Was the historical knight closer to the romanticized chivalrous knight or a paid thug hired by nobles to sack...

Was the historical knight closer to the romanticized chivalrous knight or a paid thug hired by nobles to sack neighboring territories?

Also, did knights errant actually exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The modern concept of chivalry in knighthood didn't really happen until the late medieval period. However, there were some who you could describe as being a chivalrous knight earlier on, such as William Marshal.

Marshal was basically the Lancelot of his time, serving the Young Henry, Henry II, Richard I and King John. He stuck by all, even when it was in his best interests not to. This led to him having an unrivaled reputation for loyalty during his lifetime. His combat prowess during his prime was also one of the best, being I believe the only knight to ever unhorse Richard the Lionheart.

I would encourage reading more about him. Look up Thomas Asbridge's book on him called The Greatest Knight. It gives a good summary of what life as a knight was back in the 12th century was as well.

Sounds like a great book. Thanks user!

On the other hand, do you know any examples of knights as hired muscle?

Are modern professional soldiers heroic patriots? Or ignorant thugs?

Or just silly young men with too much testosterone and no particular aim in life?

I like to think Knights, Legionaries, Samurai, etc just enjoyed a good brawl, talking shit, and that weird combination of joy & terror in battle

They are merely professional soldiers. Full stop.

None examples at the moment. Most knights didn't abide by our preconceptions of chivalry. Many were concerned with their own wealth and pursuit of it. Because many knights couldn't afford all the equipment and horses on their own, they have the give their service to a lord who provide them with these things in return for their loyalty and for them to fight for them. Therefore, if a knight could get more from another lord, he might just go them. But that would give them a bad reputation. Most would stay loyal, in expectation of patronage and rewards for their service. Marshal was noted at one point for basically badgering Henry II for rewards incessantly at one point.

There wasn't much risk in actual combat of serious wounds for fully-armored knights. For example, some rebels in Aquitaine accidently killed Patrick of Salisbury whilst Marshal served him. This was murder, which flew Marshal into a rage.

Neither. More like a career military man today - someone with the military skills who found it a satisfying lifestyle.

in reality they were paid thugs hired by nobles without the romantic ideal and christian wash of history. I have to admit it was safer to fight as a knight then a soldier in syria, capturing knights and ransoming them was big buisness back then. Would not consider them as a real modern army dependent on the state for salary and equipment but some lords toys

That's a really broad question.
See Chevalier Bayard as one example of a "noble" knight.

What about the classical knight errant?

a knight errant was just the product of his time. As nations evolve into more complex monsters so did the activities of knights. Latter states were highly efficient in military matters and the military was made more professional and standardised training

began as paid thugs, developed to the highly ordered and ritualized chivalry knight

knights and a professional soldier are not even comparable.

one is a nobleman who's entire existence is dedicated towards fighting and makes it into a ritualized artform, the other is a mercenary of the state.

>Knight
>one is a nobleman who's entire existence is dedicated towards fighting and makes it into a ritualized artform and is a mercenary of the state.

>Professional soldier
>one is a commoner who's entire existence is dedicated towards fighting and is a mercenary of the state.

Fix'd that for you. The only difference is in status/wealth (and therefore equipment). They were both warriors but knights who inherited their title came from families of warriors who had proven their allegiance to a royal and had long-standing common interests with the House they served. Their title/status meant they were afforded greater privileges but as their fortunes were tied to those of the House, in return the royal could always count on their support. A professional soldier had none of the privileges but also none of the restrictions as he was for hire.

there was no "state" for the knights to fight for though, and they didn't fight for money but for honour and titles as well as a chance to loot

>the other is a mercenary of the state.
Ho boy, we have a live libertarian in our hands.

>chance to loot = money
If there was no state for knights to fight for, there was no state for the professional soldiers either. Unless you are referring to people from different time periods, they both would have had the same employers: states in the form of royal households or big-time nobles. If you don't want to call that a state then fine, but the point is the same.

Honour is a meme and the titles were just a further affirmation of their position within the social order. With every rank they gained, they gained all sorts of bureaucratic and monetary privileges with every rank they gained, but at the same time their fortunes became even more intertwined with those of the royal who issued the title. You're not going to betray and kill the person who took you a baron and make you an earl, because if he goes the royal who replaces him will find his own barons to turn into earls.

Not him but the only "professional" soldiers of the time period were actual mercenaries. Standing armies weren't a thing in Europe until much later.

>there was no state for the professional soldiers either
what?
yes there was
otherwise they were just the personal army of some warlord
>Honour is a meme
bullshit, maybe for you but not for a heavily honour based society.

also much earlier with Rome and Greece or other classical societies

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary

15th century is still the middle ages no?

Yes, that's 100% true. My point is that a mercenary and a knight were both men who fought for material gain. Their only difference was that a knight gave away the freedom to choose his employer but in return was awarded status/titles/wealth. I think the notion of any non-practical motives such as "honour", "valour" etc are hugely overstated. Of course they were a huge part of chivalrous culture, but they weren't the prime motivator, probably more a meme of the time. Sort of how conservative moralism was a meme during the Victorian era that everyone pretended to adhere to, but behind the scenes they were all filthy immoral fucks (not just in the sexual sense).

>Not him but the only "professional" soldiers of the time period were actual mercenaries.
Not really. There were actual soldiers as well that fought under obligation or tenure.

Remember: that system that birthed knights? That shit used to include the infantry as well, except the Magyar-Viking-Moorish raids on Frankish Europe shot up the importance of the Mounted Soldier. Infantrymen - miles- used to receive land grants until they were merely absorbed under a knight's/nobleman's retinue and live off wages instead

>Honour is a meme
>bullshit, maybe for you but not for a heavily honour based society.
That's such a simplistic view of history. People back then were no less guided by the pursuit for personal gain than they are now. If a historian was looking back on Apple's or Facebook's PR 400 years down the line, he'd think these companies were benevolent, virtue-based organisations out there to make the world a better place, when in reality they are money-making outfits. What people profess as their motivations, due to the prevailing social attitudes of the time, and what their motivations actually are, are two different things.

>People back then were no less guided by the pursuit for personal gain than they are now.

That's such a simplistic view of history.

>the prevailing social attitudes of the time

hmm

yes, that's why honour is so important to honour based societies today.
it may surprise you but not everyone was a greedy capitalist pig boy through all history who's only possible motivation was money

If that were the case, then the countless cases of knights who changed sides or supported rival Houses or pretenders to the throne when the royal they were linked to was going down the drain, simply wouldn't exist.

Where's the honour in that?

Okay maybe the "no less" bit was too much, but they were still very much guided by personal gain primarily and any other motivation such as honour or religion came afterwards. Think of religious piety. Being seen as religiously pious was important for your social standing and so most self-respecting nobles, royals and even abbots and bishops in Medieval times acted as such. That doesn't mean that behind closed doors they weren't decadent as fuck.

Think of all the caricatures of drunken, whore-mongering monks and the perception of them as tax-dodging hypocrites.

>Being seen as religiously pious was important for your social standing

Why was this the case? Was everybody or at least the majority of people simply pretending?

I think the better explanation is that the majority of people held those beliefs genuinely.

>caricatures of drunken, whore-mongering monks and the perception of them as tax-dodging hypocrites.

well you can't do anything about fucking protestants can you?

Why do you mention Protestants?

they always talking shit about clergy

>I think the better explanation is that the majority of people held those beliefs genuinely.
The majority of the plebs probably did. Hell, many of the aristocrats and royals were probably religious too. All I'm saying is that religion, honour and other such notions wouldn't have come ahead of personal interest in the majority of the cases. Of course, to prove this we would have to somehow compile a list of famous cases of people acting in their self-interest in ways that were dishonourable/unpious and a list of cases of people doing the opposite or something silly like that. A better way is to read secret diaries/confidential letters of the time, basically any written record that wasn't going to be published and therefore affect a person's standing.

>well you can't do anything about fucking protestants can you?
Not really, pre-Henry VIII the monasteries and church in England were Catholic. They're every bit as guilty of this as the Protestants. Monasteries are a great example to study because prior to Henry VIII they were big landowners, comparable to the feudal lords of the time, so there was quite a lot of resentment towards them from the side of their tenant villagers. This means we have a lot of rather damning accounts of their behaviour/hypocrisy written by their tenants who were eager to criticise them.

Here's a quote taken from a letter by Ulrich von Hutten, a late 15th century Knight of the Empire, where he describes the life of a knight:

>Such is the lot of the knight that even though my patrimony were ample and adequate for my support, nevertheless here are the disturbances which give me no quiet. We live in fields, forests, and fortresses. Those by whose labors we exist are poverty-stricken peasants, to whom we lease our fields, vineyards, pastures, and woods. The return is exceedingly sparse in proportion to the labor expended. Nevertheless the utmost effort is put forth that it may be bountiful and plentiful, for we must be diligent stewards. I must attach myself to some prince in the hope of protection. Otherwise every one will look upon me as fair plunder. But even if I do make such an attachment hope is beclouded by danger and daily anxiety. If I go away from home I am in peril lest I fall in with those who are at war or feud with my overlord, no matter who he is, and for that reason fall upon me and carry me away. If fortune is adverse, the half of my estates will be forfeit as ransom. Where I looked for protection I was ensnared. We cannot go unarmed beyond two yokes of land. On that account, we must have a large equipage of horses, arms, and followers, and all at great expense. We cannot visit a neighbouring village or go hunting or fishing safe in iron.

>Then there are frequently quarrels between our retainers and others, and scarcely a day passes but some squabble is referred to us which we must compose as discreetly as possible, for if I push my claim to uncompromisingly war arises, but if I am too yielding I am immediately the subject of extortion. One concession unlooses a clamour of demands. And among whom does all this take place? Not among strangers, my friend, but among neighbours, relatives, and those of the same household, even brothers.

[to be continued]

[continued]
>These are our rural delights, our peace and tranquility. The castle, whether on plain or mountain, must be not fair but firm, surrounded by moat and wall, narrow within, crowded with stalls for the cattle, and arsenals for guns, pitch, and powder. Then there are dogs and their dung, a sweet savor I assure you. The horsemen come and go, among them robbers, thieves, and bandits. Our doors are open to practically all comers, either because we do not know who they are or do not make too diligent inquiry. One hears the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cattle, the barking of dogs, the shouts of men working in the fields, the squeaks or barrows and wagons, yes, and even the howling of wolves from nearby woods.

>The day is full of thought for the morrow, constant disturbance, continual storms. The fields must be ploughed and spaded, the vines tended, trees planted, meadows irrigated. There is harrowing, sowing, fertilizing, reaping, threshing: harvest and vintage. If the harvest fails in any year, then follow dire poverty, unrest, and turbulence.

Being an Imperial Knight after 1400 was a raw deal. They went into a long period of being constantly exploited by the rising nobility of the increasingly-complex society of the >H>R>E. The number of knights in the empire drastically decreased year by year as their lands were eaten up. Was one of the worst things to be at the time.

>no risk for armoured knights
>what is Crecy