Talk:Chivalry


 * Archived discussion from Knightly Virtues

Improvement drive
Heraldry has been nominated to be improved by This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article there if you want to contribute. --Fenice 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How is this related to the concept of Courtly Love? Should these two articles be linked? hdstubbs

The Military Orders
The military orders were established to protect the church, its properties, and pilgrims (the faithful) - they were not established to protect the greater "society" as another editor insists on claiming. The Church did not recognize any society besides itself and the nobles who were in good standing with the pope. Opposing views, anyone, anyone? Ordrestjean 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See Peace and Truce of God, Feudalism and Crusade for further examples of how the Church pacified violence by nobels in medieval society. The paragraph says "in essence". If you want to get into the specifics then there is a separate article for the chivalric orders, this is about chivalry in general. Also to distinguish between Church members and non-Church members is kinda silly - everyone was a Church member, there was no non-Church society that wasnt a heresy. By protecting thier own interests they protected everyones interest, it was known as the three orders, each balanced the other. --Stbalbach 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Concepts
Shouldn't the paradox of chivalry both curbing and encouraging violence within society be mentioned here? Also this article lacks the difference between historical evidence and the romance/epic tradition of knighthood and chivalry which are two separate things. Cariel 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, the goal was to tame and control the violence. Since violence was such an integral part of midevil society and knightly culture, abolishing it would seem unrealistic and perhaps insulting to the knights, but by introducing rules for the violence, its cruelty, especially to the peasant and priestly classes, could be reduced. I suppose you are right however about talking about the distance between the ideal and reality. Jztinfinity 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The part concerning the involvement of the Church in the institution of the medieval warrior class and its role in the propagation of the code of chivalry could have a clearer presentation if the context of this involvement is given an ample consideration. It should be seen in the Church's effort to convert the warring temperament of the Germanic and barbarian culture of the new setllers of the vast part of what was before the Roman Empire. This can be done by taking into consideration the important background regarding the development of the European medieval society which slowly took the form of an amalgam of Germanic, Graeco-Roman, and Judaeo-Christian elements. In particular, it would be helpful to understand and give a better presentation regarding this topic if the Church's effort to promote peace and to stop violance, through the Peace and Truce of God could also be considered. The Crusades is also an indespensable related topic in the comprehensive understanding of chivalry. Furthermore, aside from opinions of historians regarding the elements that helped shape the development of the ideals and institution of chivalry, it is useful to consult the documents of that the Church had officially enacted in this regard, especially the documents of local synods and councils in Europe during the medieval period, e.g., Synod of Narbonne in the year 990, of Charroux in 989, Pisa in 1134, etc. The documents of these councils which all deal with the Church's effort to promote peace and combat violence can be found in the volumes XIX-XXI of the work of Johannes Domenicus Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlaganstalt Graz, 1960-1961. They are all in the original Latin text and are very reliable sources of documents regarding the Church's teachings and attitude towards the use of armed force during the medieval period. As such, they helped shape the ideals of chivalry. Also, historians would point out that the ideals of medieval chivalry have been captured in the important works of John of Salibury (Policraticus), and of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (De laude novae militiae), There are available copies of translation Policraticus in English. However, I've only seen an Italian translation of the original Latin of Bernard's ''De laude novae militae'. You can check: Opere di San Bernardo, Ferrucio Gasteldelli, ed., Milano: Scriptorium Claravalnese, 1984, Vol. I, pp. 438-483.

Also, the documents of the General Councils of the Church during the medieval period contains article that can help in the better understanding of the Church's teachings pertaining to the legitimate use of armed force- teachings that were also very influencial in the development of the ideals of chivalry in medieval Europe, which was Catholic in its religious character and social perspective. User:Johnbrillantes 14:06, 09 November 2006

Major renovation needed
This is all very schematic stuff and does not really get into what chivalry is, where it came from, how it developed, and what happened to it - the key questions anyone reading this article will wish answered.

I don't have the time to do this myself just now, and in any case my knowledge only extends to 1300, but it would certainly be helpful if someone who had read a bit of Maurice Keen & co could flesh this out substantially, getting from all the anachronistic church/state, temporal/spiritual, knight/nobility dichotomies which are thoroughly unhelpful in this context.

Areas for improvement would be: bottom up development across europe:
 * knightly piety
 * role of chivalric literature/roots in troubadour poetry and occitan society
 * wider 'warrior' tradition in europe, from tacitus' on the germans in 'germania' to 'beowulf'
 * development of medieval warfare (esp. role of mercenaries)

top down papal/royal influence - encroachment on knightly lifestyle:
 * the phenomenon of the miles christi
 * military orders
 * crusades
 * role in frontier society

obviously there's plenty of overlap between these two approaches, and to intertwine them would be ideal. also, there's plenty of stuff on the culture surrounding it (dubbing, heraldry, court life etc) which i simply don't know enough about. but i do think that to give a fair representation of chivalry it has to be placed in its wider context and presented as an expression of other factors rather than a monolithic factor in itself, which would be ahistorical and unhelpful to the reader.

ajc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.209.175 (talk • contribs).


 * No doubt. Sounds accurate, I never trusted the "monolithic" approach myself but that seems to be a common way of doing it for this topic. Thank you for the comments and pointers. Hopefully you may have time to contribute additional in the future. -- Stbalbach 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Monolithic
The latest revision included much useful information but edited out that there were conflicting forms of chivalry. It was not that monolithic. Am restoring. Goldfritha 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's unclear why you deleted historical context such as:
 * Chivalry was in essence a warrior code that was later appropriated and propagated by the Church, which added a Christian aspect. The Church even allowed warrior monks to create orders of chivalry, which were organizations of Christian knights who would protect the church and society. Courtly love lay more emphasis on the courtesy and respect for ladies. Three tendencies in chivalry are distinguishable:

Or replaced this line:
 * Today, chivalry is interpreted as courteous behavior, especially by men, towards women.

With this line:
 * Over the ages chivalry has seemed to have taken on a different meaning.

Over the ages? What does an "ages" mean? Seemed to? Stbalbach 14:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious NPOV
Near the end of the article, the context of the writing seems to be very personalized, saying there is no context for the behaviour of gentleness to women without god. While perhaps that might be an origin, it is certainly not required. Chivalry evolved since the medieval times, and gentleness to women can actually be considered part of the whole 'defending the weak' since women were stereotypified as weak and thus required protecting and gentle treatment from men, much as children, the elderly, the weak, etc.

Chivalry is not dead, of course, but due to women's suffrage, chivalry may be applied to people more equally rather than a focus on women. Also, people unreceptive to chivalry have influenced those with chivalric attitudes to consider it chivalric to treat them as equals, as contrast as it seems. Tyciol 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
Some passages are copied nearly verbatim from, which in turn is based heavily on a book that is not in the public domain (see ).

The text passages in question seem stylistically unusual for Wikipedia. I found the Tripod page by googling for "it was as a result of the Crusades, which achieved this union, that medieval chivalry came into bloom".

As I couldn't find any notion of the text on the website being GPL'd and there is no donation note on this talk page, I flagged the article as a possible copyright violation.

The additions in question seem to have been added by Musiclover9519 starting with an |edit on Dec 29 2006&mdash; Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole article needs to be re-written from the ground up, its been on my wish list for a while. Thanks for removing a large chunk of the article, that will make it a lot easier to start anew. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Major addition of 6/21/07
Anonomyous user 71.40.68.62 added several paragraphs of material. Some of it was clearly not encyclopedic due to tone, subjective statements, generalizations etc. While some it was probably a good addition to the article, including (incomplete) citations/references. These good aspects should've have been incorporated into the article instead of tacked onto the end. Mercutio.Wilder 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandals
this article seems to have been damaged by someone systematically substituting the word 'satan' for 'christ'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.48.99 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

err.. I'm no Wikipedian, but I figured "MIKE RICHARDSON IS A HOMO" probably needed undoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.230.82 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim origin
I don't know what to make of this but it's non-standard and has some wild claims, weak sources and original research. I'd like to see some more authoritative European medieval scholars on Chivalry, besides those in Islamic studies. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The tradition of the chivalric "knight in shining armor" can be traced back to the Arabs, with notable pre-Islamic figures like the Bedouin knight Antar The Lion (580 CE). He is believed to be the model of this tradition. Charles Reginald Haines noted traits "such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence...are found in eminent degree among the Arabs." Medieval Spain, which he calls the "cradle of chivalry", could bear that pre-modern title, due to the direct impact of Arab civilization in al-Andalus. "Piety, courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry, skill on horseback, dexterity with sword, lance, and bow" were traits expected of the elite Moorish knight. The frequent clashes between the Christians and Muslims preceding the Christian Crusades leave no doubt that orders of the knighthood and the tradition of courtly love were transmitted into Europe by way of the Muslim occupation.


 * I don't see what's wrong with this paragraph. It has three references; only one of which is particularly "Islamic studies".  The assertion that this paragraph is original research is not supported by what I see here.  The references consist of material so old it has no copyright.  If you'd like to include a section contending that this is incorrect please do so and provide references.  Otherwise stop removing it, or I will take this up with the moderators. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

__ __ __

I am very much in agreement with Mercutio.Wilder. Do my eyes deceive me, or has this been done by a non-registered user? Why is the Muslim or rather Arab origin in question? Removing a paragraph based upon a disagreement over the source of its citations is not proper conduct, especially as there are no citations given to prove otherwise. If their were, proper conduct would be to include both opinions with their citations. Chivalry as a code is something very ancient among the Arab bedouin tribes, and goes by the name murūwa ( [pl.] مروة ). It comes from the same root in Arabic as man, woman, and human being.

"The ideal of manhoo, comprising all knightly virtues, esp., manliness, valor, chivalry, generosity, sense of honor." The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, third edition, published by Spoken Language Services, Inc; pg 902

The Wikipedia article on this, found in Honor codes of the Bedouin, is wholly inaccurate and incorrect. It gives much weaker citations from a book, which has been discredited by major scholars, "The Arab Mind." A book which makes accusations such as "Many music-loving Arabs who have had a European education despise traditional Arab music." His statement is based on conversations. Hardly an accepted criteria of submission for scholarly peer review. Compared with his problems of scholarship, however, the reasons for removing this paragraph are really amazingly rash.

I would like the paragraph to be brought back and expanded upon, as there has been no genuinely rational reason for its removal, other than opinion with no supporting documentation. AbuLiBaiNuwas (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The objections to this section are wholly justified and based on the fact that these views cannot be found in current mainline scholarship. Haine's investigation of the matter is cursory, dated, and hardly scholarly (you can read it at Gutenberg). I'd point out that Chivalry also has a lot of similarities with the Greek Hoplite and Japanese Samurai, but asserting that these must be the 'true' origin of Chivalry is only slightly less absurd. Particularly silly is the certainty with which this section makes its pronouncement on Chivalry's Muslim origin. All the serious scholarship asserts that its origins are multifaceted, complicated, and different in varying locations; none of them talk about Islamic knighthood as a primary origin. If anything, this assertion should appear in a section of 'possible influences'. --R.scipio (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you R.scipio. European chivalry does not find its roots in the Arabic tradition. That is much older. I do not contest the fact there is maybe something similar in the Arabic countries, but the origin of European chivalry is much older and complicated than that and can be found a long time before in the traditions of the Indo-European peoples. Then the Gaulish people. Then the influence of the Roman mercenaries as the Sarmatic people or the Scythes is important too. Finally, the ultimous developments are to find in the heavy cavalry of Charlemain and in the North of France (not in the South, where there were Arabic raids).Nortmannus (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss/dispute "Muslim origin"
I read the discussion about this and I'm bothered by both the section and this statement: "The frequent clashes between the Christians and Muslims preceding the Christian Crusades leave no doubt that orders of the knighthood and the tradition of courtly love were transmitted into Europe by way of the Muslim occupation." "No doubt"? Sweeping statements such as this should always raise red flags. While I am not a scholar in medieval history I have read a little of the Arthurian legends which (correct me if I'm wrong here) predate the Crusades. I've found no research that shows us definitively that Islamic Spain's culture influenced European ideas of chivalry. Again, the blanket statement "no doubt" causes me to doubt! I've heard "scholars" who make such statements as "Western Europe owes its cultural heritage to the Islamic world". Such a statement is propaganda, and I feel the statement above is also. Can someone qualified either join the discussion or respond? Foreignshore (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

Footnote to this: The writer who inserted this section simply points out that a code of chivalry existed among the Arab Muslims, which is supported by the citations. This I don't dispute. I DO dispute the conclusion that he makes; see above paragraph.Foreignshore (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

I've looked the Muslim section over again, and it seems even more embarrassing now than before. Almost all cultures had some sort of warrior code, and to one degree or another they are similar; what is really interesting is their differences. It's seems quite probably that one of the many threads of influence in chivalry was the East. After all if you read Geoffry of Monmouth you will see in some stories occasional objects or characters said to be Eastern in origin. But to spend a third of the article talking about Islam as the origin is ludicrous. I'm just glad the person who first wrote the article didn't claim that chivalry came from the Alpha Centauri -- presumably we'd be arguing about that now. --R.scipio (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As this continues to be an object of contention, and has been re-inserted without further discussion here on the talk page, I have brought the matter to the Fringe theories noticeboard to gain a wider audience. Choess (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Arab's chivalry
An explanation for the recent changes to the section on Arab's chivalry:

My first change restored the paragraph on Arab's chivalry, which was removed by 81.39.100.28 without offering an explanation. Other changes by user (81.39.100.28) include: removing the Andalusian and Islamic influence section from the Courtly love and modifying "Muslim historians" to "Muslim war propaganda" in the Byzantine–Arab_Wars article. So clearly, this edit had nothing to do with what has been discussed on the Chivalry talk page as mistakenly assumed. Besides, it's been almost a year since the two "Muslim origin" sections on this talk page were last updated, so I'm not sure why is this issue raised now. Furthermore, I don't see any consensus by the contributors to remove the paragraph on Arab's chivalry, all points raised by user:Choess were discussed and replied to in this section, which also states that "removing a paragraph based upon a disagreement over the source of its citations is not proper conduct".

Second change: again restored the paragraph (removed by Choess) after I removed references to Islamic origin, as evidence indicates that the Arabs possessed chivalrous virtues in the pre-Islamic era.

Burton's quote
I disagree with it's removal by for a number of reasons:
 * The context is quoted in the paragraph, and does not invalidate the author's view of the influence Arabic poetry had on European ideas.
 * There is plenty of evidence that reinforces Burton's views. For the influences of the Arabs' love and chivalrous poetry on other cultures. See Troubadour, Courtly_love and Ghazal.
 * This article was added to the Fringe theories noticeboard. It seems very unusual to remove Burton's views and the associated reference(s) shortly before reporting it to the Fringe theories noticeboard where user Choess claimed that the entire paragraph relies on Haines's views.


 * Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

you need to find a compromise phrasing, it's not a yes-or-no question but one of improving the phrasing iteratively until accuracy and balance is achieved. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. In retrospect, I am sorry I pulled the quote; I shouldn't have done it at such a controversial moment. That said, the reason I pulled it was because when I read it closely, it didn't support the section that included it—Burton says that he considered the hypothesis that the similarities between Islamic and European chivalric culture were caused by the one influencing the other, but rejected it in favor of the hypothesis that they represented a sort of convergent evolution due to universal tendencies.
 * This latter hypothesis is a fairly powerful one. The reason I mentioned "cultural codes" earlier is because there are many examples of parallelism between the virtues celebrated by chivalry and those celebrated by other cultures, some of them far removed in space and time. This suggests to me that to some extent, warrior cultures tend to share a number of common virtues regardless of cultural contact—indeed, we'd be very surprised to find a mounted warrior culture that didn't value prowess in war...skill on horseback, dexterity with sword, lance, and bow, whether or not it had made contact with the Arabs, Europeans, etc. So I don't find the various late 19th-Century authors who were rediscovering Islamic culture, cataloging these virtues, and saying, "Wow! They're very similar! There must have been contact!" to be terribly convincing; there would likely be similarity regardless of contact. (I don't want to expand on this at present lest I be too wordy, but the historiography of that period tends to be somewhat suspect—read the afterword of Riley-Smith's "The Crusades" for an interesting exposition of how those attitudes have affected modern European and Islamic thought on the Crusades.) Furthermore, many of the virtues listed were present in pre-chivalric European culture. "Liberality, loyalty and courage are the principal virtues in the warrior society depicted in...Beowulf." (Keen, p. 52)
 * The idea of influence and interchange between chivalric and Islamic warrior culture (I'm a little shy of saying furusiyya because it seems to lean more towards "equestrianism" than "chivalry", but I don't insist on the point) is a perfectly reasonable one to include in this article. Influence intermediated by the notion of "courtly love" in Provence and contact during the Crusades seem like sound lines of investigation which are likely to have scholarly evidence to back them up. But the disputed paragraph, perhaps unintentionally, conveys the impression that the chivalric virtues arose through a wholesale copying of Islamic forms, which I don't think is supported by the broader body of evidence. Choess (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

More chronological Structure
Should this article have more structure? The transition of the topic- sub headings in the article from etymology of the term "chivalry" to history seems to be legitimate, however I find that the history section is lacking both in content and structure. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtucke2 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference for battlefield ransom process, etc.?
Good day, I'm wondering if someone can add detail on a related aspect. Specifically, the apparent code/ custom (?) during battles for when a knight was captured and not killed. Apparently the colours they wore were to be recognized in the event of captured as a valuable asset. On the W ransom page this text appears: "In Europe during the Middle Ages, ransom became an important custom of chivalric warfare. An important knight, especially nobility or royalty, was worth a significant sum of money if captured, but nothing if he was killed. For this reason, the practice of ransom contributed to the development of heraldry, which allowed knights to advertise their identities..." But there's not much more. Was there a term for this? Is there more information? I think this applies directly to this page but I have no information myself to add. Would appreciate a contribution from someone more knowledgeable than I. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This article need a section added about modern use of the term
Thinks like men holding doors, chairs, or coats for a woman.

Robert.Harker (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Eggilicious (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Whole Article is Misleading
The Victorian view of the code of chivalry as something noble is unbecoming to a modern realist. We should not glorify warmongers of any sort, just like we should not praise maniacs and sadists.

For example:

"In those days the customs and privileges were such that, if a knight found a damsel or lorn maid alone, and if he cared for his fair name, he would no more treat her with dishonour than he would cut his own throat. And if he assaulted her, he would be disgraced for ever in every court. But if, while she was under his escort, she should be won at arms by another who engaged him in battle, then this other knight might do with her what he pleased without receiving shame or blame." Chretien De Trois, Lancelot or, The Knight of the Cart

"Lived on the Rietburg (castle) once a knight, who kidnapped the daughter of a wealthy man. The man offered the robber a large ransom for the release of his beloved daughter. The knight agreed to the exchange, and he promised the release of the girl. The old, sad man himself brought the ransom to the castle in order to embrace the beloved child instantly. But as the villain had received the ransom he plunged the girl from the high walls down at the feet of her old father." http://www.rhodt-unter-rietburg.de/ort/ger_seiten/ger_rietburg.html

These quick examples show the true face of society dominated by self-righteous killers and robbers. In this day and age we should finally call them out for what they are, and stop distorting ours and others' worldview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikov (talk • contribs) 07:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

By "in this day and age" you mean the 1970s I suppose? You aren't the first to suggest that "medieval" has the meaning of "obsolete" or "barbaric". What we should do, on this page, is write an encyclopedic article about the concept of chivalry. No more, no less. If you are on a self-righteous mission of a "modern realist", please go elsewhere. That said, this article is, of course, in pathetic shape. Why does it rely on Gautier (1883) as a "reference"? Gautier's book is a pamphlet about what chivalry should have been. It is of historic interest in its own right I suppose, but you cannot naively present Gautier's "commandments" as a "definition of chivalry", I seriously don't know what people were thinking here. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Gautier was a scholar of chivalry besides the man was described in medieval times as a "villain" as your own quotes suggests — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Chivalry in the nineteenth century
Ivanhoe (to Rebecca): "Chivalry!---why, maiden, she is the nurse of pure and high affection---the stay of the oppressed, the redresser of grievances, the curb of the power of the tyrant ---Nobility were but an empty name without her, and liberty finds the best protection in her lance and her sword.” --Walter Scott, Ivanhoe (1820)"

R. W. Emerson on John Brown:

. [P]olitical gentlemen ...say that there are not a thousand men in the North who sympathize with John Brown. It would be... nearer the truth to say that all people, in proportion to their sensibility and self-respect, sympathize with him. For it is impossible to see courage, and disinterestedness, and the love that casts out fear, without sympathy. All women are drawn to him by their predominance of sentiment. All gentlemen, of course, are on his side. I do not mean by "gentlemen," people of scented hair and perfumed handkerchiefs, but men of gentle blood and generosity, "fulfilled with all nobleness,"* who, like the Cid, give the outcast leper a share of their bed ; like the dying Sidney, pass the cup of cold water to the dying soldier who needs it more. For what is the oath of gentle blood and knighthood ? What but to protect the weak and lowly against the strong oppressor? '' .......The sentiment of mercy is the natural recoil which the laws of the universe provide to protect mankind from destruction by savage passions. And our blind statesmen go up and down, with committees of vigilance and safety, hunting for the origin of this new heresy. They will need a very vigilant committee indeed to find its birthplace, and a very strong force to root it out. For the arch-abolitionist, older than Brown, and older than the Shenandoah Mountains, is Love, whose other name is Justice, which was before Alfred, before Lycurgus, before slavery, and will be after it. --Emerson, "Speech at Salem" (1860) Mballen (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Whole article needs revision in light of modern scholarship
The article needs to be brought into line with the pathbreaking scholarship of Richard Kaeuper and other modern scholars. It would be nice, too, if the Victorian revival of chivalry initiated by Walter Scott could be alluded to. I have inserted the key quote from Ivanhoe that set off the movement. Scott's novel attempted to absorb enlightenment ideals of religious toleration and equality into the ethos of Chivalry, under the cover of Toryism. He did this more than once. The heroine of Ivanhoe, Rebecca,, is Jewish, and chooses to give up her worldly love in order to remain true to her religion. Her champion, the eponymous Ivanhoe, saves her from persecution. In The Talisman, Scott named a Muslim a model of "the perfect knight". Ironically, Scott's innovations were widely adopted during the nineteen century as a glorification of feudal inequality.

The chivalric ethos also was also notably associated with the figure of the American cowboy by Teddy Roosevelt, Owen Wister and many others. Cowboy 'tournaments" modeled on knightly tournaments preceded and were the origin of modern rodeos. There are numerous books about this, as well as the revival of Medievalism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The heroic figure of the detective is the modern incarnation of the crusading knight errant, in the opinion of many.

The Cid, Sir Philip Sidney, Ariosto and Don Quixote could be mentioned, too. Mballen (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also Kenneth Clark (in the series, Civilization) compares the way St. Francis is depicted to the chivalrous knights . In the program on Chivalry hosted by Melvin Bragg there was a lot of talk among the scholars about how the clergy influenced the customs of chivalry, since younger brothers (trained in fighting), would become princes of the church. From the outset, the church influenced the custom of fighting by proclaiming Tuesday and Friday to be days of truce and also by insisting that women, children, Jews, and merchants were off limits and not to be harmed. The church later proclaimed the crusades to get violent young men out of the way and give them something (supposedly) useful to do. Chivalric orders sprung up in the Holy Land to tend to the crusaders' physical and spiritual needs -- the Hospitaliers and the Templars (ironically later representing bigotry and superstition in Ivanhoe, though the hero Ivanhoe also a crusader). And so on. I suppose this is all in Richard Kaeuper's books. Like Renaissance humanism after it, chivalry offered people "in the world"-- i.e., non monks, a way of doing good through rather strict self discipline, good deeds, and by seeking earthly glory in this world, according to Bragg's program. Mballen (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Bragg program also mentioned ransom, an important custom, as mentioned above, and one that, as one participant in the discussion noted, kept the violence going as well as tamping it down, since ransoms were very remunerative. Tournaments were also a way in which a younger son could and not infrequently did make a fortune, since the winner got to keep his defeated opponent's horse and armor. Speaking of chivalry, I suppose the "code duello" which was largely outlawed in nineteenth c. England but kept on in the American South and old West, was a development of chivalry. Strictly speaking, only noblemen were allowed to duel. The Cowboys with their guns were likened to the old knights from the first (the first ones were Mexican) and early rodeos were called "cowboy tournaments."


 * As far as courtly love, in the dear old days, I took a course in Old Provençal poetry, which is where European courtly love first appeared. My professor maintained that there was a very plausible theory that it all began as a big joke, when an eleventh century Provençal King, William (I think), wrote poems about his "domna" (mistress--or overlord). We read some of these early poems, and it's true, they were rather light hearted. In the years that followed among this school, the satire dropped out and women began to be regarded with more seemingly sincere deference. Another theory is that when the Cathedral Schools established by Charlemagne were closed (at about this time) the humanistically educated clerks who had been teachers of Cicero and Seneca, were out of a job, and the more resourceful of them turned a hand to writing epics. In support of this, he notes that the first "romance" (i.e., vernacular) epics were on classical topics such as Alexander the Great and the Trojan War. But soon they began writing  about "the matter of Britain" (King Arthur) or the "matter of France" (Charlemagne and Roland). They tried to create extravagant, exaggerated paragons of (Ciceronian) virtue as examples of how heroic knights ought to behave -- and this was another way that chivalry as "courtly behavior" was absorbed into the chivalric code. The rise of "Mariolatry" -- the veneration of the Madonna -- swept Europe at this time, as well. As far as the Arab influence, I don't think there is any doubt that Arab love poetry preceded, coincided with, and influenced European love poetry (including Provençal poetry, naturally - since Provençe bordered Muslim Spain). Arab love poetry seems to have often been devotional (i.e., love poetry addressed to God).  173.52.252.213 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the French Wikipedia articles for better info
Much as I enjoy fantasy and grew up idealizing knighthood, I have to say that this article needs serious help in the accuracy department. Just focusing on the historical and linguistic aspects, I'd highly recommend anybody editing this article take a look at the French version of this article -- you can read the translation here. I don't have time to do the research/rewriting needed for an article like this anymore, so that's all I can really contribute. —xyzzy 10:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC) x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.81.151 (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who comes across this, there's clearly some sort of misinterpretation here. The French "chevalrie" article is the French version of our "knight" article, they don't have an individual article on the concept of chivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.188.60 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

== Chivalry is a post-literary, rather than pre-literary phenomenon. ==

I clearly remember reading the following discussion somewhere. Not in Wikipedia. In a reliable source. This is my paraphrase. Reading medieval works, one gets the impression that chivalry is a noble code, or way or life, that existed, about which authors then wrote.

When one researches the phenomenon, however, chivalry is always something that existed in the past. It was fuller, more authentic, uncontaminated in the past. When one goes back and looks at that past time, however, chivalry is still something that was better and purer yet further in the past. Finally if one keeps going back, one bumps into the end of the Roman empire. There was never a real "age of chivalry" in the sense that literary works imply.

To put it differently, chivalry was a literary phenomenon first, a historical reality second.

Anyone remember seeing this? What do others think of this analysis? deisenbe (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Literary Chivalry and historical reality
This paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb. It's poorly written compared to the rest of the article, it doesn't adhere to style guidelines or NPoV, and one of the sources is only labelled "To come". As far as content goes, I don't understand why this even needs to exist as its own section. This needs to be heavily edited or deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.188.60 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. The article needs to say somewhere that there is no historical chivalry, that to the extent it existed, it was in imitation of literature. The source "to come" has been corrected. deisenbe (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The article already has a "history" section that takes up most of the article. Why can't the Sismondi information be put there? As it is, the paragraph contradicts the rest of the article, which asserts that chivalric codes existed in some forms throughout history.

And as I said before, it's poorly written and the tone is completely off. The phrases "The most chivalric novel of all time" and "When chivalry was alive and not dead", are good examples. The mentions of Don Quixote and Walter Scott seem like an irrelevant diversion.

Why does the article even need to have a section to convince people that chivalry didn't exist? If true, that should be self-evident from reading the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.147.181 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

10 Commandments
Is there any particular reason that we need to explain the commandments in parentheses after they are said? I mean, they're pretty easy to understand. Would have already deleted them, but don't want to get marked for vandalism or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1416domination (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Medieval literature and the influence of the Moors and Romans
I have been searching for the quotes in Reinhart Dozy's book "Spanish Islam: History of Moslems in Spain", but I coulnd't find it, could anyone help me here ? Thanks.

Reorganize
I have put the Reorganize template on. This article is a sloppy mess. It has litle organization. deisenbe (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Song of Roland
I don't know a huge amount about this subject, but I do know that the values of chivalry are largely attributed to "Song of Roland" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_Roland. There's no reference to this epic poem anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scare away (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is a jumbled mess and needs cleanup by an expert
Of all the WP articles I deal with this is easily the worst. It needs major cleanup and reorganization, if not splitting.


 * What is the article about? What is chivalry? According to whom? Is this definition valid for all times and places?
 * At the same time this one article is trying to deal with tenth-century Hispano-Arabic literature, an unwritten code developed between 1170 and 1220, 12th-century English (or Anglo-Latin) pseudo-chronicles, military orders, the church, horsemanship, courtly love, romances of chivalry, a code of behavior, French literature, Cervantes, Sir Walter Scott, and the U.S. Army in World War II. These all can belong in one article?
 * Chivalry is to a large extent inspired by fraudulent, mendacious texts. Such as Geoffrey of Monmouth. The whole King Arthur court is a fraud, or fiction if you prefer. And very influential. The same is true of the large number of almost totally fictitious works on Roland. But none of them admitted that they were writing fiction, not history. I don't think the authors felt that historical accuracy was important.
 * Writers on chivalry are always writing about other people. For example, the code of conduct imagined (but not written, apparently) between 1170 and 1220. We have no records from people of that period describing what chivalry was to them. What we know about it is largely from centuries later. For now, I'll stop here. 2601:58C:C200:1A90:451E:CEB9:D173:32FA (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The above is by me. Sorry. deisenbe (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed all the part about the moorish influence
First problem : the title talk about the moors, the text talk about the arabs. Who is who. We don't understand anything?

Second problem : The sources used are very biased and incorrect. Some of them com from obscur writers, others from anti clerical and islamophile men. Of course none of them are academician/historian. In consequence their knowledge about is very limited. It's like talking about the string theory and using an biologist as a source.

Third : The Arabian hypothesis of the origin of the chivalry is completely outdated. The concept of love is already known by Greeks and Roman in ancient times. I don't know what Arabs have to do in this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5018:7100:3DE6:B92A:F965:4C98 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

== Medieval Literature and Influence of the Moors and Romans =

I am requesting it to be erased under two main arguments:

1st) There are many sentences that are easily proved to be false;

2nd) There are many sources that are ridiculous;

FALSE AND UNSOURCED: "European chivalry owed much to the chivalry of the Moors (Muslims) in Spain, or al-Andalus as they called it. were greatly influenced by Arabic literature." Moors, of course, have nothing to do with European notions of chivalry, being their complete opposite. This despite moors having their own "codes of conduct", like all Civilisations, and having riders in high regards, like most Civilisations. It's akin to say that the Mongols had notions of Chivalry because they had horse riders in high regard. It is pathetic.

FALSE AND UNSCOURCED: "Chivalry was the most prominent characteristic of the Muslim 'Moors' who conquered the Iberian Peninsula...beginning in 711 AD." Moors knew nothing about chivalry. In 711 European notions of chivalry did not even exist as this article makes clear. The moors who invaded the peninsular were barely moslem, as they mostly came from areas in Morocco that were Christian just 50 years before the invasion. Many of the leaders of the moorish armies were nothing but Christian slaves turned "mameluks" or moslem soldiers.

FALSE AND UNSOURCED: "In classical Arab culture, to become a genuine Knight (Fáris) (فارس), one had to master the virtues" Classic Arab culture developped only in the 1200s in the Abassid Caliphate of Baghdad. Or the "islamic golden age of Hispania" was in the 930-1030 during the Caliphate of Cordoba. Arabs were notorious for having no culture at the time of Mohammed and the first Caliphates as they were nothing more than uncivilised men from the deserts, like Mohammed himself makes clear...

FALSE AND UNSOURCED: "These ancient chivalric virtues were promoted by the Moors" Moors promoted nothing of the European notion of chivalry, which was mainly a reaction against moslem savagery in the Holy Lands. Moors had no notion of chivalry when they invaded the Peninsula, as they were just a war band from the deserts of Arabia which had just recently conquered the Civilised settled Christian population of North Africa.

FALSE AND UNCSOURCED: "Moors, who comprised the majority population of the Iberian Peninsula by 1100 AD" Moslems never comprised a majority of the population of the Iberian Peninsula. This is so ridiculous it is a shame for wikipedia itself. Even during the maximum moslem control of the Iberian Peninsula, it was widely known and recognised even by moslems of the time that the vast majority of the population under moslem control in the Iberian Peninsula were the "Mozarabs" who called themselves "Latinus". These people called themselves Latins and considered themselves descendents of the pre Arab population of the Peninsula, they were called by the Arabs "Mozarabs", that is, "Fake Arabs", or "People Subject to the Costoms of the Arabs" from "Moz-/Moç-"(Almost/Under) and "Arabs".

RIDICULOUS SOURCE: http://www.knightstemplarorder.org/ This is a ridiculous organisation which claims descent from the Templar Knights. It is probably a freemason organisation with pathetic and ridiculous claims. It is clear to all serious people (not freemasons, obviously) what happened to the Templars and which few orders were accepted to be the continuation of the Knights Templar in Europe. There is a 450 year hiatus between the true Templars and freemasonic pathetic attempts to claim Templar origins.

FALS AND UNSOURCED: "The literature of chivalry, bravery, figurative expression, and imagery made its way to Western literature through Arabic literature in Andalusia in particular." Andalusis were particularly considered cowards all during the Reconquista. The vast majority of the Christians accepted their dihmi (inferior) status regarding moslems. The moslems Andalusi were not only for the most part European converts or slaves as they were constantly dependent from the Princes of Morocco, especially the Almohads and Almoravids, with the exception of the 930-1030 period of the Caliphate of Cordoba.

FALSE: "the famous Spanish author Blasco Ibáñez says: "Europe did not know chivalry, or its adopted literature or sense of honour before the arrival of Arabs in Andalusia and the wide presence of their knights and heroes in the countries of the south."

Ibáñez was a famous "Andalusian Nationalist" whose thesis are for the most part disregarded today. Ibañez is notorious for trying to create an alternative history and an alternative narrative in order to congregate Andalusians and entice them to form a new type of Nationalism: Andalusian Nationalism. He failed miserably.

FALSO AND UNSORUCED: "The Andalusian Ibn Hazm and his famous book The Ring of the Dove (Tawq al-Ḥamāmah) had a great impact on poets in Spain and southern France after the Islamic community blended with the Christian community."

There is no major impact descernible from that one book. There is no reccorded of a "blend" of Christian and Islamic communities.

I'm tired now. May someone keep the good work and remove these clearly false and ridiculously sourced assertions from wikipedia. Especially when they contradict most of the article that preceeds it and which is mostly okay with proper Historic research.

148.71.87.106 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Historic Truth


 * I saw you made an attempt at this change. The above seem fair points, but it appears someone reverted your edits. You may want to create an account to get more visibility on this and if you are interested in revising the article. Thanks. Shaded0 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , if these unsourced ramblings calling Arabs and Muslims savage, uncivilized and with no culture "seem fair points", how would it seem the unregistered user went further and stated what he actually thinks about Muslims, using more than implied slurs? Very fair points? I can only guess why his edit has been reversed and why he's currently on a 6-month ban from his native Portuguese-language Wikipedia for vandalizing discussions and laughably threatening litigation for "censorship". Gabriel C (talk)


 * I'm confused what you want with your comment. I generally try to be friendly to new editors website but I'm not supporting or promoting his thread above here. If it appears that way then I apologize. I glossed over whatever he wrote above and said he should create an account. If he's an anon IP in violation of some topic ban then you can go ahead and ignore my comment. Shaded0 (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that should apologize for not giving you you the benefit of doubt. so let me explain The IP is Portuguese nutjob who mistakes Wikipedia for Metapedia. His |"contributions" show only rude attempts at pushing a centuries-old Iberian colonialist bias. I'm not even close to being an "decolonial" apologist or "Europhobic", but it takes only common sense to see bigotry and attempts at whitewashing the ugly side of Portuguese and Spanish History. I believe you were excessively polite and welcoming to new users and did not pay much attention to the following excerpts (sorry for not being able to use en.wiki quotation templates properly. I tried and failed): "Moors, of course, have nothing to do with European notions of chivalry, being their complete opposite". "Arabs were notorious for having no culture at the time of Mohammed and the first Caliphates as they were nothing more than uncivilised men from the deserts, like Mohammed himself makes clear..." "Moors had no notion of chivalry when they invaded the Peninsula, as they were just a war band from the deserts of Arabia which had just recently conquered the Civilised settled Christian population of North Africa". I'm surprised the words "barbarian" and "sandnigger" were not used. These diff summarizes that anon's thought. "Who disovered the Brazilian coast, then, retard? Brazilian Indians were eating each other back in the day, they had no understanding of property of land or of navigation, much less science or geography. Get an education, before commenting and answer my question please. Damned third worlders, always mudding up the place..." His behavior at the pt.wiki is no different. Here he gives his uninformed and bigoted opinion about the same issue about the same issue. I took the time to translate his comment because it's the one that shows more clearly how 148.71.87.106 is a rabid political fanatic, a true uber-reactionary keyboard warrior here to POV-push and not to contribute: "I think he meant thousands of indigenous inhabitants, corrected excerpt. This gentleman has to show us where these "millions of indigenous peoples" had an state called Brazil or had notions about State and private propriety, specially regarding land. I know well Brazil is still a third world country... but there is no patience for the mentally delayed. I bid my farewell with the proverbial poetry I hope many worthy Brazilian gentlemen join themselves to guide: Lula, thief, you belong in jail" (in bold is a famous political slogan advocating the prison of the left-wing former President who was actually in' jail at the time of his comment and has been since released awaiting the review of his conviction). I'm not kidding, a Portuguese man invoked a political slogan against a Brazilian politician in a discussion about the country's discovery. Others of his highlights are telling another user, who miswrote a Portuguese word as its Spanish cognate, "go to work, Venezuelan, instead of giving opinions as valuable as manure", and adding a topic to the [discussion about the COVID-19 pandemics in Portugal to complain about the "socialist animals" governing the country (while also commiting a very ugly Portuguese miscue I thought was typical of the Brazilian variety). Wikipedia is a forum to him: ne has no meaningful contribution to any article, almost all of his edits are complaints, personal attacks and bigoted nonsense in talk pages. That's why he was handed a 6-month ban and predictably threatened litigation in response. I hope not only you, but everybody reading this topic takes that into account and see throught this user's bias instead of assuming any good faith from him. [[User:Gabriel C|Gabriel C]] (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

= Cleanup on "Modern Manifestations and Revivals" Section =

Someone has shoehorned a seemingly random assemblage of quotes and sentences into the top of this section that serve no discernable purpose.

They seem particularly intent on connecting the concept of chivalry with lynchings and abortion clinic bombings, although the sources provided offer specific anecdotes rather than the generalised claims made here, as well as to the KKK. If these topics are relevant to this article at all (which they may well be) then they should probably be rewritten and moved to the section on the criticism of chivalry, or else incorporated into the end of the modern manifestations section so that they actually fit in.

In any case, the sentences as written are non-sequiturs, unencyclopedic, jarring and generally purposeless and should definitely be removed. Sarathiel (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The content is sourced and shows the ugly side of what some people see as chivalrous. You could be more specific in your criticism. Gabriel C (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed some part of the Moorish/Roman influence on chivalry
The sources used are too obscure to be considered as relevant (historically). This section need to be rewritten. Knighthood predate the crusade and take it's origin mostly from the Roman military horse riding tradition. I don't negate the possible Islamic influence on European chivalry after the crusades but it's necessary (to respect the readers) to provide valuable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:F0AA:8D79:1599:D13F (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ends in 1220?
The historian Lucy Worsley said Henry the 8th was obsessed with the code of chivalry, how so if it ended in 1220? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Chill-vary
We'd all agree that terms that stem from of old has a place called life, and in it things can be constructed to reflect an English context. "Noun" respects the person, place or the very thing I'm here explaining at this time. Chill-vary is very alive because of the production of a Noun. This doesn't by any means capitalize on the myth that the word was ever dead, especially when words do not die. 99.179.6.240 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Page quality
I want to commend the primary editors of this page. It is very well-written and easy to follow. Potential good article nomination? Delukiel (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)