True or false

[RichT]

It's un-Scottish, un-Welsh and un-Irish too of course...

[Imperial Dave]

I say old chap, its just un-British! What?

[Mark G]

I'd say it's the least simple of yes no questions, as it presupposes books worth of background to the question.

[Swampster]

When does lawlessness become lawlessness?

I'll begin with a caveat that I am mainly speaking of England here (because I haven't really looked at other areas of what would become the united kingdom in non-warfare terms) but, while  medieval England had law, it frequently struggled to apply it.  Quarrels were frequently settled by violence and, even when courts were involved, they didn't have enforcement officers on the ground.  So, if the vicar of the next parish insisted on pasturing his sheep on your pasture despite legal demands to stop, beating his shepherds up and dispersing his sheep might be the only option.  Organised gangs were rife at times (poaching in the deer park, raiding the warren) and they were met by what might be known as "private security" - parkers, forresters, warreners - and deaths often ensued.  Then there were crime families of minor gentry, who operated protection rackets and could descend on and loot manor houses and murder anyone who got in the way.  That to me is lawlessness but I don't think it is warfare.

Malcolm Musard was one of the minor gentry of the sort mentioned (who lived in my locality in Edward II's reign). http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/brief-biographies-4-malcolm-musard.html
I suspect that the amount these guys could get away with depended on the overall circumstances of the reign. Looks like Malcolm got away with a lot because he would change his allegiance as necessary, at times being given the task of apprehending others (doubtless making a profit as he did so).

Even here, there are signs that there were attempts to apply the law. I've had a look at some research on murder statistics in the middle ages. It is difficult to assess because doubtless many cases of murder were not recorded and also because the population of an area or city can only be estimated. London may have had a murder rate double that of 1970s New York - or half the rate, depending on the population estimates.

Another set of figures analysed was that for Oxford in the mid 14th century. This had a murder rate of 110 per 100000. That is pretty huge - someone compared it to a Mexican cartel run town. Again, it may be exaggerated by the population estimate. It also depends on how the figures are read - this is based on figures which may well contain accidental deaths It may also have been skewed by particular events. Just after the period studied, there was a riot between town and gown (started by an argument over the quality of wine served) which lasted 3 days and led to (IIRC) 6 deaths. That sounds pretty lawless but events like this can compress all the murders expected for a couple of years into a very short period.  The rest of the time, things may well have ticked over fairly evenly. Comparison with modern rates are also complicated that a blow to the head causing concussion might be a night in a modern hospital or a death in a medieval hovel.

There are some figures for conviction rates. In some areas, murder prosecutions led to about 35% convictions. Was that the jury being nobbled or unconvinced. In other areas, the rate was over 70%. Was that the jury being nobbled or easily convinced?

There is a (critical) review of one study of historical murder rates here http://bedejournal.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/steven-pinkers-medieval-murder-rates.html

[Erpingham]

I've just read a book I picked up second-hand on the Medieval Isle of Wight.  It has a chapter on corners inquests from the 14th century.  Over the 15 years of the coroners roll analysed, there were 42 deaths investigated.  Of these, 18 were homicides i.e. just over a murder a year.  Much lower than some of the other figures mentioned, so maybe rural crime was rarer?  Another 3 "deaths by misadventure" were killings by "officials" - a troop commander who killed one of his men in self-defence and two poachers killed by warreners.  Drink plays a part in some murders (as we might guess) but most seem to be arguments that get out of hand, knives are drawn etc etc. 

[Swampster]

I've just read a book I picked up second-hand on the Medieval Isle of Wight.  It has a chapter on corners inquests from the 14th century.  Over the 15 years of the coroners roll analysed, there were 42 deaths investigated.  Of these, 18 were homicides i.e. just over a murder a year.  Much lower than some of the other figures mentioned, so maybe rural crime was rarer?  Another 3 "deaths by misadventure" were killings by "officials" - a troop commander who killed one of his men in self-defence and two poachers killed by warreners.  Drink plays a part in some murders (as we might guess) but most seem to be arguments that get out of hand, knives are drawn etc etc.

Does it give an estimate for the size of the population? At Domesday, the population seems to have been about 10 per sq. mi. so even by the 14th century I suspect it may well have been well below 10000. 1 per year gives a rate of over 10 per 100000 - apparently similar to the rate for modern Bolivia.
With just about universal possession of knives, it is not surprising that a brawl can quickly turn to worse.

[Erpingham]

From the time of the coroners roll we do have a tax roll showing the adult population was 4,733 i.e. a total population of about 9,500-10,000. So, your calculations are good.  Not as pacific as I had thought but still less than the urban figures.

[Dangun]

Isn't there quite a lot of evidence for the idea that societies have become less violent over a long period of time?

But it might be tempting to conclude that the middle ages was particularly violent, simply because the records of violence were only just beginning to appear. Conversely, population density and urbanization in the period would contribute to rising violence.

State-vs-state violence obviously follows a different trajectory.

[Mark G]

I think the basis for middle ages violence was twofold, status comes from military skill, and there is virtually no state for most people, just local warlords who claim power for protection.

Remembering that a valid tactic throughout was to despoil land to price the current lord couldn't protect you, it presupposes violence as a common event.

State vs state violence just didn't exist, it was some noble vs another, and only the size of claimant mattered

[Erpingham]

State vs state violence just didn't exist, it was some noble vs another, and only the size of claimant mattered

Assuming kings are just big noble claimants?  This does presume the answer to "The state did not exist in the Medieval British isles" is true

[Patrick Waterson]

When does 'violence' become warfare?  The guiding rule here would seem to be that 'warfare' begins when crowned heads or sovereign entities are involved: two crowds of football supporters laying into each other is not war, whereas El Salvador vs Honduras in July 1969 (the Football War) is.

In mediaeval England, we can trace two broad levels of 'violence': one was the usual minor attrition through crime represented in coroners' records (once coroners were introduced), while the other was the kind of anarchy seen when 'God and his angels slept' during the reign of King Stephen, when the King was unable to control the barons.

An important part of mediaeval society, at least in England, was that the crown was the protector and guardian of the poorer classes: merchants and tradesmen in particular were subject to stringent laws about providing full value in transactions (e.g. the 'baker's dozen' arose to avoid bakers being fined for selling underweight and the 37" 'clothyard' to avoid clothiers being fined for selling short measure) and the King's Justice was at least in theory open to all, including commoners who had been wronged by their lord.  If wronged by another lord, their own lord would take up matters on their behalf.

When the Crown was disabled, as might happen in a regency or civil war, there was little check on the actions of the barons, and one might validly claim that some of them existed in a state of war with others - whether to place a claimant on the throne or simply grab some territory which had been disputed with a neighbour.  Re-enabling the Crown soon put a stop to such activities, and the land and population would be back to the usual run of fights and murders which could have filled books of mediaeval detective stories but which statistically had little impact on the population.

Isn't there quite a lot of evidence for the idea that societies have become less violent over a long period of time?

This would seem to depend upon the society, in particular its laws and policing arrangements on the one hand and its constitutional arrangements for leader succession on the other.  The advent of communism seems invariably to produce a massive and sustained upsurge in 'violence', most of it state-administered.  The descent of a country into anarchy (e.g. Somalia) also adds considerably to the violence quotient unless and until a modus vivendi is developed among the various territory-controlling factions.  Presidential succession in early 20th century Haiti or Mexico tended to involve intermittent or ongoing civil war, while some outsiders' accounts of 19th century American elections suggest that belligerence and fisticuffs were at least as important as policy in determining the outcome.

But it might be tempting to conclude that the middle ages was particularly violent, simply because the records of violence were only just beginning to appear.

An interesting and astute observation, which I can see as being uniquely applicable to our statistics-based breed of historians.  My own observations (well, we were bound to get those sooner or later ) over the course of history are that the level of violence within societies is usually inversely proportional to the strength of the monarch governing that society: if he rules unchallenged, the society is generally peaceful within itself.  Conversely, the level and frequency of violence between societies (or nations, or states) seems to be independent of the strength of the monarch, although the results of such violence are not.

[Swampster]

A while ago I came across a case which points to the complicated position of the law in the period.

In the 1320s, Roger de Mortimer had some of the land south of Birmingham enclosed. Locals who had their common rights infringed filled in the ditches, broke down the fences and possibly killed the bailiff. Mortimer turned to the law to get payback rather than sending heavies to break heads.
Being a powerful man, he arranged for a favourable jury who found in his favour. According to rolls in the PRO, the tenants "did not dare appear to challenge the jurors of the inquisition (held at Bromsgrove) for fear of death and the power of the earl, they were convicted and adjudged to pay £300 to the earl for damages."
So the earl has the power to impose his will but wants to be seen to be following the law. The fine is extremely punitive and Mortimer may have intended to gain power over the villagers by keeping them in debt. As it happened, he was executed soon after.
The villagers then felt it necessary to return to the law and had the decision overturned (though the exchequer took a cut of £40). Even this was not simply the king making an on the spot decision. A legal commision was established to investigate the case. 

So the law is strong enough that one of the most powerful men in the country want to be seen to be following it, though weak enough that he can sway a decision in his favour. The law is strong enough that he feels he can use it to get his 'damages' but weak enough that there is an implied threat of violence to prevent a fair hearing. At least, the commission gives this as a reason - it is just possible that they are blackening the name of a man recently executed for treason. Perhaps he was acting legally and it was the locals attempt to use force to stop him which was foiled by the law.

[Erpingham]

It's a good example of medieval "lawlessness".  Its not that there was no law - our examples are being drawn from legal records.  But it struggled to be enforced consistently or impartially, so evading it or taking direct action seemed like viable (and cheaper) options.

[Dangun]

This would seem to depend upon the society, in particular its laws and policing arrangements on the one hand and its constitutional arrangements for leader succession on the other.  The advent of communism seems invariably to produce a massive and sustained upsurge in 'violence', most of it state-administered.

I think state-vs-state violence has to be separated from civilian violence. They follow different trajectories. The former is more driven by centralization of power, military technology, and institutions like a standing army etc. I think we are talking about the latter? Because if the examination was asking a question about the former - its just dead wrong.

The descent of a country into anarchy (e.g. Somalia) also adds considerably to the violence quotient unless and until a modus vivendi is developed among the various territory-controlling factions.

Somalia and Haiti may - sadly - add disproportionately to the numerator, but they have no impact on the conclusion because they contribute near-to-nothing to the denominator.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think state-vs-state violence has to be separated from civilian violence. They follow different trajectories. The former is more driven by centralization of power, military technology, and institutions like a standing army etc. I think we are talking about the latter? Because if the examination was asking a question about the former - its just dead wrong.

The question which arises is where the line of separation is to be drawn, considering such entities as today's 'Islamic state' and Latin America's drug cartels.  One can have organised violence without nations/states being the driving participants - as people raided by the Free Companies in the latter part of the 14th century AD were all too aware.  Perhaps we should more closely define 'civilian violence': would this, for example, include the frenetic Greek city-state political faction-fighting?  Or the riots and risings of mediaeval peasantry and occasional worker-types (e.g. the ciompi (wool-workers) in Florence)?

It's a good example of medieval "lawlessness".  Its not that there was no law - our examples are being drawn from legal records.  But it struggled to be enforced consistently or impartially, so evading it or taking direct action seemed like viable (and cheaper) options.

And we can contrast this with King Stephen's reign, where real lawlessness became the norm in the absence of effective royal authority.

Thanks, Peter, for providing that Mortimer example.