Ideals of Chivalry and Realities of War

This is the third of a six-part series about the Middle Ages with the goal of giving casual readers of medieval romances a better understanding of the time period.  Eventually, we’ll talk about why there were no damsels in distress but today we’ll learn why a knight is shining armor isn’t a good sign.

Previously:

In First the Fall, Then the Babarians, we discussed the macro trends of the early medieval period and how they set the foundation for the Early Middle Ages. We painted kings and knights with a broad brush and learned the benefits of political stability in Huzzah! Knights, Kings and Living the High Life. Today, we’re taking a closer look at the medieval warfare and those who fought.

Income Inequality

Feudalism is a political and economic system that required a class structure that became hereditary. The word itself is a modern invention to describe the medieval social structure in which all land “belonged” to the king. Nobles held honors (fiefs) in exchange for military service to the crown, and vassals, who worked or managed small pieces of land, were tenants of the nobles and owed them service (military or otherwise). Serfs worked the land for king, church, and knights, giving him labor and a share of the produce in exchange for military protection.

Medieval Man divided their society into three parts: those who work. Those who pray. Those who fight. Many casual students tend to think these three parts of society were roughly equal in numbers, but as historian Dorsey Armstrong points out, approximately 95 percent worked and less than 5 percent fought or prayed. Note: both knights and churchmen came from the same noble class.

There was little movement from one social class to the next until the Black Death (1347). I say little because there was small movement—one rung up or down (most likely down)—over the centuries and not everyone in medieval society fit neatly into the ideal of three social castes. Merchants neither worked nor prayed nor fought. Craftsmen living in cities didn’t owe allegiance to a lord, just their guild, and women have rarely fit the molds society tries to shove them into.

Additionally, the "average" person could and did fight with pikes and bows, but the large, terrorizing warhorses, well-made swords, and protective mail were reserved for the knight. In other words, a very small ruling class maintained control by being better armed and bettered trained to use those arms than the vast majority of people.

This is important to understanding the role warriors played in this society. Many could neither read nor write, were trained in the martial arts from roughy age seven onward, and were fostered in the households of their lords to build ties with others in their class and those above them in the hierarchy.

Knights' deeds were sanitized and exalted in song, which is where we get the idealized Knight in Shining Armor, but their lives were so marked by violence and blood that the church led a campaign to civilize these warriors. Knighthood and chivalry were not synonymous until very, very late in the era. 

Frankly, if we met a typical medieval knight on the street, we'd likely cross the street to avoid him.

Those Who Fight

This is a misericorde, a small dagger designed to slip between
helmet and mail (or armor plates) and kill a wounded knight.

The myth of medieval warfare is that it was a series of one-to-one battles where honor and chivalric principles held firm in the middle of a melee. It’s a pretty picture, but untrue. Warfare in the middle ages was still war. It was the nasty, brutal business of killing people to achieve a goal. Where medieval warfare differs from modern warfare is sometime how the goal could be achieved.

According to historian R.C. Smail in his book Crusading Warfare 1097-1193, the true goal was to capture and keep a castle or other fortified place, not to destroy the enemy forces or bring about an unconditional surrender, which is often the aim of modern military campaigns.

The battles for these fortifications, though, were bloody. Foot soldiers and bowmen were often slaughtered, and knights were "dispatched" on the battlefield as often as they were captured and held for ransom.

The Early Middle Ages were marked by invasions (Franks, Angles, Vikings) and internal battles for power, so the social structure coalesced around military society. Those who fought ruled. Those who worked served those who fought. One repercussion of feudalism was the tendency to concentrate the family’s wealth on one heir, leaving subsequent sons trained as knights but without an inheritance. Even the “heir” was idle until his father died and he could begin running the estate. As you can image, these unmarried, landless, idle young men posed a serious threat to public order.

How serious?

Think about the reckless, testosterone-driven impetuousness of males between the ages of 15 and 25 (give or take a couple of years). Now, give them wealth, celebrity-style status, weapons and training, then turn them loose to rape and pillage the countryside. Got it?

Hence, the clerical efforts to soften and reform knighthood.

A Knight in Shining Armor

In the 11th century, Cluny monks promoted ethical warfare, which inspired the formation of chivalric orders, such as the Knights Templar. However, the immediate goal was to reduce the threat to public order and the predatory impulses of these warriors by giving them a higher purpose. Cluny monks weren’t the first to try to install self-discipline in warriors. As early as the 9the century, Charlemagne attempted to elevate the role and responsibilities of knights above mere killing with his Code of Conduct in the Song of Roland.

The code didn’t change much over time, although it became shorter. By the 14th century, it was reduced to the Twelve Knightly Virtues: faith, charity, justice, sagacity, prudence, temperance, resolution, truth, liberality, diligence, hope and valor.

Within chivalry is the view that proper Christian behavior for a knight is considerate treatment of noncombatants (to use a thoroughly modern word) in the obligation to defend the weak and to be courteous to women. The proper treatment of women, however, was usually restricted to women of the knight’s own class, which meant 95 percent of the women were fair game.

As freemen began to rival (and exceed) the nobility in terms of wealth, chivalry became more class conscious. Prowess was no longer the primary qualification of a knight. Bloodlines were. Proof of noble birth was now required to compete in tournaments and to join one of the chivalric orders, such as the Templars or the Hospitallers.

Chivalry in its ideal form is immortalized in the Arthurian tales, which had been told for centuries but came into their full form during this period. The Arthurian cycle reflects the ideals and society of the High Middle Ages, not post-Roman Britain, which is when most scholars say “Arthur” likely lived, if he lived at all.

Oh, and why is a Knight in Shining Armor not a good thing? Simple. If the armor is shining, it’s new. So either the knight is green or he is more interested in looking the part than being the part.

I am not a medieval military historian. Further reading (if you’re interested): http://www.medievalists.net/2009/12/medieval-warfare/. Come back in May when we take a look at damsels in distress.

Keena Kincaid writes historical romances in which passion, magic and treachery collide to create unforgettable stories. Her books are available from Prairie Rose Publications and Amazon. For more information on her stories, visit her Amazon page, her website, or Facebook.

Monty Python skewers the Arthurian legend in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (copyright theirs) and does a good job poking fun at the Middle Ages and medievalists at the same time.

Huzzah! Knights, Kings and Living the High Life

Town square anchored by medieval church in Astorga, Spain. The city began life as a Roman outpost, then town, and is now a major stop on the Camino de Santiago.

This is the second of a six-part series about the Middle Ages with the goal of giving casual readers of medieval romances a better understanding of the time period.  Eventually, we’ll talk about why there were no damsels in distress and why a knight is shining armor isn’t a good sign but first… we’re going to discuss The High Middle Ages, which is pretty much what people think of when you say “medieval.”

Previously...

In First the Fall, Then the Babarians, we discussed the macro trends of the early medieval period and how they set the foundation for the Early Middle Ages. In short, these trends were the breakdown of the Pax Romana followed by mass, sometimes violent, migrations that led to the establishment of dozens of small kingdoms in which kings vowed to protect while those around him pledged loyalty and service. 

Today, we're talking about kings and knights.

High Middle Ages (~1100 to 1400) 

For most people, Medieval travel was disguised as a "pilgrimage."

The High Middle Ages started about 1050 A.D. (shortly after the millennium came and went without the world ending—yes, medieval Europe had a Y1K scare) and lasted until about the 1348. After that date, repeated waves of plague, war and economic troubles inexorably altered society. The period between the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance is typically called the Late Middle Ages. From an academic point-of-view, I prefer to call it a transition period, but that’s me.

During the High Middle Ages, the barbarian invasions ceased, the Vikings got religion and grew roots, and Europe became more politically organized and—most importantly—politically stable, which leads to wealth, leisure, scholarship, art and architecture and travel. Politically instability leads to the loss of those key social components.

Key Trends

• Population growth. The population reached levels in the mid-13th century that wouldn’t be seen again for 600 years.
• A warming trend from the 10th to the 14th century bolstered crop yields and saw wheat grown in Scandinavia and wine grapes raised in England
• Food production increased due to the use of a heavier plow, horses instead of oxen, and a three-field system.

This population boom also contributed to the growth of urban centers and in industrial and economic activity during the period. This period brought us spinning wheels (an improvement over the distaff), magnetic compasses (major impact on navigation and trade) and movable type (which made possible the printing press—arguably the most significant advance of our species).

Bumper crops contributed to increased trade and learning, which created an outburst of creativity in art and architecture. In part because of the Crusades, the learned rediscovered Aristotle. The philosophical giants of the age included Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, and Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch). 

Political leadership was in the hands of the likes of Pope Gregory VII, Henry II, and Emperor Henry IV, and the power struggle between church and state reached its apex. The era also gave us chivalric role models such as Richard the Lionheart, William Marshal, and Edward, the Black Prince.

On the downside, the social structure solidified with titles, occupations and place becoming inherited. What this meant for most people is if their father were a tanner, they would be a tanner.

Knights also became common baronial accouterments. Technically, these armed men served the king (each vassal owed the king so many lance fees depending upon the size of his lands) but these knights also kept royal power in check as the king couldn’t always force his vassals to do as he bid. Under weak kings household knights amounted to a private army and contributed to the Anarchy of the English Civil War and kept the Capetian Kings’ influence limited to its power base in and around Paris. 

A Good King

Unlike the early Middle Ages when the king had to be a good warrior, warrior kings could be disastrous during this era. The most extreme case is probably Richard I, who didn’t pay attention to the administrative details, didn’t leave an heir before traipsing off on crusade and bankrupting England during his 10-year reign. 

His brother John, on the other hand, had the makings of a good king because he was an able administrator. He failed, though, because he inherited a bankrupt kingdom from his brother and was extremely unpopular with his nobles and subjects. In my opinion, he neither liked people nor was liked by them, so the ability to build relationships, which is critical to good governance in any era, eluded him.

The Good Fight

The Crusades stimulated the economy, reviving trade and banking, weakened many noble families (who were bankrupted or destroyed by the crusades), which in turned strengthened crown and miter, and energized learning, contributing to the growth of universities. Another benefit, less easily traced but one that we can assume is a certain refinement that came from the lords and knights who did return from the Holy Land. Travel tends to change how one thinks. It was true then. It’s true now.

Leisure time was a benefit of political stability. Society could build the great cathedrals, people could afford to go on pilgrimages, and families could survive having a son spend years at one of the universities. Leisure time also allowed for the growth of jousts or tournaments, the football (soccer) of its day.

If you've never seen the Heath Ledger movie A Knights Tale, watch it. The anachronisms are legion. But the movie captures the spirit of a medieval tournament, and is good brain candy.

Note: these tournaments were similar to today’s modern rodeo, a celebration of skills that are no longer needed in everyday life. With this in mind, we’ll talk about the Ideals of Chivalry vs. Realities of War next month.

Keena Kincaid writes historical romances in which passion, magic and treachery collide to create unforgettable stories. Her books are available from Prairie Rose Publications and Amazon. For more information on her stories, visit her Amazon page, her website, or Facebook.