AHC/WI: Popes fight on the battlefield

[Elfwine]

"Recruited by Julius on the basis of a five year subsidy, (the Swiss) commander was the martial Bishop of Sion, Matthaus Schinner. A kindred Spirit to the Pope, Schinner hated his overbearing neighbors, the French, even more than Julius hated themand was dedicated in his heart, soul, and talents to their defeat. Gaunt, long -nosed, limitless in energy, he was an intrepid soldier and spell-binding orator, whose eloquence before battle moved his troops 'as the wind moves the waves'. Schinner's tongue, complaiend the next King of France, Francis I, gave the French more troubel than the formidable Swiss pikes. Julius made him a Cardinal on his entering the Holy League. In later days in battle against Francis I, Schinner rode to war wearing his cardinal's red hat and robes after announcing to his troops that he wished to bathe in French blood."

- Barbaria Tuchman, The March of Folly

Never heard of Odo of Mainz, although I have a recollection of there being at least the claim that William the Conqueror's half brother was a fighting cleric.

So while I don't think you could have this be common, OTL does have several examples of clergy actually involved in military command. Not personally swinging a sword/mace/whatever doesn't make Schinner a background figure.

 

[Bee]

I've seen reference to John being with the army during the battle in two modern sources (Rome in the Dark Ages by Peter Llewellyn; Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages by Horace Mann; also the Wikipedia article). I haven't read the contemporary sources, so you might have an argument depending on what Luitprand says.

Arguments based on what wasn't said by ancient and medieval chroniclers don't carry much weight. They didn't think the same way as modern academics, it seems that they didn't proofread what they wrote very carefully, and they didn't have any rules to follow about what to put in and what to leave out.

 

[LordKalvan]

That's a legend. There's no source that support such thing and it's to put with other mythos dustbin, as "knights unable to rise up in armor" and "Droit du seigneur"

Probably another mark of contempt, as suggered by the smiley, for an era as a whole.

The mace (or a staff), in this case, wasn't a weapon but a mark of authority and its actually shared by other people (non-cleric or cleric) in nonf-fighting situation.

One of the many exemples could be the staff as a "regalia" of visigothic kings.

First of all, do me a favor: get down from your high horse. When someone writes: "it is said that...", it is usually a hint that the historicity of what comes after is somehow doubtful. This said, legends and myths usually have a kernel of truth in them. Like the droit de seigneur, which most likely comes from the permission that serfs had to obtain to marry (and the tax they had to pay).

Second, the emoticon was intended to show appreciation for the ingenuity in finding rationales to justify the circumvention of laws and rules, which applied to both ecclesiastical and lay laws. Ever heard of the "butter towers", for example?

Third, I don't know why you may think I've a bias against the Middle Ages. Which I have not. At all.

For the crusade, as the cardinal Pelaio by exemple, it wasn't question for them to fight, but to be part of the decisional staff.

And, yes, there was prohibition for fighting anyone. It's why Church never killed condamned heretics, but given them to secular courts in order to do that. You can contempt as you want, but this is one of the elements that show even if they could give to others the fighting role, the clergy itself wasn't allowed to.

Now, you had exception, critically in the Early Middle Ages where such behaviour wasn't uncommon (as said before). But with the establishment of feudalism and separation of orders from one hand, and on the other hand the papacy rise on Latin Church with canonic laws depending on him and not local councils, it was deemed.

The original ecclesiastical law prohibited all clerics to spill blood and to make war. The second part (making war) started to go down the drain almost at once (and certainly after the establishment of the Patrimonium Petri). Popes and bishops made war against heretics and infidels but also against fellow christians.
They ordered reprisals and sent armies marching. In some cases they even led their armies (Cardinal Albornoz whom I mentioned for example) even if they normally did not participate in the actual fight. Why is this so disturbing for you?
Popes (and prince-bishops) were at the same time clerical and lay lords, and the two personas could be easily live in the same man.

 

[LSCatilina]

I've seen reference to John being with the army during the battle in two modern sources.

Again being with the army doesn't mean actual fight. Many generals can be with an army without being part of the battle.

The medieval sources doesn't say anything else than he was there, and asked for italian nobles to fight.

Given how it worked usually, without more precision, the most likely conclusion is to say : the pope as chief of expedition was there, and likely organised the siege. However the italian nobles did the fighting part.

It's not impossible to have John X being part of the fight, but without actual sources, it's pure speculation.

Arguments based on what wasn't said by ancient and medieval chroniclers don't carry much weight.

Ancient chroniclers that however were used to detail everything for the sake of it, especially unusual events as cleric fighting. Not having an account of fighting pope is certainly at least questioning.

Furthermore, without positive account, how can you say you had an actual fight from John X? What you have is just "being with the army".

They didn't think the same way as modern academics, it seems that they didn't proofread what they wrote very carefully, and they didn't have any rules to follow about what to put in and what to leave out.

Usually, as said, medieval chroniclers tended to write everything without making a classification between actually important and useless anecdotes.

For the official chronicles, however, as it was commandited by powerful men, it was certainly proof-readed.

 

[LSCatilina]

First of all, do me a favor: get down from your high horse. When someone writes: "it is said that...", it is usually a hint that the historicity of what comes after is somehow doubtful.

"(Odo of Mainz who fought in Italy with Barbarossa was notorious: it is said he fought with a mace, rather than a sword, to avoid spilling Christian blood)"

I honestly don't find any trace of hint on this tale being dubious. The use of "notorious" would possibly make me think first on "Everybody knows it was like that".

Now, if you say so, I trust you on it wasn't what you meant. But it's what it looked like. And honestly, it's really annoying to be regularly on this kind of pseudo-historical fairy tales.
Sorry if it was rude, though.

This said, legends and myths usually have a kernel of truth in them. Like the droit de seigneur, which most likely comes from the permission that serfs had to obtain to marry (and the tax they had to pay).

Or not. For the mace thing, it's probably came from a bad analysis of painting or writed sources without knowledge of context (as people that saw UFOs in byzantines painting by exemple).
The most exemple given is Bayeux Tapestry with Odo of Bayeux carrying a mace.
However, you have other people identified (or not identified at all) as nobles that carry such. That, plus the fact it was a long used symbol of power, would lead to the conclusion it wasn't probably a weapon.

Critically that, when you had actually fighting clerics, they used the same weapons than others. Adheymar du Puy using a sword by exemple.

Legends doesn't always come from a kernel of truth, but aslo because of bad interpretation.

Second, the emoticon was intended to show appreciation for the ingenuity in finding rationales to justify the circumvention of laws and rules, which applied to both ecclesiastical and lay laws. Ever heard of the "butter towers", for example?

The exemptions for eating restriced food weren't only used by churchs elites, but as well by nobles or even bourgeois elites. I don't see how it's a hint of how Clerics could have used maces.

It's just a proof that, in every era, elites didn't cared too much about moral legislation when they could compensate for legitimazing it.

Again, the thing is not about if Clerics or not actually fought (you had some), but if it was common and how it was, in order to manage to gave a POD where it comes to Popes making actual fighting.

The original ecclesiastical law prohibited all clerics to spill blood and to make war. The second part (making war) started to go down the drain almost at once (and certainly after the establishment of the Patrimonium Petri). Popes and bishops made war against heretics and infidels but also against fellow christians.

Making war =/= Fighting.

Unless we say Obama fought Taliban since 2008, for using a modern exemple. (Well, we could actually say that, but it would be abusive use of the word)

I don't see it more a circumvution than a feudal separation of powers.

They ordered reprisals and sent armies marching. In some cases they even led their armies (Cardinal Albornoz whom I mentioned for example) even if they normally did not participate in the actual fight. Why is this so disturbing for you?

It's not disturbing for me. I just try to answer the OP that ask for fighting popes. For answering that, it's better to search why FIRST they didn't fought but only organized armies and led them.

Now, again, you had exceptions : if figures as Albornoz are known, it's precisely because they were such.

Popes (and prince-bishops) were at the same time clerical and lay lords, and the two personas could be easily live in the same man.

Actually not.

Because clerical feudal worked a bit differently than secular ones.

While a secular noble could (and actually did) go to war himself, the religious one had to use a non-religious commander (I don't know the english word for "avoué", but that's ONE of the institutions avaible, with the possibility of making a neighbouring noble the protector of an abbey, by exemple, without giving him any feudal right on it).

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

One of the problems with this is that popes were usually fairly old when elected, often old enough to not stand the rigors of a campaign. Not all of them, of course, but enough that it could hardly be a ,,regular,, thing.

 

[Bee]

Again being with the army doesn't mean actual fight. Many generals can be with an army without being part of the battle.

The medieval sources doesn't say anything else than he was there, and asked for italian nobles to fight.

Given how it worked usually, without more precision, the most likely conclusion is to say : the pope as chief of expedition was there, and likely organised the siege. However the italian nobles did the fighting part.

It's not impossible to have John X being part of the fight, but without actual sources, it's pure speculation.


Ancient chroniclers that however were used to detail everything for the sake of it, especially unusual events as cleric fighting. Not having an account of fighting pope is certainly at least questioning.

Furthermore, without positive account, how can you say you had an actual fight from John X? What you have is just "being with the army".


Usually, as said, medieval chroniclers tended to write everything without making a classification between actually important and useless anecdotes.

For the official chronicles, however, as it was commandited by powerful men, it was certainly proof-readed.

The Wikipedia article on John X (citing Mann as authority) says that John took the field in person, alongside Alberic of Spoleto. If you think Mann was misquoted or that Mann misread the original sources, the ball is back in your court.

I'm not the one speculating -- I've named my sources.

I've remembered another fighting pope: Godfrey of Viterbo records that Lucius II was killed by a thrown stone in fighting within Rome against the Roman Commune.

 

[LSCatilina]

Alberic of Spoleto

Actually, he's mentioned mainly because he led the papal troops, at the exception of Roma's militia. If something, his mention could be a sign of the relativity of military importance of the pope.

I'm not the one speculating -- I've named my sources.

Jean Gay, in "L'Etat Pontifical, les Byzantins et les Lombards sur le littoral campanien (d'Hadrien Ier à Jean VIII)" talks about a coalition of "Christian princes [...] siding with the Pope".

Mute on a supposed actual fight of John X.

Thomas Granier him, talks about a byzantine-italian victory, and describe the role of the Pope relativly limited to part of organisation, leading the Roman militia up to the saracenic colony and as uniting factor between christians.

Again, nothing on John X except organizer and (possible) strategist.

For Giuseppe Cossuto and Daniele Mascitelli

The Pope John X had trouble to convince Gaeta participating to the anti-saracenic league. This one suceeded, in 916, to expell the Arabs after roughly two months of battle (this made us understand the importance the colony of Garigliano had).
The expellation of saracens from the heart of Italy had an important echo in Christian world while being ignored for the Arabs. We can't indeed see this christian victory as decisive regarding the multi-secular fight between the two marines

Here again, there's strictly no more about the papal role.

All of this depict John X as the organizer and one of the focus of the battle. No one depict him as a fighter.

So far, the only occurence I could found (quickly, admittedly) about a fighting pope outside Mann is in "Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries"

Pope John later noted proudly that he himself gone twice into battle.

Indeed, it was customary to refer as to the entiere campaign as a papal accomplishment. Certainly the pope grant did secure the crucial cooperation of Gaeta. Yet, as Pietro Fedele noted a century ago, Leo Marcianus, undoubtly drawing on contemporary sources , gave the major credit to the Capuans, together with the Byzantine support they had secured.

In the spring of 915, Jonh X had been pope for barely one year, and there's no indication that he became involved in the planning early

Now, for settling this, as you have apparently a better access to Mann's work than me, could you actually search for it?

I will try to find the Antapodosis and search there if we have a mention about it. Now, it's a book hard to find, so don't expect an anwer before some time.
Furthermore, Liutprand doesn't seem to be that reliable on John X, because maybe of an hostility against him.

I would maybe have more odds to find a work of an Italian historian, Pietro Fedele about the battle.
It is apparently massivly used by the works quoted. Usually, it means it's considered as important on the subject : if I found it, I'll try to find something on it.

But so far,Mann is the only one to mention a participation of John X during the battle as a fact : others sources I could find seems far more dubious if they're talking about or more largely, doesn't even mention it.

I've remembered another fighting pope: Godfrey of Viterbo records that Lucius II was killed by a thrown stone in fighting within Rome against the Roman Commune.

That's actually a good exemple. It could be comparated to the contemporary Commune of Laon for that (as the bishop of the city was killed as well during the revolt).

The religious authorities were less encline to accept political reforms trying to balance their power, as they find any tentative as threatening the existence of a not owned but trusted domain (by God or a/the saints, as in St Peter Patrimony).

A line of popes whom the temporal power would have been continually challenged could have assumed an actual fighting part. Now, there's the question if a continually harassed Papal States could have been viable.

They managed to survive that long, partially because they were less military threatening..

 

[Makemakean]

It's not that hard for early middle ages. After all, Irish monks fought themselves because of loyalties divided along secular nobility, and some bishops or religious if not fighting were present in battlefield (as Odon of Bayeux or Oppa of Sevilla by exemple).

It's a shame that the Medieval monks weren't more like Shaolin monks. And when I say Shaolin monks, of course I am not referring to a small set of ascetic men belonging to a particular off-shot of Chinese Zen Buddhism who spends most of their time tendering their monastery and studying the Buddhist sutras, no, I'm referring to the kick-ass, flying monks who can run around on tree tops and hold sword-fights on the surface of mountain lakes as well-choreographed as a ballet piece by Vaslav Nijinsky!

 

[LSCatilina]

It's a shame that the Medieval monks weren't more like Shaolin monks.

You would probably need the acceptence of body esthetic and maintain of physical body by Christian church.

The issue is it was quite the contrary : the focus was made on "don't treat your body that well, you should work hard for your soul instead".

I think a shaolin-like exercice would have been seen as passably pagan, not because of its origin, but because on the focus on material body it requires.

-

Now, many bishops and abbots (less true in the case of monastic communauties though) were part of the nobility or (later) bourgeois elites. So they actually had the bases of a military training. But nothing really that develloped, and the specific styles of fighting were issued from secular world.

 

[Arachnid]

While he didn't fight Pope Leo IX led the Papal Army at the Battle of Civitate where the Normans defeated a Papal Army and took him prisoner holding him for the next 6 year, clearly God wasn't on his side.