Main > The Round Table

What makes a knight?

<< < (2/4) > >>

Sir Edward:

Very well said, my friends. :)

I often see people leaning towards some of the later medieval definitions of knighthood, in which a knight was similar to a minor noble (just one step below the actual noble peerage), as a title that is conferred as an award, with duties and responsibilities.

However, there is also the earlier medieval way of looking at it. A knight was someone who could afford horses, equipment, and training, and did so. This allowed them to be elite cavalry units, but it was more the fact that they were equipped and trained that earned them the title. This gradually evolved into a more formal title, as the combat aspects evolved and eventually were downplayed.

In a modern context, cavalry warriors armed with lances and swords are obsolete, the role of the historical knight completely gone due to advances in technology, and the loss of the feudal societal structure. So I like to look at multiple points in history, not just the "title of nobility", but also one's desire to take part in the world around them, involving chivalry, and yes, even acquiring equipment. :)

Whether or not you've received an accolade in an "official" sense (from a government, or a private organization), I think what's in one's heart and mind is what is most important. We all have more to learn, and growth to achieve, and mistakes and challenges to overcome. This journey is what knighthood, in the personal sense, is all about.

VaughnStrever:
This is a good topic that I have been considering for some time now. Reading upon the historical text of a knight and his chivarly I have become less inclined to consider myself a knight even though I have obtained the armor of a  knight.

First to be a knight you had to pay for the title of knight and you had to own land. Not only those two things, though one had to have an equivaliant amount of soldiers for the amount of land the knight owned. Funding several war horses, armor, esquires, and workers of the land... being a knight was for the elite rich.

Seeing as I have read that a sergeant (A tenant by military service, below the rank of knight) was an individual that had similar if not equivalant armor to that of a knight, however they simply had not met the qualifications to have the title knight.

Then you have your Mercenary. One that is paid to fight (or paid to re-enact)

Now we come to the term of chivalry, (noted this web site is titled Modern chivalry) yet the old term of chivalry. In my opinion a knight displayed chivalry out of fear and greed. First fear, If a knight was not chivalric and killed or mistreated his captured knight (that was held for ransom) certainly word would get around of the misconduct. The knight who gave such horrid hospitality would not be shown mercy (Chivalry) on the battlefield. Then we have greed, why kill your enemy when you can profit from his money.

This comes down to the lesser men on the field, simple men at arms, archers, and the like. They had no money, they were worthless and once a knight made his way to this rank of soldier, the slaughter began. Thay had no use for these men (In select cases, the lesser men and the few that were taken were employed in the farms of their enemies)
and chivalry was not shown to them.

If you were rich and in the club, you were treated the best. If you were poor and outside the club, you were treated like dirt. Chivalry of old... to me was the same as a prejudice.

Kngihts had money, power, control, and they killed (for war, none the less, they killed) add those four ingrediants to any man and they turn out not to be so noble.

In conclusion, there is quite typically the bad with the good. Certainly there were good and noble knights, though imho chivalry was alot darker than the average person considers it to be.

Sir Edward:
Sort of a bleak outlook eh? :)

Certainly, as with any cross section of any society, there is a mix of good and bad, with people living up to the better expectations to varying degrees. However it's a complex issue because the societal structure of the time was completely different. It's not that the lower classes were treated like dirt, they were treated differently due to being in a lower station. But to say they were typically mistreated I don't think is correct at all. It was well understood that the peasantry, for instance, were the foundation of society. You couldn't just go out and kill a peasant because you wanted to; it was still considered murder and even a knight could still be prosecuted for doing so. Yes, they were not afforded some of the same courtesies, but they were treated as the culture of the time expected.

It's true that during most of the medieval period, knights did have to be more wealthy, but this varies throughout the period. Early on, knights were really only distinguished from other fighting men by being able to afford horses and equipment, and were often knighted in the field by other knights, without any sort of land or other requirements.

Also, I think you're confusing the Sergeants and Men At Arms a little too. At least in Geffroi de Charny's time, a Man at Arms was essentially the same thing as a knight, just without the title. It was someone who was still armored, equipped, and skilled as a knight, and may be knighted for his deeds at some point. You'd almost certainly need to be one before being knighted.

Granted, most of the modern views of Chivalry are somewhat rose tinted, at least in part due to the romanticizing of it from the Victorian era. However, Chivalry was in important part of knighthood, even if just because it was meant to provide a positive influence on the behavior of knights, whether or not they adhered to it successfully.

To understand historical chivalry and knighthood, it needs to be considered within the perspective of the culture of the time, and also the fact that what defined knighthood varied considerably by time and region.

Silvanus:
VaughnStrever's summation of Knighthood, bleak as it is, has always been the reason why I hesitate even to imagine myself as a knight, modern or otherwise.

Statistically, I would most likely have been born a Northern Italian-German peasant in my chosen century (the 12th). My sad weapon would have been a pitchfork or a sharpened shovel, my harness the threadbare rags of a farmer's son. The best I could hope for would have been to journey on one of the Peasant's Crusades, or in the baggage-train of a slightly more noble endeavor. Or even were I to imagine myself then as I am now, the owner of a small house with a plot of land, without "noble" blood, my chances of knighthood would hardly be better. This is why I chose not to represent myself as a Templar, whose standards for inclusion were far too high. And even when I dawn my Teutonic surcoat (the standards of that Order were slightly less prohibitive) a feeling of unworthiness, and perhaps fraud, creeps over me. I have even considered as not representing myself as a Knight at all, but a simple man-at-arms - which is (statistically) the best I might have hoped for, then or now. I dream of a battlefield commission.

All that said, I believe that one can still live up to knightly ideals (The Code) - or try to - as well as any landed noble. One can carry himself as a Knight, through exercising Right Action. All those things taught in the Sermon on the Mount, if practiced daily, will lead to the greatest knighthood of all at the end one one's life.

Did not mean to get so philosophical, but this is a question I have asked myself every time I wield a sword, oil my mail, and gaze at my surcoat. "Am I worthy?"

Sir Edward:

--- Quote from: Silvanus on 2009-09-05, 02:13:33 ---Statistically, I would most likely have been born a Northern Italian-German peasant in my chosen century (the 12th).

--- End quote ---

Statistically, we'd all most likely be peasants and nothing more. :)


--- Quote from: Silvanus on 2009-09-05, 02:13:33 ---All that said, I believe that one can still live up to knightly ideals (The Code) - or try to - as well as any landed noble. One can carry himself as a Knight, through exercising Right Action. All those things taught in the Sermon on the Mount, if practiced daily, will lead to the greatest knighthood of all at the end one one's life.

Did not mean to get so philosophical, but this is a question I have asked myself every time I wield a sword, oil my mail, and gaze at my surcoat. "Am I worthy?"

--- End quote ---

That is a very good question to ask yourself, and one I ask myself all the time. I think it's actually a high mark of chivalry to evaluate oneself as such. :) But believe me, I understand. The accolade I received a number of years ago was rather hollow. It was just one item on the agenda, and happened because our little medieval society was trying to find its way, and I was the first to suggest having a combat order within the society. The group no longer exists. Who am I to call myself a knight?

I think the answer has to come from within, and it matters a great deal as to what definition of knighthood you use. There is no one single form of knighthood. The meaning of the concept changed throughout the medieval history. At one time you needed only own a horse and know how to fight on it. Later, it became a title that no longer had any combat association. Chivalry started as a warrior ethos. Later it evolved into courtly grace and courtesy.

Remember, none of us can be historical knights, by definition, by the mere fact that we're separated from the era in question by centuries. But even ignoring that, knighthood as it existed was a unique convergence of societal structure, culture, socioeconomics, and available weapon technology. As weekend warriors, armor and sword enthusiasts, etc, we do not live and die by the sword, or live our lives as career horse cavalry. Thus chivalry and knighthood in a modern context need to be adapted to the realities of our world.

And if we're going to do that, why not focus on the positive aspects? Choose a path that's suitable for yourself? Aspire to be the best you can, and take inspiration where you can find it?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page