Talk:Chivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chivalry article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Improvement drive

Heraldry has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia: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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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:

top down papal/royal influence - encroachment on knightly lifestyle:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Copyvio

Some passages are copied nearly verbatim from [1], which in turn is based heavily on a book that is not in the public domain (see [2]).

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 on Dec 29 2006— 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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_(poet)|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|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|Moorish]] knight. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books/pdf/Christianity_and_Islam_in_Spain__A_D__75.pdf?id=hrcLAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=i1R8J1pJKof6Aj0l9VFg86ELYPg] pg.152</ref><ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/33901.html]</ref> 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)