Main > The Round Table

What makes a knight?

<< < (3/4) > >>

Sir Brian:
I wholeheartedly agree with Sir Edward’s perspective and would like to offer some additional thoughts on the subject of worthiness. On the medieval battlefield the knight was the ultimate or elite warrior but not only because they were better trained and equipped but that they were EXPECTED to be in a leadership role on the battlefield as well as in society in general. It is that role of leadership, backed by a noble’s authority that gave weight, substance and prestige to knighthood.  There was a time during Henry II’s reign when England was drastically short of knights, so after having a census taken, Henry II ordered all freemen that possessed a certain amount of holdings and wealth (what would equate to lower middle class in today’s standards) to swear fealty to him and become knighted.
To summarize this concept I’m trying to convey, consider a knight to be someone who is willing and able take the responsibility for the welfare of others. Now depending upon WHO the knight is serving, that could be a wide disparity from what modern conceptions would consider proper or right let alone humane.
To borrow a line from the movie “A knight’s tale”, it is a knight’s willingness to tilt when he should withdraw that epitomizes knighthood. To borrow further from that same movie I’ll ask the simple question of this.
At what time in the movie did William (Heath Ledger) demonstrate his worthiness to be called a knight?

Give up?
When he was informed that his real identity was known by the nobility and he would be arrested if he showed up at the lists to compete. Despite the advice of his friends and loved ones he held firm to his beliefs and took the responsibility for his actions in spite of the severe consequences.

Sir Wolf:
I don't know that I totally agree with the "slim outlook"  At least not in the late 14th and 15th centuries.  We know that to be a knight meant you had money, land and title. the "lesser" men around him were not so "lesser".  During the 15th century if you had it you flaunted it.  To have  a standing army was illegal so you had "households" of other landed gentry and yoemen close to you. Such as the group I protraigh "Lord Greys" was a minor peer of the king. His lands were of Codnor (near sherwood forests) hehhe.  He had a large household etc.  These men would be fairly well to do guys that had lands on Lord Greys area. They could read and had some wealth.  So its not all gloom and doom if your not the knight.  If you live on his lands you could be set up right nicely :) Being a landed gentry such as lord Grey meatn that you had to goto court and be judge and jury, colelct takes, be the sheriff, goto the kings court, hang with him to look good and get gifts etc. it aint all bad hehehe. so you fought a lil.. you would have the Bently of armour and would have the closest guys in your household in Bmw's and their closest guys in catallacs, and their closest guys in.... if you wer captured your weren't necessarily killed, you were treated with honor and ransomed. even when the crown took place the minor knights just said "hey i was jsut following what i was told, i am sorry and will follow you. and so on till the next king one the battle etc.  only the top nobles or best buddiest of the before hand king were "executed" to make way for his buddies.

Sir Edward:

I think it's also worth noting that knights may have gotten a little bit of a bad rap recently. Since the Victorian era put everything into the "rose tinted glasses" sort of view, giving us the modern connotation of the "knight in shining armor", many more recent writings have attempted to dispel this by going to the other extreme, focusing on the knights that did not live up to the ideals of Chivalry, who were tyrannical and brutal, etc. But of course, there are things that they did that may offend our modern sensibilities but were completely culturally acceptable at the time.

An example that comes to mind is one that I read on another forum somewhere. I don't remember the details or names, just the gist of it. A young lady, a daughter of a noble or gentile, decided to run away with the steward. A knight happens upon them along the road, and discovers what they are up to. He takes their money, and sends continues on. Arriving in town, he spends the money on food and ale for his fellow knights. To our modern culture this seems awful, but in the context of the time, and the way he recounted the event in his writings, was that this was high chivalry. How? He was merciful to the young couple for not hauling them in, and yet did his part to thwart their activity by taking the money that would have facilitated it. He was showing the virtue of largesse by sharing the reward of this chivalrous deed with his peers. To him, this was a win all the way around.

When reading about the history, it's good to approach it with a skeptical eye and read a variety of sources that take different perspectives. Authors are human and will color their writing with their own opinions, and often view things with modern eyes. It's very difficult to put yourself in the mindset of the culture of the time. :)

Das Bill:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2009-09-06, 13:20:44 ---
I think it's also worth noting that knights may have gotten a little bit of a bad rap recently. Since the Victorian era put everything into the "rose tinted glasses" sort of view, giving us the modern connotation of the "knight in shining armor", many more recent writings have attempted to dispel this by going to the other extreme, focusing on the knights that did not live up to the ideals of Chivalry, who were tyrannical and brutal, etc. But of course, there are things that they did that may offend our modern sensibilities but were completely culturally acceptable at the time.
--- End quote ---

Absolutely. And both are forms of romanticism (or perhaps you could call the modern view anti-romanticism, which in itself is still a form of romanticism), which cloud historical fact. Its the same kind of thing with the katana vs. longsword debate. It used to be that everyone believed the katana was the best weapon out there, bar none. After awhile, it went to the other extreme, where people kept saying katana were crap, and that a good European longsword would beat a katana anyday. And let's face it: Neither is view is correct.


--- Quote --- He was merciful to the young couple for not hauling them in, and yet did his part to thwart their activity by taking the money that would have facilitated it. He was showing the virtue of largesse by sharing the reward of this chivalrous deed with his peers. To him, this was a win all the way around.
--- End quote ---

And really, this isn't that different a concept from what many of us would respect today. He was merciful, but he made sure that they understood that what they were doing was wrong, and made sure that they had some form of punishment (much as many parents have to do with their children). He could have spent that money completely on himself, but instead spread it around. While the specific actions are somewhat culturally foreign to the modern mind, when you break it down, it isn't quite so different.


--- Quote ---When reading about the history, it's good to approach it with a skeptical eye and read a variety of sources that take different perspectives. Authors are human and will color their writing with their own opinions, and often view things with modern eyes. It's very difficult to put yourself in the mindset of the culture of the time. :)


--- End quote ---

Amen to that!

Justin:
I believe that a traditional ceremony makes you an official knight. That said, striving to be chivalrous in all of your endeavors is what makes you knightly. Many people accomplish amazing feats of kindness, generosity, and bravery on a daily basis, it does not make them Knights. It does however, display very knightly qualities and virtues worthy of that title. I feel that becoming a knight should be an oath to, as much as possible, display courage, kindness, and other chivalrous qualities in your daily life.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page