Main > The Round Table

Robin Hood: Knightly?

(1/6) > >>

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"

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page