Joinville's Conceptions of Honour

As the historian Leo Braudy notes in his work, From Chivalry to Terrorism, the most lasting cultural mediator between the individual soldier and his social group, between violence and civility, between war and peace, is the concept of honour (page 49). Honour serves as a justification for the professional, as well as for the conscript. Codes were regularly employed to structure and organize the conception of honour among warriors, both on and off the battlefield. The goal of honourable behaviour may be social (to attack an enemy, to defend a woman, to defend one’s lord) or it may be rooted in a personal and internal sense of what is right (Braudy, 52). These codes (at least for Europe) were eventually organized into thoughts of ‘chivalry,’ and can anchor the personal impulse and desire to act to a special group and set of values (Braudy, 54), rectifying the desire to do great things, but not outside of your set social group (aka, the knighthood and army). In wartime, such a code can give an externally validated sense of honour, an approved violence in the name of deeper and more central values (Braudy, 54).

The honourable behaviour of the Crusading battlefield however, is a different matter. The Crusades fused variously opposing ideas together: material gain and idealism, social hierarchy and social egalitarianism, spirituality and violence, local pride and allegiance to an international order (Braudy, 77). Knights functioned as the secular arm of the Church during the Crusades, and as such they were bound by the code of honour given to the crusaders by Pope Urban II in 1095. This gave rise to the idea of the "Code of Chivalry." Every crusader had to "swear to defend to his uttermost the weak, the orphan, the widow and the oppressed; he should be courteous, and women should receive his especial care. Thus to his bravery and love of adventure, the knight was enjoined to add gentler qualities" (Swettenham, 26).

These conflicting ideas are seen within John de Joinville’s writings, though not in an explicit manner. Joinville offers insight to honour and dishonour at this time in several key areas: the manner of the fighting man on the battlefield, the behaviour of knights/arms men off the field of battle, and the treating with/against enemies. For Joinville, the actions of a knight carried with it various levels of honour, as well as for the lower ranks and divisions of the Crusading army. He especially emphasizes ‘good’ deeds performed by knights/nobles as being honourable acts, one example of which was the actions of Count Guy of Forez. The count and his knights broke through a battalion of Saracen enemies, and with a broken leg, proceeded to protect the king of Sicily (among others) from the battle (Joinville, 195). The act of placing oneself in danger to protect others it seems is a trait that Joinville considers to be honourable.

Joinville provides us with two opposing ideas of how the Crusaders dealt with, and were dealt by, their various Muslim enemies. One example that Joinville gives us that denotes a dishonourable interaction from both parties is the case of what each does with prisoners. Joinville tells us that, “there is a bad custom in the infidel lands according to which when the king sends envoys to the sultan, or the sultan to the king, and the king or sultan happens to die before the envoys’ return, those envoys are taken as prisoners and slaves no matter what side they are from, whether Christian or Saracen” (page 222). The dishonour of not returning prisoners to the opposing camp – either through ransom or some sort of prisoner exchange – was something that Joinville denounced, and would have preferred some sort of fair exchange.

In dealing with various sultans, emirs, and Muslim kings, a variety of oaths, pacts, and agreements were made between them and the Crusading kings/leaders. For example, when dealing with several emirs from the city of Damietta, the king required them to protect the sick, along with weapons caches and salted meats until the king should need them (page 234). The oaths that the emirs had to swear to the king revolved around the concept of honour. The punishment of breaking these oaths had a notably religious theme, that also incorporated the concepts of shame, respect, and God. Should they break their oaths, they “would be dishonoured as he who, because of his sinfulness, goes on pilgrimage to Muhammad at Mecca with his head uncovered, and as dishonoured as those who leave their wives and then take them back afterwards…dishonoured as the Saracen who eats pig’s flesh (page 234-235). However, these same emirs also demanded that the king swear an oath as well. This oath too, revolved around honour related to religion; “…he would be dishonoured as the Christian who denies God and his Mother, and is barred form the fellowship of his twelve companions and of all the saints…” [he would agree to this point], as well he would be “dishonoured as the Christian who denies God and his law and who, scorning God, spits and tramples on the cross.” [he would not agree to this point] (page 235). This interchange of oaths denotes an interesting interchange between two cultures at war with another.

The personal affairs and honour of knights and the Crusaders was also of interest to Joinville. He denotes several affairs of knights who besmirch their honour, and certainly does not approve. For example, during his time as Caesarea a young knight was caught in a brothel, and was offered a choice of punishment; either the prostitute would lead him through the camp by a cord tied round his genitals while he was wearing just his chemise, or he would lose his horse and his armour and be expelled from the camp (he would eventually be expelled) (page 270). Several other incidents revolve around this concept of personal honour and acting in an honourable way that Joinville not the wider Crusading society at the time approve of.

Overall Joinville provides little outright definitions of what chivalry consists of, and indeed many researchers relate it mainly to knights and the knighthood, which Joinville hints at as well. According to other research found for today, poetry at the time detailed the knightly characteristics of humility; the Knights acquired honour not through their strength and valour in battle alone, rather through the act of using these skills in the name of God, and in defense of the Christian faith against the Infidel (Jackson, http://www.suite101.com/content/the-troubadours-and-the-rhetoric-of-the-crusades-a123225). Though Joinville does not detail much of the honour found on the battlefield, he does condemn those who flee from battle (Joinville, 278). The act of fleeing from battle has been a signal of cowardice for most armies, and indeed has a direct correlation to conceptions of honour on the Crusader battlefield.