What's a knight?

Remove all ads!

Yeah, also the papacy condemned it sometimes.

@Cuchulainn: Even in the legends, I think he's referred to as a Briton and I believe people were aware he was of the Celtic stock from Wales and Brittany. As for Merlin, he looks like a druid in the sense of a member of the druid class in the Celtic society but he was probably a bard by fression (Emrys and all). Less priestly than some druids were.

@Iago: I'm sorry but you're either projecting Swiss experience on the rest of Europe or going too far in some assumptions. The feudal system changed and things didn't work like before, but the essentially feudal society survived more or less until the time of the French revolution. Burghers acquired more property and a more meaningful presence but they didn't become a leading political force in most of the European powers until the French Revolution in 1789. Some Protestant German states were an exception, as were Scandinavian monarchies and, of course, England. But there was no grabbing power by cities. It's just cities becoming the political arena rather than castles, but that was a slow process and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Cities may have been so important as you describe in Holland, Switzerland, some Protestant German states, some Italian states and Scandinavia, but that's about it.

Inheritance of feudal titles dates back to Charlemagne, actually, when he made the provision that counts' sons would be counts in their place after their death. That's how the position of the count and margrave (on borderlands, marches were the stronger, more powerful equivalent of a county) became an hereditatry rank. You can say it was given for merit, but in fact, it was about connections in the Frankish society. Remember they had a class of warriors. Top nobles would stem from the concept of the peers of France, Charlemagne's top pals among the Franks. As for serfdom, it resembles the Roman colonial system (comprising of colons, settlers on someone else's land) and the more tenure-resembling version actually looks like the Graeco-Roman emphiteusis quite a lot (holding land for rent). Feudal ranks were not only just military but generally administrative. In essence, the Frankish count was a little king on his land. Even the lowest noble having a couple of serfs exercised some of the state authority delegated from the liege. And 1400 AD is not yet renaissance everywhere. Actually, it's renaissance in Italy and that's it. The time of knights isn't the 800s, but more like the 1100s and up till the end of the 15th century, dying out in its traditional form in the beginning of the 16th. I'll agree, though, that many of the aristocrats of the 17th and 18th century were burghers with purchased titles and many knights in England were not exactly feudal gently but more likely burghers earning the title somehow (usually cold hard cash). Except in case of Drake or Ralegh, knighthood was given the way it was supposed to be given to a commoner, i.e. for outstanding military merit.

 

No. I am talking about Europe in general, or at least about that roman-holy-dutch-thingy (that encompasses todays Italy, Switzerland,Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Parts of Poland, Chzech-Republic and NOT Kaliningrad (which strangely odd).

So, yes, the demographic of small and medium nobles is nearly wiped out in the time between 1200-1600 (geographicly variant time-table). Impoverished, broke and evicted. There is only a small number of nobles that survive this time economically. Albeit more powerful than in the original feudal system. The long-term devolepment leads to leviathan-kind of states like the UK or France, with mighty aristocrats taking over control. While in other areas, like Italy, Switerland and the Netherlands cities take over. In general: centralization and concentration of power, while feudalism is administration by extremly small entities divided into a multitude of titles and priviligies.

In both city-sates and monarchies, after 1400 (or later according to geographical distinct developmenent), small and medium nobility became meaningless, wereas the feudal state consisted of those small nobles and their administartion. But in not longer mainly agrarian society, agriarian based nobility is gone like freight train. Ok, you could say that Russia did not make the step from agrarian based society ruled by small nobles until 1850, nearly a millenium after Northern-Italy, but...

There is a correlation between city-states becoming protestant while others areas remain catholic. Yet that happens only past 1500 and does not really concern us here.

This could be put differently. Knights are out since 1350. But strangely enough, more stubborn kind of people persist until the late 15th to field knights just to have them completely and merciless slaughtered by a foe consisting out of footsoldiers (lansquenet, Landsknecht) equipped with long pikes or hellbards or long swords or lucernian hammers. There is a string of battles like that. Some also use long-bows.

That the demise of the knight came with the spread of gunpowder is a commonly held misconception. The knight was at that time long passé. The Landsknecht (lansquenet) had a serious problem to adapt to gunpowder.

 

No, not that strange really, because it is doubtful there ever was a King Arthur, at least as we are familiar with him. He is thought to be mostly a literary invention. But the evidence neither proves, nor disproves there ever was a real Arthur for whom the legends are based.

 

I've read some of the evidence in place for a real life King Arthur. The most convincing version I have heard was of a man who formed a Celtic army, somtime in the early to mid 500 A.D. (like say sometime from about 520-550 AD). His name was most likely not Arthur. However, the person in question had a symbol of a bear that was emblazened on all of the shields of his warriors. The ancient Celtic word for bear is "artur" which may have been where the name Arthur gets its origins.

Arthur was not at all a common name prior to around 550 AD, when the number of Arthurs rose dramatically. It is not unrealistic to think that perhaps the rise of the number of people named Arthur is due to the existence of a popular military hero.

One thing though that is complete hogwash is the thought of knights during that time period. Metal working wasn't even refined enough at that point to make quality metal armours. It is far more likely that Arthur fought in leather armour, and whether or not he rode a horse is certainly speculative.

 

I believe you mean the Holy Roman Empire.

 

That's astoundingly perspicacious.

 

Well, knights were predominant in several battles as late as the 15th century, so it is kinda late to discount them as early as the 1200's. Yes, they were a period of economic flourishing, but after them came the small ice age of the 1300's and the plague, which set society back. The Rennaisance of Italy came a lot earlier than in other European states, and it was partly due to the fact that Italians at that time were much more mercantile (in the good sense of the word), and there were relatively few and week "military" nobles. After all, the condotierri (mercenaries) seemed to be predominant on their battlefields. The last large battle in which knights participated in larger numbers was the Battle of Varna (1444), in which the polish king Vladislav III Yagello (commonly known in Bulgaria as Varnenchik - of Varna) died and which can also be considered the last crusade (at least I can remember no later one).

Anyway, I'm no specialist, but I would equate knight to someone who is a hereditary petty nobleman - or has received the rank from a high noble for whatever reasons - and who is provided with ownership rights over a plot of land in return for military service. Often it is not simply his, but his and his men-at-arms, which he must equip for battle. The knight is typically an armored horseman, as he can afford a good warhorse and a suit of armor and they significantly increase his chances of survival. As a combination of nobility and a warrior caste, knights naturally had their code of behavior - of which they often fell short, of course. A similar group existed whenever we had a strong feudal (as opposed to absolutist) society - Japan is a classical example (actually, iirc the samurai class had no qualms about being heavy cavalrymen when they could afford it), but also the Ottoman empire had such a group - the sipahi/spahii could be considered somewhat of an equivalent, at least in their social position.

 

No need for sarcasm. You repeatedly referred to it as "thingy" and "dutch"

 

Well...yes. With malicious intent. Thingy is a fitting name for such an amorphous shape. And dutch... we could replace it with tedesco, mere semantics and definitely not the time of knights, but I can not help it: dutch, that means no longer welsh. How about allamanic?

 

How about talking real history and real geography?

Not Konigsberg because Prussia had never been a part of the original Reich (aka HRE). Prussia was conveniently placed outside the HRE border, finally making the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns able to grab a royal crown in 1701, which wasn't allowed within the HRE except for Bohemian kings. It was under the rule of a German prince and inhabited by a German populace, but not automatically a part of the HRE within its established border.

Aristocrats didn't take over the control in what is now the UK, compared to the state of things before. It was only the Wars of the Roses stressing the importance of relatively petty warlords. You can speak about cities taking over beginning with the Tudor rule. The main reason for that was the economical collapse of the feudal economy and the increase in international trade, especially with colonies.

Feudalism relies on the existence of corporations (not in the modern business sense) as "intermediate bodies". Those were estates (clerics, nobles, burghers, peasants) or guilds and similar organisations. Everyone in his place and a place of everyone. Cooperating with equals, serving the superiors in a time of need (or receiving necessary aid), providing the same kind of aid and receiving the same kind of service from one's inferiors. It didn't necessarily have to involve a multitude of low-ranking titles. The hierarchy of titles was often an illusion.

The sentiments were pre-existent and reformers didn't really come up with anything new.

Depends where, depends on the tactics. Cavalry is still not obsolete and neither is heavy armour until much later in European history. Knights were pwned by footmen even before. Think of the Battle of Golden Spurs in Flanders, though I'm sure it's not the first case. After all, pagans pwned German invaders from time to time and they weren't all mounted warriors.

That sounds like a political theory rather than a historical or military one, although sure, there's a lot of truth in it. Longbowmen weren't as universally used as hand cannons, bolts didn't always make it, pikemen didn't always work.

However, armour was still improved and it could stop a bullet as early as in late 16th or early 17th century. Heavy cavalry was still in use, whether in Poland or German states or even England.

 

I guess we need different terms for knights of different places and different periods. I would say the modern knight is somebody who has been officially knighted such as Sir Edmund Hilliary for being the first man to climb Mt. Everest and various other achievements.

However in medievil times it seems 'bad' knights outnumbered those who were true to the code of chivalry.

 

Well, simply put, impossible. There is no way summarize in a view words a geographicly shifting, very complex entity that exists over a timespan of 1000 years. Even more so as there are today plenty of claims by various groups and states that rely on certain "historical facts". This complexity and dependence result in huge contreversies today. Nah, amorph the only correct short term to describe it.

And I say entity as there are many people that rely on wrong associations with to modern statehood and the extremly new concept of "nation". A terminology with no relation to times long past. A past often abused as mythology to legitimize claims of today.

Remember the last Austria-German controversy about the ramificiation for citizenship if one prefers opera in "teutsch" instead in Italian ? Some Germans took it as proof that Mozart is indeed German and not Austrian.

I've been aware of that. I mentioned Kaliningrad because of the complex structure and geopgraphy of the "empire". The related problem with the title: King IN prussia NOT king OF Prussia. The kings IN Prussia became only kings OF Prussia after acquiring land inside of the Empire, but Prussa (as Austria) stayed always big outside of the Empire. And accordingly multicultural. This makes frontiers even blurrier.

 

Science and "science" are more often used as such a creational mythos nowadays, to be frank. The concept of nation is older than the concept of feudalism and there isn't much more to the modern variant of it than the simple general progress.

It's possible to talk about history about cynical, aprioric generalisations, though, and without applying politics to it, especially in the context of the modern psuedo-scientific political debate.

Nation in the ethnic sense is different from nation in the political sense. Ethnicity as a social thing is different from the biological view of it.

Of course, Austria as the empire rather than the oriiginal duchy was far more multicultural than Prussia. King in Prussia was the first title and the reason was that Poland still didn't give up the whole of its claim to the land, which was supposed to return to Poland upon the dying out of the dynasty (Polish assent for taking the royal crown was needed despite the independence of the Duke since 1657). The concept was more or less that the ruler was independent and thus what he ruled deferred to him alone rather than to Poland and its king above him, except the Polish claim still persisted and would be realised upon the demise of said ruler.

Prussian kings already had land in Germany before acquiring Prussia, actually. The first Duke, Albrecht von Hohenzollern, the last "real" Hochmeister of the German Order (Teutonic Knights), did indeed rule only over the Duchy and nothing else. However, after the extinction of his eligible posterity, the ducal crown fell to kurfirsts of Brandenburg. Thus, there was no such thing as the Prussian kurfirst, nor was Brandenburg a Polish vassal. Brandeburgian rulers were practically indepedent in Brandenburg (mostly theoretical ties with the Emperor and the rest of the HRE), while they were theoretically Polish vassals so far as the Duchy of Prussia was considered, if practically independent there. The release from the vassalage in 1657 reinforced their independence, the assent to royal coronation weakened the Polish territorial claim, which became non-issue a bit later on, perhaps after the Northern War. After that time, Prussia overpowered Poland and equalled the Emperors in power. That's when there was no obstacle to claiming the territorial designation of ownership in the form of the little "of" particle. The "of" in the title had nothing to do with any possessions in the HRE.

 

I believe someone called for a lit geek a while back?

Well, Im not quite there, but near enough . I wrote my dissertation on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (mercian dialect; ouch) and the view of knights in medieval lit is a pretty interesting one.

The paladins and knights we see in fantasy literature and games are, as far as I can tell, a continuation of the French romantic tradition, which was popular literature among the nobility of the early to mid medieval period. The knights are usually brought up and trained in adherence to virtues and codes of conducts derived from christianity and upper class martial conventions, usually being flawed in some ultimately redeemable way. The interesting stuff comes when there is a conflict in the Knight's conduct. Obviously these days, if someone writes about a knight reminiscent of this tradition, they carefully pick and choose what they want to include, but its pretty interesting to see some of the old writers' interpretations of chivalric conduct. For example, there's the thing about being nice and polite to ladies and also the virtue of chastity. The critic Morgan points out that in an Old French narrative called Yder, there is an episode where a lady tries persistently to seduce a knight which culminates in him kicking her hard in the stomach so she doubles over and pales with nausea. The poet goes on to condone this, saying that there was no other way the knight could have defended his chastity. Hardly what us fantasy nerds would think of as a paragon of chivalric virtue, although Morgan says that this shows the gravity attached to the necessity for chastity prior to marriage.

Later on this sort of stuff, along with the reputation of disenfranchised knights as soldiers of fortune, was satirised by later, more cosmopolitan medieval writers like Chaucer. Im sure the above stuff from Chevalier is much more useful than anything I could tell you about the period.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a really interesting and complex poem. Written some time near Chaucer and Langland's era, I think (its been a while) by an unnamed author, it acknowledges the fallacies and social issues involved in older romances while fondly recalling the rose-tinted legends of knights found in older literary traditions. Rather than being the bearer of heraldic arms, Gawain bears an interlaced pentangle; referred to as "a syngne þat Salamon set sumquyle / In bytoknyng of trawþe," (roughly, "a symbol once borne by Solomon, in honour of Truth"). It both inheres in and goes beyond Christian doctrine, and its geometry shows the complications of morality; each point represents a virtue, and as they form part of one, long, interlacing line, they form part of a whole while each point both undermines and supports the next. The set pieces of romantic literature are there, but treated with a canny temperance and knowing humour that lies nicely between the naivetey of the old tradition and the cynicism of contemporary literature. It all turns out to be a farce in the end, of course, set up to test Gawain, and the ending shows him as flawed, but as good a man as is possible in a fallen human race.

The bad-assery of current movies, as mentioned by Chevalier, and so called "realistic" portrayals of knights make for good period action flicks, but not much else. Flims like King Arthur, for example, try and go for realism, but its a realism based on the somewhat shaky foundations of the enormous variety there is about King Arthur himself, who exists predominantly as a literary character, whoever he may or may not have been. Medieval history books such as those by Bede or Geoffrey of Monmouth tended to be enfused with political or literary embellishment, and stuff older than that is scant and often hard to interpret.

My personal favourite view of knighthood is in the writings of the Gawain Poet and later literature such as Don Quixote, where perfect virtue and courage are an ideal target of wordly aspiration, but ultimately an inaccesible one. This is also why fantasy is good; it offers events and feats reminiscent of things which can be done in the real world, but elevates it beyond mimetic veracity with the presence of ogres, goblins and magic. Its all well and good to aspire to untold heights, just so long as you dont beat yourself up too much when you inevitably fall short

 

Well, actually yes, it does. Because the king was king in prussia. A "new" kingdom not part of the HRE (or Poland), therefore, the the restriction of the claim against "true" kings of the HRE and the King of Poland. Only after the first partition of Poland, the Prussian king united everything under the name "Prussia", be it inside or outside of the HRE and bacame the "King of Prussia". The inside/outside HRE distinction is important through all later "German"-entities after the HRE, the federations and the German Empire. And certanily for all later Polish states. But the Prussian was now king inside of the HRE (and not only inside of original Prussia, wich now was called East-Prussia).