Renaissance Chivalry?

[Joshua Santana]

Over the past three months, I have been doing research for SIGMA as well as private research for my own interests. 

I have read that in the Renaissance Era, the code of chivalry faded away with the advances of gunpowder weapons.  However I am the individual that doesn't give up on what mainstream historians believe.  This along with my interests in the teaching of Paulus Hector Mair, rapier fencing and renaissance chivalric literature (yes Don Quixote is included) collided with my ambition to find the answer to this question:  "Did the Code of Chivalry truly die away in the Renaissance or did last through the Era in a different perspective?"

This new undertaking has been most fruitful in finding plenty of source material from historical, military and literary perspectives.


But aside from this, I want to ask you this:  "Do you think that Chivalry lived on in the Renaissance or did it not?" 

[SirNathanQ]

Yes, chivalry didn't die then from an Caliver, and today it hasn't died from an assault rifle.

Chivalry extends far beyond one's role on the battlefield after all. 

[Ian]

I think it might be worth examining what chivalry was really defined as during the high middle ages as well.  We have the book A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry by Geoffroi de Charny, written in the 14th century.  But for the most part, real medieval chivalric behavior seemed to extend from the nobility to other nobles, and ended there.  Chivalry wasn't a courtesy much extended to the common man-at-arms or peasant soldier by his knightly counterpart on the battlefield.

So, are we talking about the Victorian notion of Chivalry or the more recently accepted 'medieval form of chivalry,' that it appears knights really followed?  I'm not trying to say that what we think of as modern day Chivalry is purely the fantasy of Victorian historians (i hate that that rhymes), but I don't think real knightly chivalry of the 13th/14th/15th centuries was quite as poetic as 19th century historians have made it out to be.

My point is, I think it would be wise to have a good understanding of what Chivalry was to the people of Medieval Europe prior to the Renaissance and not paint the Victorian ideal of Chivalry onto a group of people it didn't really apply to before moving forward.

edit for further thoughts:
I think a huge aspect of what made the Chivalric code viable as it applies to battle in the Middle Ages was the fact that a large portion of combat was hand to hand.  Extending courtesy to a fellow knight of an opposing army, in a practical sense, required you get close enough to him to recognize his heraldry as someone of standing and then capture him after subduing him.  In the age of gunpowder, as the very nature of warfare itself changed, I would think this practice become more and more difficult.  As killing becomes more indiscriminate I can see the practice of not killing your knightly counterparts practically more difficult and the battlefield itself more dangerous for you to even try.  This could lead to what would ultimately be perceived as a loss of the Chivalric code in battle, so I can see where the notion comes from.

[Sir Edward]

Some good points made here so far. I'll briefly add also that as knighthood evolved away from being a combat class, and into a position of minor nobility, the meaning of Chivalry also evolved with it. As the Renaissance got started, this change had pretty much already occurred, and so Chivalry was being equated more with courtly (noble class) behavior.

[Sir James A]

However I am the individual that doesn't give up on what mainstream historians believe.

This is great. Think of the Chinon Parchment. For 700 years, people thought the Templars were heretics. The Chinon Parchment had absolved them of that .... except, it was written in the early 1300s, and discovered in 2001. "History", as it is, can sometimes change substantially ... or rather, it's not history, but what we think we know of it.

[Joshua Santana]

This is good and exactly what I was looking for, I thank all of you for your input and opinions.

I think it might be worth examining what chivalry was really defined as during the high middle ages as well.  We have the book A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry by Geoffroi de Charny, written in the 14th century.  But for the most part, real medieval chivalric behavior seemed to extend from the nobility to other nobles, and ended there.  Chivalry wasn't a courtesy much extended to the common man-at-arms or peasant soldier by his knightly counterpart on the battlefield.

So, are we talking about the Victorian notion of Chivalry or the more recently accepted 'medieval form of chivalry,' that it appears knights really followed?  I'm not trying to say that what we think of as modern day Chivalry is purely the fantasy of Victorian historians (i hate that that rhymes), but I don't think real knightly chivalry of the 13th/14th/15th centuries was quite as poetic as 19th century historians have made it out to be.

My point is, I think it would be wise to have a good understanding of what Chivalry was to the people of Medieval Europe prior to the Renaissance and not paint the Victorian ideal of Chivalry onto a group of people it didn't really apply to before moving forward.

edit for further thoughts:
I think a huge aspect of what made the Chivalric code viable as it applies to battle in the Middle Ages was the fact that a large portion of combat was hand to hand.  Extending courtesy to a fellow knight of an opposing army, in a practical sense, required you get close enough to him to recognize his heraldry as someone of standing and then capture him after subduing him.  In the age of gunpowder, as the very nature of warfare itself changed, I would think this practice become more and more difficult.  As killing becomes more indiscriminate I can see the practice of not killing your knightly counterparts practically more difficult and the battlefield itself more dangerous for you to even try.  This could lead to what would ultimately be perceived as a loss of the Chivalric code in battle, so I can see where the notion comes from.

You have a good point here that is worth for consideration.  My goal is to find out how was Chivalry viewed in the Renaissance and to answer the question of "Did they respect it?  Did they view as a novelty or held it in mockery?"  I am seeking the answers to these questions.

Yes, chivalry didn't die then from an Caliver, and today it hasn't died from an assault rifle.

Chivalry extends far beyond one's role on the battlefield after all.

Huzzah Sir Nathan! 

Some good points made here so far. I'll briefly add also that as knighthood evolved away from being a combat class, and into a position of minor nobility, the meaning of Chivalry also evolved with it. As the Renaissance got started, this change had pretty much already occurred, and so Chivalry was being equated more with courtly (noble class) behavior.

You made a good point and I am investigating to what extent did the Code become integrated with courtly behavior.  I am seeking to find out "Was Chivalry transitioning into a Social Etiquette Standard?  Was it becoming an aspect of Courtliness?  Or was it a Moral Code that was used in conjunction with Courtly Behavior?"  That is one of the many questions I am seeking to answer.



To let all of you know, this research of mine might be turned into an essay (and I am sure it will be a long essay).  My goal is to find evidence or respect or honoring of the Code of Chivalry (and I assume I will also find contempt for the Code) in Renaissance History, Military History and Literature.  I will be exploring these sides of history and I will let you know what I find.  I am confident that I will find something good worth sharing on this forum.  (If it goes father, I might turn it into a book).

[Sir William]

I think you've made your points, Joshua.  I'd say that chivalry and courtly behavior went hand in hand...an etiquette standard for the nobility and of course, to be mocked by the commoners for being hogwash since it only applied to nobility.  At the time.

Now, the knightly orders are meant to be viewed as upper echelon, limited membership and generally given out to luminaries who espouse this or that ideal.

[Joshua Santana]

Research Update!

Here is something I found while listening to Cervantes' Don Quixote (translation by John Ormsby) and I quote this passage from the translator's preface:

That this was the task Cervantes set himself, and that he had
ample provocation to urge him to it, will be sufficiently clear to
those who look into the evidence; as it will be also that it was not
chivalry itself that he attacked and swept away. Of all the
absurdities that, thanks to poetry, will be repeated to the end of
time, there is no greater one than saying that "Cervantes smiled
Spain's chivalry away." In the first place there was no chivalry for
him to smile away. Spain's chivalry had been dead for more than a
century. Its work was done when Granada fell, and as chivalry was
essentially republican in its nature, it could not live under the rule
that Ferdinand substituted for the free institutions of mediaeval
Spain. What he did smile away was not chivalry but a degrading mockery
of it.
The true nature of the "right arm" and the "bright array," before
which, according to the poet, "the world gave ground," and which
Cervantes' single laugh demolished, may be gathered from the words
of one of his own countrymen, Don Felix Pacheco, as reported by
Captain George Carleton, in his "Military Memoirs from 1672 to
1713." "Before the appearance in the world of that labour of
Cervantes," he said, "it was next to an impossibility for a man to
walk the streets with any delight or without danger. There were seen
so many cavaliers prancing and curvetting before the windows of
their mistresses, that a stranger would have imagined the whole nation
to have been nothing less than a race of knight-errants. But after the
world became a little acquainted with that notable history, the man
that was seen in that once celebrated drapery was pointed at as a
Don Quixote, and found himself the jest of high and low. And I
verily believe that to this, and this only, we owe that dampness and
poverty of spirit which has run through all our councils for a century
past, so little agreeable to those nobler actions of our famous
ancestors."

I find this of interest in that it dispels the myth of Don Quixote as a satire or a mockery of the Code of Chivalry.  Further evidence is found in the first chapter of the book in which the Quixote reads only the Chivalric Romances of his day and nothing else.  I couldn't find any reference to Ramon Lull, Geoffri de Charney nor Christine de Pizan who wrote books of Chivalry and Knighthood.  I believe the author wanted to show the reader what happen when into many stories enter into the human mind.  What I am getting from this is that idealism based on fiction holds no ground when facing reality whereas idealism based on experience and common sense has a solid foundation.     

[Sir Edward]

Very interesting. I had similar feelings on the matter, that the Don Quixote story has more to it than just being a mockery. You see some real high ideals of Chivalry within it. I felt that the portrayal of it being a "mad man" holding onto archaic ideals was more of a lamentation of the passing of the chivalric age, than a mockery.

[Joshua Santana]

Sir Edward:  That is why most people will say and I have read other sources that explain the moral points and lesson to be learned from Don Quixote.  I think the sentiment you described is a product of the musical which became a movie called "Man of La Mancha" which has several parts of the story mixed and certain elements are present (including the theme of never giving up). 

What is more curious is that the author of Quixote was a Soldier, a Poet, a Playwright, and a Dramatist who experienced many of life's up's and down's (including his many attempts to escape from a Turkish prison) yet he maintained a positive outlook on life,  This is what I gathered from the John Ormsby Preface which mentions the life of Miguel de Cervantes Saveedra. 

I will post further findings here and the essay is going well,I have been tackling early English Renaissance History which I know leads me to the Tudor Dynasty. 

[Sir Brian]

Very interesting. I had similar feelings on the matter, that the Don Quixote story has more to it than just being a mockery. You see some real high ideals of Chivalry within it. I felt that the portrayal of it being a "mad man" holding onto archaic ideals was more of a lamentation of the passing of the chivalric age, than a mockery.

I’m of a similar mindset in regards to the Don Quixote story. For even if ye are mad as a hatter in the opinion of the rest of the world and tilt at windmills believing with all your heart and soul that they be dragons, then lay on says I for your mind and dreams are your very own and none should nay say you. 

[Joshua Santana]

I’m of a similar mindset in regards to the Don Quixote story. For even if ye are mad as a hatter in the opinion of the rest of the world and tilt at windmills believing with all your heart and soul that they be dragons, then lay on says I for your mind and dreams are your very own and none should nay say you.

In that regard Sir Brian you're correct when it comes to Perseverance (or persevering to the Code of Chivalry). 

My reason for this post is to show that Don Quixote was a satire on the mockery of Chivalry which to me does justice for those that truly lived by the Code and never gave lip service in the pursuit of vanity.


This a research update and an update on the essay.  Firstly, the essay will be out somwhere in mid-May, i will publish it on my facebook (in Notes) and will more likely post it on our facebook group wall.  It is coming along well and I have been finding a mountain of knowledge that to me has never been given attention and I have found numerous biographies of real Renaissance Knights that lived by the Code as best they can in a changing world.  Their names will be mentioned in the essay.  Events and Battles will be included and my goal is to spur the reader to research or to spark interest on the Renaissance in which the Knight fought with both Pistol and Sword (The Military History part of the essay I think will surprise a lot of people).  So expect the essay in mid to late May! 

Secondly, I came across these videos while doing research on three monumental battles that occurred during the Renaissance.  This is about the Ottoman Turkish Wars against Europe, these three battles have been covered by two documentaries (both from the History Channel) and a tribute video that the first naval battle in European history.  Here they are in chronological order.  (I hope you enjoy them!)

   






This event although past the Renaissance, is an interesting battle that brought about the end of the Ottoman Turkish Wars.




As you know me, thoughts, comments, questions and suggestion are always welcome. 

I must point out that I am not proclaiming on this forum hatred towards the ethnicity mentioned in these videos.  I have done my homework and I present only the facts.  I hope that you enjoy the videos in the light of gaining insight about the Renaissance and to show how Chivalry survived on the Battlefield with Gunpowder weapons.  I ask that you watch the videos (when you can) in its entirety before responding.  Thank you. 

[Joshua Santana]

If the videos are arduous to watch (as in no one has the time to watch all four), I will include a couple of individuals that are Chivalrous individuals that lived during the Renaissance. 

I will begin with the Captain of the Holy League at the Battle of Lepanto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_of_Austria

Hope you enjoy it! 

Thoughts and comments are welcome.

[Joshua Santana]

Here is another Renaissance Knight that I came across during my research in Renaissance Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_dalle_Bande_Nere

What is interesting about this individual is that he was a Condottiero or Mercenary Knight yet he helped his country in their struggle for Independence.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri for further info)

His death from infection from a gunshot wound to his leg heralded the end of the Condotteiri.  His last words which were recorded by a friend of his is now accessible through Freelance Academy Press here: http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/DeathOfGiovanni.aspx

[Joshua Santana]

Here is another Renaissance Knight that doesn't seem to get a lot of attention. 

Sir James Scudamore (1568–1619)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_James_Scudamore

What is interesting about this guy is that he aspired to be a Chivalrous Courtier like Sir Philip Sydney (who I will touch on later).  When Sir Philip Sydney died, he carried is arms during his funeral procession, seeing himself as his successor he emulated the Chivalric Ideals to the best of his ability, even becoming a prolific jouster and courtier.  It should be noted that he did serve in the army and was involved in the Capture of Cadiz against Spain. 

Read the rest of the article, it is a awesome story.