?
Феномен сражающихся правителей в Англии и Франции XI–XV вв. в историографии XX–XXI вв.: некоторые наблюдения
The article deals with the history of the study of the phenomenon of the fighting or non-fighting prince in England and France from the 11th to the 15th centuries. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been two different methodological approaches to this problem in historical science. On the one hand, it was studied by military historians, for whom the priority was the reconstruction of the “real” behaviour of princes on the battlefield. The basis of this approach was laid by the German historian Hans Delbrück in the early 20th century. Subsequently, Jan Frans Verbruggen, Philippe Contamine and others worked in this vein. On the other hand, in the second half of the 20th century, historians studying the phenomenon of authority in society, philologists and specialists in chivalric culture turned to the study of the phenomenon of the fighting ruler. Representatives of this group focus on the study of ideas and perceptions related to the military role of the sovereign, including the issues of his direct participation or non-participation in battle. Ernst Kantorowicz should be named here first and foremost, as well as Jean Flory, Peter Noble, and others. The renewal of military history in the 1960s had a significant impact on the revision of research approaches. Already in the 1980s, the prince's participation in battle began to be seen as a key element of his relationship with the army. The reasons for the different behaviour of sovereigns in battle began to be interpreted through the prism of socio-cultural attitudes of society. John Keegan made a fundamental contribution to the development of these ideas. In modern historiography there is a comprehensive approach to the study of the phenomenon of a fighting prince. In addressing this issue, researchers such as Christopher Allmand and John France draw on cultural attitudes, textual analyses of literary works, and data on the military and political context of the era.