This article analyzes the question by John of Naples (d. ca. 1348) as to whether it is licit for a Christian king to hire Muslim mercenaries to defend his country against Christian aggressors. John’s answer employs legal, theological, and philosophical sources intended to justify the view that it is indeed licit to do so. John’s original account modifies the just war tradition to qualify his ambitions better and adapts elements of the legal principle of necessity, which support his argument. His overall ethical thinking builds on the primacy of the common good, which allows the use of imperfect means, such as hiring Muslim mercenaries, to achieve the good of Christian community in a just war.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 413 | 12 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 214 | 202 | 12 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 171 | 149 | 19 |
This article analyzes the question by John of Naples (d. ca. 1348) as to whether it is licit for a Christian king to hire Muslim mercenaries to defend his country against Christian aggressors. John’s answer employs legal, theological, and philosophical sources intended to justify the view that it is indeed licit to do so. John’s original account modifies the just war tradition to qualify his ambitions better and adapts elements of the legal principle of necessity, which support his argument. His overall ethical thinking builds on the primacy of the common good, which allows the use of imperfect means, such as hiring Muslim mercenaries, to achieve the good of Christian community in a just war.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 413 | 12 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 214 | 202 | 12 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 171 | 149 | 19 |