Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-wgjn4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-11T20:59:34.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Some Dubious Beliefs about Medieval Prize Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2018

John Ford
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

For fifty years now, historians have had at their disposal a coherent account of the law of arms applicable in the Court of the Constable and Marshal to cases concerned with the dividing of spoils and the ransoming of prisoners taken in wars.1 Disputes over these matters were resolved by reference to any contracts formed between the parties involved, failing which to any regulations issued in relation to the particular conflicts in which they fought, failing which to more general regulations or the customs of warfare. At the more general level especially, the law of arms had an international flavour, for the regulations introduced in one place were often influenced by those already in force elsewhere, and the communities that considered themselves obliged to conform to customary usages were not always nationally defined. It was of course important for the decisions delivered in the courts of one place to appear acceptable in the other places from which those despoiled or imprisoned came, and it was partly to this end that the practice of military tribunals was rationalised in terms of the legal theory expounded in broadly similar terms in universities throughout Europe. The learned doctrine of the law schools provided a framework of legitimacy within which courts in different parts of Europe were able to fashion versions of the law of arms that could be expected to receive recognition elsewhere. It follows that to understand the law of arms properly required – and still requires – familiarity with academic theory as well as forensic practice.5 It was not without cause that advice was taken on the application of the law of arms from ‘doctors of law’ or ‘iurisperiti’, a cadre of experts in the civil and canon laws whose advice was relied on in the specialised courts of the Constable and Marshal, the Admiral, and certain other officials.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Boydell & Brewer
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×