Robin Hood: Knightly?

[Sir John of Felsenbau]

Yes, a movie included that at the beginning of it, but it's based on true events.

Sir John

[Sir Sorbus]

Okay, so there has been plenty of analysis on what exactly defines chivalry, and what his motives were like, but perhaps you guys are being too specific. Because the details are so sketchy, it's a logical fallacy to pass judgements on events that MAY or MAY NOT have taken place. For any mathematician, statistician or scientist, uncertainty in a solution can only be clarified to the least accurate piece of data in the original problem.

So, the first thing that needs to be clarified is this: Are we talking Robin Hood specifically, or are we using his usual stereotype identity as an example to represent the Chaotic-Good archetype?

Historical figure
If we are talking about the actual guy, then only so much can be judged fairly, simply because the records are lacking in depth and in backup. But rather than analyse the actual specific actions, perhaps it is better looked at this way: Hypothetically, when King Richard finally returned, would any of you have objected to the idea of Robin being knighted for his crusade and cause? I certainly wouldn't. IMO, whilst he may not be the stereotypical knight, his overall actions certainly warranted the level of respect and recognition granted to the more usual form of knight. That being said, he was not knighted, so perhaps that, in itself, is evidence that the more shady business was more evident than the tales describe, enough so for King Richard to think it inappropriate to knight him.

Archetype
If we are using the usual, romanticised version of the character to represent the Chaotic-Good archetype, then it really comes down to the style and situation of his rebellion.
If he is rebelling against a Lawful-Good government, where his only real problem is the idea of a lack of freedom, then perhaps he is not such a good character.
If he is rebelling against a Lawful-Evil government, (which is what the tale usually depicts it as) where he has both a problem with the manner and the oppression, then perhaps he is a good character.
If he is rebelling against a Chaotic-Evil government, where he disagrees with the ethics and morals of the other-wise socially driven system, then perhaps his intentions are still pure.
If he is rebelling against a Chaotic-Good government, then it really is just a civil war, where two powerful forces are involved, and like repels like. In that case, it's very hard to pick who is on the right side without knowing the specifics of the politics involved.

The problem with chivalry, in this case, is that it is usually considered a fairly linear, uni-dimensional spectrum, whereas one's chaotic/lawful alignment may need be taken into account, depending on one's views ON chivalry. This would make it a two-dimensional spectrum, and a lot more complicated.

Now, I have been using chaotic/lawful and good/evil spectra, when in all fairness, it's all relative according to the politics involved, so perhaps the spectra would be better labelled as "Action" and "Intent" respectively.
Which boils the whole debate down to this. Is Chivalry based purely on one's actions, or purely on one's intent, or on a combination of the two?

[Thorsteinn]

<holding a dagger to Bishop's manhood while prayer service is in>

"Forgive me Father for I have sinned a lot and I'm doing it again. I apologize, the steel is cold, it couldn't be helped. Today there will be a special collection for a Saint 'Robin'"

[Sir Sorbus]

Well said, Hersir. May I ask what the source is? I'd like to read more.

In actual fact, I am a direct descendant of the Stretton line. My great (many times removed) grandfather was the Chief of the guards around the castle of Nottingham at the time of Robin Hood, so there is an element of personal curiosity involved too.

[Thorsteinn]

From the first listed Robin Hood movie I mentioned on page 1.

[Justin]

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. Being rich does not make you a bad person by default. If you worked hard to become rich, then you earned it. Having your money stolen just because, is unfair. I may sound cold in saying this, due to the fact that he was giving what he stole to the poor, but in the end, Robin Hood was a thief and a criminal.

[Thorsteinn]

.... but in the end, Robin Hood was a thief and a criminal.

And given that laws change and vary from place to place, what was once illegal stops being so, nor has following the law and abstaining from stealing been a requirement for being a Knight (*cough* Sir John Hawkwood *cough*), this still doesn't give your answer "Was Robin Hood Knightly?".

"Base your morals on Laws and your going to have a bad time... or be very very Roman"

[Justin]

Ultimately, no. I don't think he was knightly. I do not believe that he upheld knightly virtues. Stealing, regardless of from whom, is not justice. Giving what you stole away is not generosity, it remains theft. So, my answer is no.

[Thorsteinn]

Ultimately, no. I don't think he was knightly. I do not believe that he upheld knightly virtues. Stealing, regardless of from whom, is not justice. Giving what you stole away is not generosity, it remains theft. So, my answer is no.

Is not taking by force of arms a type of theft? So therefore the Crusades, the 100 Years War, and many Tournaments are Criminal and not Knightly.

Theft, stealing, is point of view based. In Robins eyes he was not stealing but recovering for the people. He was returning to right what had been taken immorally from the poor.

[Justin]

So, does that imply that 100% of the people that Robin Hood stole from, obtained all of their wealth through completely immoral means from the poor? That they deserved to have their money forcefully taken from them and given away? I find that hard to believe. I feel as though if a modern day Robin Hood were to arise, and steal money from major corporations and other rich people, even if they did give it away, they wouldn't be looked on as a knight, but rather as a criminal who was doing wrong.

[Sir James A]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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 ConquĂȘte 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.