There are at least two ways of understanding the history of war. The first is a “scientific” model of war that emphasizes unchanging principles of strategic conduct and inherent military probability. According to this model, regardless of the era or society, war is a rational endeavor carried out according to tactical and strategic pragmatic necessities and directed at achieving the goals of a state. This approach also puts a priority on the material factors in war, in particular technological determinacy, and tests what the historical sources claim to have happened against what we know to be physiologically or technically possible, or, in some cases, militarily sensible. If the details recorded in even an authentic primary source fail this test, or stretch credibility, then they are to be rejected and material reality upheld.

Others contend that war is a cultural activity: the reasons why societies engage in war and the methods by which they fight them are defined by the particular norms, values, institutions, and mentalities of a society passed on from one generation to the next. What we call the “unchanging principles of war” are themselves a cultural construct derived from a particular approach to war and a particular organization of the state characteristic of the West from the late eighteenth century to the present. We may call this the “culturalist” approach.

The question: Assess the influence of culture, political policy, technology and practical military necessity upon why and how wars were fought in the Middle Ages. Which of the above interpretations do you think is more correct, and why? (You need not answer this as either/or. In the wars that you analyze you may find elements of each to be true.)