Defining 'chivalry' in the Middle Ages is harder than nailing Jell-O to a wall. The meaning of chivalry kept changing depending on the era and the situation. In particular, the image of the 'romantic, cool knight' that we commonly know is actually the result of a filter applied in the 19th century, long after knights had vanished. Even if we look at the actual Medieval period in Western Europe where knights were active, there were already three major conflicting views on chivalry mixed together. To summarize these in a way modern people can understand:
1. First, there is the chivalry defined in the context of 'Courtly Romance,' recited by the high nobility at the center. In these romances, chivalry refers to noble warriors who are valiant, loyal, generous, and uphold proper manners. In corporate terms, this is 'chivalry' from the perspective of HQ executives or the HR department.
2. Second is chivalry from the perspective of the Christian Church. This ecclesiastical chivalry urged knights to protect the weak and guard the Church and the Holy Land. If this were a company, this is 'chivalry' from the Audit Team’s perspective.
3. Finally, there is the chivalry understood from the treatises and heroic poems written by the military nobles themselves—the very people called 'knights' who dominated the battlefields of the time. These are, so to speak, the field workers, openly showing contempt for those who sit at desks writing and praying. This discussion will primarily focus on the voices of those who were actually out in the field.
"Peasants are 'Farming Targets'."
"Now the story tells that no sooner had Tristan become a knight than he took very noble vengeance for his father. He was not satisfied with his vengeance even after he had slain the eight knights who were present when the king died. He therefore rode to Brescia, the city where these knights resided, and slew all the men and women there, and destroyed the city and the very foundations of its walls. All this was done by Tristan as an act of vengeance for his father King Meliadus, and never before had any knight wrought greater vengeance for the death of his father." - From 'Tristan and the Round Table' (La Tavola Ritonda), a 15th-century Tuscan romance.
In fantasy literature, knights slay dragons or witches, but actual medieval knights wielded their swords against defenseless peasants, monks, merchants, and women. To the knights, these people were not objects of protection but mere NPCs—just farming targets, treated like things that looked human but were actually just approximations of people. This is because they considered the common folk 'lowly beings bound to the land,' while they themselves were 'those who carry out the great business of war.'
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought back. But the dragon was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Revelation 12:7-9
To modern people, war is an emergency or disaster that breaks the peace. But in the medieval worldview, war was an everyday constant, like 'the weather.' According to the Bible, the medieval worldview's guide book, the first war took place in heaven, and 'as it is done in heaven, so it shall be on earth,' meaning the celestial war of the angels was recreated on earth as the knights' holy war.
Medieval people believed that earthly war was proof that God, who fought the first war in heaven, willingly shared that glory with humanity. Knights were the ones who monopolized a sort of 'violence license' issued directly by God in this sacred, permanent state of violence. In short, the violence perpetrated by knights was not considered a sin but rather stemmed from the sacred duty God bestowed upon them.
And this 'violence' was derived not from abstract moral courage, as some normative codes of chivalry claimed, but from a physical, tangible dimension symbolized by blood and muscle. The knight was not the protector of ethics. Instead, he was regarded as a free ruler and avenger, bound by no ethics or morals. They proudly considered themselves glorious 'nobles' whose rights were exclusively guaranteed by God.
Knights also believed that achieving victory on the battlefield was the only way to prove their special relationship with the Almighty Lord. This relationship did not require the intercession of priests. They thought that struggling to defeat enemies by risking their lives in battle was the best way to directly settle things with God, far better than the priests' fasting (common during war) or praying all night (also common during war).
"Civilian Looting? Just a 'Misunderstanding by the Working Level'?"
Romantics tend to shield knights by claiming, 'The knights tried to fight like gentlemen, but the lower-ranking soldiers were uncontrollable, leading to brutal looting.' They suggest that the Middle Ages were the sole exception in the otherwise ugly history of human warfare, claiming medieval knights uniquely served a universal ethical code across cultures, prioritized honor over profit, and even sought to protect the rights of peasants and women.
This argument is basically just the 'The executives tried their best, but the working-level staff messed up' type of scapegoating. Knights were not 'protectors of the demesne.' If their land was conquered by the enemy or was certain to be, they would burn and loot it without hesitation. This is the scorched-earth tactic you learn in textbooks. And horrific wars that threatened the lives of thousands of serfs could sometimes be triggered by trivial reasons that harmed the lord's personal prestige—like the theft of a basket of apples. What kind of protector would abandon their duty for such a foolish reason?
Romantics cite records where some medieval chroniclers criticized 'knights looting non-combatants' to argue that chivalry actually held the ideal of 'protecting the weak.' However, if you look closely at the context, you'll find that many chronicles are far more likely to generalize about 'our side's' looting or even praise it. It’s like biased coverage, and there was no ABS in the Middle Ages to enforce fair play.
Furthermore, profits gained through looting were directly linked to honor. Knights didn't waste time on trivial tasks like defending peasants as guardians of the demesne. Instead, they focused their time on protecting 'our side's destroyers'—the agents of attack who willingly burned and looted enemy territories, content to be called 'destroyers.' This was considered far more honorable than boring things like guarding the estate.
*For example, when Jean Froissart criticizes the Massacre of Limoges in his chronicle, he laments why the 'poor who could not bear arms' and had not committed 'the sin of treason' had to pay the same price. The focus of the criticism here was not that 'chivalry was violated,' nor the 'act of massacre' itself, but the 'indiscriminate nature' of 'the English.'
"Chivalry was PR material invented because the 'knights' who actually existed were armed thugs who preferred the 'looting meta' over saving damsels. They just needed an excuse to farm NPCs."
#FunContinue Browsing
