According to then current laws of war, the besieged could make terms if they surrendered, but not if they forced a siege to its bitter end, so presumably Charles felt no compunctions.
In her book "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century," Barbara W. Tuchman discusses the legal context of war during the period, particularly regarding the conditions for surrender during a siege. The prevailing laws of war allowed besieged parties to negotiate terms upon surrender, but those who chose to resist until the end were not afforded the same option. This legal framework suggests that Charles, likely a figure of authority in the narrative, felt justified in his actions and decisions without moral conflict.
This perspective on the dynamics of warfare highlights the harsh realities of medieval siege tactics and the limited options available to those under siege. The understanding that choosing to endure a siege could result in the loss of negotiation opportunities complicates the ethical considerations of leadership during such tumultuous times. Tuchman’s exploration of this issue sheds light on the brutal nature of conflict and the strategies employed by leaders to maintain power and control.
