Main > The Round Table

Robin Hood: Knightly?

<< < (6/6)

Sir James A:

--- Quote from: Justin on 2015-07-04, 18:08:34 ---While the idea of stealing from the wealthy to give to those in need is romantic and all, it doesn't change the fact that he was stealing.

--- End quote ---

An often overlooked fact of the Robin Hood stories is that while Robin Hood does technically "steal from the rich and give to the poor", what he is actually doing is taking back what was stolen from the poor. In essence, returning what they lost, not giving them something they did not earn.

Sir Nate:

--- Quote from: Sir James A on 2015-07-10, 03:32:49 ---
--- Quote from: Justin on 2015-07-04, 18:08:34 ---While the idea of stealing from the wealthy to give to those in need is romantic and all, it doesn't change the fact that he was stealing.

--- End quote ---

An often overlooked fact of the Robin Hood stories is that while Robin Hood does technically "steal from the rich and give to the poor", what he is actually doing is taking back what was stolen from the poor. In essence, returning what they lost, not giving them something they did not earn.

--- End quote ---
He also seems to have a longbow in the early 13th century. No wonder he is unstoppable.

Sir_Edward_ReBrook:
I'm coming at this purely mostly from a Prince of Thieves standpoint - Robin of Loxley was certainly a Knight. Richard I even acknowledges him as the rightful Lord Loxley. I am of the impression that all noble men were Knights, but not all knights were peers. The concept of an esquire didn't come about for some time afterward, but the idea that a gentleman from a landed family who would be entitled to become a knight but chooses not to - ostensibly to avoid the outrageously high costs of knighthood - reinforces the notion that a young nobleman like Robin of Loxley was a knight.  Also, Knights are all about stealing - usually other Knights for ransom, which Chivalry specifically allows. Robin Hood's thievery not only helped the those in great need, it prevented a coup against the rightful sovereign. "Thanks to you I still have a throne." So, I would say that not only is Kevin Costner's Robin Hood a knight, he is very knightly. A servent to the Crown and to his fellow man, most of whom could never afford a Destrier, which, let's face it, was the Apache Helecopter of its day.

Robin Hood in the Ridley Scott film was not a knight, but I'd say he was far more knightly than most of the Knights in that film, including King John. He spoke truth even when it landed him in stocks, he provided comfort to the dying, he fought (literally) to protect the people, and he was dedicated to an ideal. Max von Sydow's character, Sir Walter Loxley, recognized Robin Longstride's knightliness in his character and prowess and adopted him as his son, which technically could have entitled Longstride's to become a knight. 

"Robin Wood" in T.H. White's "The Once and Future King" is a Saxon rebel fighting against Morgan le Fay. He's not a knight.

MDJouster:
Robin Hood is a tale I have heard told many times from many perspectives.  He is a hero a saviour to the people of England.  Since he gives his ill gotten gains to the people he is serving society and therefore lawful good by alignment in pretty much every tale.  He's a hero so in modern terms he is undoubtably chivalrous.
...but the real story of those taxes is to pay for the wars of the king.  Wars to free the Christian holy lands from the muslims.  Stealing that money and thwarting that effort  is wholly unchivalric.
Since society was based on fiefdoms, lord liege relationships and christian servitude his actions were disruptive to world as it was the world that was preserved by chivalry, by a rigid caste system.  By defying his king he was damaging to the society that held everything together.  With the organization of society, requiring those taxes England would have fallen apart and Europe would have been overrun by foreign invaders.  That really makes him chaotic evil.
In the end Obi Wan has it right "truth is just a matter of perspective."

Jon Blair:
I have been reading Howard Pyle's masterpiece, The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, to my son, William, at his bedtime. In reading this book, I wanted to find out for salving my own curiosity something about the book and the context from whence it came. In my research, I learned that Howard Pyle, a nineteenth century American illustrator, teacher, and novelist, took many of the original ballads and stripped them of the "gory" details in order to lift the stories from the "Penny Dreadfuls" to actual children's literature. He was not the first to try to promote a "nobler" Robin Hood, that honor being held by Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe, followed by Jacques Nicolas Augustin Thierry's Histoire de la Conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands, but both earlier works were not geared for younger audiences. The original ballads portray much more sinister characters.

In "Robin Hood and the Monk", Robin Hood welches on a bet with Little John, Little John murders a monk for telling the Sheriff that Robin was in Nottingham, while Much the Miller's Son (aka Midge) murders a young boy (the monk's page) to prevent the child from alerting the authorities, and both Little John and Much murder the jailor to free Robin from prison. In "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham", Robin murders fifteen of the King's foresters for welching on a bet, rather than killing one in self-defence as Pyle relates in his novel, then maims some of the villagers from Nottingham who were trying to capture him and recover the slain foresters' bodies for burial. In "A Gest of Robin Hode", Robin "taxes" a monk from St. Mary's Abbey, stealing eight hundred pounds as interest (not principle) on the four hundred pounds he gave the sorrowful knight, then later disobeys the orders of the king (who is not named, but his wife was named Katherine in "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine") by forsaking his duties in court and returning to a life of outlawry. All of these actions are less than noble or honorable. His followers are murderous, and as their leader, he owns a partial responsibility for their actions too.

All in all, Robin Hood may have been knightly when compared to the likes of Sir John Hawkwood, but when compared to the ideals of chivalry, he is sorely lacking.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page