Is Chivalry Dead

Is Chivalry Dead?! What do you think of when you hear the word “chivalry”? I can’t speak for everyone but I know most of us, when we hear or think about the word "chivalry," automatically we picture images of such figures as the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, Prince Charming, Gawain and The Green Knight, castles, and images of heavily armor knights saving princess or the cliche-ic “damsels in distress”. Though myths and fairytales illustrate this picture of chivalry, this in fact is a result of what the world has come to mean.

Originally, the word “chivalry” had a different meaning. During the middle ages, the individuals who lived during this time use chivalry as a “code of conduct”. This “code of conduct” was put in place help the society become better by organizing it. People who lived during the Middle Ages supported the “code of conduct” because they felt it may help control the nation and help it gain more power. With any society, if chaos arises something is put into place for it to be demolished.

For example, laws are created to provide a society with some type of order. Therefore, chivalry was created to control a society. “Chivalry wasn’t only to regulate the disorganization within a society but it also provided individuals at the type of the social ladder to be viewed with high esteem, particularly knight”. In order for a knight to make a name for himself or be recognized as honorable, he had to follow the behavioral code of chivalry.

Order custom essay Is Chivalry Dead with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

In modern society, one might speculate if chivalry has influence other people from across the globe. Although it pretty safe to say that in our society, chivalry has not fully impact us as a society, neither socially or culturally. Therefore providing truth to the saying that chivalry is dead. In medieval times, power in Europe was dispersed to the people of hierarchy. The people of great nobility, such as the king, had control of people who were viewed as inferior, such as the peasants.

The earliest way for the nobles to protect themselves and land is through feudalism. Feudalism is a social system based on a hierarchy which consists of social, political, and economic systems. The purpose of the feudalism system was to give the nobles a chance to have power over lands and people. “This control would be so successful that it would provide a way for the king to give knights things such as gold or land in exchange for their loyalty and service to the kingdom”. This was the bases for the “code of conduct. ”

Chivalry among men in the novel The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

The element of chivalry overshadows everything else in Alexandre Dumas's historical romance, The Three Musketeers. The work was set against the background of King Louis VIII's France. It was a time of intrigue, treachery and machinations in high places, an atmosphere in which you could hardly distinguish friend from foe. It was at this juncture that D'Artagnan, the principal character arrives in Paris.

When he sets out to seek his fortune in the famed city, as any young man did in those times and still does to some extent, he was armed with only the three things that were given to him by his aging father:

They were, a horse as aging as his progenitor, fifteen crowns and a letter of introduction to Monsieur de Treville, captain of the musketeers, the personal guards of the French king. And there follows a story so packed with events that it leaves the readers spellbound.

To many, the idea of chivalry seem frivolous, naïve and very much in vain. It is like taking romanticism to an illogical conclusion. You have only got to read Don Quixote to remind yourself of this fact. But one comes to the conclusion that there is a flip side to it after all, after reading the swashbuckling heroics of the protagonist and his bosom pals.

Although some of their exploits seem somewhat comic and incredulous, the way they were committed endears them to our hearts with the sheer buoyancy, exuberance and spontaneity of those acts. It takes one right back to childhood, when one indulged in the fantasies peculiar to the period, thereby filling us with nostalgia and even déjà vu.

Here, the protagonist also “Seeks great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight, realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens.

Nobility also has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in the service of rightness.” (Price, Brian R. 1997).

So the aforementioned negative qualities of chivalry do not in any way detract from the story in the least as we find the protagonist move forward in his onward momentum, in the most chivalrous manner, “packed with events and exciting dramatic encounters.” (Dumas, Alexandre).

For this, indeed, is a story packed with events with the spirit of chivalry leading it ever forward. And watching D’Artagnan move from adventure to mayhem, one is filled with an overwhelming sense of admiration for the perpetrator of all those hair-raising episodes.

And before long one is convinced of the fact that the idea of chivalry is not so frivolous and foolish after all, as seemed at first. Although at times it sounds childishly romantic, it has its high points of idealism, even if it is romantic in nature and so not everybody’s cup of tea.

For D’Artagnan does follow the kind of chivalry in its original connotations. At every step, he is ‘guided by the ideals of chivalry, a moral code that has its origins in medieval knighthood.’ (Dumas, Alexandre).

And we sit glued to our seats as if are watching an action packed movie. He exhibits almost all the qualities considered necessary by a typical chivalrous person. First and foremost he is guided by the quality of prowess.

In every action ‘he seeks excellence in all endeavors he goes through, martial or otherwise. Like a true knight he does not use his strength for personal glory but uses to serve the cause of justice.' (Price, Brian R. 1997).

He is also fiercely loyal to the cause and the people whom he seeks to serve. In the novel, he is loyal to his friends, his country and his amour Madame Bonacieux. And like a true knight he fights the forces of evil with all his strength. Thus he battles the villain Cardinal Richelieu and his guards. Yet he has the time to answer the calls of love from the beautiful and enigmatic Madame Bonacieux.

His cronies were Athos, Porthos and Aramis. They were with him in all his adventures and escapades throughout the narrative. Strangely enough, they became friends by fighting duels with D’Artagnan on the one hand and the others one after another, on the other.

These encounters came to an end when they were confronted by the arch villain Cardinal Richelieu’s guards who, at that juncture and then onwards, became their common enemy. And their common exploits under the leadership of D’Artagnan also became tinted with the codes of chivalry then prevalent throughout the length and breadth of Europe.

Another chivalric code of conduct is to fight for justice ‘unencumbered by bias or personal interest.’ ((Price, Brian R. 1997). Accordingly, the four friends wielded the sword in cause of justice while at the same time practicing the fine qualities of mercy and humanity. They fought against the evil Cardinal whose machinations had filled the French court with intrigue, treachery and violence.

The chivalric code of defense, demands that D’Artagnan and company also should defend their liege lord, in this case the king of France. But here there is a deviation and object the D’Artagnan’s fealty falls on the queen instead of the king by a quirk of circumstance. ‘The Musketeers join forces to protect the honor of the Queen, to help her conceal her affair with Buckingham, and to help her to arrange meetings with him.

This may seem like a relatively trivial matter to most modern readers when compared to the urgencies of the political situation of the time, but according to the code of chivalry and honor that the Musketeers believe in, fostering true love is of the highest importance.’

In this work the hero achieves his goals through pride honor and determination. A true gallant always defends his honor whatever be the cost of doing so. For this he is ready to die if necessary.

Was Chivalry in Decline During the 14th and 15th Centuries

Far from disappearing, chivalry during the 14 and 15th centuries it was actually going through somewhat of a revival, some historians even go as far to say it was experiencing a “renascence” in the late middle ages albeit an imperfect one. Even though it appears in this period of medieval history that chivalry was becoming all the more popular, fashionable even, the meaning and spirit behind chivalry that were so important during the first crusades were dilapidated, therefore one can see why it can be viewed that chivalry was in decline in the 14th 15th century.

This is especially apparent seeing as Chivalry became a tool to be wielded by those privileged enough to have the money and influence to use it. Furthermore despite the large amount of bravado surrounding chivalry in the later medieval period, this just underlines the fact that chivalry in the 14th and 15th centuries was a hollow shell of what it had been in the time of the crusades. Kilgour indentifies chivalry in the early medieval period as the “First heroic age" where a “fusion of military glory and religion” was achieved for the first time.

In his description of the glory of chivalry in its early days Kilgour only stresses the devaluation of chivalry in its time of decline in the 14th and 15th century. The writings of J Huizinga in which he describes the return of chivalry as ”a rather artificial revival of things long dead, a sort of deliberate and insincere renascence of ideas drained of any real value” offer a clear analysis of chivalry and its decline as an ideal with any real meaning during the 14th and 15th century.

Even though to a large extent he is certainly right to view chivalry as a hollow shell of what it was, his statement is slightly implausible because by no means were there no chivalric deeds performed that would not have seemed out of place some 200 years earlier during the crusades, for example: “A knight of the nation of Hainault named Sir Loys de Robessart. One day it happened that his enemies found him in a village with few of his people with him. There they attacked him and staged a fine skirmish. And although his enemies where great in numbers and much stronger he drove them out of he village. Thereupon a great force of his enemies renewed the attack, and although he sighted them at a distance, all the same he disdained to flee or to show any signs of fear. But with very steady, noble and virtuous courage sallied forth and in order to uphold the honour of this order of chivalry and of himself he determined to hold his ground, and there he died gloriously, for before he died when he saw he could not hold he made his men withdraw to the castle, for which act he was greatly praised both by his enemies and his own men. ”

From this example it is apparent that there were cases in which chivalric actions were not completely selfless, suggesting to one that chivalry was not in decline. Never the less mindful of Maurice Keens remark that the value of chivalry signified by the heroic ideals of the earlier romances has been lost to sight in a quest for imitative decoration, it is thus easy to see that perhaps even the most selfless cases of chivalry recorded by historians like the tale of Roberssart just suit to underpin the inherent flaws in late medieval chivalry with their “quest for imitative decoration. There is however one issue in the early medieval period that is conceivably the defining factor in best determining if there was a decline in chivalry in the 14th and 15th century, one that is not explored by Huizinga or Kilgour.

It is whether the state of chivalry in its “first heroic age” was any different in its ideals and value before it had collapsed into a “mad, exaggerated display. One aspect that might prove this conclusion to be correct is raised by Maurice Keen who observes that some of the evidence describing chivalry, although being less plentiful in the 12th century is remarkably similar to what is being said two or three hundred years later. This example is enough to convince one that there was little difference in the spirit of chivalry at its beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, suggesting that there was not a decline in chivalry due to it losing its meaning because that meaning was unchanged in some two hundred years.

Despite her argument there is some evidence which disproves Maurice Keen’s notion of a chivalric spirit unchanged over two hundred years, which apart from being implausible, is proved to be inaccurate due to the evolution of chivalry as a tool to be used for selfish ends further undermining the ideals for which chivalry stands. The best illustration of chivalry being used as a tool is when it started to be harnessed for means of propaganda.

This can be seen most prominently at the Vow of the Pheasant and the banquet held at Lille in 1445, in which the banquet was used to lavishly display a sense of chivalry with the intention of trying to gain the adequate support to initiate a crusade along the Mediterranean. However this was no excessive imitation of the past but was a calculated move by King Philip the Good, a move which perfectly illustrates the decline of chivalry in the late Middle Ages. What one also needs to understand is that this was not an isolated case.

Chivalry was used as a tool in other ways as well. For example many Dukes’ Counts and court officials hoped that by exploiting the genuine respect for chivalrous values and conduct they could “solidify” respect for their rather “shaky” ducal authority. This point is interestingly supported by Maurice Keen who despite her previous argument explains that “chivalry was something secular princes could exploit” mainly because it was taken so seriously by “a very important sector of people. What makes her statement even more plausible is that it is reinforced by Raymond Kilgour, whose view is that an event such as these pageants evolved without a “deeper value to society” such was the extent to the dilapidation of chivalry, and its decline in the 14th and 15th centuries Despite much evidence to prove that chivalry was in decline in the late medieval period of the 14th and 15th centuries, some events just do not lend themselves to be interpreted it in this way.

Especially when taken into account that a definition of the word decline is “the period when something reaches its end” this is particularly interesting as there are some documents which raise the question whether chivalry actually ever reached a period of definite decline at all in the 15th and 14th centuries, despite its withering spirit. One such piece of evidence that supports this view is a table listing all books printed in Venice in reference to military affairs.

This specific document is useful because of all the works devoted to military affairs or dealing with them, the most prevalent category of book published was that of the laws of war and chivalry. The fact that this table lists books on chivalric warfare as being so popular this late on in the 1400’s must denote that chivalry was not in decline, for if it was going through a tangible Decline it would surely not have been such a popular subject for publishing.

However if we are to take Huizinga’s view that chivalry was nothing more than “a rather artificial revival of things long dead” this would explain why even though chivalry exercised a “disastrous” affect on wars in this period of late medieval period it was still so wrote about. Another interpretation which supports Huizinga’s view is that litterateurs of the time where probably trying to capitalize on chivalry as a popular subject, similar to the way that secular princes used chivalry as a tool as Maurice Keen pointed out.

Chivalry in practise was obviously not in decline in the late medieval period however in spirit it was, a perfect exhibition of this is shown through the disastrous effect chivalry had on the outcome of wars and on France itself. This was mainly the doing of King John the Good whose reign was “disastrous” to France because of his “chivalric prejudice”, as is pointed out by J Huizinga who rightly claims that it was King Johns “chivalric stubbornness” and carelessness which cost him the battle of Poitiers in 1356, as well as one of his most celebrated chivalric knights Geroffroi De Charny.

This use of chivalry almost seems as though it’s being used to keep up appearances with what was fashionable at the time no matter the cost, and as a result underlines the decline in the spirit of chivalry and therefore the decline of chivalry itself. In conclusion the “cult” of chivalry as it is sometimes called in the later middle ages is generally considered by the majority of historians who deal with it indirectly or directly as meaningless, and therefore it has to be perceived as being in decline.

Karl Brandi labelled the elaborate protocol at play in chivalric court as an “impressive, sumptuous yet wholly meaningless shell. ” Similarly J Huizinga described chivalry as “naive” and “imperfect. ” Raymond Kilgour on the other hand stated that chivalry was an “extravagant” illusion to try and maintain a feeling of “significance. ” All these statements overwhelmingly point at a chivalry in a dire state of decline in the late medieval period, however in reality it was going through a revival.

Despite this revival, chivalry was weak in spirit and had disastrous effects on society, the outcomes of war and on France itself. From this assumption it’s hard not to see that although chivalry in practise was not in decline in practise its meanings and ideals were, hence why one can see that chivalry was in decline in the 14 and 15th century.

Comitatus & Chivalry

Comitatus and Chivalry are two concepts that resounded all throughout the Medieval Ages. However, while the two are closely related, there is a clear difference between them. Between the two, Chivalry is perhaps more recognized, but not necessarily more widely-practiced. Bennett in his book, Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare, traces the origin of Comitatus to reign of Emperor Diocletian where Germanic and Roman commanders were assigned a comitatus, soldiers who held “direct allegiance to their individual commander, rather than to the army as a whole.(2001, 81)

The term later on evolved to describe the dynamics that exists between a warrior and his Lord. Comitatus holds that while both are still in the battlefield, actively fighting, neither lord nor warrior can leave the scene of battle for any reason. Both entered the battle, and both should leave at the same time. This may be where the “leave no man behind” phrase comes from. This agreement that exists between Germanic Lords and his subordinates is believed to have given rise to the feudal system, where the serfs owed loyalty to their feudal lord.

Some scholars maintain that there is no break between the original comitatus of the Roman Empire and the vassals of the Middle Ages (Powicke, 1949, 92) Chivalry describes the virtues practiced by the knights of the Middle Ages. It is hard to place a specific definition to chivalry, but it is a moral and social code which advocated honor, courage, and respect. When we talk of chivalry, we conjure images of a knight in shining armor, ready and able to rescue us from our dire circumstances (Frantzen, 204, 1)

Comitatus is a code that binds soldiers to their commanders, while chivalry is a code that binds men to the principles of honor and virtue, wherever they may be. While both concepts refer to relationships and values, comitatus is more about loyalty and courage in battle, while chivalry is more about loyalty and courage in all aspects of life. Chivalry presupposes comitatus, but comitatus does not necessarily mean chivalry.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer