Chivalry and King Arthur bases

[Sir Wolf]

so just how much does the king Arthur novels or stories determine our views of chivalry or knightly actions? how does it for you and why?

[Joshua Santana]

To me, that depends on what version of the legends you are reading and how much moral understanding you can intake/absorb into your head and express it through your choices/deeds.

The way that I see it is that Malory's Tale is the best example of living by the Chivalric Code and the dangerous consequences of straying off the Path.  I can learn the moral lessons in that book and find numerous ways of applying the lessons into my Mannerisms and life choices.  This is a process that involves examining my heart and conscience and taking into deep account what would be the rewards and consequences of following or not adhering to the virtues of Chivalry.

This process of assessing my adherence to the Chivalric Code does help me understand on a deep level how does one live up to the Code in an authentic, genuine manner in which the Knights of Old lived their daily lives.

[Sir William]

It is what I grew up on.  For my 10th birthday, my Mom had gotten me Bulfinch's Mythology, his complete works on Roman, Greek and Norse mythologies, as well as Tales of King Charlemagne and Arthur and his Round Table...I liked them all, but the stories on Arthur and Charles the Great really resonated in me.

You could say that I took my first step on The Path from there.  Even now, as an adult, I realize these stories are really moral tales, designed to give the reader the idea that living up to such high chivalry is what we should all seek - and it is MUCH harder to walk the walk as I have learned over the years.  Still, I walk as best I'm able.

[Sir James A]

Like Sir William, I grew up with the King Arthur style stories (and a lot of Disney, too). One thing I've realized as I've gotten older is that in the 'real world', kind actions to an opponent doesn't always make them a friend; make the effort at peace, but brace yourself at the same time, in case it comes to conflict.

I've also started trying to look at things from a modern perspective, and a medieval perspective too; I posted a link to a story of Sir William Marshal in which he essentially robs a couple who is eloping, in order to prevent them committing usury. With robbery not being chivalrous today, but acceptable in period, it can give a different 'feel' to the story sometimes, and it seems as though some stories may be 'out of context' with a 'modern' perspective.

I think people in general consider chivalry as the typical King Arthur tales, and as they were told during the Victorian era. If we told them it's chivalrous to defend the weak and be generous, they'd likely agree with us. If we told them it's chivalrous to relieve someone of their possessions if it prevents them from making poor choices, it would probably be difficult to convince them otherwise.

[Sir William]

It was also acceptable to keep servants and/or slaves, brothels were much more widespread (and accepted by society as a necessary evil) and if you had a dispute w/someone, you could settle it via strength of arms.

I am not saying they had it right...but I'm of the opinion that they had some parts right.

[Sir Wolf]

for me king arthur and all of his pagentry is i think what is chivalry. lords n ladies, knights and knaves, quests and battles, whining and winning, hehehhe

[Joshua Santana]

the stories on Arthur and Charles the Great really resonated in me

Like Sir William, I grew up with the King Arthur style stories

I agree on that, I also was raised on the Arthurian legends along with Redwall, Sir George and the Dragon and other stories involving Knights.

I think people in general consider chivalry as the typical King Arthur tales, and as they were told during the Victorian era. If we told them it's chivalrous to defend the weak and be generous, they'd likely agree with us. If we told them it's chivalrous to relieve someone of their possessions if it prevents them from making poor choices, it would probably be difficult to convince them otherwise.

I am not saying they had it right...but I'm of the opinion that they had some parts right.

Absolutely, I wholly agree with you both on this.  Chivalry in it's original meaning is completely opposite of the Victorian definition of Chivalry.  Chivalry was and still is the Medieval Warrior Code that does allow the individual to take the necessary and needed course of action to prevent anyone from making a bad life decision, even if it means depriving that person of his possessions. 

Of course, you will always have the idiots who will say "That is not Chivalry, that is Thievery!" and continue to ramble on the same old Victorian definition in conjunction with "Chivalry's dead."  But that is where we Brethren step in and say "NO, YOU ARE WRONG AND HERE IS WHY (showing historical evidence)"  Even if we get ridiculed for speaking the truth, we will still keep going.

[Sir Patrick]

In my opinion, the Arthurian stories are THE basis for society's view of chivalry.  Even in  period, the Arthurian tales were held up as the chivalric ideal.  What makes them so definitive is the almost unending layers to the tales.  When I was younger, the allure was all about the pagentry and glamour of the brave knight.  As I grew, I was began to increasingly recognize the more subtle aspects of the characters, and appreciate the struggles they went through as they tried to adhere to the code.  The paragons are there as the ideal, the bad guys show us the danger of power unchecked by morality, and everyone in between struggling to square the Code with "real life" serve as touchstones for the masses. in short, there's something in there for everyone, and that is the secret of its appeal.