Chivalry, the knight's code of conduct is often misunderstood, and quite frankly, our interpretation of what chivalry is is more modern than it is historical.
It's been romanticized to high heaven, much like the katana, largely due to popular culture, like books, TV shows, video games, and movies. Largely, everyone is completely unable to reconcile the concept of chivalry to what knights actually did in history.
Well, luckily, this post is aimed at dashing your common beliefs of Chivalry to the ground, much like how a peregrine falcon dashes its prey to the ground.
We'll use the Zelda series, as well as historical references, to explore the concept of these codes of conduct and demonstrate what it is, using the games.
WHAT IS CHIVALRY?:
"Chivalry" is actually a pretty old word that stems from the early Medieval period to describe knights, or knechts.
But what are they? Quite simply, they are codes of conduct. For warrior classes throughout history, there's always been a code of conduct, even up to the rules of modern warfare that we have today.
All throughout history, military leaders, and even soldiers had certain expectations on how they were to behave. If you think about it, historically, a lot of these warriors/soldiers were young, fit men, with access to some of the best arms and armor that money could buy, as well as training them, so they can be a dangerous liability if you don't have a code of conduct.
In other words, chivalry was a code of conduct in order to keep your warriors in check.
But largely, these rules are very primal, like loyalty, bravery, honor, and camaraderie. Because these rules are pretty basic, I don't think they needed to be taught, necessarily, but rather, expected from the soldiers.
So you see these codes of conduct arise very naturally as leaders and soldiers place these expectations upon themselves.
But uniquely for Chivalry, the knights' code of conduct didn't arise from these basic codes of conduct that you see in different cultures across history. It's not a case of someone taking these older codes of conduct and saying, "Let's update them and, bang, there you go, 'CHIVALRY'!"
This is part of what makes Chivalry in itself, unique, because there's no rules handed down from on high saying, "This is how knights are supposed to behave!" And here's the thing, even if there was a list of rules, that list wouldn't have been universally accepted for all knights or lords.
"Well, Cthulhu, were knights sworn to follow chivalry?"
Well.... kinda. Yes they were, but not in the early years of knighthood, but eventually, yes.
"Well, what were they sworn to follow?"
Well, you can't separate knighthood from chivalry. But what was it?
To understand Chivalry, we have to go back to the roots.
HISTORY OF CHIVALRY:
For knights, understanding chivalry has to go back to what a knight actually was before all of the pomp and circumstance that surrounded them.
For knights, the definition of a knight, as I discussed in a previous post on this forum, was a warrior that fought atop a horse.
What brought about this form of warfare?
The stirrup. With the stirrup, you can brace your whole weight against the horse, and deliver a far more powerful cut or thrust, using the momentum of the horse and the brace that the stirrup brought you, and that's on top of reducing the chance of someone dismounting you from your horse.
Attacks like these can, and did, break through mail armor (which I've discussed before is pretty damn good armor), and knock aside shields.
Thus they brought about the concept of impact warfare, the famed Knight's Charge, wielding lances atop their horses to charge the enemy, and crush and skewer them.
This was what a knight's purpose was originally.
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO EXPERIENCE A KNIGHTLY CHARGE!!! As good as mail armor was, it did nothing to protect you from a lance charge on horseback.
But to equip a man to engage in this powerful form of warfare was expensive. Good horses like coursers and destriers were exceedingly expensive, not to mention weapons and armor, as well as years of training to prepare them costs money.
You could have servants to help with the knight in taking care of his horses, maintaining them and feeding them, as well as maintaining and taking care of his armor and weapons.
Eventually, this position became part of a knight's training, and came to be known as squires.
But even having a squire requires more resources and money to feed, clothe, and arm these squires.
Therefore, these types of warriors came from the social elite, dukes, lords, and in some cases, kings and queens. Essentially, people with deep pockets. Thus, that brings about the idea of a knight requiring a noble birth to even become one, or at least, be born in a family that has wealth and good social standing.
Another way of becoming one is by another person willing to take you in, who has money to spend and deep pockets, essentially, a sponsorship of sorts. These people would feed these Pages, (young knights in training), provide clothes, weapons, armor, and the horse on top of all of the training to mold them into a knight.
So either you're family has money to make you one, or you get a sponsorship from another person who has money to provide everything you need to become one.
Often in the latter situation, you enter into a contract of sorts, a bond, or a code of conduct, in how your lord expected you to behave. In turn, you got what you needed, and through association, or networking, you become part of the social elite by merely living under his roof.
You can already see that these contracts varied from lord to lord.
A common word for a bondsman in that time was a knecht, which then became "knight."
In other words, a knight is basically a warrior that's under contract to fight, and how he behaved depended upon the contract that the two parties agreed upon.
Basically, "You behave like I say, and I'll provide you your training, horses, arms and armor. Just sign on the dotted line to accept my terms of service!"
Basically, this.
So a knight was part of the social elite, different from other soldiers due to their requirements of how they engage in warfare, their extensive training, and having the best arms and armor that money could buy.
But the basic definition is a warrior that fought from horseback. That was the distinguishing feature.
ETYOMOLOGY OF CHIVALRY:
In French, the word for horse was "Cheval," and the word for knight was, "Chevalier." Meaning literally, a horseman. So basically a knecht, or knight, was a bondsman, a servant, but also a horseman.
On top of this, their craft was also explained in French with the word, "Chevalerie," which means, literally, horse soldier-y. In other words, how good of a horseman they were.
"Chevalerie," which again, means the craft of a Chevalier or knight, also came to be known as "Chivalry," and "Cavalry."
So a Chevalier, or knight, was a warrior that practiced "Chevalerie," or horsemanship. That came to be known as chivalry, which everyone thinks is a knight's code of conduct.
This is the origin of the word, and what it's describing is what a knight did. He was a warrior on a horse. I know that doesn't sound very sexy, but that's what a knight practicing chivalry meant back in the Middle Ages.
So a knight being chivalrous, literally means he's good at that thar fightin' on a horse!
So I see where the confusion comes from. Chivalry originally was a word used to describe the craft that a knight practiced, in the same way that the word, "Masonry," describes the craft that a mason does, which is stonework.
Chivalry described what they did, not what they ought to do. That came much later.
So to me, a chivalrous knight looks like this:
"But Cthulhu, why did things change?"
The same way that words change meanings. People saying to a knight, "I hope you are most chivalrous today," literally meant, "I hope your horsemanship is good to kill the enemy," and it eventually got used more and more, and the more the word, "chivalry," got stuck in the public's conscience.
When words stick on the public's conscience like this, words often change from their original meaning.
Eventually it started to be used to apply to other things that were expected of knights and what they did.
For example, a chivalrous knight is not only good at horsemanship, but good at swordsmanship:
Being brave and courageous:
Loyal:
Honorable:
Now when people say to a knight, "I hope you are most chivalrous," they're not just saying, "I hope you're a good horseman," they're saying, "I hope you're a good fighter, you're loyal, brave, and honorable."
Thus, chivalry moved from its original meaning to describe how a knight acted and behaved.
In other words, it was a term that encapsulated the ideal knight.
A knight must be good at riding a horse. A knight must be good at wielding a sword. I knight must be good at fighting. A knight must be brave. A knight must be loyal. A knight must be honorable.
But here's the rub. The qualities that lords expected out of their knights largely depended on their expectations and definitions of a good knight. Thus, you can have knights that are fierce, cruel, unmerciful.
Thus, in the Medieval sense, chivalry was a subjective term, not an objective one.
Of course, there were knights who were merciful, brave, loyal, honorable, and good, just as you had knights that were cruel, dishonorable and evil.
Let's give a realistic example here.
Say you were a knight under the service of a nobleman who was at court most of the time. Your lord might expect you to have courtly manners, poise, and respectful courtesy. Thus, to you, being chivalrous means being polite, have good manners, and being courteous to others.
If you were a peaceful lord, you might expect your knights to show mercy, restraint, and fair play.
To one that isn't peaceful, you might expect your knights to be swift in killing his enemies, fighting dirty, and exacting swift vengeance, and demanding an immediate, martial response to even the slightest of insults, and never show mercy to the guilty party.
Say if you were a religious lord, you might expect your knights to follow God's commandments, help the needy, punish those who affront God, and such.
So really, chivalry is more of a loosey-goosey concept that entirely depended on their lord's view of the ideal knight. And these knights, remember being bondsmen, had to incorporate these terms in how they behaved, otherwise, they didn't get food, clothing, training, land, horses, arms, or armor to even be a knight.
Since knighthood in the time was a noble position of respect, and it paid well, gave you food and land, and the best stuff money could buy, these contracts were treated like how we treat terms of service agreements today.
Although, much more seriously.
OKAY, HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO LINK?:
I've already discussed Link's knightly status, as he outright fits the definition. He's a bondsman either through royal or divine means, fights atop a horse, and fighting for his lords or gods. Because it always was his destiny to do so.
Thing is, we never hear of Link's family. Since we know you had to be pretty wealthy to even be a knight, I presume that in some iterations, Link's mother and father were well off Hylians.
Especially in Breath of the Wild, were we have some semblance of lore to support this.
If we use the historical definition, or the original definition of chivalry, then yes, Link is most chivalrous as he's very good at fighting atop a horse:
If we were to use the more modern definition, well, that depends on your definition of chivalry.
If you use chivalry to mean brave, then yes, Link is most certainly chivalrous.
If you use chivalry to mean honest, then yes, Link is most chivalrous.
IS LINK CHIVALROUS?:
That depends, dear reader, on your personal definition of what a chivalrous knight is. I personally think he is because not only does he fit the original, historical definition, but my view of a chivalrous knight is:
CONCLUSION:
So that's chivalry. It's pretty complicated as most historical matters are. If you want to simplify what chivalry is, it literally is aspects that make a knight good at his job, which can be as simple as being a good warrior on horseback, to many other things depending on your personal definition.
"But Cthulhu! What about Bushido?"
The Way of the Warrior is for next time....
Until next time guys!
It's been romanticized to high heaven, much like the katana, largely due to popular culture, like books, TV shows, video games, and movies. Largely, everyone is completely unable to reconcile the concept of chivalry to what knights actually did in history.
Well, luckily, this post is aimed at dashing your common beliefs of Chivalry to the ground, much like how a peregrine falcon dashes its prey to the ground.
We'll use the Zelda series, as well as historical references, to explore the concept of these codes of conduct and demonstrate what it is, using the games.
WHAT IS CHIVALRY?:
"Chivalry" is actually a pretty old word that stems from the early Medieval period to describe knights, or knechts.
But what are they? Quite simply, they are codes of conduct. For warrior classes throughout history, there's always been a code of conduct, even up to the rules of modern warfare that we have today.
All throughout history, military leaders, and even soldiers had certain expectations on how they were to behave. If you think about it, historically, a lot of these warriors/soldiers were young, fit men, with access to some of the best arms and armor that money could buy, as well as training them, so they can be a dangerous liability if you don't have a code of conduct.
In other words, chivalry was a code of conduct in order to keep your warriors in check.
But largely, these rules are very primal, like loyalty, bravery, honor, and camaraderie. Because these rules are pretty basic, I don't think they needed to be taught, necessarily, but rather, expected from the soldiers.
So you see these codes of conduct arise very naturally as leaders and soldiers place these expectations upon themselves.
But uniquely for Chivalry, the knights' code of conduct didn't arise from these basic codes of conduct that you see in different cultures across history. It's not a case of someone taking these older codes of conduct and saying, "Let's update them and, bang, there you go, 'CHIVALRY'!"
This is part of what makes Chivalry in itself, unique, because there's no rules handed down from on high saying, "This is how knights are supposed to behave!" And here's the thing, even if there was a list of rules, that list wouldn't have been universally accepted for all knights or lords.
"Well, Cthulhu, were knights sworn to follow chivalry?"
Well.... kinda. Yes they were, but not in the early years of knighthood, but eventually, yes.
"Well, what were they sworn to follow?"
Well, you can't separate knighthood from chivalry. But what was it?
To understand Chivalry, we have to go back to the roots.
HISTORY OF CHIVALRY:
For knights, understanding chivalry has to go back to what a knight actually was before all of the pomp and circumstance that surrounded them.
For knights, the definition of a knight, as I discussed in a previous post on this forum, was a warrior that fought atop a horse.
What brought about this form of warfare?
The stirrup. With the stirrup, you can brace your whole weight against the horse, and deliver a far more powerful cut or thrust, using the momentum of the horse and the brace that the stirrup brought you, and that's on top of reducing the chance of someone dismounting you from your horse.
Attacks like these can, and did, break through mail armor (which I've discussed before is pretty damn good armor), and knock aside shields.
Thus they brought about the concept of impact warfare, the famed Knight's Charge, wielding lances atop their horses to charge the enemy, and crush and skewer them.
This was what a knight's purpose was originally.
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO EXPERIENCE A KNIGHTLY CHARGE!!! As good as mail armor was, it did nothing to protect you from a lance charge on horseback.
But to equip a man to engage in this powerful form of warfare was expensive. Good horses like coursers and destriers were exceedingly expensive, not to mention weapons and armor, as well as years of training to prepare them costs money.
You could have servants to help with the knight in taking care of his horses, maintaining them and feeding them, as well as maintaining and taking care of his armor and weapons.
Eventually, this position became part of a knight's training, and came to be known as squires.
But even having a squire requires more resources and money to feed, clothe, and arm these squires.
Therefore, these types of warriors came from the social elite, dukes, lords, and in some cases, kings and queens. Essentially, people with deep pockets. Thus, that brings about the idea of a knight requiring a noble birth to even become one, or at least, be born in a family that has wealth and good social standing.
Another way of becoming one is by another person willing to take you in, who has money to spend and deep pockets, essentially, a sponsorship of sorts. These people would feed these Pages, (young knights in training), provide clothes, weapons, armor, and the horse on top of all of the training to mold them into a knight.
So either you're family has money to make you one, or you get a sponsorship from another person who has money to provide everything you need to become one.
Often in the latter situation, you enter into a contract of sorts, a bond, or a code of conduct, in how your lord expected you to behave. In turn, you got what you needed, and through association, or networking, you become part of the social elite by merely living under his roof.
You can already see that these contracts varied from lord to lord.
A common word for a bondsman in that time was a knecht, which then became "knight."
In other words, a knight is basically a warrior that's under contract to fight, and how he behaved depended upon the contract that the two parties agreed upon.
Basically, "You behave like I say, and I'll provide you your training, horses, arms and armor. Just sign on the dotted line to accept my terms of service!"
Basically, this.
So a knight was part of the social elite, different from other soldiers due to their requirements of how they engage in warfare, their extensive training, and having the best arms and armor that money could buy.
But the basic definition is a warrior that fought from horseback. That was the distinguishing feature.
ETYOMOLOGY OF CHIVALRY:
In French, the word for horse was "Cheval," and the word for knight was, "Chevalier." Meaning literally, a horseman. So basically a knecht, or knight, was a bondsman, a servant, but also a horseman.
On top of this, their craft was also explained in French with the word, "Chevalerie," which means, literally, horse soldier-y. In other words, how good of a horseman they were.
"Chevalerie," which again, means the craft of a Chevalier or knight, also came to be known as "Chivalry," and "Cavalry."
So a Chevalier, or knight, was a warrior that practiced "Chevalerie," or horsemanship. That came to be known as chivalry, which everyone thinks is a knight's code of conduct.
This is the origin of the word, and what it's describing is what a knight did. He was a warrior on a horse. I know that doesn't sound very sexy, but that's what a knight practicing chivalry meant back in the Middle Ages.
So a knight being chivalrous, literally means he's good at that thar fightin' on a horse!
So I see where the confusion comes from. Chivalry originally was a word used to describe the craft that a knight practiced, in the same way that the word, "Masonry," describes the craft that a mason does, which is stonework.
Chivalry described what they did, not what they ought to do. That came much later.
So to me, a chivalrous knight looks like this:
"But Cthulhu, why did things change?"
The same way that words change meanings. People saying to a knight, "I hope you are most chivalrous today," literally meant, "I hope your horsemanship is good to kill the enemy," and it eventually got used more and more, and the more the word, "chivalry," got stuck in the public's conscience.
When words stick on the public's conscience like this, words often change from their original meaning.
Eventually it started to be used to apply to other things that were expected of knights and what they did.
For example, a chivalrous knight is not only good at horsemanship, but good at swordsmanship:
Being brave and courageous:
Loyal:
Honorable:
Now when people say to a knight, "I hope you are most chivalrous," they're not just saying, "I hope you're a good horseman," they're saying, "I hope you're a good fighter, you're loyal, brave, and honorable."
Thus, chivalry moved from its original meaning to describe how a knight acted and behaved.
In other words, it was a term that encapsulated the ideal knight.
A knight must be good at riding a horse. A knight must be good at wielding a sword. I knight must be good at fighting. A knight must be brave. A knight must be loyal. A knight must be honorable.
But here's the rub. The qualities that lords expected out of their knights largely depended on their expectations and definitions of a good knight. Thus, you can have knights that are fierce, cruel, unmerciful.
Thus, in the Medieval sense, chivalry was a subjective term, not an objective one.
Of course, there were knights who were merciful, brave, loyal, honorable, and good, just as you had knights that were cruel, dishonorable and evil.
Let's give a realistic example here.
Say you were a knight under the service of a nobleman who was at court most of the time. Your lord might expect you to have courtly manners, poise, and respectful courtesy. Thus, to you, being chivalrous means being polite, have good manners, and being courteous to others.
If you were a peaceful lord, you might expect your knights to show mercy, restraint, and fair play.
To one that isn't peaceful, you might expect your knights to be swift in killing his enemies, fighting dirty, and exacting swift vengeance, and demanding an immediate, martial response to even the slightest of insults, and never show mercy to the guilty party.
Say if you were a religious lord, you might expect your knights to follow God's commandments, help the needy, punish those who affront God, and such.
So really, chivalry is more of a loosey-goosey concept that entirely depended on their lord's view of the ideal knight. And these knights, remember being bondsmen, had to incorporate these terms in how they behaved, otherwise, they didn't get food, clothing, training, land, horses, arms, or armor to even be a knight.
Since knighthood in the time was a noble position of respect, and it paid well, gave you food and land, and the best stuff money could buy, these contracts were treated like how we treat terms of service agreements today.
Although, much more seriously.
OKAY, HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO LINK?:
I've already discussed Link's knightly status, as he outright fits the definition. He's a bondsman either through royal or divine means, fights atop a horse, and fighting for his lords or gods. Because it always was his destiny to do so.
Thing is, we never hear of Link's family. Since we know you had to be pretty wealthy to even be a knight, I presume that in some iterations, Link's mother and father were well off Hylians.
Especially in Breath of the Wild, were we have some semblance of lore to support this.
If we use the historical definition, or the original definition of chivalry, then yes, Link is most chivalrous as he's very good at fighting atop a horse:
If we were to use the more modern definition, well, that depends on your definition of chivalry.
If you use chivalry to mean brave, then yes, Link is most certainly chivalrous.
If you use chivalry to mean honest, then yes, Link is most chivalrous.
IS LINK CHIVALROUS?:
That depends, dear reader, on your personal definition of what a chivalrous knight is. I personally think he is because not only does he fit the original, historical definition, but my view of a chivalrous knight is:
- A good horseman.
- Good at fighting and being a soldier.
- Brave and courageous.
- Honorable.
- Merciful to his allies, swift in enacting judgment against his enemies.
- Courteous.
- Pragmatic.
- Has good moral character.
CONCLUSION:
So that's chivalry. It's pretty complicated as most historical matters are. If you want to simplify what chivalry is, it literally is aspects that make a knight good at his job, which can be as simple as being a good warrior on horseback, to many other things depending on your personal definition.
"But Cthulhu! What about Bushido?"
The Way of the Warrior is for next time....
Until next time guys!
Last edited:
