Medieval conceptions of "chivalry" were multifaceted, confusing, and often contested. There were multiple meanings of the term and different ways of understanding it. It is better to think of the concept in terms of "chivalric culture" as opposed to a singular, codified "chivalry." Popular modern understanding of chivalric culture is pretty warped, often driven by 19th century misconceptions, romantic mythology, and stereotypes. However, in the medieval period itself, commanders did not see chivalry and clever military scheme and plots to be in opposition. They launched raids against unprotected enemy holdings, ambushed poorly prepared enemy forces, strove to outflank and outmanuever their opponents, carried out attacks at night, bribed captains to surrender their fortresses, and numerous other "dirty tricks." Many people imagine that there was some kind of knightly antipathy towards the use of missile weaponry, artillery, or combat on foot. Even a cursory examination of the most famous medieval battles reveals that this was not the case. Far from the stereotypes about foppish, arrogant, and ineffectual aristocrats, medieval commanders were often hardened, experienced soldiers with a hard-won understanding of the practical realities of the battlefield. They were quite capable of bending or breaking customs as they saw fit. A famous example of this behavior is the debate surrounding the killing of prisoners at several famous battles. In general, a soldier who had surrendered could expect mercy from his captors, but sometimes a commander might decide that killing their prisoners was necessary. While there is often a clear discomfort with and distate for these actions, they should not be considered "war crimes" in the modern sense. French chronicles might express sorrow when English soldiers killed French captives, but they did not attack such actions as "dishonorable."