Chivalry is a set of ideals (though exactly which ideals were most important was largely up for interpretation by the individual). Generally held as the highest virtue was military prowess. If you couldn't defend your holdings, you weren't good for much. Honor and loyalty usually came second, in terms of importance, though courtliness and piety got stuck in there as well.
Apart from the basic level of knighthood, various orders were organized with specific goals in mind. We all know about the Knights Templar, who started by protecting pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land. The Knights of the Garter were formed as kind of an honor society for the knights of England, in an attempt to redefine the perception of English chivalry and tie powerful knights to the King with direct oaths of loyalty. Knights also served as bodyguards, representatives, and advisers for their lords.
First thing first. Why have a warrior code?
Traditional warrior codes seem to have a few basic goals. First, they separate the warriors from the "common" people. They aren't just farmers toting weapons. Second, they provide a system of rules to guide soldiering as a profession, which makes its practitioners more manageable and predictable (ensuring longer lives for everyone involved, well, except for those people they kill). It gives warriors a sense of camaraderie, which may make it easier for them to work together.
Why separate warriors from common people?
By making "warrior" a job title, and not just an as needed occupation, it increases the efficiency of these workmen (more time to hone their craft if they don't have to till the fields).
In Japan, it made the warriors solely reliant upon their respective masters for financial support, since they wouldn't deign to perform manual labor to earn money (and I seem to remember that they couldn't own land, unless elevated to lordship).
If you want to calcify a social structure, there are few better ways than to require indoctrination to a level by a member of that level. Every lord wants to keep their laborers laboring. You just can't have every Joe with a knife wandering the countryside killing people (or rising up in revolt).
Rules?
By touting honor as one of the great virtues, you make these violence machines much less likely to hack off the hand that feeds them, or change sides for a cash incentive.
Ransoms became a convenient way for knights to turn an enemy into cash, instead of just a corpse (maybe that is what all those video games are trying to show us), plus it was a certain level of life insurance for someone whose business is death.
You reduce a fair number of variables in combat, for a commander. "Honorable death" becomes a thing. Otherwise, you'd get a whole lot more "they ain't paying me enough for this shit," kind of response in the middle of a battle. By tying martial prowess to social strictures, and in some cases to religion, you create not only that desired separation between classes, but also role-models to which the commoners may aspire.
Other Thoughts
Try to remember that though these men (and some women) followed a basic code, even the ones who adhered pretty strictly to it were apt to stray when a good opportunity presented itself. They were generally not above paying off a garrison or using sneaky tricks on the battlefield. Generally (as in baseball), it's okay to cheat, as long as you didn't get caught. Anyway, this code was mostly used to protect members of the warrior class from other members of the same class. Slaughtering the commoners and burning their belongings was a pretty common tactic among these "noble warriors" to goad their enemies into a fight.
I can't say that this really brings me to any real conclusion, but it's the seed of many things. After all, this blog isn't about giving you all the answers, but about where my head is at the moment. See? It's in a shambles. Back to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment