This has been so common throughout history that it virtually never even invites comment/recording.
This is much rarer, as it shows distinct lack of command by the officers in charge. You burn a place down to deny it to the enemy, to incite terror and destroy morale, as a punishment etc. Not in frustration. To do so invites needless retribution.
Well, not a healthy village, but one affected by a pestilence would be left uninhabited.
One that got raided often enough would eventually be abandoned, too.
Depending on the location, a natural disaster such as a flood would also leave it uninhabited.
Some holy man might have convinced all inhabitants to leave and go on a pilgrimage/crusade.
Finally, plenty of mystical threats might have removed all its inhabitants, possibly very violently, possibly very subtly: dragons, ghosts, demons, a hateful forest spirit, a curse of barrenness, a newly formed regio, a variant of the Shrouded Glen etc.
I doubt any army ever stripped everything edible from an area they were passing through, primarilly because peasants anticipating the coming army (armies move slowly) hid what they could, and it would take more food to keep the army in place while they searched thoroughly than it would gain by finding everything.
Burning villages down was sometimes done out of frustration or just for the soldier's amusement, but not all food would be hidden where it could be easily reached by fire. They could burn buildings and fields but living woods do not generally burn easily (except during drought and only an idiot marches an army through a drought), nor will fire find what is burned. Fire will destroy the fields in the short term but also fertilize the soil.
in 1231 The city of Landsberg and the Castle Rodersen have been devastated. Both of whom belonged to Mainz were destroyed in the name of the Landgrave Konrad Raspe von Thuringia (the brother of Henry Raspe) in the feud with the Mainz Archbishop Siegfried von Eppstein III over the partition of the landgraviate following the death of Ludwig IV.
Regarding BĂŒdingen:
I need to investigate further. However the existence of a town in 2024 doesn't prove or disprove the destruction of a castle in the 13th century. There are two "castles" in or close to BĂŒdingen:
1- the one in the "city" center (which I am legitimately tempted to go visit). It has a keep from the 2nd half of the 13th century, which could be the result of a rebuilding effort once enough funds had been gathered post destruction. It is allegedly possible to do guided tours, I will report if I do take part.
2- a castle ruin 2-3 km away from the city center
Yep. That little Landsberg in Hessia was founded by the counts of Waldeck around a decade before to secure their position in a border dispute with the Thuringians. It looks like Landsberg and its inhabitants were pawns in that dispute from the beginning.
If you talk of BĂŒdingen as a castle, not a town, then we can stop here: if a castle was taken, its destruction was an issue of defortification, hence of local power politics - not of "scorched earth" strategy. The same holds for little Landsberg in Hessia.
Absolutely, the same applies to the cheveauchees: the murdered peasants and deveastated farms were just part of the game of rich-guy tag played by the nobles. Force the other guy out of his castle to stop the economic damage done to his tax base.
As mentioned already, William I of Englandâs Harrying of the North was expressly punitive and deliberately destructive. The worst affected areas were depopulated to the extent that the Domesday Book of almost 20 years later recorded many areas as wasteland (âwastaâ). In general, conquerors usually had an eye to the future value of the land, so deliberate destruction beyond a certain point was rare.
A hungry or enraged dragon could probably approach such a level of destruction if suitably motivated, but in such a case depth of destruction would be less of a factor than sheer terror of such an unstoppable predator. However, depopulation would still be a likely outcome; Tolkien referred to âThe Desolation of the Dragonâ with good reason.
Meaning the legend of New England/Nova Anglia had a factual basis.
So in the case of scorched earth/harrying activities, the survivors run as far, far away as they can.