Suzannah Rowntree’s Reviews > Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000–1300 > Status Update

"[T]he savage treatment of defeated foot was a long-standing tradition of medieval warfare. War between elites, however, was marked by a degree of moderation and even mercy. Even in the Middle East, where a European Catholic elite confronted an Islamic nobility, a degree of contact and mutual appreciation was possible." You read that right: Crusaders were less likely to be bigots, than snobs.

"[W]ar was about possession of land and rule over its people, and as few wished to rule deserts, they did not try to remove or slaughter the population." - why total war and genocide were both fairly unusual in the Middle Ages.

"The slaughter of infantry was usual, simply because there was little alternative [...I]n western Europe slavery was not an economic institution, so there was little profit in keeping them alive. In the Middle East and Spain, economic conditions were different and slavery was a viable alternative." Both Crusaders and Saracens routinely enslaved captives. :( But the Franks showed less kindness to their own people. :(

"Moreover, the quality of the missiles mattered. At Castelnaudary, stones that would not shatter had to be brought from “a long league away”; even so, one of them shattered, limiting damage. At Acre, Richard used very hard stones brought from the West, which were so unusual that they were specially shown to Saladin." Preparedness level: Batman.

Castle strategy: build a web of castles in strategic locations. "The invader was ensnared in a catenaccio of castles which hardly barred his path but threatened him in minor ways, unbalancing his army before the threat of a field-force." It's actually encouraging how much of what's in this book I already picked up from reading the history closely.

"Between 1154 and 1214, [...] the average income of [English] barons was £200 per annum and only seven seem to have had more than £400, while at least 20 had yearly incomes of less than £20. By contrast, normal royal income was never less than £10,000." So Richard the Lionheart had only half the annual income of Mr Darcy. I don't know why this cracks me up, but IT DOES.

"It is interesting that the social inferiority of the [Grand Catalan Company of mercenaries] seems to have been the main reason why it was so universally hated." - the medievals are my babies but they had a genuinely disgusting contempt for the lower classes. In other news, I really want to write something about medieval mercenaries now.

"In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, from the cities of Italy to the plains of Flanders, social mobility was a commonplace" - which might explain how the Syrian family, the Arrabis, became respected knights in Frankish Jerusalem.

"Seduction and subversion were a powerful element in the warfare of the Middle Ages, and the prevalence of multiple homage and the ambiguities resulting from splintered holdings could give it respectability. And since this was a less expensive and bloodless way of waging war, it was always popular." That puts the mobility of vassals on the 1st Crusade in a whole new light.