Hah, I've also got a joke a-brewing in my head, maybe along the lines of mortgaging the house to acquire steed, arms, and recruiting the kids to become my squires.
that's sort of generalizing, the roots where horse back but these elites warriors where exceptional of the horse as well. like the samurai, professional warriors would round off their skills i.e. lance on horseback, sword/mace on foot, survival and endurance skills. Not every case where knights strictly trained or limited to a "battlefield" gorilla tactics and commando style tactics where used by some
Original definition of Chivalry: ride this horse with this pointy stick. Modern definition of Chivalry: the thing that makes playing a Lawful Good Paladin hard/annoying teehee
In simpler terms Chivalry was an algebra equation of sorts; (Skill-at-arms + "x") where "x" equals whatever the lord or ruling institution want's it to mean.
Fun fact: in german the word "Knecht" is associated with the servant of the knight. The knight himself is called "Ritter"(an armored rider), similar to the word "Reiter" (rider). So for us germans the Series title "Knight Rider" is absolutely ridiculous. :D
Even in the english language the title "Knight Rider" is ridiculous. He isn't riding a horse, he is riding the Knight. I'll leave to you what meaning of riding you want to use.
lol, Not too sure he's right about "knecht" however; The version I heard was that "knight" was a mounted messenger who would usually not be nobility. however the "knight" in this version was not necessarily a servant. And that the "Germans" a.k.a. Anglo-Saxon's didn't speak french so they called the French nobility whatever they liked- not necessarily what the nobility fancied. Given how long ago these words evolved their origins are probably not known too well.
I read that knights were not only soldiers but also enforcers for their liege Lord. Keep peasants and criminals in line, collect taxes, settle disputes, go to war etc.
The part about not finishing off a downed opponent was more in-line with nobles vs nobles in warfare. A captured knight, man-at-arms could attract a very high ransom.
Yes, the worth of a high ranking noble was very high. Sometimes prisoners were ransomed for such high prices that they were in captivity for several years until their relatives had scraped together all that money. During the battle of Agincourt the English took so many hostages of the far more numerous French, that the English king, who feared defeat, ordered the prisoners to be executed, what partly happened. Among the survivors were very high ranking nobles, who spent the next years in England until ransomed for large sums of money.
+stevethegecko I don't know, where you got that thing about Germans from. To me it sounds like a dubious stereotype. For example the famous English king Richard Lionheart was imprisoned in Germany, when returning from a crusade until he was ransomed.
I'm sure some would have actully belived in mercy. There was after all an element of religion throughout the Medieval age. I find it difficult to belive that no knight combined his faith with his craft.
The modern, "hollywood" definition of chivalry must have existed for centuries though... I mean, the subject of the famous work of literature "Don Quixote" is that of a puffed up nobleman trying to revive the romantic idea of chivalry (upholding justice and protecting the weak), and that book was written at the beginning of the 1600s. I agree with the information you give in the video, and with the etymology of the word, but it clearly came to mean something else before the modern era. Hollywood isn't to blame for all historical misconceptions.
+Shane Conlon Right on, Don Quixote is a really good example on how the romanticized view of chivalry began far earlier than more modern forms of media. People have this tendency to mythologize the past, I find.
Keep in mind Don Quixote was parodying the idea of heroic horsemen. They of that time were at least aware that their ideas of chivalry came from romanticized fiction
You could go a bit further back in time and take the tale of King Arthur and his knights for an example. At first it kinda started as propaganda piece for rallying support for the crusades. Later on it kind of became the romantic-erotic literature for women at court, introducing a bigger-than-life code of honour as a concept. And i actually believe that many knights were glad for that fantasy in female minds because it would be easier to pretend to be this morally perfect warrior while not being at war meanwhile completely abandoning this whole silly thing when actually being in that situation.
"So many vows. They make you swear and swear... Defend the king, obey the king, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do you're forsaking one vow or another."
The linguistic origin of Chivalry was really interesting. It comes more straightforward in my language, hungarian, I think. Lovagiasság - Chivalry Ló - Horse Lovag - Horseman (also it's the basic translation of Knight) Lovagias - Horsemanlike (in correct translation it's now the equivalent of Chivalrious) Lovagiasság - Horsemanlike-ness It's really straightforward in our language, however thanks to the media, it's also means being noble, and kind, and brave and such for us as well.
As I said in my previous comment: "in Spanish knight is said "caballero", from "caballo", Spanish for horse; and roughly means "he who uses a horse"" so, yes, there's probably a parallel among different languages.
Yeah it seemed to have been a title similar to valor, then the cowardly descendants perverted the word into what meant their birth right supposedly entailed, and that usually was their way to higher status without earning it, without merit.
@@LB-ou8wt In Latin it is nóbilis, the potential participle of to know, i.e. could be used to mean famous or knowledgeable depending on how you look at it.
it really bugs me when people mention the Chretien de Troyes line because I think 9 times out of 10 they're really missing the point and context of the actual lines in question. I really don't think it's a proscription for ways that modern knights can justify rape. I don't think Chretien de Troyes was speaking of any real world custom at all in that situation, in fact. Let's take a look at the actual passage that reference comes from; " In those days the customs and privileges were such that, if a knight found a damsel or lorn maid alone, and if he cared for his fair name, he would no more treat her with dishonour than he would cut his own throat. And if he assaulted her, he would be disgraced for ever in every court. But if, while she was under his escort, she should be won at arms by another who engaged him in battle, then this other knight might do with her what he pleased without receiving shame or blame." I think people most frequently miss the first lines of this passage. "In those days", or more pointedly, "UNLIKE TODAY". Remember, the whole concept of the Arthurian myth is wrapped up in a sort of imaginative, floating fantasyland "past". They're not descriptions of the contemporary era in which Chretien de Troyes was writing. Even in the earliest material they have King Arthur fighting the Roman Empire (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Regum_Britanniae#Books_Nine_and_Ten) for example. Now the question remains why would Chretien de Troyes include this line? We have to look at what's going on in this passage. Just before this passage Lancelot encounters a Lady who seems inordinately interested in Lancelot. There are two obstacles before Lancelot in this section of the story. The first is A; his attempts to keep his love for Guinevere pure, and B; The need to prove himself as a knight after shaming himself by mounting the Cart at the beginning of the story. In the first situation she makes him swear to lay in bed with her; he does this, but he doesn't have sex with her as she seems to be pushing for. The Lady is specifically putting her honor, and accordingly Lancelot's honor as a knight, on the line. She's a constant test for him. She's testing his worthiness as a knight and as a lover all throughout her encounter. Remember, she even starts by sending her house knights after him in order to test his skills at arms. Where, might I add, he has a pretty friggin awesome literal kung fu fight with them! So what do I think Chretien de Troyes is doing? He's making up a rule in the mythical past of Arthurian myth to purposely place an obstacle and a test in front of Lancelot. She COULD just travel safely entirely on her own, but she entreats him *specifically* for his protection on the road. He can't deny to protect the lady, or else show himself to be discourteous to her, and if he fails her virtue will be lost right alongside his own honor. In fact, we actually see, predictably, a Chekhov's Gun scenario where a knight *does* challenge Lancelot with the specific intent of claiming the Lady as his own. " Just where the way was narrowest, they see a knight approach. As soon as she saw him, the damsel recognised him, and said: "Sir knight, do you see him who yonder comes against us all armed and ready for a battle? I know what his intention is: he thinks now that he cannot fail to take me off defenceless with him. He loves me, but he is very foolish to do so. In person, and by messenger, he has been long wooing me. But my love is not within his reach, for I would not love him under any consideration, so help me God! I would kill myself rather than bestow my love on him. I do not doubt that he is delighted now, and is as satisfied as if he had me already in his power. But now I shall see what you can do, and I shall see how brave you are, and it will become apparent whether your escort can protect me. If you can protect me now, I shall not fail to proclaim that you are brave and very worthy."" Lancelot, or The Knight of the Cart is an interesting sort of redemption story. He shames himself by mounting the cart in order to save Guinevere, and then throughout the story he's challenge in very intimate and bellacose ways. In fact, just look at how people react to him, the Lady, and the Knight who is seeking her. " As soon as the three new arrivals come into view, they all cease their play and shout across the fields: "See, yonder comes the knight who was driven in the cart! Let no one continue his sport while he is in our midst. A curse upon him who cares or deigns to play so long as he is here!" Accordingly, remember what the Lady says; " But now I shall see what you can do, and I shall see how brave you are, and it will become apparent whether your escort can protect me. If you can protect me now, I shall not fail to proclaim that you are brave and very worthy."" It's a *test*. It's a fictionalized rule designed to *test him*.That's the Lady's entire point in the story. I think it's very short sighted and in poor analysis to describe it as an actual vision of chivalry (I'm looking at you, Terry Jones). Anyway, I would be very interested to see if any actual documents from the period actually list that justification for rape as something any knight actually invoked. I suspect there aren't any. I really think this interpretation is an artifact from much older generations of historians who would read the romances and then say "Yes this is Chivalry. Every part of this is stuff knights actually did".
No problem! I honestly wish more people read it because I'm fairly sick of this literary example being trotted out the way more than a few people have.
I find it interesting how knights saw themselves and how others saw them: They called themselves Ritters or Chevaliers - horsemanship was central to their self-image. The English, didn't notice the horses so much and called the Knights - Knechten - Retainers. They were seen as kept men by the people who fed them.
to say a code of chivalry is actually slightly wrong my friend, you are right in saying chivalry has many interpretations to different orders, populations and, but Geoffroi De Charny, famous knight of the 100 Years war, wrote a manual for men at arms and knights. In it's essence it a handbook of chivalry
Even if "chivalry" isn't the historically accurate word for it, I believe our modern conception of it has many aspects that should be strived for. "Chivalry" as defined in "The Necessity of Chivalry" by C.S. Lewis, is something we could use a lot more of in 2019.
More interesting word transformations from this time period: The french translation for "freedom" is liberte´ which became "liberty" The anglo-saxon servant took care of the pigs, but when these animals are served on a plate for the french noble, it transforms into "porc" = "pork". Same goes for "cow / cattle" which transforms into "bœuf" = "beef". The saxons were a german tribe in northern germany, so you find also a lot of german words in english: The english word "town" derives from the german word "Zaun" which means fence. The german name "Karl" took an interesting journey. It derives from "Kerl" which describes a strong and very manly man. It was the name of the king Karl der Große (= Charlemagne). In french it transforms into "Charles" which is the same in englisch. In northern europe the name transforms into "Jarl", which comes with the vikings to England and transformed into "Earl"
"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”
While I agree that Chivalry was absolutely subjective depending on the Knight, there was a basic set of moral code that, while malleable, was generally accepted to at least exist by most noble men. That doesn’t necessarily mean they all followed it, but the popular romantic writings of the Middle Ages that described the ideal moral conduct of a noble man wouldn’t have existed without the audience to read/hear them. Art is often a reflection of many aspects of real life, and as such the romantic writings, while differing in opinion on many aspects of chivalry, seem to hold many ideals in common: Bravery and Loyalty, like you mentioned, but also the ideas of Mercy, Justice, and Religious Zeal. Perhaps the writings were representative of what the populace wanted from nobles but never got? I’m not entirely sure, but the many commonalities between different writers from different countries and periods makes me think that chivalry was a bit more, if unofficially, codified than you say. I can’t remember what they’re called, but there are several writings from the time that talk about 7 specific historical and fantastical figures that exemplify chivalric behaviors. I’ll edit this comment as soon as I find the name.
So chivalry is a lot like "pirate code". A certain version made popular as some kind of universal book of rules when in reality, both were different case-by-case.
@@alexs5744 I read, that in most pirate ships they had more strict codes of conduct than even in british royal navy (e.g. no drinking on ship). Also, organized "thugs and murderers" have rules because otherwise they can't cooperate. It is just practical thing to avoid needless murders in crew. Anyone would be polite if any incautious word can end with knife in the back.
@@user-nw8pp1cy8q I’m sure they had plenty of rules centered around stopping them from killing/stealing from each other. Doesn’t change the fact that the only reason they had those rules was so they could more efficiently kill/ steal from innocents.
Just want to put it out there, Shad, that I'm currently taking a Medieval History class (fall of rome to 1399) that I've used the sources in this video in particular as well as others to counter-point some of the ideas presented in the class by both fellow classmates and my professor. Big help, thanks man.
+Javier Sánchez Yeah, we have some problems with translation in spanish, we have no distinction between knight and gentleman, they're both "caballeros". There's also no distinction between a lance and a spear, they're both "lanzas"
Shad, I love your videos, but I'm afraid you missed the mark on this topic, mate. What you are espousing is a typical revisionist historical worldview. While you are correct in saying there wasn't a codified list of chivalrous virtues, you incorrectly infer that each knight's liege was the greatest determining factor in the definition of said virtues. It was, in fact, a predominant culture of piety, righteousness, self-sacrifice, martial prowess and service of the Medieval Christian faith that informed the definition of chivalry... One need only consider documents such as the Song of Roland, or the etymology of words like "villain" (from villein, a caste or rank below peerage but above common serfdom. The term villainous came to describe the "unknightly" or "unchivalrous" acts of laymen during campaigns of war-be it rape or murder. As many documents attest, knights were forbidden to engage in such acts, hence villainous as counterpoint to chivalry). The fact remains that chivalry had a generally homogenous meaning across medieval Europe, and the seeds of that meaning have, in many ways, outlasted the knight into modern colonial usage and understanding. You are right to say there was no "list," but your conclusion concerning the subsequent vagueness of the definition is more informed by your own post-modern worldview than it is history. Cheers!
Luke Thorne Exactly! This bugged me. Most were Catholic during the Middle Ages and piety was greatly admired. Chivalry wasn’t as diverse a definition as some might think. People during those times were more homogenous religiously and morally compared to today, where people are more about the mantra, “as long as it harms none, do as you will.”
Yeah and how many knighs gave a shit and not plundered or raped? The fact is they were men and warriors and they did what they csn get away with in those situations. I am sure there were geniunely chiverious knights out there but generally people of power were scums. Like today that didn't change.
I wanted to say the same thing, but then I remembered that Shad is a deeply conservative Mormon, and he may be deliberately avoiding Roman Catholicism because it’s personal to his beliefs and he doesn’t want to say something that he would have to qualify in a way that gives his true opinions away about something that could be offensive to Catholics. I’m a catholic and I’m guessing this is the reason. He HAS to know what you wrote.
So, in my D&D World I can say that every knightly order has their own Code of Chivalry, because a Lawful Evil Hobgoblin Paladin would behave diferently than a Lawful Good Human/Aasimar Paladin.
I know this comment is old, but the best explanation I've had for D&D "lawful" is that it means adhering to certain rules/code of conduct, not necessarily the law of the land/government. Just their own law that they strictly abide by. So a lawful evil person has certain rules and standards they live up to, even if they are doing very evil (even illegal) things.
Likewise. The modern interpretation of chivalry is just a bother for everyone, largely based on norms from the 50s USA. It forces dudes to kiss arse and infantilise the girls, thoroughly undermining any kind of equality.
@@helenanilsson5666 I don't think that being polite to women "infantilizes" them. They benefit from it - free lunch, guaranteed sit in the bus, open doors, "ladies' night", etc. Either they wish for equality, and should accept then to be treated the very same way men treat and view other men (like possible concurrents or foes) or want that men be "chivalrous" to them. You can't have it both ways, ladies.
Our modern notions are from the Victorian era, which had a fetish for rules, centralization, homogenicity, micromanagement, and puritanism. Medieval society was based upon the guild system, which was decentralized, and absolutely pragmatic. Knighthood was a guild, and it was the warrior guild. Mounted shock combat was a highly specialized trade, and an art to be learned. Not all guilds have the same rules, nor are they required to have identical rules. They are all, however, fraternal societies that are built upon personal oaths of loyalties. The members of the guilds would support and assist each other in times of trouble. Page=apprentice Squire=journeyman Knight=master It is impossible to be Chivalrous without a horse. The Victorian Era's notion of Chivalry was very 1-dimensional and black-and-white.
You seem to have a very strange image of what guilds are and how they worked. Knights were not part of some warrior guild because no such thing existed. Maybe you should play fewer video games ;) I also do not know why you are obsessed with blaming the Victorian Era. The change of concept was gradual and deveoped over time, not just suddenly in the Victorian Era.
"The Victorian Era's notion of Chivalry was very 1-dimensional and black-and-white" Just like people of Victorian Era England, AKA Very very boring, and extremally bland.
+I am Shad: You deserved it and stop flattering me :) There are actually two or so points where I not fully agree (more military subjects) or would want to discuss them in further detail but for the context of this video it's absolutely fine and I recommend it to everybody who wants to learn about the middle ages.
Shad! You've give more information and sence in twenty minutes that most 'documentaries' do in an hour. And you give references. Very logical and persuasive.
+Sverdhugr Kveykva He should provide a comprehensive bibliography of his sources anyway for the sake of establishing credibility, because, despite how everything sounded, without any sources cited save for the book at the end, how can I take this video seriously? It sounds extremely thorough and detailed, but without any means of checking where Shad acquired the information from., why bother? From his channel, he seems as if he laboriously pursues and pontificates about his interests, which subsequently confuses me over why/how Shad did not include his sources in the description. :p
This is a good video. I've been a reenactor and taught history My wife watched your video with me because she was confused about depictions of knights in books and film. Chivalry was a moral system that went far beyond rules of combat. It was truly an important honour code in a religious and feudal time. Loyalty to both the Church and your Lord were important along with courtly love, honour, courtesy and gallantry ( both in battle and toward women). It's unfortunate that modern views of both chivalry and knighthood derive largely from Victorians... who really didn't understand the Medieval Age.
+I am Shad interesting.. i never thought that knight comes from the word knecht.. but the german word knecht translates to servant or better is the term for a farm labourer.. well the male term.. the female term is magd.. they were not actually servants.. they worked on the farm and in exchange got food, a bed and were more or less part of the family as all people shared a roof and table.. those still existed in germany till like 1960 but now with all the machinery in agriculture this job died.. the meaning of the word changed to something devalueing more servant like over the time but it was not dishonorably to be a knecht.. well they not necessarily got paid in the medival times with more than food and a place to live but they were not slaves either.. it's just like the word peasant i guess.. it's used in a devalueing way so you would say farmer.. the same thing happened in germany with the term bauer which is mostly used in a devalueing way as peasant were for someone having a farm is called landwirt analog to the word farmer in english..
+Dunkelelf3 Bear in mind that there is a dichotomy between the anglo-saxon vs normannish language (french) of the uppermost noble classes during the formative years of knighthood, at least in England. Early knights might have been anglo-saxon lower nobles and may have been called derogatory names by the upper class norman nobles.
+Dunkelelf3 Bear in mind that there is a dichotomy between the anglo-saxon vs normannish language (french) of the uppermost noble classes during the formative years of knighthood, at least in England. Early knights might have been anglo-saxon lower nobles and may have been called derogatory names by the upper class norman nobles.
Imo "codes of chivalry" might've existed in the past, but those would've been written by various different kingdoms as the code for knights... or at least that's how I do it in my fiction, each kingdom that has knights has its own "code of honor" for their respective knights
So in summary chivalry is whatever the knights master wants it to be. It kind of says something that the last remaining definition of chivalry is purely about serving women.
You could say that the terms of Chivalry were at times open to interpretation and were up to Lords and other Knights to decide what Chivalry was. Although Chivalry has nothing to do with women or dating.
thank you for making such a good job with these videos, I know it demands a lot of investigation and hard work but it's totally worth it. Can you please teach me about vikings/berserk and related as much as you did with chivalry ? Also, thanks to you I learned how to spin my sword, and I would love to learn a couple of drill cuts with the longsword from you. Any how congrats on your videos, keep up with the great job, and huge thanks!
The irony of Chivalry and those lists? If Chivalry is in fact subjective to what a person wants it to be then they are at the same time completely right and completely wrong.
"Most of English nobals of this period were french" not really most of them were Normans, who were french speaking Scandinavians. not the same ethnic group as the rest of franse of the time
Hi Shad, the stirrup/chivalry theory was developed and popularized by Lynn White Jr in the 1960s, and since you explanation mirrors yours almost exactly I'm guessing that was your source. However, contemporary historians have pointed out some issues with White's dating and the current consensus is that the stirrup does not seem to have been the primary cause of the rise of cavalry warfare. That being said, the rise of mounted melee combat is probably the reason for the rise of the knightly class and chivalry. I just fear you're a bit outdated in claiming it was the stirrup that kickstarted the whole thing. For a bit of reading on this debate, try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy
+DIY Historian Thank you for pointing this out. The argument is incredibly intriguing, so much so that I'm thinking of making a video on it. You've inspired me sir!
Shadiversity That sounds really interesting. One of the things I love about history is that even centuries after the fact we are still learning new things about it.
Can you do a video focusing on coat of arms and family crests? I've been looking around and I can't seem to find any definite information on what certain colors/symbols mean.
+Burkall That depends a lot on how you want to see it, you could argue that it is transferred to the modern military in some fashion, if you look back. Just because looking back makes things easier to see in the 80-90 jet piloted in Hollywood movies took on some of these aspects, in earlier periods it was the fighter pilots. So i guess in some way its what ever brace of military that most stands out.
+Jonas Wohlrab diener means servant.. :P actually knecht was not a servant and neither a slave.. they didn't get much more payment than food, a bed and a roof over their heads in exchange for their work but they were free people and the relation was not really any different from a todays employee to his/her boss.. well in the end those relations were actually way more familiar as they all shared a home and table..
There are treatise of chivalry still extant today from the Knights themselves such as Sir Geoffroy de Charney. You are correct in asserting that there isn't a universal list of virtues but all the treatise are approximate in their universal themes which are all based on a common root found within the Church. I think a fair interpretation of actual historical chivalry would take into account the treatise themselves and their context within the teachings of the Church. While the chivalric ideal applied to the noble class (this is its biggest objection to modern day sensibilities) the treatise aren't objectionable in the virtues they extol. They read like ethical manuals for personal development. The modern day romanticism of chivalry can be put to good use in moral and ethical development.
hey shad, love your work. im trying to write a story about a bard who interlops in the affairs of lords and their realms for fun and such. it would be helpful to me if you were to make a video about what it was like being a lord and what it was like living in a manor or having your own estate and servants and etc. and i think it would make an interesting video.
There was a fairly good documentary series I saw a few years ago on a realistic look at knights and how all of this evolved. One of the historians on the series said at the beginning that when she's introducing an accurate picture of knights to her university classes she starts out by saying that the average knight had more in common with Tony Soprano and Michael Corleone than he did with Lancelot, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
I will gladly offer my chivalry to a lady But i will never offer my chivalry to a feminist and also i wont give up my seat to anyone and open doors and help a women beccause im no sexist i am a man not a gentleman
I disagree with your conclusion. What your conclusion described was a "false night" a night that was a knight in name only who didn't really hold to any specific code of conduct but did whatever best benefited him and/or his lord at the moment. A real knight had his own code of conduct that he (faithfully followed) regardless of the difficulty of the situation, he was characterized by what he could best suffer, not by what best pleased him and he did it all in the name of knighthood or (chivalry). That being said I do believe the codes were fluid and did vary from place to place but generally speaking knights held to a Judeo-Christian based code of conduct because they resided in a largely Christian nation. Although there were the "tool of the lord" type knights who did whatever best benefitted them and their lords (false/hypocritical) knights, there were most definitely were real (honest/genuine) knights as well, who did not do what best suited them but did what they believed was the right thing to do.
It seems the definition of gender these days is subjective to how one "feels" about it. As with chivalry, it can mean different things to different people. My comment was mostly sarcastic because I don't understand what's so difficult about there only being two genders :/
So basically chivalry is about being a professional soldier as opposed to all the silly French-written Arthurian romance crap. What social graces it required were about not embarrassing one's liege lord through uncouth and/or violent behavior in public.
so...one can pinpoint the exact day chivalry actually died - the final cavalry charge of the Polish army against the German Blitzkrieg...the last gasp of horse mounted warfare.
That's a myth that came from German propaganda of the time. While the Poles did indeed still employ horse mounted cavalry, so did the Americans and the Germans, they did not ever charge against German tanks. There are accounts, though, of them attacking German infantry and being quite successful at it too, but obviously not enough to successfully repel the German invasion.
A bunch of Italian horsemen charged a bunch of Russian machine guns later on in the war and actually emerged victorious en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Izbushensky
Hello Shad! Big fan of your content and have been binge watching your stuff for a few days now. I have a question that I can't seem to find a clear answer for and thought perhaps you would know. I know this is an old video and am not sure you will even see the question but that's alright. I was curious as to what the daily life of a Knight was like? Were they more akin to politicians or land "managers" in peacetime? Or did their work entail a lot of manual labor, and did their daily activities differ throughout the medieval period. Thanks a ton and if you have already made a video on this my apologies I must of missed it.
i applaud your search for historical accuracy and the information in the most part in the video! Big fan here. while I can't call myself an expert i'd like to comment on the first part of your video. You explain that the false assumptions about chivalry is a product of novels, media etc. but i'd like to pose that the idea of chivalry being a noble code of conduct is more likely a product of the romantic era in industrial-revolution England. (R. Palmer, History of Europe in the Modern World (New York 2014)) and, in the late-medieval period knighthood, along with heraldry did transform from the warrior culture to something more... civilised.(B. Rosewein, A short history of the Middle Ages(Toronto 2009) But you do touch a bit on that in your video. i'd be interested on your views on 'the song of roland' in the light of this video. (wikipedia.org/wiki/the_song_of_roland) keep up the good work!
So Paizo was pretty spot on when they introduced the cavalier class into the Pathfinder RPG, warriors who specialize in mounted combat (mainly charging) and has several different orders to choose from that dictate how some of his abilities work which abilities he gets and in general how he acts. So far I've only done order of the dragon (loyalty and friendship, band of brother type stuff) and order of the cockatrice (only serves himself and his own goals). A campaign using lion (serve nobility/ a lord) would be cool, specially in a campaign where you get to lead an army, thought about doing a order of the shield (protect the common folk from farmer to craftsman) once, the other two default ones are order of the star (non-magical paladin), and order of the sword (typical thought of code of chivalry, honor, valor, fairness).
Do you mean in the video that from around 4:30 and onward the information given is incorrect? I got a note covering the video saying that the next part is incorrect.
The closest thing I've heard of to codifying the modern concept of Chivalry was Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Mallory, which came about at the end of the 15th century, right around the end of the Middle Ages and the age of the knight.
My girlfriend told me to be more chivalrous, so I skewered her with a lance from atop my steed.
Hah, I've also got a joke a-brewing in my head, maybe along the lines of mortgaging the house to acquire steed, arms, and recruiting the kids to become my squires.
Wait... Was 'skewered her with a lance' an innuendo?
....
BlakesPuppets you made her give head?
LOL
So the next time i do something nice for a woman, and she tells me, "I guess chivalry isn't dead," i can tell her, "I'm not a horseman."
+Ryan Cauffman Or take her up on that and demand that she let you mount her
+Jukelo
You. I like you.
+ThatBeardedGuy I do too.
same.
that's sort of generalizing, the roots where horse back but these elites warriors where exceptional of the horse as well. like the samurai, professional warriors would round off their skills i.e. lance on horseback, sword/mace on foot, survival and endurance skills. Not every case where knights strictly trained or limited to a "battlefield" gorilla tactics and commando style tactics where used by some
Chivalry : what ever keeps the Lord happy, keeps a roof over my head, and ensures I live by the end of the day.
minus the lord part, it could fit for captain Malcolm Reynold...
Morpheus Volk May I quote you if I ever write a story with knights in it? :D
yeah, nah!!!
Kill all "lords."
That's chivalry in a nutshell.
"But you must adhere to the code of chivalry!"
"The code is more of what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."
DysnomiaFilms Rules are meant to be broken.
@@KhanhNguyen-mh5ec "if you have broken sense of morality than sure you'd say that.
LudicrousKid Hehehe...
We’re not pirates
"Chivalry is dead!"
That's right, nobody fights from horseback anymore.
😂 👏🏿👏🏿
Original definition of Chivalry: ride this horse with this pointy stick.
Modern definition of Chivalry: the thing that makes playing a Lawful Good Paladin hard/annoying
teehee
Exactly
Les Miserables Alignments
Javert: Lawful Good
Jean Val Jean: Chaotic Good
Nah, Javert is Lawful Neutral. Everyone who follows the law is automatically good in his eyes and everyone who breaks the law is automatically evil.
I dont understand why that wood be boring you have always have the perfect excuse to kill some random peasants
Rith King Will you are wrong. A good player can play any character. You sir are either inexperienced and/or meta gaming.
So if a woman tells me i lack chivalry, does that mean i should ride my horse and drive a lance through her?
Yes. Absolutely.
Charles Gavino shes just upset that you dont repute her as a lord
you really should treat her like a princess. Marry her of to some stranger to form an alliance with his father.
No girl would say that. That's way to sane for any women. They would just scream in your face that youre a white male and part of the patriarchy.
you must be so fun at parties.
In simpler terms Chivalry was an algebra equation of sorts; (Skill-at-arms + "x") where "x" equals whatever the lord or ruling institution want's it to mean.
+fred fry This is a very good analogy.
+Shadiversity Well, I am known for having a way with words.
+Shadiversity can you start having a copy of your script in the description of your videos
or possibly even S.A.A.x+x
fred fry nope. its was a philisophical ideology that all men had to follow certain standards.
Fun fact: in german the word "Knecht" is associated with the servant of the knight. The knight himself is called "Ritter"(an armored rider), similar to the word "Reiter" (rider).
So for us germans the Series title "Knight Rider" is absolutely ridiculous. :D
Even in the english language the title "Knight Rider" is ridiculous. He isn't riding a horse, he is riding the Knight. I'll leave to you what meaning of riding you want to use.
xMisterDeathx Huh yeah you're right. :D
lol, Not too sure he's right about "knecht" however; The version I heard was that "knight" was a mounted messenger who would usually not be nobility. however the "knight" in this version was not necessarily a servant. And that the "Germans" a.k.a. Anglo-Saxon's didn't speak french so they called the French nobility whatever they liked- not necessarily what the nobility fancied.
Given how long ago these words evolved their origins are probably not known too well.
Is it Ritter Reiter?
Havel The Rock Yeah.
Be chivalrous. = Ride that horse with this pointy stick good.
Don't forget to add any other bullshit the lord or institution in turn wanted it to be
Shadowhunter Yes!
I read that knights were not only soldiers but also enforcers for their liege Lord. Keep peasants and criminals in line, collect taxes, settle disputes, go to war etc.
The part about not finishing off a downed opponent was more in-line with nobles vs nobles in warfare. A captured knight, man-at-arms could attract a very high ransom.
Yes, the worth of a high ranking noble was very high. Sometimes prisoners were ransomed for such high prices that they were in captivity for several years until their relatives had scraped together all that money.
During the battle of Agincourt the English took so many hostages of the far more numerous French, that the English king, who feared defeat, ordered the prisoners to be executed, what partly happened. Among the survivors were very high ranking nobles, who spent the next years in England until ransomed for large sums of money.
Not all cultures took hostages though, from what i've heard the Germans would gladly finish off an opponent and not care about a ransom.
+stevethegecko I don't know, where you got that thing about Germans from. To me it sounds like a dubious stereotype. For example the famous English king Richard Lionheart was imprisoned in Germany, when returning from a crusade until he was ransomed.
I'm sure some would have actully belived in mercy. There was after all an element of religion throughout the Medieval age. I find it difficult to belive that no knight combined his faith with his craft.
Top that off, mentally stable humans usually don't want to kill each other.
So if my chivalry involves resting, I need a good knight’s sleep?
I giggled like a school at the gym after reading this, much longer than I am proud to admit.
Ba dam tsssss
Wa wa wawawawaaaaaa
The modern, "hollywood" definition of chivalry must have existed for centuries though... I mean, the subject of the famous work of literature "Don Quixote" is that of a puffed up nobleman trying to revive the romantic idea of chivalry (upholding justice and protecting the weak), and that book was written at the beginning of the 1600s.
I agree with the information you give in the video, and with the etymology of the word, but it clearly came to mean something else before the modern era. Hollywood isn't to blame for all historical misconceptions.
+Shane Conlon Right on, Don Quixote is a really good example on how the romanticized view of chivalry began far earlier than more modern forms of media. People have this tendency to mythologize the past, I find.
Keep in mind Don Quixote was parodying the idea of heroic horsemen. They of that time were at least aware that their ideas of chivalry came from romanticized fiction
Exactly It´s called a semantic change, it happends to words all the time.. Language is not a static thing
You could go a bit further back in time and take the tale of King Arthur and his knights for an example. At first it kinda started as propaganda piece for rallying support for the crusades. Later on it kind of became the romantic-erotic literature for women at court, introducing a bigger-than-life code of honour as a concept. And i actually believe that many knights were glad for that fantasy in female minds because it would be easier to pretend to be this morally perfect warrior while not being at war meanwhile completely abandoning this whole silly thing when actually being in that situation.
have you read Don Quixote? .if not do It is very different then most know
if the knight does not have a pommel, then he knows no chivalry.
What if he has already thrown it?
Michael Harder Then that's a different story all together :)
if he has already thrown it, then he has ENDED HIM RIGHTLY!! lol XD
+Michael Harder Then he must throw the rest of the sword.
Tassidus Black Can someone please explain this concept of ending rightly with a pommel? I don't get it.
"So many vows. They make you swear and swear... Defend the king, obey the
king, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what
if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the
innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do you're forsaking one vow
or another."
Where's this quote from?
@@MrFredstt Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones
You are an idiot
The linguistic origin of Chivalry was really interesting. It comes more straightforward in my language, hungarian, I think.
Lovagiasság - Chivalry
Ló - Horse
Lovag - Horseman (also it's the basic translation of Knight)
Lovagias - Horsemanlike (in correct translation it's now the equivalent of Chivalrious)
Lovagiasság - Horsemanlike-ness
It's really straightforward in our language, however thanks to the media, it's also means being noble, and kind, and brave and such for us as well.
As I said in my previous comment: "in Spanish knight is said "caballero", from "caballo", Spanish for horse; and roughly means "he who uses a horse""
so, yes, there's probably a parallel among different languages.
Egyetértek veled.
From those pictures, it seems knights were heavily into redheads :-)
Aren't we all?
+Jacob Baumfalk If becoming a knight means you're going to get one... WHERE DO I APPLY??!!
Listen, chivalry also means having good taste. ;)
more celts in those days. they're like aboriginal Europeans. The rest of us have been Aryanized.
TealWolf26 Well, I shall practice on having good taste if that makes me a good knight.
There is so much here I'm going to steal for my D and D campaign.
The word "noble" is very similar to chivalrous. It describes the idealized behaviours of someone holding that tittle - the nobility or a noble.
Yeah it seemed to have been a title similar to valor, then the cowardly descendants perverted the word into what meant their birth right supposedly entailed, and that usually was their way to higher status without earning it, without merit.
Nexus Knight Kinda the chicken and the egg. Was it the title first, and the traits because of the perception, or the traits and became the title.
You strikes and excellent question!
Noble = No-bull!
@@LB-ou8wt In Latin it is nóbilis, the potential participle of to know, i.e. could be used to mean famous or knowledgeable depending on how you look at it.
"yeah, I'm chivalrous!"
*jumps onto my horse and makes a human shish kebab*
This video broke my brain when I realized that Chivalry and Cavalry come from the same root. I had somehow never put that together previously.
it really bugs me when people mention the Chretien de Troyes line because I think 9 times out of 10 they're really missing the point and context of the actual lines in question. I really don't think it's a proscription for ways that modern knights can justify rape. I don't think Chretien de Troyes was speaking of any real world custom at all in that situation, in fact. Let's take a look at the actual passage that reference comes from;
" In those days the customs and privileges were such that, if a knight found a damsel or lorn maid alone, and if he
cared for his fair name, he would no more treat her with dishonour than he would cut his own throat.
And if he assaulted her, he would be disgraced for ever in every court. But if, while she was under his
escort, she should be won at arms by another who engaged him in battle, then this other knight might
do with her what he pleased without receiving shame or blame."
I think people most frequently miss the first lines of this passage. "In those days", or more pointedly, "UNLIKE TODAY". Remember, the whole concept of the Arthurian myth is wrapped up in a sort of imaginative, floating fantasyland "past". They're not descriptions of the contemporary era in which Chretien de Troyes was writing. Even in the earliest material they have King Arthur fighting the Roman Empire (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Regum_Britanniae#Books_Nine_and_Ten) for example.
Now the question remains why would Chretien de Troyes include this line? We have to look at what's going on in this passage.
Just before this passage Lancelot encounters a Lady who seems inordinately interested in Lancelot. There are two obstacles before Lancelot in this section of the story. The first is A; his attempts to keep his love for Guinevere pure, and B; The need to prove himself as a knight after shaming himself by mounting the Cart at the beginning of the story. In the first situation she makes him swear to lay in bed with her; he does this, but he doesn't have sex with her as she seems to be pushing for. The Lady is specifically putting her honor, and accordingly Lancelot's honor as a knight, on the line. She's a constant test for him. She's testing his worthiness as a knight and as a lover all throughout her encounter. Remember, she even starts by sending her house knights after him in order to test his skills at arms. Where, might I add, he has a pretty friggin awesome literal kung fu fight with them!
So what do I think Chretien de Troyes is doing? He's making up a rule in the mythical past of Arthurian myth to purposely place an obstacle and a test in front of Lancelot. She COULD just travel safely entirely on her own, but she entreats him *specifically* for his protection on the road. He can't deny to protect the lady, or else show himself to be discourteous to her, and if he fails her virtue will be lost right alongside his own honor. In fact, we actually see, predictably, a Chekhov's Gun scenario where a knight *does* challenge Lancelot with the specific intent of claiming the Lady as his own.
" Just where the way was narrowest, they see a knight approach. As soon as she saw him, the damsel recognised him, and said: "Sir knight, do you see him who yonder comes against us all armed and ready for a battle? I know what
his intention is: he thinks now that he cannot fail to take me off defenceless with him. He loves me, but
he is very foolish to do so. In person, and by messenger, he has been long wooing me. But my love is
not within his reach, for I would not love him under any consideration, so help me God! I would kill
myself rather than bestow my love on him. I do not doubt that he is delighted now, and is as satisfied as
if he had me already in his power. But now I shall see what you can do, and I shall see how brave you
are, and it will become apparent whether your escort can protect me. If you can protect me now, I shall
not fail to proclaim that you are brave and very worthy.""
Lancelot, or The Knight of the Cart is an interesting sort of redemption story. He shames himself by mounting the cart in order to save Guinevere, and then throughout the story he's challenge in very intimate and bellacose ways. In fact, just look at how people react to him, the Lady, and the Knight who is seeking her.
" As soon as the three new arrivals come into view, they all cease their play and shout across the fields: "See, yonder comes the knight who was driven in the cart! Let no one continue his sport while he is in our midst. A curse upon him who cares or deigns to play so long as he is here!"
Accordingly, remember what the Lady says; " But now I shall see what you can do, and I shall see how brave you are, and it will become apparent whether your escort can protect me. If you can protect me now, I shall not fail to proclaim that you are brave and very worthy.""
It's a *test*. It's a fictionalized rule designed to *test him*.That's the Lady's entire point in the story. I think it's very short sighted and in poor analysis to describe it as an actual vision of chivalry (I'm looking at you, Terry Jones).
Anyway, I would be very interested to see if any actual documents from the period actually list that justification for rape as something any knight actually invoked. I suspect there aren't any. I really think this interpretation is an artifact from much older generations of historians who would read the romances and then say "Yes this is Chivalry. Every part of this is stuff knights actually did".
I know this is old but I appreciate it all the same.
No problem! I honestly wish more people read it because I'm fairly sick of this literary example being trotted out the way more than a few people have.
this is the longest comment I've ever read in its entirety on a youtube video. I'm glad I did. I learned a lot. THANKS
I learned something new today, thank you.
Big brain comment.
I find it interesting how knights saw themselves and how others saw them:
They called themselves Ritters or Chevaliers - horsemanship was central to their self-image.
The English, didn't notice the horses so much and called the Knights - Knechten - Retainers. They were seen as kept men by the people who fed them.
chivalry is dead, and the gun killed it.
Shot it?😋
yup
*****
explosions are boring?
jamcalx
Ofcourse, and only cool people realise it, that's why they dont look at explosions and just walk away. It all makes sense.
Algirdas Šalomskas
Cause they have other cool stuff to get to, right?
So, technically "cavalry" and "chivalry" meant the same thing at one point?
🤯🤯🤯
to say a code of chivalry is actually slightly wrong my friend, you are right in saying chivalry has many interpretations to different orders, populations and, but Geoffroi De Charny, famous knight of the 100 Years war, wrote a manual for men at arms and knights. In it's essence it a handbook of chivalry
but of course like you said, it was a much later period, 14th century
+Nexus Knight and he was French
As I understand it, De Charny is more describing how he felt knights should act, not what knights were like during his day.
Yeah your right, it's a solid attempt to unify knights under a code of conduct
Another Knight who lived by such a principal was one my hero's,
Godfrey De Bouillon from the first crusade
Even if "chivalry" isn't the historically accurate word for it, I believe our modern conception of it has many aspects that should be strived for. "Chivalry" as defined in "The Necessity of Chivalry" by C.S. Lewis, is something we could use a lot more of in 2019.
More interesting word transformations from this time period:
The french translation for "freedom" is liberte´ which became "liberty"
The anglo-saxon servant took care of the pigs, but when these animals are served on a plate for the french noble, it transforms into "porc" = "pork". Same goes for "cow / cattle" which transforms into "bœuf" = "beef".
The saxons were a german tribe in northern germany, so you find also a lot of german words in english: The english word "town" derives from the german word "Zaun" which means fence. The german name "Karl" took an interesting journey. It derives from "Kerl" which describes a strong and very manly man. It was the name of the king Karl der Große (= Charlemagne). In french it transforms into "Charles" which is the same in englisch. In northern europe the name transforms into "Jarl", which comes with the vikings to England and transformed into "Earl"
"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the
king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey
your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak.
Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do,
you're forsaking one vow or the other.”
While I agree that Chivalry was absolutely subjective depending on the Knight, there was a basic set of moral code that, while malleable, was generally accepted to at least exist by most noble men. That doesn’t necessarily mean they all followed it, but the popular romantic writings of the Middle Ages that described the ideal moral conduct of a noble man wouldn’t have existed without the audience to read/hear them. Art is often a reflection of many aspects of real life, and as such the romantic writings, while differing in opinion on many aspects of chivalry, seem to hold many ideals in common: Bravery and Loyalty, like you mentioned, but also the ideas of Mercy, Justice, and Religious Zeal. Perhaps the writings were representative of what the populace wanted from nobles but never got? I’m not entirely sure, but the many commonalities between different writers from different countries and periods makes me think that chivalry was a bit more, if unofficially, codified than you say. I can’t remember what they’re called, but there are several writings from the time that talk about 7 specific historical and fantastical figures that exemplify chivalric behaviors. I’ll edit this comment as soon as I find the name.
So chivalry is a lot like "pirate code". A certain version made popular as some kind of universal book of rules when in reality, both were different case-by-case.
Except pirates at least had some sense of individual liberty, whereas knights believed in "order" (read "oppression").
Pirates were thugs and murderers. They don't subscribe to morals or virtues. They kill for what little money you have.
@@alexs5744 I read, that in most pirate ships they had more strict codes of conduct than even in british royal navy (e.g. no drinking on ship). Also, organized "thugs and murderers" have rules because otherwise they can't cooperate. It is just practical thing to avoid needless murders in crew. Anyone would be polite if any incautious word can end with knife in the back.
And the " code of the west / cowboy code"
@@user-nw8pp1cy8q I’m sure they had plenty of rules centered around stopping them from killing/stealing from each other.
Doesn’t change the fact that the only reason they had those rules was so they could more efficiently kill/ steal from innocents.
Just want to put it out there, Shad, that I'm currently taking a Medieval History class (fall of rome to 1399) that I've used the sources in this video in particular as well as others to counter-point some of the ideas presented in the class by both fellow classmates and my professor. Big help, thanks man.
Knight in Spanish is "Caballero" which quite literally means horse man.
In English you have chivalry.
I though cavallero meant horse rider.
+Javier Sánchez In Swedish we have "riddare", it means rider litteraly. Swedish also use the word "kneckt"
+Javier Sánchez: In German it's "Ritter" which derives from "Reiter" which means literally rider.
In Portuguese we have cavaleiro.
+Javier Sánchez Yeah, we have some problems with translation in spanish, we have no distinction between knight and gentleman, they're both "caballeros". There's also no distinction between a lance and a spear, they're both "lanzas"
Chivalry = use long stick to kill your enemies.
And if that doesn't work use your lance.
On horseback
Awesome video! I really like your longer works.
Shad, I love your videos, but I'm afraid you missed the mark on this topic, mate. What you are espousing is a typical revisionist historical worldview. While you are correct in saying there wasn't a codified list of chivalrous virtues, you incorrectly infer that each knight's liege was the greatest determining factor in the definition of said virtues. It was, in fact, a predominant culture of piety, righteousness, self-sacrifice, martial prowess and service of the Medieval Christian faith that informed the definition of chivalry...
One need only consider documents such as the Song of Roland, or the etymology of words like "villain" (from villein, a caste or rank below peerage but above common serfdom. The term villainous came to describe the "unknightly" or "unchivalrous" acts of laymen during campaigns of war-be it rape or murder. As many documents attest, knights were forbidden to engage in such acts, hence villainous as counterpoint to chivalry).
The fact remains that chivalry had a generally homogenous meaning across medieval Europe, and the seeds of that meaning have, in many ways, outlasted the knight into modern colonial usage and understanding. You are right to say there was no "list," but your conclusion concerning the subsequent vagueness of the definition is more informed by your own post-modern worldview than it is history.
Cheers!
Luke Thorne Exactly! This bugged me. Most were Catholic during the Middle Ages and piety was greatly admired. Chivalry wasn’t as diverse a definition as some might think. People during those times were more homogenous religiously and morally compared to today, where people are more about the mantra, “as long as it harms none, do as you will.”
Yeah and how many knighs gave a shit and not plundered or raped? The fact is they were men and warriors and they did what they csn get away with in those situations. I am sure there were geniunely chiverious knights out there but generally people of power were scums. Like today that didn't change.
I wanted to say the same thing, but then I remembered that Shad is a deeply conservative Mormon, and he may be deliberately avoiding Roman Catholicism because it’s personal to his beliefs and he doesn’t want to say something that he would have to qualify in a way that gives his true opinions away about something that could be offensive to Catholics. I’m a catholic and I’m guessing this is the reason. He HAS to know what you wrote.
So, in my D&D World I can say that every knightly order has their own Code of Chivalry, because a Lawful Evil Hobgoblin Paladin would behave diferently than a Lawful Good Human/Aasimar Paladin.
I know this comment is old, but the best explanation I've had for D&D "lawful" is that it means adhering to certain rules/code of conduct, not necessarily the law of the land/government. Just their own law that they strictly abide by. So a lawful evil person has certain rules and standards they live up to, even if they are doing very evil (even illegal) things.
It makes my blood boil when people talk about chivalry as if it was a word for kissarsing women.
"Aren't you going to pay the bill?"
*picks up sword*
"YOU WILL EARN THE BILL. DEUS VULT!"
You are not alone. It pisses me off when people bastardize history.
Likewise. The modern interpretation of chivalry is just a bother for everyone, largely based on norms from the 50s USA. It forces dudes to kiss arse and infantilise the girls, thoroughly undermining any kind of equality.
@@helenanilsson5666 I don't think that being polite to women "infantilizes" them. They benefit from it - free lunch, guaranteed sit in the bus, open doors, "ladies' night", etc. Either they wish for equality, and should accept then to be treated the very same way men treat and view other men (like possible concurrents or foes) or want that men be "chivalrous" to them. You can't have it both ways, ladies.
@@user-et8vm9cc3t how about both genders treat each other with respect as human beings and not what lies between our legs?
Super instructional, useful information! Thanks for your great videos.
Great vid, Shad. Very enlightening.
My grandfather had several Knechte. So you're saying that I am a feudal lord by ancestry?
Nice!
my english professor making us watch this for homework
"Tis but a flesh wound!!!" - Black Knight (Ka-nig-it)
Thank you for this information. Your videos are helping me to understand the medievil ages.
Our modern notions are from the Victorian era, which had a fetish for rules, centralization, homogenicity, micromanagement, and puritanism.
Medieval society was based upon the guild system, which was decentralized, and absolutely pragmatic. Knighthood was a guild, and it was the warrior guild. Mounted shock combat was a highly specialized trade, and an art to be learned. Not all guilds have the same rules, nor are they required to have identical rules. They are all, however, fraternal societies that are built upon personal oaths of loyalties. The members of the guilds would support and assist each other in times of trouble.
Page=apprentice
Squire=journeyman
Knight=master
It is impossible to be Chivalrous without a horse. The Victorian Era's notion of Chivalry was very 1-dimensional and black-and-white.
You seem to have a very strange image of what guilds are and how they worked. Knights were not part of some warrior guild because no such thing existed.
Maybe you should play fewer video games ;)
I also do not know why you are obsessed with blaming the Victorian Era. The change of concept was gradual and deveoped over time, not just suddenly in the Victorian Era.
"The Victorian Era's notion of Chivalry was very 1-dimensional and black-and-white" Just like people of Victorian Era England, AKA Very very boring, and extremally bland.
To your video: it's so good I want to cry, very good job!
+Clausewitz MTH This is high praise indeed, especially from one with such educated and refined tastes you you good sir, I'm honored ^_^
+I am Shad: You deserved it and stop flattering me :) There are actually two or so points where I not fully agree (more military subjects) or would want to discuss them in further detail but for the context of this video it's absolutely fine and I recommend it to everybody who wants to learn about the middle ages.
+I am Shad Well, I'm not. I'm "Carthage must be destroyed"
Always enjoy your insights
Shad! You've give more information and sence in twenty minutes that most 'documentaries' do in an hour. And you give references. Very logical and persuasive.
+Sverdhugr Kveykva He should provide a comprehensive bibliography of his sources anyway for the sake of establishing credibility, because, despite how everything sounded, without any sources cited save for the book at the end, how can I take this video seriously? It sounds extremely thorough and detailed, but without any means of checking where Shad acquired the information from., why bother? From his channel, he seems as if he laboriously pursues and pontificates about his interests, which subsequently confuses me over why/how Shad did not include his sources in the description. :p
+Nick MG he gave names of the books in the video, numnuts.
I've seen them described as "Hell's Angels on horse back".
I'd also recommend *The Compleat Gentleman* by Brad Miner. AWESOME overview of ancient to modern chivalry.
This is a good video. I've been a reenactor and taught history My wife watched your video with me because she was confused about depictions of knights in books and film. Chivalry was a moral system that went far beyond rules of combat. It was truly an important honour code in a religious and feudal time. Loyalty to both the Church and your Lord were important along with courtly love, honour, courtesy and gallantry ( both in battle and toward women). It's unfortunate that modern views of both chivalry and knighthood derive largely from Victorians... who really didn't understand the Medieval Age.
Wow I'm learning, thanks Shad!
So a Knight is in fact a Loyal Pragmatic Violent Warrior, with or without a horse. Or a Courteous Ladyman with armour. Or a Religious Murder :P
+yomauser or all of them in one ^_^
+I am Shad interesting.. i never thought that knight comes from the word knecht.. but the german word knecht translates to servant or better is the term for a farm labourer.. well the male term.. the female term is magd.. they were not actually servants.. they worked on the farm and in exchange got food, a bed and were more or less part of the family as all people shared a roof and table.. those still existed in germany till like 1960 but now with all the machinery in agriculture this job died.. the meaning of the word changed to something devalueing more servant like over the time but it was not dishonorably to be a knecht.. well they not necessarily got paid in the medival times with more than food and a place to live but they were not slaves either.. it's just like the word peasant i guess.. it's used in a devalueing way so you would say farmer.. the same thing happened in germany with the term bauer which is mostly used in a devalueing way as peasant were for someone having a farm is called landwirt analog to the word farmer in english..
+I am Shad Funfact: In German Knight means Ritter it comes from the word Reiter =Rider that with the Knecht was allready said.
+Dunkelelf3 Bear in mind that there is a dichotomy between the anglo-saxon vs normannish language (french) of the uppermost noble classes during the formative years of knighthood, at least in England. Early knights might have been anglo-saxon lower nobles and may have been called derogatory names by the upper class norman nobles.
+Dunkelelf3 Bear in mind that there is a dichotomy between the anglo-saxon vs normannish language (french) of the uppermost noble classes during the formative years of knighthood, at least in England. Early knights might have been anglo-saxon lower nobles and may have been called derogatory names by the upper class norman nobles.
Stirrups are not needed for shock cavalry. Just Ask Alexander the Great.
That would require a resurrection and I don't possess these sorts of powers...
Cracking job, mate!
Imo "codes of chivalry" might've existed in the past, but those would've been written by various different kingdoms as the code for knights... or at least that's how I do it in my fiction, each kingdom that has knights has its own "code of honor" for their respective knights
Reminds me that Bushido was written by a modern Japanese man.
So in summary chivalry is whatever the knights master wants it to be. It kind of says something that the last remaining definition of chivalry is purely about serving women.
You could say that the terms of Chivalry were at times open to interpretation and were up to Lords and other Knights to decide what Chivalry was. Although Chivalry has nothing to do with women or dating.
thank you for making such a good job with these videos, I know it demands a lot of investigation and hard work but it's totally worth it.
Can you please teach me about vikings/berserk and related as much as you did with chivalry ?
Also, thanks to you I learned how to spin my sword, and I would love to learn a couple of drill cuts with the longsword from you.
Any how congrats on your videos, keep up with the great job, and huge thanks!
Good video, thanks for covering this subject.
+Sir Galahad My pleasure!
Interestingly, in Spanish knight is said "caballero", from "caballo", Spanish for horse; and roughly means "he who uses a horse"
What about all the cataphracts before that? What about Alexander's companion cavalry? Impact warfare already existed.
Very good informative video! Thank you.
I love the showcase of artwork in this.
The Real Code of Chivalry: Act the way a knight should act.
“Right, but who defines how a knight should act?”
Exactly.
The irony of Chivalry and those lists? If Chivalry is in fact subjective to what a person wants it to be then they are at the same time completely right and completely wrong.
12:20 awsome picture, also Monty Python and Holy Grail, dude you the Man :)
Could you please do a series on different battles and such? That would be AMAZING! :)
Hah, in Dutch "Knecht"='servant/page'
Same in German.
"Most of English nobals of this period were french" not really most of them were Normans, who were french speaking Scandinavians. not the same ethnic group as the rest of franse of the time
Normans have a very little scandinavian blood in this era they were more gauls than vikings.
I watched this video many times but this last one is special because Max Miller from Tasting History sent me.
Great video mate, thanks a lot
Anybody else here from Tasting History?
Yup, but I knew of Shad's channel before Max.
Hi Shad, the stirrup/chivalry theory was developed and popularized by Lynn White Jr in the 1960s, and since you explanation mirrors yours almost exactly I'm guessing that was your source. However, contemporary historians have pointed out some issues with White's dating and the current consensus is that the stirrup does not seem to have been the primary cause of the rise of cavalry warfare. That being said, the rise of mounted melee combat is probably the reason for the rise of the knightly class and chivalry. I just fear you're a bit outdated in claiming it was the stirrup that kickstarted the whole thing.
For a bit of reading on this debate, try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy
+DIY Historian Thank you for pointing this out. The argument is incredibly intriguing, so much so that I'm thinking of making a video on it. You've inspired me sir!
Shadiversity That sounds really interesting. One of the things I love about history is that even centuries after the fact we are still learning new things about it.
Can you do a video focusing on coat of arms and family crests? I've been looking around and I can't seem to find any definite information on what certain colors/symbols mean.
Nice vid!
Sooooo... Chivalry is dead then? I mean, in the original sence of the word.
+Burkall That depends a lot on how you want to see it, you could argue that it is transferred to the modern military in some fashion, if you look back. Just because looking back makes things easier to see in the 80-90 jet piloted in Hollywood movies took on some of these aspects, in earlier periods it was the fighter pilots. So i guess in some way its what ever brace of military that most stands out.
+Wethewax Oh right. I totally forgot that you could ride a horse without using it for battle. Honestly didn't think about that.
It has been dead for about 500 years give or take a couple decades.
Knecht means servant in German
+Jonas Wohlrab in Dutch too.
+SirPilkington both languages are pretty similar
Jonas Wohlrab Yeah, tell me about it.
+Jonas Wohlrab diener means servant.. :P
actually knecht was not a servant and neither a slave.. they didn't get much more payment than food, a bed and a roof over their heads in exchange for their work but they were free people and the relation was not really any different from a todays employee to his/her boss.. well in the end those relations were actually way more familiar as they all shared a home and table..
+Jonas Wohlrab Aren't Deutch and German the same language?!
There are treatise of chivalry still extant today from the Knights themselves such as Sir Geoffroy de Charney. You are correct in asserting that there isn't a universal list of virtues but all the treatise are approximate in their universal themes which are all based on a common root found within the Church. I think a fair interpretation of actual historical chivalry would take into account the treatise themselves and their context within the teachings of the Church. While the chivalric ideal applied to the noble class (this is its biggest objection to modern day sensibilities) the treatise aren't objectionable in the virtues they extol. They read like ethical manuals for personal development. The modern day romanticism of chivalry can be put to good use in moral and ethical development.
hey shad, love your work. im trying to write a story about a bard who interlops in the affairs of lords and their realms for fun and such. it would be helpful to me if you were to make a video about what it was like being a lord and what it was like living in a manor or having your own estate and servants and etc. and i think it would make an interesting video.
Should you not have mentioned the cataphracts? They are kinda important when you talk about the history of knighthood. Love the python references btw.
good at fighting + what your boss wants
There was a fairly good documentary series I saw a few years ago on a realistic look at knights and how all of this evolved. One of the historians on the series said at the beginning that when she's introducing an accurate picture of knights to her university classes she starts out by saying that the average knight had more in common with Tony Soprano and Michael Corleone than he did with Lancelot, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
That first photo was a large print over my family couch growing up
I will gladly offer my chivalry to a lady
But i will never offer my chivalry to a feminist and also i wont give up my seat to anyone and open doors and help a women beccause im no sexist i am a man not a gentleman
I disagree with your conclusion. What your conclusion described was a "false night" a night that was a knight in name only who didn't really hold to any specific code of conduct but did whatever best benefited him and/or his lord at the moment. A real knight had his own code of conduct that he (faithfully followed) regardless of the difficulty of the situation, he was characterized by what he could best suffer, not by what best pleased him and he did it all in the name of knighthood or (chivalry). That being said I do believe the codes were fluid and did vary from place to place but generally speaking knights held to a Judeo-Christian based code of conduct because they resided in a largely Christian nation. Although there were the "tool of the lord" type knights who did whatever best benefitted them and their lords (false/hypocritical) knights, there were most definitely were real (honest/genuine) knights as well, who did not do what best suited them but did what they believed was the right thing to do.
@7:42 the way the lighting hits that knight's crown makes him look like a living Rook. LOL
Wow great video
Lol Game of thrones is actually really accurate. (The books not the show)
so chivalry is like today's definition of gender... :/
It seems the definition of gender these days is subjective to how one "feels" about it. As with chivalry, it can mean different things to different people. My comment was mostly sarcastic because I don't understand what's so difficult about there only being two genders :/
don't forget rape
and racism
and coffee
I like to consider myself trans-chivalrous. :D
Krhm, gotta be that annoying one that points out intersex people and animals indeed exist, if you're thinking gender = sex.
"I am black knight. I am white. And I am Attack Helicopter on horse with lance"
Masterpiece of a video
"Remember the women and children are not your enemies." Bertrand du Guesclin, Marshall of France
So basically chivalry is about being a professional soldier as opposed to all the silly French-written Arthurian romance crap. What social graces it required were about not embarrassing one's liege lord through uncouth and/or violent behavior in public.
Jennifer Brewer You truly got to thank writers watering down history.
so...one can pinpoint the exact day chivalry actually died - the final cavalry charge of the Polish army against the German Blitzkrieg...the last gasp of horse mounted warfare.
That's a myth that came from German propaganda of the time. While the Poles did indeed still employ horse mounted cavalry, so did the Americans and the Germans, they did not ever charge against German tanks. There are accounts, though, of them attacking German infantry and being quite successful at it too, but obviously not enough to successfully repel the German invasion.
A bunch of Italian horsemen charged a bunch of Russian machine guns later on in the war and actually emerged victorious
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Izbushensky
Hello Shad! Big fan of your content and have been binge watching your stuff for a few days now. I have a question that I can't seem to find a clear answer for and thought perhaps you would know. I know this is an old video and am not sure you will even see the question but that's alright. I was curious as to what the daily life of a Knight was like? Were they more akin to politicians or land "managers" in peacetime? Or did their work entail a lot of manual labor, and did their daily activities differ throughout the medieval period. Thanks a ton and if you have already made a video on this my apologies I must of missed it.
i applaud your search for historical accuracy and the information in the most part in the video! Big fan here.
while I can't call myself an expert i'd like to comment on the first part of your video.
You explain that the false assumptions about chivalry is a product of novels, media etc. but i'd like to pose that the idea of chivalry being a noble code of conduct is more likely a product of the romantic era in industrial-revolution England.
(R. Palmer, History of Europe in the Modern World (New York 2014))
and, in the late-medieval period knighthood, along with heraldry did transform from the warrior culture to something more... civilised.(B. Rosewein, A short history of the Middle Ages(Toronto 2009)
But you do touch a bit on that in your video.
i'd be interested on your views on 'the song of roland' in the light of this video. (wikipedia.org/wiki/the_song_of_roland)
keep up the good work!
So Paizo was pretty spot on when they introduced the cavalier class into the Pathfinder RPG, warriors who specialize in mounted combat (mainly charging) and has several different orders to choose from that dictate how some of his abilities work which abilities he gets and in general how he acts. So far I've only done order of the dragon (loyalty and friendship, band of brother type stuff) and order of the cockatrice (only serves himself and his own goals). A campaign using lion (serve nobility/ a lord) would be cool, specially in a campaign where you get to lead an army, thought about doing a order of the shield (protect the common folk from farmer to craftsman) once, the other two default ones are order of the star (non-magical paladin), and order of the sword (typical thought of code of chivalry, honor, valor, fairness).
Do you mean in the video that from around 4:30 and onward the information given is incorrect? I got a note covering the video saying that the next part is incorrect.
Dammmmmmnnnnnn, I feel quite daft after this vid. Many thanks for the vid
The closest thing I've heard of to codifying the modern concept of Chivalry was Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Mallory, which came about at the end of the 15th century, right around the end of the Middle Ages and the age of the knight.