Furies (4)

Long sieges of cities were a common practice. These brought a terrible toll on civilian populations, as the soldiers always demanded the last of the food. In some cities, “useless mouths”, such as the elderly and handicapped were pushed outside the cities walls, where they would be killed by the be-sieging armies. Those who remained were forced to eat dogs, rats and dead birds. Leather and paper were ground up and made into soup. Thousands of people died of starvation and disease. People who lived outside the city were not much better off, as the land within fifty miles of the city would be cleared of all food to support the army enforcing the siege.

To sack a city, was not only to loot it, leaving behind a spoor of destruction, but also to murder at will, to violate women and to batter inhabitants until they revealed the whereabouts of their concealed valuables— money jewellery, plate, silks, and prized furnishings. Another source of rich plunder— often the most lucrative—was in ransom moneys squeezed from as many people as possible, particularly the rich and well-connected (Furies p.55).

The general practice was that a successful siege would be followed by the sack of the city, unless it was preceded by a negotiated surrender.

The allied powers imposed a siege on Germany during the First World War. This siege was continued on after the armistice had been agreed, doing huge harm to the civilian population, especially children.

The modern form of the siege is the sanctions imposed on many nations. These are used most actively by nations with a strong Christian influence, but they are not much better than a siege, because the worst effects are felt by the civilian population, and especially children. Worse still sanctions the hand of the hard line leaders are they are intended to weaken.

Furies (3)

The monstrosities of the early modern state were most visible in Europe’s great powers. They put huge armies into the field, but could not afford to keep them there, save by means of theft and violence against their own people, not to speak of what their armies did to other peoples. They tended to treat their ordinary soldiers like the scum of the earth, broke every contract with them, and yet demanded their loyalty or were ready to see them flogged, mutilated, brandied, shipped out as galley slaves, or hanged when they deserted. Using the poor, the unemployed, and the marginal, including common criminals, as cannon fodder, they can be said to have pursed a politics of social cleansing. They depended on entrepreneur officers for the raising of their armies, thereby abandoning critical elements of control over numbers, quality and costs. The besieging of cities, the most sustained and shrill of all acts of war against civilians, was the norm of warfare for them. When their armies were unpaid or hungry, the plunder and ravaging of rural communities was also a norm (Furies p.245.

These were mostly Christian political powers.

Furies (2)

Christians can be quite smug. We like think we are superior to other cultures, which fight among themselves. Reading Furies made me realise that we have an ugly history. Most of the wars that wreaked havoc across Europe were fought between Christians, in the name of God. For most of history, Christianity has not been a harbinger of peace.

This has not changed. The twentieth century was dominated between declining Christian empires. The human costs of these wars were enormous, yet Christians still glorify in them.

When I read about the war in Syria, it is clear that nothing has changed. The civilians there are paying an enormous price in death and destruction of their livelihoods. Family life is being torn apart and economic activity is being destroyed.

President Assad is not the best president in the world, but I cannot understand why political leaders in the US, UK France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar think that training, financing and equipping people to fight a civil war will improve the situation. Already, thousand have been killed, more have wounded, families have been gutted and business destroyed, with nothing of substance being achieved. War just does not work as a method for changing political leaders. It produced a disaster in Iraq and will do even worse in Syria.

Modern political leaders have a blind faith in their ability to bring about good through war. When will they open their eyes and wake up to the futility of war?

Furies (1)

I have just finished reading a book by Lauro Martines called Furies. It gives an account war in Christian Europe between 1450 and 1700. I have always hated war. I have never believed the hype of the militarists and warmongers who glorify war.

Most histories of war focus on the decisions of the political and military leaders and the outcome of their battles. Martine’s tells the story of the impact of war on the ordinary people. There experience was truly horrifying. The costs of war for them far outweighed the military casualties.

I am not a complete pacifist. I believe that there are situations, where war could be justified, but they are very rare. I set out the conditions for a just war in Defence and War. One of the important principles is that the benefits of a war must outweigh the costs.

I have read quite a lot of history and I have not found a war yet that met the criteria. Reading this book confirmed that. Few wars justify the cost in terms of the military casualties. After reading Martine’s book, I realised that including all the civilian casualties dramatically increases the cost of war, making most wars unjustifiable.

During the period covered by the book, Europe was almost continuously at war. The hundred year’s war in France had just ended. There was a thirty years war in Germany. There was an eighty years war and a nine years war. One war just rolled into the next and the mercenary armies moved for one to another.

Kings could gather armies of 30.000 men. Some would be locals, but many would be mercenaries drawn from all over the world.

The cost of paying and supplying and army of this size was huge, and few kings could afford it.

Armies relied on foraging the areas they travelled through to get supplies. Solders relied on looting to compensate for not being paid.

Having and army move into and area was a huge disaster. They would commandeer all food. If the harvest had just finished, they would take the lot, leaving local people to starve until the next harvest. Farm animals would be taken for food and wagons would be confiscated to carry cannons and supplies. People who objected would be beaten and have their homes smashed. Woman and children were often stolen and used by the solders.

The approach of the regiments terrified villagers. Their raids frequently ended in the mass theft of livestock, fodder, grain, tools, carts and horses. Villagers were beaten, killed, and held to ransom; and women were sometimes raped or abducted. Arson was frequent, employed particularly against obstinate peasants. To feed themselves in the following famine, villages often had to sell off common lands at prices fallen to less than half of their normal value (p.13).