Robin Hood: Knightly?

[Sir Edward]

We've touched a little on this in other threads a while back, but I thought it might be an interesting discussion in itself.

The question is, would you consider Robin Hood to be a knightly figure from medieval culture? Let's make this nice and complicated:

Looking back at the original Robin Hood ballads, the stories were quite a bit different than today's renditions. The characters we know, such as Little John and Friar Tuck, typically only appeared in one or two stories each, and almost never together. They're the rare few of Robin's men that are mentioned by name, and at times the size of his group is described as being as large as 150 men.

The cultural differences were huge as well. Even though Robin was supposed to be an "everyman" (just the way you'd use the name "John Smith" to represent an everyman today), he was portrayed as being a leader in the context of the time. His men would kneel before him to relay news and receive instructions.

Just as some period descriptions of chivalry would defy our modern sensibilities, so too did some of the Robin Hood stories. It wasn't always "steal from the rich, and give to the poor". He was a rebel.

But even if we look at the "steal from the rich, and give to the poor" thing, does that imply that the rich are always bad guys that deserve it? Modern renditions will frequently shift this entirely onto the Sheriff, and portray him in a negative light to make him into a proper villain.

In another thread a while back, we were talking about D&D alignments and I made the comment that "lawful good" was knightly, and "chaotic good" was more Robin Hood. However, I didn't mean to imply that there would be no overlap, or that one could not be the other.

Looking at Robin Hood as a rebellious character who bucks the system, defies the law, and yet fights for the greater good makes the whole thing very blurry. Selfless acts that help the poor and needy, or sacrificing everything within the law in order to do what is right could also be seen as a very chivalrous or knightly thing. Where do you draw the line?

I leave these questions open to you to discuss...

[Sir Wolf]

hmmmmm must ponder on this one. is chaotic good a knightly fellow hmmmmmmmmm

[Sir William]

This should make for a good discussion; I don't believe in pure black and white, ie - not all rich people were bad, not all poor people were good.  Things are different now, I don't know that I could give this the proper justice because our mindset is not as theirs was- I'd venture to say that to a poor person who lived in medieval times, we'd all be considered rich.  Would that make us targets and if so, how chivalric would he seem then?

I can admire the fact that, if he existed, he sought to effect change by his own hand, at the head of a band of like minded men- but would it not have been more honorable to face down the nobility on the field of battle?  Foolhardy sure, but definitely noble.

[Thorsteinn]

Which version of Robin Hood?
 
This one? (edit: he is Sir Robert Hoode in this. A saxon Knight.)


Or This?


.... Or This? 


Or perhaps one with Katherine Hepburn?

[Sir Wolf]

" i unlike other robin hoods can speak with an authentic english accent"

[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?

[Sir William]

I think there is...but it depends on the perspective of the speaker and his audience. 

[Sir John of Felsenbau]

I refer you to my knight of the week on Robin Hood...unless I haven't posted it yet. My research showed that the real Robert of Loxley was knighted by King Henry II...and later went on a Crusade with King Richard I. In the the king's service was a certain 2-3 archers (one was Robin Longstride)...In 1199 when King Richard was mortally wounded...so was Sir Robert. Robin and his two followers...one was Little John were at Sir Robert's side before he died and was asked to carry back information to his father in England and the King's sword to the then Prince John. Robin agreed...and Sir Robert died. Before embarking to England, they thought...if they went to court...they might be branded as deserters, so Robin decided to take Loskley's name. When they managed to get through the court without trouble they went to Sir Roberts house. It was then that he continued the ruse of Sir Loxley.

So Robin Hood and Sir Robert Loxley were two different people. Sir Loxley never stole from the rich and gave it to the poor.

Sir John

[Sir Edward]

That sounds like the plot to a very recent film.

[Joshua Santana]

I refer you to my knight of the week on Robin Hood...unless I haven't posted it yet. My research showed that the real Robert of Loxley was knighted by King Henry II...and later went on a Crusade with King Richard I. In the the king's service was a certain 2-3 archers (one was Robin Longstride)...In 1199 when King Richard was mortally wounded...so was Sir Robert. Robin and his two followers...one was Little John were at Sir Robert's side before he died and was asked to carry back information to his father in England and the King's sword to the then Prince John. Robin agreed...and Sir Robert died. Before embarking to England, they thought...if they went to court...they might be branded as deserters, so Robin decided to take Loskley's name. When they managed to get through the court without trouble they went to Sir Roberts house. It was then that he continued the ruse of Sir Loxley.

So Robin Hood and Sir Robert Loxley were two different people. Sir Loxley never stole from the rich and gave it to the poor.

That sounds like the plot to a very recent film.

Indeed.   

[Sir William]

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood (2011), in fact.  I liked the movie...I thought Crowe brought a certain gravitas to a role that has been at times comedic and dramatic.