Talk:Knight

Capture in combat
Under the section on Chivalric code the claim is made "When knights were taken as prisoners of war, they were customarily held for ransom in somewhat comfortable surroundings. This same standard of conduct did not apply to non-knights (archers, peasants, foot-soldiers, etc.) who were often slaughtered after capture, and who were viewed during battle as mere impediments to knights' getting to other knights to fight them" I have some doubts as to this being accurate. This claim seems to be from ''Marcia L. Colish, The Mirror of Language: A Study in the Medieval Theory of Knowledge; University of Nebraska Press, 1983. p. 105.'' Which seems to be a book dealing with linguistics rather than history. In contrast I have found an article by Henry J. Webb in the journal Military Affairs that claims that texts on military law in the medieval era call for mercy and fair treatment. There is nothing in Webb's article that would suggest that knights and other soldiers received differing treatment. ''Webb, H. (1948). Prisoners of War in the Middle Ages. Military Affairs, 12(1), 46-49. doi:10.2307/1982524.'' I am inclined to think therefore that such a separation would happen "often" An article by the bbc also seems to support the idea that non-knights werent simply slaughtered but were likely to be ransomed (https://www.bbc.com/news/education-21168437).

As I do not have a wikipedia account nor am I confident in my ability to cite sources I am rather hesitant to make any changes myself. --96.84.73.145 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Ridder (title)
Should that translation of the same title be merged here - albeit with different applications according to time and place - in order to keep it together? PPEMES (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue would be one of size. Taken in the context of the article, would it give undue weight to Belgian heredetary knighthood?  Or, put another way, would it introduce a need to increase other parts of this section to match, extending an already long article?  It may be better to divide this section of the article into national sub sections and link the Belgium section to this article via a main article hat tagMonstrelet (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, not sure that can determine the articles' separation? PPEMES (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedias guidelines on article size Article size states

"> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)"

We are already dealing with a 69 kB article. So we should be cautious about expansion. Incorporation of the Belgian material would mean that further work ought to be done on other non-UK sections to cover them in more detail, for balance. An overview article is just that, and should refer outwards to detailed coverage of individual topics within the overview, IMO Monstrelet (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

no knights in byzantine empire??
where there any knights in byzantine empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:9813:8800:C471:1F60:D40B:9119 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a "title"
The article keeps referring to knighthoods as titles and to honorifics of knighthood (such as Sir/Dame) as titles. In terms of Western nobility, knighthood is not a title nor are the honorific styles that may be used by such people titles. This distinction isn't splitting hairs, it's actually important in such matters and this knowledge demonstrates how familiar the writer is with the subject.

Titles of nobility are those ranks of the high nobility, ranging from baronial lordships up through Viscounts, Counts/Earls, Marquesses, to noble Prince & Duke. Most continental barons are lesser barons, not the high barons (Lords) of the more familiar British system most English speakers are acquainted with, and thus not of the high nobility. Even so, [Baron][Titlename] is and remains a "title" of nobility whether it belongs to the lesser nobility (the Noblesse) or to the high nobilty - this exception to the standard rule that a title (baron) is always of the high nobility can confuse the issue if it's not pre-emptively pointed out.

Generally a continental baron (also Scottish titles of baron) which is a division of the lesser nobility ranks below a British knighthood in status. The British variety of knighthood (the type rightfully styled as Sir/Dame) is a much higher distinction than almost all continental varieties of knighthood - which for cultural/historical reasons are far more junior in the usual scheme of things to a British knight. Also British knighthoods carry enormous social prestige - even more so than the prolific mainland European titles, [German] Baron of X and [Hungarian] Countess of Y (although with some illustrious exceptions). In most quarters a British knighthood conveys even more prestige than a British life peerage, which is technically the more senior honour. If I'm confusing you, forget all about this and just read on.

Statuses that are not titles are: knighthoods and any designations of minor nobility (i.e. not that of Baron or a higher noble rank). In England the minor noble designations of the European nobilities aren't usually considered noble in the English system but divisions of the gentry: i.e. Commoners. The minor French rank of "Vidame", the German" Edler" and "Ritter" and all varieties of knighthood are not "titles" but categories/divisions of untitled nobility (in continental nobilities), or the gentry (in England).

Let me try to summarise all this: unless you are dealing with the rank of baron and the ranks above it then the person you are referring to has a "style" or an "honorific" rather than a title. As a rule of thumb titles come after a name whereas styles and honorifics come before a name. Mr is not a title, it's a style - as are [Dr][Name], [Prof][Name], [Sir][Michael][Smith], and so forth. "Sir' is the honorific styling appropriate for a British knight, [Sir][Name] in this case is not his title. If he is the "Emeritus Professor of Biology" then (confusingly) that is a title. However [Prof][Name] is a style. "The 45th President of the United States" is a title, "Mr President" or "President Obama" are both stylings and not titles. Titles of nobility are always at least Baron or greater (Viscounts, Counts/Earls, Marquesses, Dukes, etc). Lesser noble/aristocratic categories are never "titles".

"Prince Charles" is the conventional styling for royalty, however "Charles, Prince of Wales" is his name and his title, i.e. "The Prince of Wales". "His Royal Highness" and [Prince][Forename] are not titles but honorifics outlined in law that the British kingdom and its people style him with as an exalted royal personage. He's properly addressed by us as "Sir" not because we like him, or care much for him, but because he's his country's equivalent of a Vice President of sorts. His high office calls for respectful treatment because the British People accord him this high rank. That's why these technical seeming distinctions (title or style or honorific) matter more than people often realise.

I hope some of this is helpful 210.246.24.174 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Галицькі хоругви у Грюнвальдскій битві 15 липня 1410 року".jpg

There were no real Knights in medieval European sense in ancient Greece or Rome
"Knighthood finds origins in the Ancient Greek hippeis (ἱππεῖς) and Roman equites.[3]"

Since the Latin was official language in medieval Western Christian West, they had to find a word to describe knights in Latin language, that was the "Equites". But real ancient Roman Equites had different societal role than medieval knights.--Pharaph (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Chevaliere image is a male?
In the image used to show an artistic rendition of a chevaliere, I believe the subject is a male with long hair? If you zoom in, you can see their beard/mustache. 45.133.125.141 (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Good spot. Original image title is clear this is a "knight". This defeats the purpose of using the image, so image removed to avoid confusion. Monstrelet (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)