Only 1 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Gift-wrap available.
Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sa... has been added to your Cart
+ CDN$ 6.49 shipping
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by powellsbooks
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Ships from US; Please allow 14-21 business days for your book to arrive in Canada. Reliable customer service and no-hassle return policy.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War Hardcover – Dec 1 2003

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
"Please retry"
CDN$ 67.90
CDN$ 67.90 CDN$ 37.78

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child
click to open popover

No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 350 pages
  • Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (Dec 1 2003)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0226260852
  • ISBN-13: 978-0226260853
  • Product Dimensions: 15.2 x 2.5 x 22.9 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 617 g
  • Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #1,152,743 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  •  Would you like to update product info, give feedback on images, or tell us about a lower price?

  • See Complete Table of Contents

Product Description


“In his ambitious and far-ranging study, Bloody Good, Allen Frantzen seeks to explore the ‘enduring power of chivalry to symbolize both prowess and principle in warfare’ by examining the links between its origins in the Middle Ages and its continued expressions during the First World War. . . . Frantzen concludes that the myth of self-sacrifice was expropriated to serve the interests  of the state to be sure, but that chivalric behavior—based on Christian concepts of love and self-sacrifice for others—also constituted an essential aspect of the mentality of most combatants. . . . This study is unique in its scope and offers many valuable insights.  As such, it makes an important contribution to our understanding of the enduring myths and symbols of Western Culture and how they are reified and continually resurrected to fit new concepts.  In this regard, Bloody Good represents a significant achievement.”
(Joe Lunn Journal of Military History)

“Through a careful reading of materials that include art, letters, postcards, recruitment posters and battlefield memorials, Frantzen shows that chivalry—that centuries-old medieval code of heroic sacrifice embedded in the European tradition—was not dispatched by the Great War’s modernist voices, but has remained the dominant interpretive framework for understanding wartime experience and behavior.  Though machine guns, tanks, and poison gas did away with medieval ways of fighting, they did not dislodge medieval ways of thinking.”
(Daniel Born Christian Century)

“A bold and ambitious book that ranges across centuries and cultures—sometimes in a way that will offend specialists in a particular area—but always in a stimulating and vital fashion. It is definitely worth a read.”
(Tim Travers Albion)

“Frantzen reached down to feel the vibrations of one of the bass strings of European civilization, where Christianity, manhood, violence, and vengeance meet. His exploration of that tone is both deep and revealing.”

(Joshua Sanborn Journal of Modern History)

From the Inside Flap

In the popular imagination, World War I stands for the horror of all wars. The unprecedented scale of the war and the mechanized weaponry it introduced to battle brought an abrupt end to the romantic idea that soldiers were somehow knights in shining armor who always vanquished their foes and saved the day. Yet the concept of chivalry still played a crucial role in how soldiers saw themselves in the conflict.

Here for the first time, Allen J. Frantzen traces these chivalric ideals from the Great War back to their origins in the Middle Ages and shows how they resulted in highly influential models of behavior for men in combat. Drawing on a wide selection of literature and images from the medieval period, along with photographs, memorials, postcards, war posters, and film from both sides of the front, Frantzen shows how such media shaped a chivalric ideal of male sacrifice based on the Passion of Jesus Christ. He demonstrates, for instance, how the wounded body of Christ became the inspiration for heroic male suffering in battle. For some men, the Crucifixion inspired a culture of revenge, one in which Christ's bleeding wounds were venerated as badges of valor and honor. For others, Christ's sacrifice inspired action more in line with his teachings—a daring stay of hands or reason not to visit death upon one's enemies.

Lavishly illustrated and eloquently written, Bloody Good will be must reading for anyone interested in World War I and the influence of Christian ideas on modern life.

See all Product Description

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) HASH(0xa6bf8ec4) out of 5 stars 4 reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa6bebd08) out of 5 stars CHIVALRY AND SACRIFICE Oct. 4 2011
By Stephen Cooper - Published on
Format: Hardcover
Edmund Burke wrote that `the age of chivalry is gone' when the French revolutionaries executed Marie Antoinette in 1793. In `The Return to Camelot' Mark Girouard showed that chivalry was revived, at least in nineteenth century Britain; but most people would suppose that it died in the trenches during the First World War. Professor Frantzen shows very effectively, in his study of postcards and war memorials, that the War of 1914-18 realised `the full potential of chivalry as the Middle Ages knew it' - as a discipline which `ennobled and glorified many of those who practised it, including the lowborn, even as it led to their death.' So chivalry did not die: it was revived and extended to all classes, and in the twentieth century.

If that was all Frantzen set out to prove, all would be well. He makes a good case. Unfortunately, there is a second thesis, that the works of art he discusses display either `sacrifice' or `anti-sacrifice' (by which he means, the desire for revenge). In particular the German war-memorial at plate 26 supposedly shows a Bavarian soldier who is feeling despair, doubt and anger rather than mere sorrow. This is said to be typical, and the author states (at page 6) that it is this anti-sacrificial response which led to the Second World War: `after he grieved he would remember the sacrifice by preparing Germany for another war.'

This is simplistic. The thesis assumes a dichotomy of response - sacrifice or anti-sacrifice, sorrow or revenge, which I do not find in the artwork displayed, or in human nature. Why shouldn't we feel both emotions? It is also unhistorical. It speculates and generalises, in the most alarming way. It entirely ignores the politics, and in particular the history of Germany, between 1918 and 1933, in favour of a concentration on a supposed aesthetic response.

Frantzen explains his own reactions and assumes that everyone else feels the same way, and felt the same way at the time. For example, on page 29, he says `millions of foot soldiers in World War I believed that the violence of war brought them into a very special relationship with Christ.' I doubt that. My grandfather was a British soldier, killed in Flanders during the German Spring Offensive of 1918. I cannot know what went on in his mind during the two weeks he was in France, though I know that he was nominally a Christian; but I would think he probably spent his last days missing home, and worrying about his wife and three small children, as well as about his own safety, rather than thinking about theology. Anglicanism was the official religion in England in 1918, and my grandfather was said (on his identity disc) to be `C of E'; but I have documents to show that he attended a Congregational Church in 1910. How can one be sure what his relationship to Christ was? Many people must have gone along with a religion they did not really believe in, as they have always done. In any event it is dangerous to extrapolate from one individual to millions.

The author is a professor of English rather than history; and, from time to time, this shows very clearly. For example, on page 24 he says that Geoffroi de Charny was a knight at the court of Charles VI of France. In fact, Charny was killed in 1356, whereas Charles VI did not come to the throne until 1384. No historian of the Middle Ages would make that mistake.

Stephen Cooper
HASH(0xa7270e88) out of 5 stars Would recommend and use this provider again Aug. 22 2014
By d.r. - Published on
Format: Hardcover
Quick service and item as described. Would recommend and use this provider again.
HASH(0xa85597e0) out of 5 stars Five Stars Sept. 6 2014
By Amazon Customer - Published on
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Excellent quality!! Totally appreciate it!! Thank you so much!!
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa6aefba0) out of 5 stars Dying for a Country is not "Bloody Good" May 9 2009
By Richard Koenigsberg - Published on
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Frantzen is correct in identifying chivalry and sacrifice as lying at the heart of warfare: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." He states that there is war because "ideas and traditions can be worth dying for--and worth killing for." I agree with this hypothesis: that societies and human beings go to war in the name of some "sacred ideal."

But to claim this is a "bloody good," that is a gigantic leap. People do die for their ideas and ideals, but the nature of these ideals vary. Millions died for Hitler and Nazism, and for Stalin and communism. And one million men died in the name of Abraham Lincoln's ideal of "preserving the union."

Just because one believes in an ideal or idea, that doesn't mean that dying for it is "bloody good." On the contrary, as I demonstrate in my recently published book, Nations Have the Right to Kill: Hitler, the Holocaust and War, dying for an ideal--however passionate the believers believe--usually is ugly and disgusting.

This is what Hitler was trying to show us--a kind of latent anti-war message that was contained within the horrors that he created--that "dying for a country" is not sweet and beautiful. His soldiers died "for Hitler and Germany," but Jews also died in the name of "Hitler and Germany." Yet no one would claim that the death of Jews was sweet and beautiful.

Frantzen idealizes dying for a cause. But who remembers, for example, the ideas for which nine-million soldiers died in the First World War? What a wastage of human lives. What a delusion to believe that cutting off your existence in the prime of life represents something that is good.