Discussion: Loyalty

[Sir Edward]

Well, we skipped a couple of weeks due to the holidays, and will probably do so again with more holidays around the corner. But I figured it was time to start another discussion thread.

This week we have Loyalty.

Loyalty is another trait that we probably consider pretty straightforward. But what does it really mean to be loyal? Back in the day, loyalty to your lord or king was paramount. Even when (or particularly when) you disagreed with them. However, history is full of stories of nobles, barons, and knights who rebelled against their lord to side with another, only to make peace again later. Our own Sir William Marshal had once been declared a traitor by King John, and spent several years estranged from each other, only to re-unite later.

Does loyalty demand that you do things you wouldn't otherwise do? What sorts of limits do you think it does/should have?

[Sir Wolf]

ya there is such a thing as loyalty and blindly following.

i know in the 15th century when england was at war against itself, the nobles or ringleaders of the battle were killed if they were the losers and the lower gentry and common man was left alone. they were loyal to their land holder, and after they lost they said they would be loyal to the king/side that one etc.

being a blind follower could make a noble knight crumble. it could eat him inside and out. most i think fought daily with this decisions. some followed their leader trying to be loyal but hated it in every way, while others were loyal to a point

[Sir William]

I think there are degrees of loyalty; there will be those who disagree w/me- but there is no such thing as absolute loyalty w/out question in terms of the thinking man.  For me, loyalty to family is key, then to God, fellow man and country.  I feel that it means doing what is in the best interests of the person in question- even if that person may not share your views.

[Sir Edward]

i know in the 15th century when england was at war against itself, the nobles or ringleaders of the battle were killed if they were the losers and the lower gentry and common man was left alone. they were loyal to their land holder, and after they lost they said they would be loyal to the king/side that one etc.

That's a good point. The medieval mindset was that commoners had to do what they were told. They were more like assets that belonged to the local lord, rather than independent people. So when the rulership changed, they weren't liable for what the predecessor did.

But in the modern context, blindly following has severe moral consequences, IMHO. A great example is WWII. How many German soldiers and officers said they were only following orders? How much does that get you off the hook for following through on immortal acts?

[Sir William]

Well said, Sirs Wolf and Edward.  By that token, terrorists follow their religious leaders...one could argue that they are 'just doing their job' - at the risk of pissing off veterans, our soldiers are also 'just doing their job'...should they kill someone during the course of said job, it is considered collateral damage.  That very term belittles the ones to whom it is applied...because it happened during the course of someone's important job.

But they would be considered disloyal...in the case of the American soldier, if he refused an order on moral grounds he could face a court martial and dishonorable discharge.

[Sir Brian]

But they would be considered disloyal...in the case of the American soldier, if he refused an order on moral grounds he could face a court martial and dishonorable discharge.

They might be considered as disloyal by their comrades in arms within their unit, perhaps their division but only by those who I would consider dishonorable in the first place if they considered immoral or illegal actions justifiable at any cost.

Usually the UCMJ can be fairly flexible in regarding the refusal to following illegal or immoral orders in that it could result in a court marshal but only after an investigation of the alleged immoral/illegal order given by the superior(s) has been found baseless. The military makes a distinct point to educate the lowliest recruit during basic training in that regard. So being given the order to indiscriminately kill unarmed and defenseless civilians is one of those orders where you would have to respectfully decline to carry that order out and then stand tall until it’s all sorted out after the proverbial sh** storm.

A good example would be the MP guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, who as far as I’m concerned dishonored themselves, their unit, the Army and the United States for their participation or cowardice in failing to report the abuses.

[Sir Patrick]

The whole root of loyalty is a pact between individuals (or an individual and an ideal/institution), and pledges of this sort are a bit of a two way street.  One does not blindly hand over one's life to something or someone he does not believe in, and by the same token should not be expected to uphold the bargain should the lord/ideal prove to be completely out of whack with the pledgee's belief system.  That's why war criminals can't get away with saying they were just following orders.  There are much darker things than blind loyalty going on in those instances, whether those people want to admit it or not.  At the same time, it is completely disloyal IMHO, to jump ship when the going gets tough, or when a rival offers you a better deal after you've pledged your loyalty to someone else.  A chivalrous man must first be loyal to his own ideals or else he can never be loyal to anything else.

[Sir Wolf]

while this is all good points, we must though remember that disloyalty meant death though in our period counterparts. not just the knight but maybe his entire family or even his linage both back in time and forward in progression. a "black mark" to say. how would loyalty come into play then with unchivalrous actions?

[SirNathanQ]

I think that loyalty is a pact. A pact between two individuals, two countries, groups of people, organizations, ect.
When you pledge allegiance to something, you are pledging allegiance to THAT. If it changes into something that you cannot follow and remain honorable at the same time, then that's not the entity you pledged allegiance to. You are thus absolved of your prior commitment.
For instance, during the battle of Agincourt, Henry's knights refused to kill the french prisoners, even though he had good reason for issuing the order. Yet they were not considered disloyal. It is very possible to remain loyal AND honorable. Besides, I wouldn't place my allegiance to anything that wouldn't make room for morals, if not actively pursuing them.  

And that's interesting. I wasn't aware that vengeance for disloyalty spanned generations. I remember that treasonous knights in the WOTR (war of the roses), if executed (Not all of them were), their lands passed on to the crown. But I remember that the sons and family were usually not made to suffer for the father's treason. But it might be done differently on the continent. 

[Sir James A]

It's been well covered, so I don't have much to add. Loyalty is a bond that lives inside of a line; one will be loyal to their bond only so far as it does not cross their personal line of unacceptable deeds. That line varies between individuals. Some will kill without questioning, while others will refuse. Some will do so only because it is asked of them without questioning, some will do so only out of fear of retaliation but grudgingly, and others will refuse.

I believe it's the grounds of the refusal that distinguishes between disloyalty and honor. As an example, let's say a king orders a knight to kill the unarmed women and children of an enemy town.

Is he loyal for doing so? If he is, is it still dishonorable?

Would he be doing the honorable thing by refusing, proving his disloyalty?

Which one is the more "knightly" choice?

[SirNathanQ]

I'd go with the "disloyalty". Plenty of retinues to join if you get kicked out. And plus, If yo really, really, really, like the guy your pledged to, you can suggest Henry V's solution to this problem, and get those who don't give a rat's mule about chivalry to do it.