Does our modern romanticizing of knights have any basis in reality...

not all "knights" had a proper title, most were just men at arms, from noble families but not titled knights

Knights were significantly better trained due to chivalric tournaments and events. For example, jousts did have real life practical applications as it would aid in skirmishing as a knight would be able to practice his lance accuracy whilst on horseback (this is referenced in the Froissart chronicle)

Melee tournaments were also a popular sport in which knights would form into battalions and attack the opposing team (think of it as the beginning of a rugby game but with horses)

These sports would be played on a daily basis, as often knights had fuck all to do (some sieges could last up to a year remember) so knights would train in these sports frequently and thus become much more useful on the battlefield than other soldiers.

What? I dunno about other parts, but in the Spain of the reconquista you could rise to hidalgo (the lowest of the nobility) be deeds of arms (and having an armor, horse and knowing how to use both), pasing to be a Caballero Villano or Pardo.

>Does our modern romanticizing of knights have any basis in reality?
To a certain extent it did. The romantic ideals of knighthood were invented during the high middle ages and were codified in epic poetry to serve as an example. However, like pretty much anything even knighthood is subject to economic imperatives, the realities of war, etc. so one shouldn't expect people to behave rigorously knightly all the time. There were singular examples of knightly acts however and people liked to portray themselves as being knightly.

>Did peasant kids really dream of becoming one and take pride in being their squires?
When it came to social mobility there really wasn't all that much during the middle ages. People generally didn't 'become' knights. It wasn't impossible, e.g. in the Holy Roman Empire the title of knight was not a title of nobility but more comparable to an award that came with a social and military rank that elevated one above the status of a commoner (but which also came with certain obligations), but practically it was mostly awarded to people who already came from knightly and aristocratic families. During the late middle ages most knightly but non-aristocratic families had pretty much joined the ranks of aristocracy and becoming a knight was almost exclusively limited to nobility. Ironically it also became less popular since few aristocrats (especially the poorer ones from which the majority of knightly stemmed) were willing to fulfil the obligations of knighthood, such as maintaining multiple horses, full sets or arms and armour, training squires and employing a certain amount of servants simply because they couldn't afford it and the knightly title lost its meaning with the waning importance of heavy cavalry.

Don't forget that the knight would generally have access to better nutrition.

I want to know more about that suit of armor you posted.

akg-images.co.uk/archive/-2UMDHUKAVZFG.html

>>We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

>anglos ever learning

Knights were the medieval cuckold, literally.

Younger sons without inheritance were indoctrinated by chivalry to prevent them from raping, pillaging, and murdering and to be good beta males.

There's no consistent modern conception of knights.

>Did peasant kids really dream of becoming one

For example this something that you've conceived in your head. There is no popular conception that peasant children wanted to become Knights. Maybe X person aspiring to be a Knight is a popular theme, but no specific mention of peasant children. And yes, people would aspire to one day be a Knight. Adult and child noble alike.

>tfw you will never be a knight
>tfw you will never go on epic adventures with your bros
>tfw you will never slay infidels

>All knights across Europe engage in knightly duties
>Even with wars and conflict they remain powerful and safe because the enemy knights aren't fucking them up
>Don't die on the battlefield because plebs aren't allowed to kill you

Isn't it more the aristocracy working together to keep themselves and their families alive forever?

...

>Don't die on the battlefield because plebs aren't allowed to kill you
Wait, what do you mean by this? Are you saying non-knights weren't allowed to attack and kill knights? How would that even work? Weren't knights allowed to attack non-knights? Weren't non-knights allowed to defend themselves?

>>We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God
>I don't like it, so I'm going to say God doesn't like it
So Christians were ALWAYS like this?

Knights were glamourized right-wing death squads soldiers. There are plenty of modern "knights" in countries like Colombia, Brazil and the Philippines, murdering peasants at the orders of some local big farmer.

Knights were assholes. They were essentially privateers on land with the backing of sovereigns to own land and do what they pleased on the off-chance that they might get called into conflict. Knights would often judge whether or not the King/Prince/Count would/could actually punish them and often refused the call to arms.

They are often depicted in armor, even in the early medieval ages, because of how often they fleeced the local populace. Knighthoods were rare, and not often granted unless it was absolutely politically necessary. This of course varies from nation to nation, as not every European country exactly held the same system of owning land or dishing out titles.

This except right wing wasnt a thing back then, that concept started during the french revoultion, in fact the peasants usally thought that was the normal thing and would even help them supress other peasants

I know, it's just that I don't know how to convey the meaning I intend.

I'm Brazilian, so I'm familiar with the concept of "jagunço", which is what knights basically were:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagunço

But I don't know how to translate it. "Hitmen"? "Sicarios"? "Enforcer"? I have no idea.

What did Southern U.S. slaveowners call the armed people they hired to beat up slaves for them?

Overseers, or "The Klan".

It's bullshit, he made it up. There are specific instances of people being punished for killing Knights on the opposing side because they a relation, but there was no rule saying that the average person couldn't kill a knight.

It would be much better to take a knight prisoner than kill him, but that doesn't equate to not being allowed to kill them

Knights were mostly pricks. Sure, there were probably some who could be described as "chivalrous," but they mostly just intimidated peasants and took their shit. Knights were also in significantly less danger during battles because they could be ransomed, which made them more valuable to enemies alive. Knights were assholes who had it easy.

Remember that even without the martial training, the knight was still armed and armored like, well. like a knight.

Plate armor was pretty damn expensive. Both to actually buy, and to maintain.

A man in full plate armor is a bitch to take down. Unless you have something blunt like a warhammer, you basically have to wrestle him to the ground (at which point many would yield to their opponent) and then stab him through the eyes or another weak point in the armor (rondel daggers were for this).

So even if he has the exact same ability as the non-knight he is facing, the knight is a force on the battlefield purely for being a man dressed head to toe in steel armour immune to the majority of weapons brought against him.

Where and when? "Knights" existed over many centuries and half the world. There are still knights, in fact. Elton John is a knight.

>Are you saying non-knights weren't allowed to attack and kill knights? How would that even work? Weren't knights allowed to attack non-knights? Weren't non-knights allowed to defend themselves?

Not him but like mentioned, they'd generally go to great lengths to capture nobility for ransom.

The Battle of Crécy is often referred to as the "beginning of the end of chivalry" because that didn't happen;

>“In the English army there were some Cornish and Welsh men on foot, who had armed themselves with large knives, these advancing through the ranks of the [English] men-at-arms and archers, who made way for them, came upon the French when they were in this danger, and falling upon earls, barons, knights, and squires, slew many, at which the king of England was exasperated.” Jean Froissar 1346

Similarly so at Agincourt;

>Their horses stumbled among the stakes [of the English longbowmen], and they were speedily slain by the archers, which was a great pity. And most of the rest, through fear, gave way and fell back into their vanguard, to whom they were a great hindrance; and they opened their ranks in several places, and made them fall back and lose their footing in some land newly sown, for their horses had been so wounded by the arrows that the men could no longer manage them. Thus…the vanguard of the French was thrown into disorder, and men-at-arms without number began to fall.… Soon afterwards the English archers, seeing the vanguard thus shaken, issued from behind their stockade, threw away their bows and quivers, then took their swords, hatchets, mallets, axes, falcon-beaks and other weapons, and, pushing into the places where they saw these breaches, struck down and killed these Frenchmen without mercy, and never ceased to kill till the said vanguard which had fought little or not at all was completely overwhelmed. Jehan de Wavrin

Following Agincourt;

>Many of the French knights and men-at-arms who escaped the crushing mêlée only to be captured were ordered put to death by Henry V, fearful of a reported French cavalry column that could have linked up with the prisoners. At first the English captors refused Henry’s order, no doubt as much deeply angered at the loss of potential ransom as they were offended by a similar breach of the chivalric code that had appalled Edward III at Crécy. But Henry overrode their objections and sent in two hundred of his archers, who “fell on the French, paunching them [as in gutting game] and stabbing them in the face.”

Full plate armour actually came out really late when knights on battlefield were already in decline. It offered superb protection, was well capable of withstanding brutal onslaught, (there even existed specialised variations against blunt weapons, look up puffed armour), and at the same time it was lighter than modern infantry armour. But it did not offer enough to bring knight back to his dominant battlefield role. That one was already weakened in 15th centruy by introduction of organized burger foot formations equipped with pole weapons. Even before the Swiss moved to pikes, the halberd was well feared by nobility. And then ever stronger crossbows, cannons and early firearms, weakened it's role further.

But before that. Armoured horseman dominated the battlefields. Carolus Magnus, Normans, crusades, medieval battles, all prove that. It's just that while modern view of knights is dudes in full plate, dueling it out, for most of the middle ages it was dudes in chainmails, running over everything that was in their path.

>that pic
>not knowing what it means

>pic obviously not related
>itsinthefilename.jpg

Except the charge at Agincourt was on foot
When will British revisionism stop?

...

Jehan de Wavrin is a French account.

Yes, English were always uncivilised, nothing new here. But one example of unchivalric nature does not mean that it was so everywhere. Not far away in Italy they turned battles into performances with truly small number of victims per side. It caused some awkwardness when French joined the fun, though.

First charge was mounted. Stop being fucking retarded.

>Not far away in Italy they turned battles into performances with truly small number of victims per side.
what? how?

Wrong. wrong. wrong. Pop history for ya.
Knights, as you said, were usually title holders, or had to be, though thats not necessarily true in places like Italy and in the early stages of feudalism (or as the system developed regionally as well). Most Knights only had marginal combat training in general, but likely were better horsemen, if they could afford horses. Not all knights, as not all nobles, were necesarily very wealthy. Many, were essentially slightly better off than regular serfs. Many were what we picture, as proper nobles with plenty of money. Also your notion of peasants is extremely dull. Most peasants, if the law permitted, would be armed, would reasonably be able to be armed with an actual proper weapon. Swords or axes were certainly not out of the reach of income of the average peasant, depending on the era ofcourse. Armor and horses is what seperated Knights from peasant levies, not training or arms.

Italian Treatises aside, most Knights weren't heavily trained. If they had a horse, they were trained for horse, they weren't necessarily trained in combat. Some knights could actually afford to do that, and actually lived in a society that valued it (closer to the court of the Duke or King or other bases of power, or within a specific familial or regional military tradition, both of which would have been uncommon for knights.

>Most Knights only had marginal combat training in general
No.

I'm not familiar with Medieval Italy, but during the Italian Wars of the Early Modern period, Italian polities would often rely on mercenaries for their armies. Problem is, these guys wanted to get payed instead of dying, and lacked much loyalty to w/e side they fought for. When two cohorts like that meet, it's more about 'performance' than an actual full-hearted battle. Machiavelli touches on it in The Prince if I recall, in his support for locally-sourced militias.

You are missing the point, there actually was a time when fundamental Christians actually were AGAINST gunrights.

they still are in civilised countries.

that's literally what religion is, don't be deluded and think it's a coherent, static factor that changes people's views regardless of their opportunities

You called him out for giving out pop history lessons but you yourself failed to even give a remotely better historical answer.

No one used peasant levies unless they were in dire circumstances. The lands held by nobles were supposed to be used to raise quality troops. A hide was a unit of land that was enough to raise one fully armed soldier. When the time of war comes, the nobles flock to the king's banners and bring with them the soldiers they are supposed to support with the lands they hold in the king's name.

Knights/tenants had superlative training and equipment, so much so that the average peasant is outclassed. If you are a noble, you have eaten better and had access to quality medical care for all your life. Your life is leisure but it is leisure geared to war. You hunted and learned how to track and encircle game. You dueled in melees and tournaments held across the land. As a page you were trained in the manual of arms by veterans and older knights. You wore chainmail which is so expensive, it was worth the modern equivalent of a house. A sword was worth much more than you say it is; the metallurgy of making a sword is actually significantly much more complex than making a spear or an ax head.

If you were not an armored rider or failed to supply the proper amount of quality soldiers, you could be stripped of your lands which were allocated to your rivals. If you arrived to battle with a chain of peasants in tow, you would disgrace yourself in front of the king and your fellow nobles.

Hell, even longbowmen in the English army were extremely well-equipped. They couldn't all afford a warhorse but they were certainly not paupers. They were proper yeomen, not peasants.

They never outlawed crossbows. The Papal Armies employed large contingents of elite crossbowmen from Genoa and Milan. The Imperial Free Cities of the HRE provided quantities of crossbowmen from their shooting guilds.

These dicta from the church are only as strong as the faction of nobles who enforce it. And no one wants to give up an obvious military advantage if their rival will employ them against them. The Papacy was full of shrewd politicians; if you got annihilated on the battlefield, they were take the side of the winning team. You're not going to be giving large donations to Rome any more when they move into your domain and crush the last pockets of resistance.

You should take anything anyone here says about religion with a giant grain of salt. This whole thread is filled with vague attempts to fill in a primitive understanding of the medieval world with modern conjecture and just plain stupidity that five minutes of research would clear up.

Knights were not "assholes." They were not "privateers on land." They also did not just "do as they pleased." It all depended on the strength of the King and the royal family, and whether they had the political capital to persuade their vassals to answer their call to arms. It's just like any other modern political structure: the management and allocation of power to ensure stability.

They did not fleece the local population. Maybe in the later periods, because knights became horribly outclassed by professionalized predominantly infantry armies. Knighthoods were also not "given out" in the early medieval period. You either had a horse and a spear, or you didn't. If you did, you were an equite. If not, you were just a schmuck. Only later did it crystallize into an actual rank of nobility. They were given lands to support and raise properly equipped, trained soldiers. That was the whole point of the "feudal system" (quotes because this encompasses so many power structures in so many geographies and over such a large time period that it is almost meaningless.) A standing army is stupid expensive, especially when you need a huge amount of your population to continue working in productive enterprises merely to stay fed and clothed. The feudal system allowed monarchs to cheaply and quickly raise large quantities of men for the campaigning season.

>A sword was worth much more than you say it is; the metallurgy of making a sword is actually significantly much more complex than making a spear or an ax head.
Like everything it depends on the time period. In 14th century England you could get a sword for four pence, about as much as a chicken or a pair of shoes. It would be a pretty crappy sword but you get what you pay for.

most knights were just thugs with a kings blessing
they keep the commoners in check and fight for there lord. In there free time they did what ever the fuck they wanted. take what they want, fuck who they want, kill who they want.

Where did this stupid meme come from? Renaissance revisionism? This "knights did whatever they want" meme sounds a whole lot like jus primae noctis which was a revisionist myth.

>Does our modern romanticizing of knights have any basis in reality?
Yes, they were romanticized as fuck in the middle ages
>Did peasant kids really dream of becoming one and take pride in being their squires?
If any did, it wouldn't be anything like kids today dreaming of being astronauts. Peasants were very rarely made into knights (the same goes for squires, who were the son's of knights/nobles) Important thing to remember is that the peasant class was pretty much completely excluded from the "culture" of the time, they weren't the ones writing poems and books, and those that did didn't give much of a shit to ask their opinions on what was being written.
>Did they ever do anything honorable or knightly?
Of course, there are a shitload of accounts of knights/nobles doing selfless acts and putting themselves in harm's way for the benefit of others, even dirt-farming peasants. But just as there were the former, there were also just as many (probably more) who were complete pieces of shit, with an equal number of accounts of them doing some truly terrible things.