In post-modern world that we inhabit, war, it seems, still lives in Middle Ages. Leaders of free world have proclaimed-almost preached-a crusade against international terrorism and, in response, radical Islamist leaders have thrown down gauntlet against Christian interlopers seeking to extend political control and godless culture over traditional heartlands of Prophet.1 What these implacable enemies hold in common is unshakable belief that their own cause is thoroughly just and that of their adversary systemically evil. Despite its unpleasant rebirth in modern times, idea of just war has a very long provenance, stretching back to such Renaissance scholars as Erasmus and Vives,2 to such medieval thinkers as Thomas Aquinas,3 and finally to virtual originator of just war theory, late antique polymath, St. Augustine.4 From High Middle Ages onward, this intrusion of philosophy and ethics into military matters gave rise to generally accepted standards by which war was waged and peace negotiated.5 With this growing regulation of violent aspects of warfare, formerly unconsidered questions, such as involvement of clerics in war, became meat of both canon and Roman law.6 Far from exploring abstract philosophical concepts of just war in medieval centuries, this paper will focus on everyday realities of a multi-national conflict which affected much of Iberian Peninsula in mid-fourteenth century and came to be known by later historians as War of Two Pedros (1356-1365).7 This struggle, which pitted Peninsula's largest realms, related but vastly different states of Castile8 and Crown of Aragon,9 provides a perfect lens to view practice and perception of late-medieval warfare as it affected rapidly evolving states of eastern Spain. I The great conflict that unsettled central and eastern Spain during middle decades of fourteenth century clearly reflected weaknesses and aspirations of war's two protagonists. While this long episode of war had clear economic and geopolitical antecedents,10 it soon became a struggle of wills between men whose backgrounds were uncannily similar. Descending from a line of strong-armed conquerors who had made their reputations by engaging in a sometimes intense and always profitable war on Spanish Islam, both Pere III the Ceremonious (1336-1387) and Pedro I the Cruel (1350-1369) were products of loveless marriages and sterile family lives.12 Though far better educated than Castilian ruler, Aragonese sovereign, like his principal adversary, yearned to equal record of martial glory won by his predecessors. The result of this emotional malnourishment coupled with a never-satiated desire for military success made Pere and Pedro into amateur family men, while transforming them into sovereigns who seldom shied away from war in defense of personal or national honor. Though royal courts of these two rivals subsisted under a tragic atmosphere, Pedro's vindictive cruelty, though occasionally mirrored in Pere's life, was markedly worse, bordering, as it did, on psychosis.13 Although Pere could unleash short bouts of brutality against those whom he judged to be traitors, he seldom used cruelty to assuage a drive for vengeance, but rather as a way of gaining political profit.14 Perhaps greatest difference between two men was their view of war itself in cosmological scheme of things. Pedro seldom mentions Almighty in regard to struggle he so remorselessly waged against exposed flanks of Crown of Aragon. Pere, on other hand, based his long and often unsuccessful defense on a theory of human conflict, which, though drawn from centers of belief and education of time, had been molded into a political and martial tradition by his relatives who had occupied Aragonese throne in previous century. II In many ways, Pere III's view of his proper relationship to war came to him as an intellectual inheritance of sorts from his great-greatgrandfather, Jaume I (1213-1276) and his grandfather, Pere II (1276-1285). …