national consciousness. There is a more important issue: any attempt to correct important community legends was unequivocally recognized as a discrediting and dangerous act, even as an encroachment on the sanctum sanctorum of that society, and demanded immediate refutation.

Besides the increased interest in myths about the past, it is important to note the mythologization of the present or the recent past so typical of military history. Mythologization of the leader or the hero plays a major role in a life of any community, especially during periods of crisis, promoting its rallying and mobilisation. Thus, a mythologized image of a hero becomes not only the object of veneration, obtaining certain sacral functions, but also an example for imitation, displaying concentrated positive characteristics. Similar processes can be observed not only in heroes of the past (e.g. King Arthur), but also in contemporaries (Robert Knollys, Bertrand du Guesclin, Henry V, Joan of Arc), who gradually lost the features of real persons in common perception and grew to become symbols with specific qualities.

Finally I would like to emphasize that in English historiography of the Central and Late Middle Ages, a canon was forming for narration of the past, constantly repeated and transmitted from generation to generation. English chroniclers "appropriated" the past of both conquered peoples (the Britons), and conquerors (the Romans, the Danes, the Normans), including it in the history of their own people and building a unified narrative within which the main focus was not on the history of the people, but on the history of the land; this narrative nevertheless plays major part in national consciousness. The mutation of the stories about relations with France during the reign of Richard II is significant in the light of the formation of this continuous history. The original resolute condemnation of Richard's foreign policy by contemporaries, in particular by Lancastrian authors, disappeared by the second half of the 15th century. The historical works of this period describe the end of the 14th century as just another victorious stage of the war, characterised by large-scale campaigns organized by the king in directions wholly traditional for English foreign policy (in France, Scotland, the Pyrenees and Flanders). This testifies to a certain unification of ideas of the English sovereign and of idealised images of victorious patriots.

Among the international conflicts scrutinized in this book, only wars for sovereignty over Scotland in the Early Modem period were directly connected to medieval campaigns. The English kings' rights for the French crown (declared until 1801) were already being perceived as no more than empty rhetoric during the reign of Henry VII. After 1453, English kings repeatedly began, and more often only threatened to begin, campaigns whose official purpose was to re-conquer the continental possessions of their ancestors. But in reality this was the least of the motives behind the wars waged by the Tudors and the Stuarts under the pretext of obtaining the French crown. That said, it is indicative that not only authorities but also common Englishmen constantly appealed to the renewal of the old war. In this case it is possible to see a traditional quest for justus casus belli alongside calls to repeat the achievements of one's ancestors and justify their sacrifices.

Whilst remaining in the distant past, the wars of the 14lh and 15lh centuries have received quite a different significance in English memory of the Modem and Contemporary periods than for their 15lh-century ancestors. The ideas of restoration of infringed rights and supreme justice, as well as of tangible material awards received by subjects of the English crown, and of territorial acquisition by the state all ceased to be important. For historical memory, so important for national consciousness, only the victories gained at Sluice, Crecy, Neville's Crosse, Poitiers, Najera and Agincourt are still significant, testifying not so much to the God's benevolence as to the individual military valour of the Englishmen who had been able to crush any and all opposition. Furthermore, current appeals to these victories have not only ceased to be accompanied by discussion of the causes and results of the wars during which they occurred, but on the whole are rarely directed towards kindling of patriotic sentiments in society. The heroic episodes of the Hundred Years' War have acquired a symbolic meaning, the interpretation of which is based on cultural tradition.