- Joined
- Jul 22, 2022
- Messages
- 534
- Reaction score
- 89
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
I am a Norman and as a Norman I am very interested in Norman history. I own a very good book called 'By Sword and Fire- Cruelty in Atrocity in Medieval Warfare' by Sean McGylnn and it discusses the moral and military dilemma that the Norman conquerors of Ireland faced between mercy and ruthlessness, between the dictates of humanity and the expediencies of war. The Norman invaders debated questions such as - "Should a vanquished opponent be considered a non-combatant?"
The book has some of Gerald of Wales' account of the Norman invasion- 'The Conquest of Ireland' which includes a debate between Normans -- Raymond and Hervey on the dilemma between mercy and ruthlessness.
Raymond is saying that these defeated Irish are honourable men because they have tried to defend their country. Raymond says ''they are not thieves, seditious, traitors or robbers''. He says "they have been defeated by us while defended their country", which is "assuredly an honourable vocation". He argues that the Irish are fellow 'human beings' that should be shown mercy and says that to inflict cruelty, torture and death upon them would "bring infamy and shame upon us and would considerably damage our reputations". Raymond also says that it would be more sensible and noble to ransom the vanquished. He then argues that if the Normans show mercy to Irish captives then perhaps the Irish will show mercy to Normans that might fall into the hands of the Irish.
Hervey mocks Raymonds stance- "as if any foreign country has been conquered by acts of mercy rather than by fire and slaughter!" Hervey argues that enemy races do not submit to clemency but "rather bowed their necks in submission under the compulsion of armed might and terror bred of cruel treatment. While peoples are still proud and rebellious they must be subdued by all possible means and clemency must take a backseat". Hervey accuses Raymond of having "criminal compassion" and accuses him of being bent on 'increasing the number of enemies'. Hervey says how unsafe it is to keep large numbers of captives and concludes that ruthlessness is needed to put fear in the hearts of the Irish saying prisoners must be executed so "that the deaths of these men may inspire fear in others, and as a result of the example we make of them this lawless and rebellious people may shrink from engaging our forces in the future".
Hervey won and the Norman executions of the discomforted Irish put terror into the Irish population.
englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com
The Normans conquered the Celtics with ease -The Song of Dermott and the Earl tells of between 3000 and 4000 Celtics being defeated by no more than 100 Normans so perhaps a little criminal compassion would not have hurt. Still - I tend to agree with Hervey that fire and slaughter is the way to go when conquering an enemy nation.
Would the rebellious Gaul have been subdued if Caesar had not decided that they needed to be "deterred by an exemplary punishment" which was to cut off the hands of all Uxellodunum rebels who had borne arms "to testify the more openly the penalty of evildoers.”?
Or do you agree with Raymond that the best way to conquer a people is through criminal compassion?
Disclaimer - I am not promoting violence and this is in no way shape or form intended to be violent rhetoric in any way - I am just interested in your personal philosophy is in relation to the realities of war as far as charity goes. As a modern day unskilled worker/peasant I can identify with medieval peasants who were not too interested in giving charity to a defeated enemy due to the fact that the enemy wasnt going to show them any since nobody was likely to pay a ransom for peasants. And speaking of Caesar - those pirates that kidnapped him in his youth would not have had much time to spend Caesars ransom before he found them and crucified them right? No - I tend to agree with the Zulu when it comes to prisoners. Prisoners?
Do you guys agree with the Geneva Convention?
I mean England and Australia at least seem to be reluctant to punish veterans that have broken the convention lately right? What do you think?
The book has some of Gerald of Wales' account of the Norman invasion- 'The Conquest of Ireland' which includes a debate between Normans -- Raymond and Hervey on the dilemma between mercy and ruthlessness.
Raymond is saying that these defeated Irish are honourable men because they have tried to defend their country. Raymond says ''they are not thieves, seditious, traitors or robbers''. He says "they have been defeated by us while defended their country", which is "assuredly an honourable vocation". He argues that the Irish are fellow 'human beings' that should be shown mercy and says that to inflict cruelty, torture and death upon them would "bring infamy and shame upon us and would considerably damage our reputations". Raymond also says that it would be more sensible and noble to ransom the vanquished. He then argues that if the Normans show mercy to Irish captives then perhaps the Irish will show mercy to Normans that might fall into the hands of the Irish.
Hervey mocks Raymonds stance- "as if any foreign country has been conquered by acts of mercy rather than by fire and slaughter!" Hervey argues that enemy races do not submit to clemency but "rather bowed their necks in submission under the compulsion of armed might and terror bred of cruel treatment. While peoples are still proud and rebellious they must be subdued by all possible means and clemency must take a backseat". Hervey accuses Raymond of having "criminal compassion" and accuses him of being bent on 'increasing the number of enemies'. Hervey says how unsafe it is to keep large numbers of captives and concludes that ruthlessness is needed to put fear in the hearts of the Irish saying prisoners must be executed so "that the deaths of these men may inspire fear in others, and as a result of the example we make of them this lawless and rebellious people may shrink from engaging our forces in the future".
Hervey won and the Norman executions of the discomforted Irish put terror into the Irish population.
The Song of Dermot and the Earl
British history posts by authors of British historical fiction.
englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com
The Normans conquered the Celtics with ease -The Song of Dermott and the Earl tells of between 3000 and 4000 Celtics being defeated by no more than 100 Normans so perhaps a little criminal compassion would not have hurt. Still - I tend to agree with Hervey that fire and slaughter is the way to go when conquering an enemy nation.
Would the rebellious Gaul have been subdued if Caesar had not decided that they needed to be "deterred by an exemplary punishment" which was to cut off the hands of all Uxellodunum rebels who had borne arms "to testify the more openly the penalty of evildoers.”?
Or do you agree with Raymond that the best way to conquer a people is through criminal compassion?
Disclaimer - I am not promoting violence and this is in no way shape or form intended to be violent rhetoric in any way - I am just interested in your personal philosophy is in relation to the realities of war as far as charity goes. As a modern day unskilled worker/peasant I can identify with medieval peasants who were not too interested in giving charity to a defeated enemy due to the fact that the enemy wasnt going to show them any since nobody was likely to pay a ransom for peasants. And speaking of Caesar - those pirates that kidnapped him in his youth would not have had much time to spend Caesars ransom before he found them and crucified them right? No - I tend to agree with the Zulu when it comes to prisoners. Prisoners?
Do you guys agree with the Geneva Convention?
I mean England and Australia at least seem to be reluctant to punish veterans that have broken the convention lately right? What do you think?
