Calvary In Chivalry

[Salamander]

Anybody else think it would be cool to see calvary in chivalry. Each class could have an ability where they could mount a horse and become a horse archer or rider with a spear.

[Godtactics]

Chivalry means riding horses, or how to ride horses, originally. Chivalry comes from the French word "chevalier" which comes from "cheval" which means horse, so chivalry literally means "rules for if you have a horse". Those rules can be anything from killing everyone to saving everyone. It depends on your set of rules. So it does really fit in with the word to have horses in this game. That said, it might be a bit of work to get that in the game at this point, this late in this game's life. I'd rather have pommel throwing if I had to choose between the two. End them rightly.

[Unclean Nurgle]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

Chivalry means riding horses, or how to ride horses, originally. Chivalry comes from the French word "chevalier" which comes from "cheval" which means horse, so chivalry literally means "rules for if you have a horse". Those rules can be anything from killing everyone to saving everyone. It depends on your set of rules. So it does really fit in with the word to have horses in this game. That said, it might be a bit of work to get that in the game at this point, this late in this game's life. I'd rather have pommel throwing if I had to choose between the two. End them rightly.

Actually Chivalry is simply the code of knights. It's just a proposal from knights, that they wont rape and pillage their own people.

[Godtactics]

That's not the original meaning of chivalry. Look it up. Before it meant that, it was merely how you ride horses. And there is no code of knights. Every knight has a different code in the version of chivalry you're referring to. There's no broad set of rules that covers ever knight. That's absurd, and never actually happened, not even in modern times, except in hollywood.

[Suzuh]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

That's not the original meaning of chivalry. Look it up. Before it meant that, it was merely how you ride horses. And there is no code of knights. Every knight has a different code in the version of chivalry you're referring to. There's no broad set of rules that covers ever knight. That's absurd, and never actually happened, not even in modern times, except in hollywood.

The term, "Chevalerie", (Which, unlike how it is spelled, is pronounced almost the same as the term Cavalry in the french language), referred to soldiers that rode horses, not how you ride horses. The term Chivalry was adapted from this, and changed as most terms tend to as they change country to country. And there was indeed code of knights in medieval europe, though it was no largely accepted set of rules, it was a general code that was taken in by European countries in the mid-12th century that usually followed the lines of "Protect the weak", which included serfs, peasants, women, and children, as well as the nobles and kings, hence why it is applicable in this game.

And yes, while knights did ride horses in medieval europe, fighting on horses was commonly simply to push through forces, commonly not with knights, but with serfs or peasants, and was actually rather unimportant in medieval wars, as most battles were to either storm and take a structure, or protect one..

If you're going to argue, at least read more about it than the first few sentances on a quick google search.

[Godtactics]

The thing is that some knights followed the code to exploit the weak, kill the weak, etc. Protect the weak is not a part of chivalry, not at all. You're just being pedantic about how it's referring to soldiers that rode horses, instead of how they rode horses. It was inferred that we were referring to knights. You should've known that's what I meant. I even referred to knights. Prove that there was one code of chivalry that all knights followed. There wasn't.

[Suzuh]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

The thing is that some knights followed the code to exploit the weak, kill the weak, etc. Protect the weak is not a part of chivalry, not at all. You're just being pedantic about how it's referring to soldiers that rode horses, instead of how they rode horses. It was inferred that we were referring to knights. You should've known that's what I meant. I even referred to knights. Prove that there was one code of chivalry that all knights followed. There wasn't.

I never said there weren't knights that bent the rules, in fact, a large number of knights did just that, however in most ballads and literary works of the time, a common theme of the code of chivalry that is recorded includes protecting the Weak, though others specify only women, the term greatly stays true to protecting the weak, a common website that multiple couses tend to use is http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-knights/code-of-chivalry.htm

As for me narrowing in only on your error on the definition of the french term chevalerie, I said that knights did indeed ride horses, however as I said, FIGHTING on horses was left to the peasants, making it unrealistic for knights to fight on horseback.

As for "One code of Chivalry", again, I said there wasn't, it varied greatly, however multiple key points are very similar across literature in various places, with "Protecting the weak" being one of the most common.

[Godtactics]

"What makes Saul most definitely worth one's time though is his understanding that our belief that chivalry was a firmly controlling code of conduct, or even as prohibitive as a set of laws, is entirely anachronistic. This fallacy came about with the "re-discovery" of chivalry in the Victorian Era when the idea was embraced by an increasingly politically marginalized aristocracy and authors who wanted to spin creative tales of pageantry and adventure. As such, our impression that knights roamed the countryside in highly stylized accoutrements battling evil and selflessly saving those in need is the product of art or literature generated long after chivalry ceased to be a factor on the battlefield. This dispensation, however, did not extend to the peasantry who were often slaughtered unremittingly whenever they were deemed in the way."

Peasants were certainly the weak, and they were slaughtered, not protected.

http://origins.osu.edu/review/knighthood-it-was-not-we-wish-it-were

[Suzuh]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

"What makes Saul most definitely worth one's time though is his understanding that our belief that chivalry was a firmly controlling code of conduct, or even as prohibitive as a set of laws, is entirely anachronistic. This fallacy came about with the "re-discovery" of chivalry in the Victorian Era when the idea was embraced by an increasingly politically marginalized aristocracy and authors who wanted to spin creative tales of pageantry and adventure. As such, our impression that knights roamed the countryside in highly stylized accoutrements battling evil and selflessly saving those in need is the product of art or literature generated long after chivalry ceased to be a factor on the battlefield. This dispensation, however, did not extend to the peasantry who were often slaughtered unremittingly whenever they were deemed in the way."

Peasants were certainly the weak, and they were slaughtered, not protected.

http://origins.osu.edu/review/knighthood-it-was-not-we-wish-it-were

While the tales are greatly exaggerated, again I said that a large number did just that, and the peasants were used for horse warfare, which had a high mortality rate, much too risky to have the prized knights fight with them as well, and perhaps die.

[Godtactics]

The weak were slaughtered, not protected. Chivalry does not mean protecting the weak.

[Godtactics]

"The term comes from the French word chevalier, or "knight", who derives his name from cheval, or horse. "Knights", or mounted heavy cavalry, had first been used by the Franks in the previous two centuries, perhaps as a response to Muslim invasions from Spain in the 8th century. Although the exact origins of the term "knight" are unknown—as cniht in Old English and knecht in German both refer to a "servant" or "bondsman"—the fact remains that the concept of a servant-soldier fighting on horseback is the central concept of chivalry; peasants need not apply."

Checkmate.

[Suzuh]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

The weak were slaughtered, not protected. Chivalry does not mean protecting the weak.

It does not exclusivly mean this, it is only one point that seems to reappear in multiple retellings of the code. Overall, it was just a loose basis of rules that multiple countries used as a guideline, which, while many ignored, the fact that most wars rarely had knights on horseback remains the same.

[Godtactics]

"Then over time, because the Frankish clan structure combined with Western Christian practices, a martial elite arose which came to view violence as its primary and hereditary profession. It was this violence that the church attempted to regulate, giving rise to a code meant for those horse-bound "knights" which later became known as chivalry."

[Suzuh]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

"The term comes from the French word chevalier, or "knight", who derives his name from cheval, or horse. "Knights", or mounted heavy cavalry, had first been used by the Franks in the previous two centuries, perhaps as a response to Muslim invasions from Spain in the 8th century. Although the exact origins of the term "knight" are unknown—as cniht in Old English and knecht in German both refer to a "servant" or "bondsman"—the fact remains that the concept of a servant-soldier fighting on horseback is the central concept of chivalry; peasants need not apply."

Checkmate.

Yes, knights were raised as knights from birth, this did not stop peasants to be used as "cannon fodder", so to speak, in wars. Knights were often loosely controlled by kings, lords, and nobles, and often did not pass up the chance to have some flesh shields on the battlefield.

[Godtactics]

Indeed. So they were knights on horseback that didn't protect the weak, whatsoever. Thanks for that fact.

[Suzuh]

Originally posted by Sir-Smoke-A-Lot:

Indeed. So they were knights on horseback that didn't protect the weak, whatsoever. Thanks for that fact.

The code of chivalry say so in multiple cases, however knights simply did not follow it.