Main > The Round Table

Robin Hood: Knightly?

<< < (2/6) > >>

Sir James A:
Woo, that's some loaded questions. I'll take a stab at it, but part of it may be more generic than you might be asking.

IMO, it's difficult to label a person as knightly, but much easier to label an action as knightly.

Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor? Too broad, it would be, to me, circumstantial on whether or not the rich person is deserving of having some or all of their wealth removed. To be truly knightly, I'd have to label it as "robbing from the corrupt and giving to the needy".

Whether he is alone, or has a few men, or an army of thousands at his disposal, is of little consequence. Standing up against oppression is the important factor to being knightly or knavely.

As an example, if someone had traveled from village to village, scamming the citizens, and became wealthy by it, they deserve to have it stripped from them. On the other hand, if someone traveled from village to village, selling wares or performing odd jobs and was able to save and become wealthy through honorable means, I think they are entitled to keep it. In taking from the rich and giving to the poor, one's view of good or bad generally depends on which side of that fence they are on, and if they would benefit or be adversely affected by it.

The manner in which it's taken ... frontal assault, or by deception? The intent is as important as, or perhaps even more important, than the method. As touched on in another thread, Edward of Woodstock (the Black Prince) had an unconventional method of warfare in attacking the weak spots, and avoiding the strong defenses - but was that cowardice? Was that strategy? Was that bullying? Would it have been better to attack the strongest points head on, and potentially lose the war? Which was the more chivalrous, more knightly, path?

Labeling a person as knightly, to me, is a measure of multiple actions - are they more knightly than not? Do their falterings outweigh the good things they do?

Drawing the line of knightly and chivalrous is akin to trying to hit a moving target; it will constantly have a gray area that will shift around based on varying circumstances.

SirNathanQ:
To me, what Robin Hood does is good (in the romantic sense of only stealing from those with ill-gotten gains), but not Knightly. A knight can do non-knightly but good deeds. In my mind the two can coexist in a person quite nicely.
I really don't see why it seems people are demonized simply because they have wealth. This concept is abhorrent to me, and stealing from a rich, honest, hardworking merchant who pays his dues is thievery, no matter where the money winds up. 
IMO, the Black Prince was still acting correctly. His country was at war with France. Knightly behavior is in no way incompatible with strategy and cunning.   

Joshua Santana:
Good points are made here.  I think Robin Hood would qualify as a Chivalric Character although he is not a Knight per se.  His actions of robbing greedy tyrants and giving the money extorted from the poor and giving it back to the poor is certainly a Knightly deed since it doesn't imply the often misunderstood phrase "rob from the rich, give to the poor" in the light of robbing from evil rich people and give to the good, poor people.  It is true that both ends of society have the good, the bad and the ugly sides.  The tale of Robin Hood calls for accountability on both sides of the social spectrum.  Accountability of the rich to use their resources wisely and to help the poor by giving them work for wages.  Greedy rich people will refuse the poor and hire other people to perform the jobs that anyone can work.  The poor people (this can also mean the middle class too) can shout out the injustice of a corrupt individual and demand accountability from that individual. 

But what need to be understood is that Robin Hood was a Rebel who protested against unjust tyranny.  His protest was in the form of stealing from King John's tax collectors the money drained from the general populace and giving back to the populace so that they will survive in the event of a famine, drought or food shortage.  Robbing from corrupt people to help the populace is a Knightly deed by itself.  One can argue that Robin Hood by character alone would qualify to be a Knight.   

Sir William:
Then there is, of course the difference in modern interpretation of what is knightly versus the medieval interpretation.  I would even venture to say that robbery in and of itself is hardly knightly...but can still be considered 'good' with regard to the way Robin Hood went about it.

Sir James A:
Is there a difference between knightly and chivalrous? What would the difference(s) be, if there are any?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page