Main > The Round Table

Real Knights, Real Chivalry

(1/1)

Sir Edward:
An article on Chivalry-Today that takes a balanced look at knights and chivalry in history, noting the actual middle-ground between the Victorian "rose tinted" and romanticized view, versus the new modern view of knights as plundering and murderous villains.

Real Knights, Real Chivalry
http://chivalrytoday.com/real-knights-real-chivalry/

Sir William:
I like that; it seems to ring true, at least to me.  For all of the tales and sagas we know about chivalrous and good knights, there always was a villain (or a pack of them) willing to walk the opposing road.  Chivalry was the earliest instance of having a standing 'rules of engagement' protocol by which knights especially, but military personnel in general were expected to conduct themselves.  That there were many who did not or could not follow said protocol should be of no surprise to anyone- we all have a duality to our nature; a capacity for both good and evil.  To me, what defines a man, a knight, is how strongly does he hold himself to the higher ideal?  Anyone can be part of the rabble- how many will rise above it, set themselves as protector of a people who will most likely NOT appreciate their services, especially in this day and age?

Navigation

[0] Message Index