ABSTRACT
Our journey has taken us through a Middle Ages that from a modern perspective looks very dangerous. For much if not most of the period, a person’s right to wield violence on his own behalf and in his own interests was assumed. Not only was violence, when used by the right person for the right reasons, acceptable and even laudable; in some circumstances to avoid or renounce violence was wrong and even outrageous. In such situations the consequences for avoiding violence were collective as well as personal. If one failed to uphold one’s reputation for strength and courage, or to adequately protect the property and honor of one’s kin, friends, or followers, one risked shame, isolation, and victimization by others; if one were head of a group or of a polity, that group or polity might collapse. As a consequence, violence was not kept discreetly out of sight. Instead, when it was used in the right cause in the right way, it was advertised and its grisly consequences openly displayed (or written about). It was eagerly watched by crowds of men, women, and children; its perpetrators were celebrated through the streets of a town. When violence overstepped its bounds and threatened the interests of the uninvolved or of the broader community, the parties involved were pressured into non-violent settlement. Nevertheless, compensation amounts were negotiated, and settlements publicly enacted, in ways that made sure honor was publicly satisfied and the ability and willingness to use violence acknowledged.
