What do you think?
Rate this book
By Sword and Fire: Cruelty And Atrocity In Medieval Warfare
A vivid and original account of warfare in the Middle Ages and the cruelty and atrocity that accompanied it.Sean McGlynn investigates the reality of medieval warfare. For all the talk of chivalry, medieval warfare routinely involved acts which we would consider war crimes. Lands laid waste, civilians slaughtered, prisoners this was standard fare justified by tradition and practical military necessity. It was unbelievably barbaric, but seldom uncontrolled. Such acts of atrocity were calculated, hideous cruelties inflicted in order to achieve a specific end. Sean McGlynn examines the battles of Acre and Agincourt, sieges like Béziers, Lincoln, Jerusalem and Limoges as well as the infamous chevauchées of the Hundred Years War that devastated great swathes of France. He reveals how these grisly affairs form the origin of accepted 'rules of war', codes of conduct that are today being enforced in the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
425 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2003
14 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
April 13, 2025
“Gerald of Wales was well aware of the cruelties of war. Sadly, his call for a more humane type of warfare was not heeded: ‘When the turmoil of battle is over and [the warrior] has laid aside his arms, ferocity too should be laid aside, a human code of behaviour should be once more adopted, and feelings of mercy and clemency should be revived in the spirit that is truly noble.’ War is always with us, and so this call remains just as pertinent in the twenty-first century as it was in the Middle Ages. Sadly, it is unlikely to be heard above the gunfire and exploding bombs forever claiming their victims in execution of the military imperative.”
December 26, 2010
This is a guarded recommendation because this book is not for the faint of heart. As I have been focused recently on Medieval history (100 Years War, War of the Roses, etc.) I thought this might be good background on what really happens when they fought, laid seige and "meted justice." It was not pretty, to say the least. And chivalry seems to be almost mythical.
From boiling pickpockets alive, to impaling peasants to hacking to death captured opponents on the battlefield (see the section of Henry's actions at Agincourt -- which, the more I read of him, are coming a deeper understanding of what a nasty guy Henry really was. Eye gouging and castration seem to be the most common forms of punishment but there were some pretty dioballically creative methods which I will not get into here. Again, this is a guarded recommendation -- it is a truly historical analysis but a gory, graphic one at that. Life was truly nasty, brutish and short in this age -- and chivalry a charade.
From boiling pickpockets alive, to impaling peasants to hacking to death captured opponents on the battlefield (see the section of Henry's actions at Agincourt -- which, the more I read of him, are coming a deeper understanding of what a nasty guy Henry really was. Eye gouging and castration seem to be the most common forms of punishment but there were some pretty dioballically creative methods which I will not get into here. Again, this is a guarded recommendation -- it is a truly historical analysis but a gory, graphic one at that. Life was truly nasty, brutish and short in this age -- and chivalry a charade.
December 23, 2011
This is not you standard sugar-coated analysis of the effects of warfare - it is a hard hitting study into the types of violence used (and often sanctioned) against both an enemy army and the civilian population which is often caught in the midst of two opposing factions.
It is not for the faint-hearted as it does details the types of warfare; the treatment of prisoners; the treatment of civilians; effects on land and stock.
For the serious student of medieval warfare.
It is not for the faint-hearted as it does details the types of warfare; the treatment of prisoners; the treatment of civilians; effects on land and stock.
For the serious student of medieval warfare.
October 30, 2013
While I found this book interesting, I also found it a little dry and academic. In discussing atrocities in Europe of the Middle Ages, Mr. McGlynn not only looks at what happened on the battlefield, but the attitudes of the church and population towards crime and punishment. He also looks at the development of the codes of Chivalry.
In his chapter on crime and punishment, the author makes a point of how barbaric to modern sensibilities much of the punishments were. At one point he states that more than 80% of crimes were punishable by various forms of death, some of which were prolonged and gruesome. He also makes the point that when clemency was granted, it was either an easier (quicker) death, or some form of mutilation. He take on the Code of Chivalry is that it was more notable by its lack of implementation than its practice.
The author brakes up medieval warfare into three types – formal battles such as Agincourt, sieges such at Jerusalem or Chateau Gaillard and finally Campaigns or Raids such as the Black Prince’s Chavauchee in France prior to Portiers or King John’s campaign against his Nobles in 1215-16. In discussing the types of war, Mr. McGlynn notes that for most combatants, there was a take no prisoner mentality. About the only people taken prisoner were those who could provide a generous ransom, ie the Nobility. Captured peasant infantry levees were often killed out of hand. While battles normally “spared” the surrounding civilians direct damage, the other two forms of war were basically against the civilian population. If they weren’t killed outright, after the siege or raid was over starvation was just around the corner for the noncombatants.
A couple of points the author makes about sources – don’t trust the numbers. He feels the chroniclers were basically writing propaganda for the winners and tended to pad the numbers a bit. In spite of that sentiment, he does say there is an element of truth to what they wrote, esp the closer to the actual events they were writing. He also makes the point the Chivalry was more of a “goal” than an actual life style.
All in all an interesting look at “atrocities” in the middle ages. If Good reads allowed partial stars 3.5
In his chapter on crime and punishment, the author makes a point of how barbaric to modern sensibilities much of the punishments were. At one point he states that more than 80% of crimes were punishable by various forms of death, some of which were prolonged and gruesome. He also makes the point that when clemency was granted, it was either an easier (quicker) death, or some form of mutilation. He take on the Code of Chivalry is that it was more notable by its lack of implementation than its practice.
The author brakes up medieval warfare into three types – formal battles such as Agincourt, sieges such at Jerusalem or Chateau Gaillard and finally Campaigns or Raids such as the Black Prince’s Chavauchee in France prior to Portiers or King John’s campaign against his Nobles in 1215-16. In discussing the types of war, Mr. McGlynn notes that for most combatants, there was a take no prisoner mentality. About the only people taken prisoner were those who could provide a generous ransom, ie the Nobility. Captured peasant infantry levees were often killed out of hand. While battles normally “spared” the surrounding civilians direct damage, the other two forms of war were basically against the civilian population. If they weren’t killed outright, after the siege or raid was over starvation was just around the corner for the noncombatants.
A couple of points the author makes about sources – don’t trust the numbers. He feels the chroniclers were basically writing propaganda for the winners and tended to pad the numbers a bit. In spite of that sentiment, he does say there is an element of truth to what they wrote, esp the closer to the actual events they were writing. He also makes the point the Chivalry was more of a “goal” than an actual life style.
All in all an interesting look at “atrocities” in the middle ages. If Good reads allowed partial stars 3.5
August 17, 2025
Won't lie parts of this can be incredibly difficult to read, and there's certainly descriptions and images that will stick with you. If you don't have a strong stomach for these kinds of subjects, absolutely stay away from this book as it does not attempt to sugarcoat anything.
If you do feel like you can get through all that, this book seems, at least from my limited knowledge, to be well sourced and informative.
If you do feel like you can get through all that, this book seems, at least from my limited knowledge, to be well sourced and informative.
May 16, 2012
I realize I often give 5 stars, but I rarely review unless I feel that a book is worth reading. This book on violence in the Middle Ages makes important statements and I can find no fault with it. It cites a lot of primary sources as well as contrasting older historians with the most up to date. The only caution I'd offer is that it is topical, not chronological or geographic, so it jumps around a lot. Readers who don't have a solid background in medieval history could feel lost or like all the names and tales of horror blend together. It is, however, not dense. The armchair medievalist would find a lot of worth here. It also doesn't dwell on lurid detail unless necessary to illustrate a point.
The book's main approach is to look at violence as it was applied systematically: In jurisprudence and for political or military objectives. The thesis is summed up by a quote by George Orwell at the beginning: "But unfortunately the truth about atrocities is far worse than that they are lied about and made into propaganda. The truth is that they happen. The fact often adduced as a reason for skepticism - that the same horror stories come up in war after war- merely makes it rather more likely that these stories are true. Evidently they are widespread fantasies, and war provides an opportunity of putting them into practice... These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one's eye on." The book sees atrocity as a recurring human theme, and not simply a phenomenon of a more violent past. McGlynn argues in a closing essay that accounts of modern atrocity show striking parallels to those described in medieval chronicles.
First McGlynn looks at the use of violence in justice and punishment for purposes of deterrence or moral cleansing. There is then a chapter on the laws of chivalry and how arbitrarily they were applied or not applied. This sets the stage for describing the use of extreme violence as a military tactic, with chapters on prisoner massacres, sieges, and ravaging campaigns. The time periods and geography covered range from early medieval Vikings, to the Near East during the Crusades, to the Hundred Years' War. Heaviest emphasis is on England and France during the High Middle Ages.
A frequent theme is whether or not to trust the sources. McGlynn favors believing that the medieval chronicles contain at least grains of truth, especially if they are fairly close to the events, and that errors may be due to the difficulty in any era of accurately depicting the chaos of war. His argument in the closing essay that reports of modern atrocity echo the medieval accounts with sometimes eerie precision is persuasive emotionally, if not the most solid footing for a historian.
The book's main approach is to look at violence as it was applied systematically: In jurisprudence and for political or military objectives. The thesis is summed up by a quote by George Orwell at the beginning: "But unfortunately the truth about atrocities is far worse than that they are lied about and made into propaganda. The truth is that they happen. The fact often adduced as a reason for skepticism - that the same horror stories come up in war after war- merely makes it rather more likely that these stories are true. Evidently they are widespread fantasies, and war provides an opportunity of putting them into practice... These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one's eye on." The book sees atrocity as a recurring human theme, and not simply a phenomenon of a more violent past. McGlynn argues in a closing essay that accounts of modern atrocity show striking parallels to those described in medieval chronicles.
First McGlynn looks at the use of violence in justice and punishment for purposes of deterrence or moral cleansing. There is then a chapter on the laws of chivalry and how arbitrarily they were applied or not applied. This sets the stage for describing the use of extreme violence as a military tactic, with chapters on prisoner massacres, sieges, and ravaging campaigns. The time periods and geography covered range from early medieval Vikings, to the Near East during the Crusades, to the Hundred Years' War. Heaviest emphasis is on England and France during the High Middle Ages.
A frequent theme is whether or not to trust the sources. McGlynn favors believing that the medieval chronicles contain at least grains of truth, especially if they are fairly close to the events, and that errors may be due to the difficulty in any era of accurately depicting the chaos of war. His argument in the closing essay that reports of modern atrocity echo the medieval accounts with sometimes eerie precision is persuasive emotionally, if not the most solid footing for a historian.
January 7, 2015
Great stuff. Tells you a lot you mightn't have known and won't easily find elsewhere. A serious study - of the horrific facts, though not without attention to the 'joys of war' as experienced and written about firsthand. His last chapter, 'Medieval Savagery?' - stress on the question mark - weighs the famous Dark Ages against us savages.
January 19, 2019
By Sword and Fire, subtitled "cruelty and atrocity in medieval warfare", is not, perhaps, what you would expect from its name. Rather than a gruesomely fascinating account of different tortures or horrors inflicted throughout the medieval period, it is rather a much more sober examination of, primarily, why atrocities occurred during the period and what impact these had.
My first impressions of the book were not overly favourable: first, it is quite poorly edited (several misspellings, an incorrect "less" instead of "fewer", and most execrably of all the incorrect "hung" for "hanged" throughout); second, it is across its length rather weirdly put-together, with some chapters having conclusions and some not, a number of repetitions of statements throughout, and a narrative that generally moves from one topic to the next randomly and confusingly; and finally - maybe this was just me - the writing is just quite difficult to read, for reasons that I can't entirely explain. It is not fluidly written.
Moving past these flaws - which do certainly count for a lot against the book - it is not altogether a bad read. While it's main thesis and point is rather simplistic and oft-repeated after every example (atrocities are used to incite fear, gain spoils, and are generally more tactically sound manoeuvres than history would have us think), it is a good book for establishing these basic points, and probably foremost for just reading up on several famous and not-so-famous moments in medieval warfare. Unfortunately, its simplicity does count against it, particularly when almost every example is a simple narrative of razing crops and putting people to the sword. Quite frankly, there's not enough juicy gruesome detail (cat-headbutting notwithstanding) to sustain it.
Ironically, the book's conclusion was the most interesting part, if only because it alludes to a whole host of topics for related books which are way more interesting than By Sword and Fire: I now desperately want to read a book on why soldiers can become such ruthless machines, or more modern tales where arguably more civilised individuals commit the same atrocities.
My first impressions of the book were not overly favourable: first, it is quite poorly edited (several misspellings, an incorrect "less" instead of "fewer", and most execrably of all the incorrect "hung" for "hanged" throughout); second, it is across its length rather weirdly put-together, with some chapters having conclusions and some not, a number of repetitions of statements throughout, and a narrative that generally moves from one topic to the next randomly and confusingly; and finally - maybe this was just me - the writing is just quite difficult to read, for reasons that I can't entirely explain. It is not fluidly written.
Moving past these flaws - which do certainly count for a lot against the book - it is not altogether a bad read. While it's main thesis and point is rather simplistic and oft-repeated after every example (atrocities are used to incite fear, gain spoils, and are generally more tactically sound manoeuvres than history would have us think), it is a good book for establishing these basic points, and probably foremost for just reading up on several famous and not-so-famous moments in medieval warfare. Unfortunately, its simplicity does count against it, particularly when almost every example is a simple narrative of razing crops and putting people to the sword. Quite frankly, there's not enough juicy gruesome detail (cat-headbutting notwithstanding) to sustain it.
Ironically, the book's conclusion was the most interesting part, if only because it alludes to a whole host of topics for related books which are way more interesting than By Sword and Fire: I now desperately want to read a book on why soldiers can become such ruthless machines, or more modern tales where arguably more civilised individuals commit the same atrocities.
February 23, 2015
I really enjoyed this book. I think most people have a decent grasp that the middle-ages were not good times. Even if you know little of medieval history, there is a sense that times were tough and people in medieval times could be quite cruel (thus the famous line from Pulp Fiction, "I'm a get medieval on 'yo ass"). A passage from p.211 of this book sums up why I found this book to be so interesting. The author is talking about the Scottish invasions of King David in 1138, and he says, "The bald recital of facts about King David's three invasions of 1138 is of the type to be found in any number of history books relating any number of campaigns at any time. Such narratives are necessarily condensed to provide essential details of campaigns and to recount the protagonists' movements, but they do little to capture the reality and horror that accompany them." This is what I was looking for in this book, as ghoulish as it may sound. I've read lots of books about the middle-ages, and I've read of some very cruel events when reading about specific battles, such as Hastings or Agincourt, or especially the siege of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. I'd read of Richard the Lionheart beheading thousands of Muslim captives, or of the English archers at Soissons having their fingers cut off, or of King Harold Godwinson being castrated at Hastings, or of the alleged thousands of people that were impaled by Vlad the Impaler. Also, I've read about the horrors of sieges, and the ravages of the plague, or the fierce stories of Viking invaders and their cruelty in pillaging and plundering.
Many have never learned about the middle-ages beyond their high school history classes, or they get a glimpse of medieval history from watching the History channel or watching movies such as Braveheart. I would suspect their comprehension of what cruelty and atrocity in medieval warfare was really like does not go much beyond what the author describes as "a bald recital of facts," while failing to "capture the reality and horror that accompany them."
This book looks at some specific examples of medieval cruelty and atrocity in various forms. There is a chapter on how wars were fought and conducted in the middle-ages, and there is a chapter looking at specific battles. There is a chapter on sieges, and there is a chapter on campaigns, with other chapters looking at the view of violence in the middle-ages, and medieval savagery. I found the discussion of the use of torture and of the killing of captives to be very interesting in light of contemporary issues. Certainly, many medieval warriors and knights engaged in killing captives and torture, but many were described as being hesitant to commit these acts, fearing what their fate would be if they were then captured by the enemy. This prompts one to consider how we should treat prisoners of war, and of the value and potential consequences of torture. Reading this book, you will certainly scoff at the idea that contemporary water-boarding is torture...this is a mere discomfort...it doesn't even leave a mark. To compare water-boarding to any of the brutal tactics of medieval times is laughable, yet the liberals of today would have us believe this tactic is of the utmost cruelty.
In the middle-ages, combatants and civilians alike fell victim to the brutality of vengeful kings and the harsh reality of siege warfare; a staple of medieval conquest. I had not given much thought to the idea of "supply over demand" as it related to medieval warfare. For example, the many crusaders captured after the Battle of Hattin could not reasonably be fed by their Muslim captors, and they were thus executed. Not long after this, when Philip II of France and Richard the Lionheart took the port city of Acre in a siege, they showed the same mercy to the Muslims that the Muslims showed to the crusaders at Hattin...the crusaders beheaded 2,600 Muslim captives, many of whom were civilian. Similar scenarios played out again and again in the middle-ages, such as the horror stories of sieges, like that of Chateau Gaillard (1203-1204), where the concept of the "useless mouths" was described. These "useless mouths" were the civilians who hid in Chateau Gaillard for safety when the besieging French army arrived. However, after the siege continued, the food stores began to run out, and the leader of the besieged feared there would be food riots, thus weakening the defenses and the abilities and resolve of the defenders of Chateau Gaillard. Thus, the civilian "useless mouths" were expelled from the fortress. However, the French king, using hunger as a weapon, would not allow the civilians through the siege lines, and thus these poor souls were stuck in a "no-man's land" between the fortress and the siege lines, with no food, and in the dead of winter. The descriptions of starvation and suffering are the stuff of nightmare, with one account of a woman giving birth, and men in the camp seizing the baby and tearing it apart to devour.
This book is full of such stories. It truly does take the reader far beyond the "bald recital of facts" to the gruesome details of the "reality and horror" that accompanied medieval warfare. There is much in this book that prompts deep thought from the reader, about modern wars and how they are fought, to musings about the treatment of prisoners of war. One thing I found myself thinking about again and again was how thankful I was that I did not live in the middle-ages, and that I and my family do not have to face such suffering, like those experienced far and wide by people of medieval times. I often shook my head at how many people were quick to label water-boarding as "torture," even though this does not harm a prisoner in anyway, nor leave any mark, yet extremist Muslims of today have not changed their cruel tactics of beheading POWs, even after hundreds of years.
For many, this book will not be their cup of tea, for it is quite dark and somewhat depressing to read page after page of human suffering. However, it does prompt thought on important issues. Also, for those wanting to learn some details of the reality of medieval warfare, going beyond the polished veneer of Ivanhoe or the legends of Arthur, then this book will certainly take you well beyond the stories of chivalry and hero knights, and plunge you into the gritty and bloody reality that was medieval warfare.
Many have never learned about the middle-ages beyond their high school history classes, or they get a glimpse of medieval history from watching the History channel or watching movies such as Braveheart. I would suspect their comprehension of what cruelty and atrocity in medieval warfare was really like does not go much beyond what the author describes as "a bald recital of facts," while failing to "capture the reality and horror that accompany them."
This book looks at some specific examples of medieval cruelty and atrocity in various forms. There is a chapter on how wars were fought and conducted in the middle-ages, and there is a chapter looking at specific battles. There is a chapter on sieges, and there is a chapter on campaigns, with other chapters looking at the view of violence in the middle-ages, and medieval savagery. I found the discussion of the use of torture and of the killing of captives to be very interesting in light of contemporary issues. Certainly, many medieval warriors and knights engaged in killing captives and torture, but many were described as being hesitant to commit these acts, fearing what their fate would be if they were then captured by the enemy. This prompts one to consider how we should treat prisoners of war, and of the value and potential consequences of torture. Reading this book, you will certainly scoff at the idea that contemporary water-boarding is torture...this is a mere discomfort...it doesn't even leave a mark. To compare water-boarding to any of the brutal tactics of medieval times is laughable, yet the liberals of today would have us believe this tactic is of the utmost cruelty.
In the middle-ages, combatants and civilians alike fell victim to the brutality of vengeful kings and the harsh reality of siege warfare; a staple of medieval conquest. I had not given much thought to the idea of "supply over demand" as it related to medieval warfare. For example, the many crusaders captured after the Battle of Hattin could not reasonably be fed by their Muslim captors, and they were thus executed. Not long after this, when Philip II of France and Richard the Lionheart took the port city of Acre in a siege, they showed the same mercy to the Muslims that the Muslims showed to the crusaders at Hattin...the crusaders beheaded 2,600 Muslim captives, many of whom were civilian. Similar scenarios played out again and again in the middle-ages, such as the horror stories of sieges, like that of Chateau Gaillard (1203-1204), where the concept of the "useless mouths" was described. These "useless mouths" were the civilians who hid in Chateau Gaillard for safety when the besieging French army arrived. However, after the siege continued, the food stores began to run out, and the leader of the besieged feared there would be food riots, thus weakening the defenses and the abilities and resolve of the defenders of Chateau Gaillard. Thus, the civilian "useless mouths" were expelled from the fortress. However, the French king, using hunger as a weapon, would not allow the civilians through the siege lines, and thus these poor souls were stuck in a "no-man's land" between the fortress and the siege lines, with no food, and in the dead of winter. The descriptions of starvation and suffering are the stuff of nightmare, with one account of a woman giving birth, and men in the camp seizing the baby and tearing it apart to devour.
This book is full of such stories. It truly does take the reader far beyond the "bald recital of facts" to the gruesome details of the "reality and horror" that accompanied medieval warfare. There is much in this book that prompts deep thought from the reader, about modern wars and how they are fought, to musings about the treatment of prisoners of war. One thing I found myself thinking about again and again was how thankful I was that I did not live in the middle-ages, and that I and my family do not have to face such suffering, like those experienced far and wide by people of medieval times. I often shook my head at how many people were quick to label water-boarding as "torture," even though this does not harm a prisoner in anyway, nor leave any mark, yet extremist Muslims of today have not changed their cruel tactics of beheading POWs, even after hundreds of years.
For many, this book will not be their cup of tea, for it is quite dark and somewhat depressing to read page after page of human suffering. However, it does prompt thought on important issues. Also, for those wanting to learn some details of the reality of medieval warfare, going beyond the polished veneer of Ivanhoe or the legends of Arthur, then this book will certainly take you well beyond the stories of chivalry and hero knights, and plunge you into the gritty and bloody reality that was medieval warfare.
February 14, 2018
Too dull. I’m 20% in, but just can’t finish this book. It sounded interesting, but it reads like a really dry textbook. Good for people studying history and writing college papers I guess, but not good for a casual read, I’m afraid. I regret paying full price for this.
April 4, 2023
Scattered, confused, no real analysis just lists of things that happened over the entire European continent over about 750 years. It doesn’t really tell us much that someone in the Middle East in 1350 did a bad thing and someone in Ireland in 420 did a bad thing too.
September 8, 2023
A very enjoyable discussion of the calculated use of terror, massacres, and other assorted cruelties and atrocities in medieval warfare.
February 3, 2024
Though it's a plodding read, it is still interesting and would sit quite nicely on any history buffs bookcase.
November 7, 2024
The first chapter is the most hardcore thing I've ever read. Definitely not for the faint of heart
October 28, 2022
I enjoyed McGlynn's dive into the violent side of history. Lots of medievalists tend to stay away from the violence and the darker sides of history. It was refreshing to read about the realities of war, rather than the chivalry of a knight and the political reasoning for siege and warfare.
April 22, 2014
Provides a reasonable survey of the common targeting of non-combatants during medieval war. However, the book is limited by McGlynn's poor grip of historiography and medieval source analysis. He casually dismisses any influence of ideals on behavior and insists that booty and vengeance were the only true motivators. He forces this reading on all the sources he cites and ignores incompatible ones. This isn't to say that this isn't possible, however, but we can't dismiss all the factors. To support his negative portrayal of the Middle Ages, he further supports Rogers' battle-seeking thesis without giving it much thought, thereby giving far too much capability to medieval armies. Therefore, he heaps more guilt upon those committing the acts, even if he showed they were often for tangible gains.
Unfortunately, McGlynn fails to engage with the most basic question: what makes acts seen as cruel or merely violent? He cites the work of Baraz who engages with this in depth. McGlynn's omission of this discussion is therefore curious, and makes me wonder if he actually read Baraz' work. McGlynn quickly establishes (in a sentence or two) that these acts were universally seen as bad. But he does not establish how writers then justified these acts to themselves, or how those conducting the acts thought they were acceptable. Most of his examples are from wars with 'the other', which were obviously seen as different from wars against non-rebelling Christians. But there is no suggestion of a nuanced understanding here, and all acts are treated in a vacuum, discrediting his overall interpretation.
Although this is clearly a more popular publication, the rather poor citation is frustrating, especially when McGlynn makes condensed arguments about contemporary scholarship without references. Overall, the book feels like a poor M.A. dissertation: colloquial writing, common sensational vocabulary, and poor methodology. However, it collects much that is scattered throughout a dozen or so superior, but expensive and rare, academic publications.
Unfortunately, McGlynn fails to engage with the most basic question: what makes acts seen as cruel or merely violent? He cites the work of Baraz who engages with this in depth. McGlynn's omission of this discussion is therefore curious, and makes me wonder if he actually read Baraz' work. McGlynn quickly establishes (in a sentence or two) that these acts were universally seen as bad. But he does not establish how writers then justified these acts to themselves, or how those conducting the acts thought they were acceptable. Most of his examples are from wars with 'the other', which were obviously seen as different from wars against non-rebelling Christians. But there is no suggestion of a nuanced understanding here, and all acts are treated in a vacuum, discrediting his overall interpretation.
Although this is clearly a more popular publication, the rather poor citation is frustrating, especially when McGlynn makes condensed arguments about contemporary scholarship without references. Overall, the book feels like a poor M.A. dissertation: colloquial writing, common sensational vocabulary, and poor methodology. However, it collects much that is scattered throughout a dozen or so superior, but expensive and rare, academic publications.
June 27, 2012
Slightly disappointed, since it proposes a more wide-spread culture of massacre and pillage than I think the population of Medieval Western Europe could have feasibly supported. While McGlynn certainly gives the counter-argument that much of the reporting on military atrocities of the time were sometimes exaggerated, I still think he gives too much of a blanket opinion of the incidents during such times, and it seemed to me generalized--and I suspect, at times, for sensationalized effect. Of course, my opinion and agenda with the book was skewed, since I am looking for good clinical detail on the technical aspects of medieval warfare: I am in fact writing my own fiction set in a world of Middle-Aged technology and culture. Any suggestions?
July 2, 2017
I read this off an on for a couple of months as extra research on medieval warfare. Very detailed generally and interesting in terms of the concept behind the policies of warfare beyond the gang of blokes with pointy things doing some other bods bidding. It does skip around somewhat after examples which can be irksome but does highlight how circumstantial the concept of chivalry was to state circumstances. The dark side appears to exist in all renown chivalric figures by deed and association despite their more recent biographic portrayals. Quite thought provoking in this regard and different as such than listing the atrocities of the usual thugs of the middle ages.
July 16, 2014
A dry but thorough and incisive survey into an era just as dark and noncombatant targeting as the 20th century was. I particularly liked the conclusion linking it to more general pan-era attitudes and would recommend this reading not only to historians but also to the hordes of fedora'd and/or yuppie'd humanists who think we can solve humanities darker natures with group discussion and the application of 'rationality.' As this book shows, depending on your interest cruelty and atrocity can often go hand in hand with rationality.
May 2, 2021
I have read books on similar subjects for the same period of history.The authors of those books were able to breath some life into the subject.Here the author seems unable to do so.Thus at times it becomes a very dry dissertation.
October 15, 2013
They don't 'do' war like they used to! Really enjoyed reading
April 30, 2017
Bit dry in terms of prose style but an illuminating history work.
April 16, 2013
Great reference guide to man's inhumanity to man
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews