77 - Concerning the discussion that the king held with the constable about laying siege to towns

Summary

The count heard about these observations which the king and his noblemen had uttered. However, since he did not agree to the besieging of townships, as he had said from time to time, and since none of his men had made any effort to attack [the town of Coria] as the other troops had done, he well understood that, because of this and other matters which the king had noted and found displeasing, the king had come to make such comments. When next day he deliberately went to see the king in order to discuss the matter, he became involved in the discussion started by several people on whether it was preferable, indeed more honourable, for a king to lay siege to towns and villages loyal to another king who was his enemy, even if he did not succeed in capturing some of them, or to roam at will with his army all over the enemy king's territory.

Hearing that they wished to debate this subject, the king argued in favour of besieging the towns and villages, asserting that this was preferable and more honourable, and expressing many reasons for this which it would take too long to write down. However, the main reasons were these: he said that it brought the king more honour to besiege a town belonging to his enemies than to roam over their land and pillage it, because by besieging a town or city he demonstrated his superiority over them, causing them to be trapped and famished, and killing them with his trebuchets and siege engines. Moreover, when in their anxiety those inside the walls wrote to their king, urging him to come to their aid, and he did not dare do so or send any help, the king laying siege would seize them either by force or through a truce which conformed to his wishes; once captured, the town would be held as part of his kingdom, and then he could with impunity go off and roam over the land laying it waste right up to its bounds.

‘Once that township has been captured’, said the king, ‘you will not find anyone who afterwards would come to seize it back by force, because by then they will have handed themselves over by treaty or other agreements, as we have seen on a number of occasions.