Military Review

How in medieval Europe they tried to change the image of the knight

134

Nowadays, the image of the knight is romanticized and built on myths. This is largely due to the influence of modern culture on a person. Despite the fact that the heyday of chivalry in Europe fell on the XII-XIII centuries, interest in that era and warriors in armor still exists today. Numerous TV series, feature films, books and computer games that are released every year are living evidence. That is why, in the minds of many people, knights were imprinted in the images of wandering warriors who went in search of treasures, new lands, rescued beautiful maidens from castles and fought, if not with dragons, then with robbers and villains.


Why we romanticize chivalry


Reality, as you know, is much more prosaic than the canons that were set in literature at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, when interest in the Middle Ages arose in Europe. The adventure novel "Ivanhoe" by the Scottish writer Walter Scott became one of the striking examples of neo-Gothic Revival. Another Scottish writer, Robert Louis Stevenson, already at the end of the XNUMXth century romanticized the war of the Scarlet and White Rose in his work "Black Arrow". All of these works have become classics of adventure literature and striking examples historical prose, which remain popular in the XNUMXst century. The ideas of many people about chivalry grew precisely from the books of these famous and popular authors throughout the world.

However, many believe that today chivalry is dead. In fact, rather the opposite is true. Those rudiments of humanism, morality and a code of honor, which they tried to invest in chivalry back in the Middle Ages, gave their shoots much later. Many researchers believe that chivalry really played a role in the formation of modern noble values ​​and our ideas about them. And in this aspect, the knights turned out to be useful for society, although the peasants of medieval Europe could reasonably argue with this.

How in medieval Europe they tried to change the image of the knight

The very word "chivalry" today is often viewed as a code of honor and certain moral norms for the military class, which considered war as its main profession. In many conflicts that occurred after armor and helmets, swords and halberds disappeared from the battlefields, the military of different countries demonstrated examples of knightly behavior in our best sense of the word. However, do not forget that in the Middle Ages everything was different, and the knights themselves were primarily warriors, and not ordinary people. Very often they easily crossed the boundaries of norms and honor when the military situation required it. Often, civil strife and feudal wars left their mark on this. This was the other, bloody side of the knightly code, attempts to somehow influence which were made already in the Early Middle Ages.

The main victims of the knights were often the peasants


Chivalry began to form in the XNUMXth century on the territory of medieval France and Spain. Over time, it split into two large branches: religious and secular. The religious branch included knights who took a religious vow. Prominent examples are the famous Templars and Hospitallers, two knightly orders that actively fought against the Saracens (Arabs) and other representatives of non-Christian civilization. The secular branch of chivalry descended from professional warriors who were in royal service or served high-ranking nobility. If the representatives of the knightly orders were primarily dangerous for everyone who professed a faith different from them, then secular brotherhoods represented a danger for everyone who was not subordinate to their lord.

Yes, indeed, knights could bravely fight for their cities, castles, lords, show nobility and defend the honor of women. Spend your free time improving military skills, training with weapons and horse riding, participate in knightly tournaments. But in the Middle Ages, many rightly considered the knights themselves a threat to society. As petty nobles, they were invested with more power and wealth than the peasants. Given their good military training, armor and weapons, they often used peasants and poorest farmers to their advantage, attacked them, robbed, stole and killed livestock.

Fighting for their kings and lords, knights often faced not each other, but with ordinary peasants, who became their main victims. This is due to the period of feudal fragmentation, when all feudal lords could fight with each other. Regional conflicts arose regularly and could be very violent, while people of the same faith, language, and nationality killed each other with unprecedented frenzy. In those years, most of the clashes were associated not with the battles of some knights against others, but with raids, robbery and the destruction of peasant farms, lands and lands on which they worked.


Peasants were powerless pawns in conflicts between large and small feudal lords. At the same time, the knights burned fields, buildings and estates that belonged to their rivals, and killed peasants. Sometimes they even robbed their own subjects, which was especially common in France during the Hundred Years War. Violence was common in those years. Count Valerand, stumbling upon peasants who were chopping wood without permission, captured them and cut off their legs, rendering them useless to work for their master. It is important to understand here that in those years the well-being of the nobility directly depended on the number and wealth of the peasants. That is why attacking peasant farms was the usual way knights punished their opponents, undermining their economic potential.

How the church tried to influence chivalry


In order to somehow limit the rigidity of the knights, the clergy of medieval Europe tried to create a "code of knights". Several such codes were created at different times. The Church was interested in not only making life more humane, but also protecting its own economic interests. Representing real power and strength in those years, the clergy wanted to provide protection to two of the three main classes: those who pray and those who work. The third estate of medieval Europe was those who fought, that is, the knights themselves.

Ironically, our lofty notions of knights and chivalry are largely based on codes of knighthood, which give them a good reputation, when in fact were created in order to stop their lawlessness and cruelty. An attempt to curb violence in medieval Europe was the Peace and Truce of God movement, which was led by the medieval church and later by civil authorities. The movement existed from the XNUMXth to the XNUMXth century, its main purpose was to protect priests, church property, pilgrims, merchants, women, as well as ordinary civilians from violence. For violators of the prohibitions, first of all, spiritual sanctions were provided.


For example, in 1023, Bishop Warin of Beauvais offered an oath of seven main points for King Robert the Pious (Robert II, King of France) and his knights. A kind of code of knightly honor, which gives us an idea of ​​the rules that had to be adopted in response to frequent aggressive behavior on the part of representatives of chivalry.

1. Do not beat up random members of the clergy. The bishop urged the knights not to attack unarmed monks, pilgrims and their comrades if they do not commit crimes or this is not compensation for their crimes. At the same time, the bishop admitted retribution for the crime if the clergy did not make amends within 15 days after the warning issued by him.

2. Do not steal or kill farm animals for no reason. The ban affected all domestic animals: cows, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, mules and donkeys and was strictly in effect from March 2 to All Souls Day (November XNUMX). At the same time, the bishop admitted that the knight could kill domestic animals if he needed to feed himself or his people.

3. Do not attack, rob or kidnap random people. The Bishop of Beauvais insisted that the knights swear an oath against harsh treatment of men and women from villages, pilgrims and merchants. Robbery, beating, other physical violence, extortion, as well as kidnapping of ordinary people for the purpose of obtaining ransom for them were prohibited. The knights were also warned against robbery and theft from the poor people, even at the treacherous instigation of the local lord.

4. Do not burn or destroy houses for no good reason. The bishop made an exception to this rule. It was possible to burn and destroy houses if the knight found an enemy knight or thief in them.

5. Don't help criminals. The bishop wanted the knights to swear not to help or harbor criminals. This was especially important, since often the knights themselves organized gangs and became real marauders.

6. Do not attack women if they do not give a reason. The prohibition ceased to apply if the knight learned that women were committing any atrocity against him. First of all, the ban extended to noble women, widows and nuns traveling without husbands.

7. Do not ambush unarmed knights from the moment of Lent until the end of Easter. This was one of the prohibitions common in medieval Europe, formally limiting hostilities at certain times of the year.
Author:
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. alma
    alma 7 August 2020 06: 20 New
    20
    What used to be, what now, and in the future, the principle "Who is stronger is right" probably operates. Thanks to the author for the work hi
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 7 August 2020 08: 56 New
      -1
      girded Ivanko / aivengo sword Rubilo / Excalibur, climbed Sivka-Burka and went to the fair to the heart of Don.
  2. Van 16
    Van 16 7 August 2020 06: 22 New
    +7
    I liked it, interesting! To the books I would add "Quentin Dorward", at one time impressed for some reason more than "Ivanhoe".
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 8 August 2020 00: 35 New
      +4
      The author did not address in the article two main questions, how the knights appeared and why they sank into oblivion. The first question is quite prosaic, in order to limit (or rather put in the right direction) the incredible power and aggression of a professional warrior, a knightly code was invented (the same was in Japan - the samurai code). The second question is also interesting. The knights disappeared with the advent of firearms, where a hastily trained peasant with a musket completely nullified the knight with his incredible skill, expensive armor and with no longer needed knightly code ...
      1. saigon
        saigon 8 August 2020 06: 05 New
        +3
        The samurai or bushi code was written after the end of the era of warfare in Japan, in principle bushi or samurai is almost a complete analogue of our fighting slaves.
        An ordinary peasant with a musket is a delusion, it would be more correct to have a city dweller with a musket, and not a poor city dweller at the first stage.
        The relationship of the musket with the disappearance of chivalry is not direct, but still indirect - with the emergence of centralized states (even relatively centralized) and strong cities, there is a need for a controlled army, the knights and the term controlled army are at opposite poles.
        A maneuver appears on the battlefield, a meaningful maneuver of military units, and the need for a knightly freelancer capable mainly of a frontal strike on the enemy decreases.
        Moreover, in the historically foreseeable time, everything is striving for unification and the characters who are fighting only at a strictly agreed time become a destructive element in the army.
        A knightly uncontrollable freeman with an intricate system of relative subordination to his overlords becomes unnecessary for monarchs and gentlemen knights are gradually turning into officers in our understanding, but parts of the plate cavalry in lightweight armor remain acting as normal disciplined units
      2. sniperino
        sniperino 8 August 2020 21: 47 New
        -1
        Quote: Proxima
        with no longer needed knightly code
        The idea of ​​a Code of Honor for some communities is still relevant today. From the Code of Honor of a Russian Officer of 1804
        1. Don't promise if you're not sure you will keep your promise. 2. Keep yourself simple, with dignity, without fad. 3. It is necessary to remember the border where politeness full of dignity ends and groveling begins.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 7 August 2020 06: 37 New
    +5
    Ironically, our lofty notions of knights and chivalry are largely based on codes of knighthood, which give them a good reputation, when in fact were created in order to stop their lawlessness and cruelty.

    This is understandable, as well as the fact that the "nobility" of the knights is mainly a fairy tale. But fairy tales are necessary and exciting.

    I think that there is not a single type of the most terrible crimes that would not have been committed by them, and quite calmly, this is torture, and hostages, treachery, human trafficking, etc.
    1. Alex Nevs
      Alex Nevs 7 August 2020 07: 48 New
      +3
      And now they all have rainbow flags all over their backs. Already scary.
    2. Phil77
      Phil77 7 August 2020 08: 26 New
      11
      Quote: Olgovich

      I think that there is not a single type of the most terrible crimes that would not have been committed by them, and quite calmly, this is torture, and hostages, treachery, human trafficking, etc.

      Hi Andrey, and to all of the above!
      * My girlfriend always dreamed of a knight, I decided to bring her closer to her dream and stopped washing. * bully
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 7 August 2020 09: 41 New
        +3
        Do you know how male knights differ from non-knights? The first have sex without taking off their armor. wink
        1. Phil77
          Phil77 7 August 2020 09: 58 New
          10
          Greetings! Well from this series.
          * The knight returns from the campaign. In the chambers of the castle he takes off his armor, everything else. His wife is closely watching the process.
          -How you are very tanned, darling!
          -What kind of sunburn was there ?! It's rust! * belay
        2. Phil77
          Phil77 7 August 2020 10: 08 New
          12
          About medieval spam.
          * A knight is in the castle, waiting for a letter from a lady of the heart. A dove arrives. The knight eagerly rips off the ring with a scroll, and there- * I make swords. Inexpensive. * bully
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 7 August 2020 16: 57 New
        +3
        Such is the case when I'm drunk. wink drinks
    3. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 7 August 2020 08: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich

      This is understandable, as well as the fact that the "nobility" of the knights is mainly a fairy tale. But fairy tales are necessary and exciting.

      Pay attention - almost all Russian "knights" are heroes, in fairy tales, from the common people.
      1. Phil77
        Phil77 7 August 2020 08: 56 New
        +8
        Controversially. And Stavr Godinovich? And Duke Stepanovich? And the same Alyosha Popovich and Dobrynya Nikitich?
        1. rich
          rich 7 August 2020 16: 25 New
          10
          Krasnoyarsk: Pay attention - almost all Russian "knights" are heroes, in fairy tales, from the common people.

          Yes, everything is as simple as laughing
          Svyatogor - the youngest son of the Pechenezh prince
          Sukhman Odikhmantievich - the son of the Polovtsian Khan and the Russian concubine
          Eruslan Lazarevich - a wealthy Novgorod merchant in between business engaged in heroic deeds
          Stavr Godinovich - Chernigov boyar
          Vasily Buslaev - the son of a Novgorod posadnitsa
          Dobrynya Nikitich - brother-in-law of Prince Vladimir
          Alyosha Popovich - well, as they say, no comments
          Nikita Kozhemyaka - the youngest son of a simple Kiev tiun
          Mikula Selyaninovich is the son of a Chernigov boyar. By the way, the two most famous Russian raspberries (female heroes) are the two daughters of Mikula Selyaninovich, Vasilisa and Nastasya. With their origin it is natural - just like daddy yes
          Ilya Muromets - did not work anywhere until the age of 33 - he was parasitic, lying on the stove. So he was not from the poor. After the kaliki pedestrians gave him the magic water to drink, he went to Kiev to serve in the service of prince Vladimir A fought for Ilya in front of the prince, no one else, and his godfather - the simple head of the prince's squad - the hero-boyar Samson Samoilovich laughing
      2. Alanart
        Alanart 7 August 2020 09: 04 New
        +4
        Only Ilya Muromets. Yes, and that 'old Cossack'. That is, it is not quite simple, and not Russian is possible :))))
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 7 August 2020 09: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Alanart
          Only Ilya Muromets. Yes, and that 'old Cossack'. That is, it is not quite simple, and not Russian is possible :))))

          Generally, from the peasants of northeastern Russia with a patronymic - Ivanovich.
          1. Alanart
            Alanart 7 August 2020 09: 53 New
            +4
            Then Prince Vladimir began to ask the young man:
            - You tell me, you are a chubby, burly kind fellow,
            Somehow, well done, you are called by your name,
            Do they magnify, daring, for the fatherland?

            The old Cossack and Ilya Muromets spoke:
            - I am from the glorious city from Murom,
            From that village yes Karacharova,
            I am an old Cossack and Ilya Muromets,
            Ilya Muromets and son Ivanovich ... :)
            1. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 7 August 2020 11: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Alanart
              Here Vladimir the Prince

              The years of reign in Kiev -978 - 1015.
              According to S. M. Solovyov, the first mention of the Cossacks in Russia occurs at the end of the first half of the 1444th century, when Ryazan Cossacks are mentioned in the chronicle "The Tale of Tsarevich Mustafa", "who came to the aid of the Ryazan people and Muscovites against the Tatar Tsarevich Mustafa" at the end of XNUMX of the year.
              This is to the question of whether Muromets was an "old Cossack"
              1. Alanart
                Alanart 7 August 2020 12: 40 New
                0
                Well, you can't erase a word from a song, can you? That's why it is a song, well, that is, an epic. As it was recorded in the 19th century, so we know it. And what about Professor Solovyov at about the same time dug up in the archives - the tenth question :)))
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 7 August 2020 07: 01 New
    +3
    What is there to discuss, all these knights, translated into our language, were ordinary godfathers of local bottling.
    1. Hantengri
      Hantengri 7 August 2020 07: 48 New
      +9
      Quote: Ros 56
      What is there to discuss, all these knights, translated into our language, were ordinary godfathers of local bottling.

      Dukes, earls, barons were "gods", and an ordinary knight is just a "torpedo".
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 7 August 2020 08: 42 New
        0
        Knights were also earls, barons and dukes. In those days, all noble people had to be able to swing a sword and spear.
        1. Lynx2000
          Lynx2000 7 August 2020 09: 42 New
          +8
          what
          To be a count, you must own a county.
          To be a duke, you have to own a duchy.
          How to get?
          By inheritance law.
          Capture and kill the previous owner.
          Receive for loyalty and service from your lord.

          What if you are not there and not here? Do not go to the Agricultural Institute.
          A horse, weapons, armor, military skills, that's all good, it means to go to the knights.

          Every king, duke, margrave, earl, viscount or baron can be a knight.
          But, not every knight can be special from the above.
          1. Sertorius
            Sertorius 7 August 2020 14: 16 New
            +5
            How to get?
            By inheritance

            Yes. yes
            Capture and kill the previous owner.

            No. stop The killed person usually has heirs.
            Receive for loyalty and service from your lord.

            Not. The concept of chivalry (milites) began to form in the 11th century. By that time, the kings did not have free counties and duchies. The king could give maximum rocking. For example, the youngest son of the Count of Breteuil seized Puise's shakiness from King Philip I, defeated the royal army, after which the king "handed" him the shakiness. The exception is that you can become a count by participating in the Spanish Reconquista, and a little later - in Palestine. But more often the younger sons of the counts became counts there.
            The main form of obtaining a county is missed, if you are not the son of an earl - a successful marriage. Even William Marshall became an Earl only by marrying right. And Renaud Chatillon: what is not a marriage is a principality. fellow
            1. Lynx2000
              Lynx2000 7 August 2020 15: 03 New
              +3
              Regarding the seizure of the lands of the former count - an example of the Norman invasion of England, when the lands of the Saxon aristocracy were confiscated as from the losing side.
              In general, everything depended on the strength and power of the king, who deprived the right of the count and lands in favor of another by right of the suzerain.
              In addition, the marcrafs, counts, later viscounts during the time of Charlemagne, none other than officials, judges and border managers.
              1. Sertorius
                Sertorius 7 August 2020 15: 24 New
                +2
                I agree. But, I think, the Norman seizure of England is from a series closer to Spain, Syria and the Albigensians. Moreover, in order to deprive the local elite of lands, the sanction of the church is necessary. After all, even Bastard was forced to enlist the support of the Pope so that his campaign had a religious color. And to throw the count into insolent is hard work even for the king. The victim has a family that will demand an inheritance, rebel, involve relatives in the rebellion, including counts, and complain to the same dad. Therefore, even if the German emperor managed to take away the possessions from the Welfs, they either returned with time, or passed on to another noble family. Therefore, it is optimal for a knight to be born into the family of a count. wink
                1. Lynx2000
                  Lynx2000 7 August 2020 15: 39 New
                  +1
                  what
                  In this case, an example from "Ivanhoe" or a plot from "Black Arrow" is indicative where the companion of the protagonist turns out to be a girl whom the "main villain" held and prepared for a profitable marriage and inheritance.
                  Still, I think that, subject to the strong power of the suzerain (king or duke), depriving the former count of rights, title and lands (county) was not considered a violation of the rights of a vassal.
                  It seems that even such norms existed in the Middle Ages - "Danish law".
                  By the way, if I am not mistaken, the new king in England did not ask the Pope for permission when distributing lands and titles.
                  1. Sertorius
                    Sertorius 7 August 2020 16: 01 New
                    +1
                    the companion of the protagonist turns out to be a girl whom the "main villain" held and prepared for a profitable marriage and inheritance

                    This is what William Marshall did.
                    to deprive the previous count of rights, title and lands (county) was not considered a violation of the rights of a vassal

                    There had to be a serious reason - the betrayal of the suzerain, the excommunication of the vassal from the church, etc.
                    "Danish law".

                    This is a product of an earlier era. There, the rights of the thing were also taken into account. Those. simple peasants had rights. There are no senior relations characteristic of the era of chivalry. hi
                    1. Lynx2000
                      Lynx2000 7 August 2020 16: 28 New
                      +1
                      wink
                      I apologize that I cannot give a detailed answer, since I answer based on the memory that my subconscious gives me, so I sit in babies on the northern coast. Sometimes there is no mobile connection for days, let alone an Internet ...
                      In the minds of calculations of demurrage, freight, local estimates for the installation of steel structures.
                      In general, on the territory entrusted to me I feel at least a baron laughing you have to educate your subordinates, some with a kind word, some with your fists ...
                      Otherwise the overlord will be dissatisfied.

                      Seriously though, the suzerain will always find a reason to deprive a vassal of his rights.

                      I agree with you, during the early Middle Ages there was more democracy in society. Moreover, the basis of the army of Charlemagne was made up of free (tillers, townspeople, etc.), from them arises also the nobility.
                  2. saigon
                    saigon 8 August 2020 06: 34 New
                    0
                    The title of count at different times and in different countries varied very much in content and
                    the essence
                    For example, in France in the Middle Ages, the count is a complete domineering lord in his county.
                    Interestingly, the dukes and earls are vassals of the king, but the barons are no longer there.
                    Barons of France vassals of counts and dukes, knights vassals of barons ladder
                    feudal in all its glory - The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal, but the duke could not legally take away from the count they are both vassals of kings, the count was not a vassal of the duke.
                    1. Sertorius
                      Sertorius 8 August 2020 14: 38 New
                      0
                      Interestingly, dukes and earls are vassals of the king, but the barons are no longer

                      This is primitive nonsense from a school textbook. Medieval Europe used the word baron more often in a broad sense, including counts with dukes. The Chatelains Puizet, already mentioned by me here, were not counts, not dukes were direct vassals of the king of France. Viscounts Möhlen too.
            2. Phil77
              Phil77 7 August 2020 19: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: Sertorius
              And Renaud Chatillon: what is not a marriage is a principality.

              * Having gained luck in the war,
              easy to get married to the princess,
              to the dowager princess, oh!
              The groom is not bad from all sides:
              handsome, courageous and strong
              Baron René de Chatillon. *
              Igor Shakhriyar. hi
          2. 5-9
            5-9 7 August 2020 15: 00 New
            +1
            Duchy - by right of inheritance (like a prince), and the count was originally appointed, like a voivode.
            Well, complex and confusing vassal relationships
            1. Lynx2000
              Lynx2000 7 August 2020 15: 28 New
              +2
              Sometimes brothers or cousins ​​of the king were considered dukes.
              The title of Duke is of Germanic origin - a military leader, chosen from the best and most experienced warrior for the period of a military campaign.
              In the same France, two duchies by right of inheritance (forgot) competed in influence and power, even surpassed the king.
              With regard to counts, initially the feudal / fief is given to the vassal for the period of service. In my opinion, in Russia in the beginning it was also.
        2. Hantengri
          Hantengri 7 August 2020 09: 51 New
          +6
          Quote: Ros 56

          Knights were also earls, barons and dukes.

          Belonging to the nobility is sufficient, but not a necessary condition for knighthood.
      2. CTABEP
        CTABEP 10 August 2020 20: 02 New
        0
        Well, if we continue - now "godfathers" are all presidents, and the officers are "torpedoes".
    2. saigon
      saigon 8 August 2020 06: 19 New
      0
      But it is interesting in what European language, besides Polish and Czech, is the word knight?
      In Western European languages, all chevaliers, cavaliers and caballeros are translated as horseman.
      There are no knights as a term like ..
      1. Sertorius
        Sertorius 8 August 2020 14: 47 New
        0
        There are no knights as a term like ..

        The French called the knight "Miles", the word is taken from Latin. Translated as a warrior.
      2. Liam
        Liam 8 August 2020 15: 02 New
        0
        Quote: saigon
        But it is interesting in what European language, besides Polish and Czech, is the word knight?
        In Western European languages, all chevaliers, cavaliers and caballeros are translated as horseman.
        There are no knights as a term like ..

        Russian term Knight-derived from the German Ritter
  5. Korsar4
    Korsar4 7 August 2020 07: 33 New
    +7
    Figures on a chessboard. What rights and opportunities do pawns have - just stick together.
  6. svp67
    svp67 7 August 2020 07: 39 New
    +5
    Forgive the author, but you poorly understood the question ...
    And in this aspect, the knights turned out to be useful for society, although the peasants of medieval Europe could reasonably argue with this.
    The knights are the ruling elite of that society, for them the peasants are "dust in the sun", obliged to feed, drink and not be indignant .... The so-called "knightly relations" they applied only to people of their circle.
    Over time, it split into two large branches: religious and secular. The religious branch included knights who took a religious vow. Prominent examples are the famous Templars and Hospitallers, two knightly orders that actively fought against the Saracens (Arabs) and other representatives of non-Christian civilization. The secular branch of chivalry descended from professional warriors who were in royal service or served high-ranking nobility.
    That in the "religious branch", that in the "secular" knights were representatives of the elite, that is, nobles, for the lower strata had their own ranks ... the same "sergeants" ...
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 7 August 2020 13: 44 New
      +6
      Forgive the author, but you poorly understood the question ...

      Oh, just yesterday I tried to refute the thesis "Cossack = pirate"! Knights today!
      Knight-knight of strife! In a broad sense, the Author is right, but particulars interfere.
      The knights of the epochs of Charlemagne, Philip the Fair and Francis 1 have only one thing in common, they are horsemen! Everything is reflected in national languages ​​(Chevalier, cavalier, etc.), everything else is in the content of the vassal oath.
      Let's take it as an axiom - In most cases, a knight started out as a page, then as a squire and there if he was lucky. And now apply my thesis to the knights of Charlemagne! Fiasco!!! Here we did not manage to see what was happening in the late Middle Ages at the court of Francis 1, again by !!!
      However, I'm afraid that the answer to the question "Who was the most famous knight" is obvious - Don Quixote! " But did Cervantes' work stand side by side with the image of a knight? I'm afraid not!!!!
      Sincerely, Vlad !!!
      1. 5-9
        5-9 7 August 2020 15: 02 New
        +2
        Only the younger sons had to start with someone. The heirs had land with peizans and a feudal duty to fight when a feudal lord of higher rank called. They did not serve anyone.
  7. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 7 August 2020 10: 24 New
    12
    Horses, people, times, epochs mixed in a heap ...
    The article seemed to me similar to the reasoning of a child who learned that in order for children to appear, you need to do "this" and is in a hurry to share this knowledge in the yard, "but the boys don't know."
    I wonder how long ago the author was visited by the revelations that he presented in the article? I don’t want to brag, but such thoughts came to my mind back in school.
    European chivalry has never been uniform throughout Europe, nor has it been a stable, frozen substance. And the fact that they offended the taxable population, what's the secret? Everyone has done so, and continue to do so everywhere and where people live.
    In short, the article is baby talk on the lawn. Debunking the bright image of Ivanhoe is not at all what an adult should do.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 7 August 2020 13: 17 New
      +3
      Hi Michael. I think you shouldn't offend the Author of the article (Sergey). Many brilliant articles came out from under his pen in the "Armament" section. Today he tried to put his hand and talent on the path of history. Yes, to us, spoiled and well-read, Sergey's initiative seemed simple and without sweets! But is it worth hitting the hands?
      Firstly, this is not Harluzhevshena. Within the limits of his knowledge, Sergey revealed the material, albeit without frills and straightforwardly, this is not hack!
      Secondly, Mikhail read the comments on the work. Half of my respected members of the forum "float" on the topic!
      Thirdly, I want to dwell on something else. The title of the article has a life-motive in the textbook for the 6th (previously 5th) grade, where the pivot was drawn to the perniciousness of the feudal system and the suffering of peasants from the knights! I'm more interested in what prompted Sergei to write a real work !!! Are we really so programmable by inanimate nature (books, textbooks, etc.) that the information embedded in our matrix can “shoot” like that !!!
      Best regards, Vlad! Mikhail and Sergey - success in your creative work !!!
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 7 August 2020 13: 31 New
        +3
        My opinion is to kick back mercilessly
        For this alone it is necessary to impose a papal interdict with excommunication from the Internet
        The third estate of medieval Europe was those who fought, that is, the knights themselves.
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 7 August 2020 15: 15 New
        11
        Greetings, Vlad.
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        I think you shouldn't offend the author of the article

        Imagine that I would publish an article in the "Armament" section, for example, with content like "the rifle is called so because it has a barrel with screw grooves, this is necessary for the bullet to fly further and more accurately, and therefore - a crown conclusion, pubs! - a rifle is better than a gun! " How subtly readers will smear me for such an article? Even though some of the readers could think that the "rifle" - because screws were used to attach the barrel to the stock, I think that stars will be visible through me through the light, despite the fact that everything will be correctly written in the article and correspond to reality - and this is correct, because it is not necessary to write in an article on agriculture that the planting of seeds should be done in the ground, and the harvesting should be done as it ripens. smile
        Perhaps the author suddenly, perhaps even unexpectedly for himself, realized that, having married Lady Rowena, Sir Wilfred, after a couple of years, began to actively and mercilessly hang free shooters caught in the woods, and he did it together with a Norman baron-neighbor. And then, having quarreled with this baron, he did not think of anything better than how to punish him by plundering his peasants.
        The bright image of the noble knight faded and bitter disappointment poured out on paper in the form of this article. Well, if so. But, I think, the point here is different, unfortunately.
        The author, it seems to me, just wanted to throw out another tub of slops on decaying Europe. Say, deceitful, cruel and selfish knights have invented an image of "knightly" behavior, but in fact everything is sheer deception and window dressing.
        And not a word about our heroes.
        I got the strong impression that the author, while writing the article, deliberately limited himself to purely Western European models of chivalry, because the farther east, closer to Russia, and suddenly some inquisitive mind will come to the head to ask: how is it with us? this question? But the "heroes-defenders", headed by the known Vasnetsov trinity, were engaged in internecine wars, in fact, the same thing as the European knights - they mercilessly robbed and burned the peasants, elevating this noble occupation to the highest valor, and doing it with the same energy and assertiveness and with the same result.
        But for the author everything turned out fine - the knights are actually rotten through and through, Europe is rubbish, but we ... but what are we? We are not like that, nothing bad has been written about us, and since it has not been written, it means there was no ...
        Maybe I am wrong in my assumption, but this is exactly what I got the impression.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 7 August 2020 15: 36 New
          +2
          Maybe I am wrong in my assumption, but this is exactly what I got the impression.

          I think Mikhail you are wrong!
          Sincerely, Vlad!
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 7 August 2020 16: 58 New
            +3
            If I am wrong, then it remains to assume only that the author is an infantile romantic, alien to objectivity, who for some reason invaded not his own field of knowledge. Also, so-so characteristic. smile
            By the way, I suddenly had one question, it would be interesting to know the opinion of the comrades.
            In fact, all feudal rulers at all times, everywhere and everywhere possessed the same basic morality, on which only some features were superimposed due to specific living conditions. The basic principle of this morality was "corporate solidarity" between warriors (rulers) and unconditional contempt for the tax-paying estates. However, the code of knightly honor requires a knight, along with obedience to the suzerain, piety, etc., to protect the offended, widows and orphans, not to attack the unarmed, etc. As far as I know, such norms were available only in Europe. For example, in Bushido there is nothing about this - only obedience, the willingness to kill and die.
            Question: is the code of knightly honor in this aspect unique, and if so, what could be the reason for this? If someone knows examples of similar norms (about mercy to the taxable population) in other, non-European regions, it would be interesting to get acquainted.
            But somehow it seems to me that they tried to curb the arbitrariness of the soldiers over the peasants only in Europe, and precisely in Western Europe. How successful is a separate question, but still they tried.
            1. Engineer
              Engineer 8 August 2020 19: 30 New
              +1
              Question: is the code of knightly honor in this aspect unique, and if so, what could be the reason for this?

              In India, the kshatriyas have quite a code of honor. It was inherited by the Rajputs.
              My contrived explanation
              In Western Europe, the civilizational framework did not coincide with the political one. Therefore, a framework was required to protect "good Catholics" In India, there was something similar.
              China, Japan, Iran, civilization and state are equal. The rest are strangers and outlawed automatically, including moral
              Formulated in 5 minutes. Please don't kick too much
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 19: 37 New
                +1
                I won't kick it because it's interesting. This idea did not occur to me, because I am not familiar with the code of honor of the kshatriyas and even hear for the first time.
                I would like to hear the hypothesis in more detail.
                It's interesting, though. Not in terms of arguing, but in terms of finding out the point of view. I don’t have my own in this regard, such as to be ready to defend it. smile
                1. Engineer
                  Engineer 8 August 2020 20: 55 New
                  +2
                  Code of honor of the kshatriyas. There is a popular (in terms of presentation) work of Ouspenskaya
                  https://history.wikireading.ru/283741
                  Speaking about military ethics, Rajput ideologists usually point to a passage from the Mahabharata (Rajadharma-anushasana-parva, Ch. HSU - HSU1) (73, 64), where it is said: “Bhishma said: A Kshatriya should not use weapons against a Kshatriya who is not dressed in chain mail. If the enemy appears dressed in chain mail, his opponent must also protect himself with chain mail. It is necessary to fight one on one, and if the enemy is weak, leave him alone. If a kshatriya advances at the head of a whole army, then his opponent should also have an army. If the enemy resorts to cunning or deception, then it is necessary to counter him the same. If he fights with integrity, he must be resisted valiantly. A warrior on horseback must not oppose a warrior on a chariot; the chariot to the chariot. Poisoned and Spiked Arrows cannot be used. It is the weapon of the weak. The hero must fight honestly, without anger or desire to kill. The weak or wounded should not be killed, just like one without a son, or one whose weapon is broken in battle, or captured, or one whose bowstring has broken or cut, or fallen from a chariot. The wounded must be sent home or shown to a doctor at the winner's home. When, as a result of a dispute between the noble, a valiant warrior is captured, his wounds must be healed, and then the captive must be released home. This is the eternal unconditional duty of a kshatriya. Manu himself, the son of Brahman, said that the battle must be fair. A Raja should never wish to conquer a foreign land by unsuitable means, even if such a conquest would make him the master of the whole earth. Is there a king who can enjoy life if he won in an unsuitable way? A victory tainted with dishonor will never be a road to heaven. Such a victory weakens both the Raja and the earth. A warrior who has lost his weapon or begs for mercy, saying “I am yours,” or with folded hands (kritanjali), or who has thrown away his weapon, should be taken prisoner, but never killed.

                  There is also mercy to the peasants there from memory
                  What KMK needs to pay attention to - "kshatriya against kshatriya", that is, the code inside Hindu civilization (culture.) For domestic consumption. The analogy with the code of honor of the knights is quite direct. And again we remember that the same "God's peace" is for wars between Christians. You can fight with other confessions 24-7-365 and kill as much as you like.
                  So, the Hindu states, within the framework of their civilization, have developed a construct similar to the Europeans.
                  Why is there no such clear code in Iran, China, Byzantium? Well, this is a civilization-state, the same peasants are protected by internal laws. Common for the state.
                  Why not in the "Muslim world"?
                  It's more complicated here. Different states are united by fundamentalist religion and the Arabic language as an analogue of Latin. It looks like "Western World". Where is the moral code for protecting the faithful in civil strife?
                  HERE the key to answering the question may be the understanding that the moral code can work at least a little if it is close to the psychology of warriors. And what about the warriors in the Muslim world after the Arab valor has dried up (very quickly)? Gulyams, Mamluks, al-Sakaliba guards, Almoravid Berbers. Former slaves or frontier thugs It's not only that the "savages" are also strangers in their countries. And a huge part of them are pagans (semi-pagans). It is difficult to imagine the spread of a code similar to the European one in such an environment.
                  Factor 2 - a fairly early religious split of the Muslim world into Shiites-Sunnis. Agree, the emergence and spread of moral restrictions does not contribute.
                  Why not in Russia?
                  There is a moment of Russophobia. Before Ivan the Terrible, Rus- Muscovy is not a civilization. After civilization - the state (see above)
                  Attention. My understanding of civilization is somewhat different from Toynbee's. An obligatory sign of civilization for me is expansion. Not only and not so much military as cultural and ideological.
                  Therefore, the Eskimos are civilization for Toynbee, although "inhibited", but not for me.
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 21: 22 New
                    +1
                    Thank you for your reply. You have to think. I take a break. smile hi
        2. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 7 August 2020 15: 48 New
          +3
          European knights
          Again, the article does not cover the moral character of the Afro-knights at all! laughing
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 7 August 2020 16: 10 New
            +5
            And also the Arab knights, the Turkish knights, the Indo-Chinese knights and, God forbid, the Japanese knights with their Japanese monks. To increase the hype, I would also mention the Mongol knights, without mentioning the tartar knights, then one Bar would have had a heel of indignant comments.
            Although, on the other hand, mentioning the tartar knights is also not bad - the Bar will rise from joy to heaven, and from the rest of the commentators will follow an angry "phi", expressed in clicks.
            By the way, here is the question: how many one average "phi", "fu" and "th for crap", that is, an open expression of disagreement with someone's position, brings clicks to the site, and how much more is this number in comparison with the average "ah" , that is, an expression of consent?
            smile
            1. 3x3zsave
              3x3zsave 7 August 2020 16: 23 New
              +3
              Good question! I would add "ooh", "wow" and "uh-gay" to such an equation.
              1. Hantengri
                Hantengri 7 August 2020 21: 36 New
                +3
                Quote: 3x3zsave
                "uh - gay".

                And without gays in any way? And, in general, who is this, E-Ge? Is this French de Gue, or what Vietnamese? laughing
        3. Dart2027
          Dart2027 7 August 2020 18: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          I got the strong impression that the author, while writing the article, deliberately limited himself to purely Western European models of chivalry, because the farther east, closer to Russia, and suddenly some inquiring mind will come to wonder:

          And that there were knights in Russia? And when did they appear there?
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 7 August 2020 21: 56 New
            +2
            And that there were knights in Russia?
            Nevertheless, Western knights of all stripes treated our peers as colleagues in a dangerous business. That is, like a friend to another.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 8 August 2020 06: 34 New
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              Nevertheless, Western knights of all stripes treated our peers as colleagues in a dangerous business.

              In this case, we are talking about the cult of chivalry, but this is a little different. Was he in our country? No, I have never been, and no one even tried to idealize princes and boyars. And the three heroes mentioned by the "Master of the Trilobite" are not knights in the European sense, but simply warriors, and the same Ilya had conflicts with the prince more than once.
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 8 August 2020 08: 41 New
                0
                and the same Ilya had conflicts with the prince more than once.
                And then the big vassals never clashed with the overlords ... It's funny
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 8 August 2020 11: 43 New
                  0
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  And then the big vassals

                  And that Ilya Muromets was a major vassal? And how did he become one? Really funny.
                  1. abrakadabre
                    abrakadabre 10 August 2020 08: 50 New
                    0
                    And that Ilya Muromets was a major vassal?
                    Which one? Epic from fairy tales or real, whose relics lie in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra? This time.
                    And what, besides Ilya Muromets, neither in Western Europe, nor in Russia were there vassals and appanage rulers subordinate to their superiors? Is he the only one on the entire continent for a thousand years?
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 10 August 2020 19: 33 New
                      0
                      Quote: abrakadabre
                      Which one? Epic from fairy tales or

                      Both.
                      Quote: abrakadabre
                      neither in Western Europe, nor in Russia were there vassals and appanage rulers subordinate to higher

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      In this case, we are talking about the cult of chivalry, but this is a little different. Was he in our country? No, I have never been, and no one even tried to idealize princes and boyars.
          2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 05: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            And that there were knights in Russia? And when did they appear there?

            If we proceed from the essence of who a knight (cavalier, horseman) is, then the closest analogue (boyar, later - boyar children, even later - local horseman) has always existed in Russia. Namely - a heavily armed equestrian warrior carrying out the service for a land allotment himself and with a spear (the agreed number of combat slaves).
            In the sense that you are laying the knights! In this capacity, the knights also systematically "visited Russia". Hungarian, Swedish, Danish, German, later Livonian and Polish "atonement for their sins" and just personal gain came to our Fatherland and basically raked near Kiev, near the Chervonnye cities, at the mouth of the Neva and on Lake Peipsi! Sometimes we went to them with return visits, poking around in Hungarian, Polish and even Austrian civil strife. By the way, three Smolensk regiments helped the Poles in the coffin of the Teutonic Order, and we knocked off the Livonian knights ourselves. Moreover, at the beginning of the Livonian War, some of them took the oath and honestly served Ivan IV the Terrible! By the way, a separate Reitarsky (hired knightly) foreign detachment first appeared in his case of Ivan III, also the Terrible. Later the Livonian, Kurlian and Ostezian chivalry merged into the Russian Empire, and many of them glorified themselves in her service. Wrangel, Kruzenshtern, Barclay de Tolly - these are only the most famous descendants of the knights of our country !!!
            Moreover, Paul I formally headed the Knightly Order of Malta, and his son Alexander endowed himself with the right to reward his subjects with the "white eagle" with the highest award of the Commonwealth, which automatically included the recipient in the list of the order of the same name.
            And the last thing. Our princes and their warriors took part in knightly tournaments in Hungary, Bohemia and Austria, about which there is documentary evidence.
            Probably that's all, although the "knights" are Cossacks, no, this is the topic of a parallel cycle, that's all!
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 8 August 2020 06: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              If we proceed from the essence of who a knight (cavalier, horseman) is, then the closest analogue (boyar, later - boyar children, even later - local horseman) has always existed in Russia.

              In this case, we are talking about the cult of chivalry, but this is a little different. Was he in our country? No, I have never been, and no one even tried to idealize princes and boyars. And the three heroes mentioned by the "Master of the Trilobite" are not knights in the European sense, but simply warriors, and the same Ilya had conflicts with the prince more than once.
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 06: 40 New
                0
                If it’s about a cult, then it’s to the "knights" !!! laughing
                Although contemporaries, including foreign ones, often give the status of "the last knight of Europe" to our sovereigns - Paul I or Nicholas I !!!!
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 8 August 2020 11: 44 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                  If it’s about a cult, then it’s to the "knights" !!!

                  Here I am about that.
          3. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 12: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            were there knights in Russia?

            There were their analogues. The functions are the same, but the economic basis of their existence due to poverty was somewhat different. Boyars, as analogues of European counts and appanage princes, as analogues of dukes, were almost identical, and warriors, as analogues of an ordinary knight - a heavily armed horseman - were distinguished by the fact that they served for a salary, and not for land. Although, in general, the same thing. So in a broad understanding of the term "knight", that is, "ritter", horseman - knights appeared somewhere in the time of Yaroslav the Wise.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 8 August 2020 13: 15 New
              0
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              There were their analogues. The functions are the same, but the economic basis of their existence due to poverty was somewhat different.

              The article talks about the status of the knight and the cult of chivalry. Know and everything connected with it in Russia were, this is a fact, but the institution of chivalry was not.
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 13: 29 New
                +1
                Then the author had to define the term "knight". Who is that. Is the Spanish caballero a knight? And the French chevalier? And the English knight? Russian knight? Tatar bagatur? Did the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Italians have knights in Poland, Serbia, Hungary? How do you distinguish a "knight" from a "non-knight"?
                The British and French of the time of Richard the Lionheart considered Salah ad-Din a knight, and an example of such. The German crusaders considered Russian warriors to be knights. Maybe they still knew better?
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 8 August 2020 15: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Then the author had to define the term "knight". Who is that.

                  Have you read the article at all? It is about the cult of the institution of chivalry, and not about what to call whom.
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  How do you distinguish a "knight" from a "non-knight"?

                  If you really start digging into the details, then a knight is a person who has been knighted... That is, dedicated - congratulations, you are a knight, did not pass initiation - sorry, you are not a knight. Moreover, this was in all European countries. It is clear that for the son of the duke it was much easier than for the son of the peasant, but there were precedents. Another thing is that a nobleman remained a nobleman even without knighthood.
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 16: 44 New
                    +2
                    Well, well ... How simple and primitive everything is with you, I didn’t even expect ... Who knighted Sultan Saladin, can you tell me?
                    Here, honestly, read a little books - well, even this article - in it, of course, everything is mixed at the level of the publication "Children's Literature", but even you can understand something.
                    "Knights" were invented in the XNUMXth - XNUMXth centuries, the "knights" themselves never called themselves that, in each country they were called differently, and their customs, including initiation customs, were different and changed over time. How does a French chevalier differ from a German ritter or a Spanish caballero? The bulk of everything. Culture, language, customs ... How do they differ from the Russian vigilante? Yes, the same. And they all look alike? Social status, weapons, method of fighting, all had rituals of initiation (different), all had the meaning of life - service to the overlord, and craft - war.
                    With a blue eye, you transfer the concepts of romantic literature in the most primitive way to the historical realities of half a thousand years ago.
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    Have you read the article at all? It is about the cult of the institution of chivalry

                    Question for you - have you read it? Understood what? That, using the example of Ivanhoe and Dick Shelton, the author debunks the myth of the "nobility" of the knight and that the real knights were not the same as in the novels? Not you, not him, is unaware that "knight" is a collective concept and arose much later than these same knights left the historical arena.
                    And then there were not "knights", but warriors, in different countries at different times called differently, but always and everywhere recognized each other from afar and took each other as an equal, as a full-fledged colleague in the shop, with whom tomorrow, perhaps, you will fight shoulder to shoulder, and the day after tomorrow - face to face.
                    Okay, it's still forgivable to think at the level of a seventh grader, but the author, starting to write about chivalry, had to understand this issue at least somehow deeper than at the level of a high school student.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 8 August 2020 16: 59 New
                      0
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      Who knighted Sultan Saladin, can you tell me?
                      A figurative expression is an expression whose meaning is understood not in the literal sense, but through some kind of image.
                      In our time, too, someone can be called a knight.
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      "Knights" were invented in the XNUMXth - XNUMXth centuries, the "knights" themselves never called themselves that, in each country they were called differently, and their customs, including the customs of initiation, were different and changed over time.
                      AND? Do you know the fact of being knighted? Dedicated - became a knight, everything is really simple.
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      Not you, not him, is unaware that "knight" is a collective concept and arose much later than these same knights left the historical arena.
                      If you still read the article, you would understand that the author is just talking about the image of the knight, which appeared at a time when they themselves were no longer there.
                      Nowadays the image of the knight is romanticized and built on myths. This is largely due to the influence of modern culture on a person. Although the heyday of chivalry in Europe fell on the XII-XIII centuries, interest in that era and warriors in armor still exists today.
                      .
                      The reality, as you know, is much more prosaic, than the canons that were set in literature at the beginning of the XNUMXth centurywhen interest in the Middle Ages arose in Europe.
                      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                        Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 17: 43 New
                        +1
                        Dear Dari, the process of innuendo is much older than knights and chivalry in general.
                        Moreover, even the rites of initiation themselves differ dramatically under an hour. In some cases, a night vigil and prayer was supposed (among the Germans and Burgundians), the French decided to time the dedication to significant events such as battles (at Kersey they hurried to devote a dozen, then they bore the nickname "knights of the hare" all their lives). In fact, it all resulted in getting a badge of distinction, hence the order !!!
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 8 August 2020 18: 03 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                        Dear Dari, the process of innuendo is much older than knights and chivalry in general.
                        Moreover, even the rites of initiation themselves differ dramatically under an hour.

                        The oath in the army is also a rite of passage.
                      3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                        Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 18: 18 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                        Dear Dari, the process of innuendo is much older than knights and chivalry in general.
                        Moreover, even the rites of initiation themselves differ dramatically under an hour.

                        The oath in the army is also a rite of passage.

                        Oath of vassal to the overlord! The closest historical analogue of legions to a legate or consul! In Russia until 1917 they swore allegiance to the monarch. They swore not to Rome, but to its representative. Oaths to states appear only at the end of the 18th century, in the era of revolutions !!!
                        The most ideologically loyal were in the days of the USSR, when they swore an oath to the people. Today, the law enforcement agencies have made a rollback into the creep of the state.
                        With regard to initiation, different societies choose according to their wickedness or understanding! Where to sleep with the director, and where is enough cake !!! In the army, as in any closed system, procedure is above all (spirit, elephant, ladle, grandfather). I know at least 3-5 ways to raise the status, although the thought should be divided by three !!!
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 8 August 2020 21: 32 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
                        Oath of vassal to the overlord! The closest historical analogue of legions to a legate or consul!

                        In fact, there were knights without overlords and this was not considered something shameful.
                2. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 17: 48 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Consecrated - became a knight

                  There were no knights. How many times can you repeat the same thing ... sad
                  Initiated into warriors. In different countries. In France, for example, they were called the Chevalier, that is, the rider and were ordained in the Chevalier. In the Holy Roman Empire - a ritter, that is, also a horseman. Somewhere else somehow. The essence of initiation is an oath. And it was absolutely for everyone, starting with the Japanese samurai and ending with the Spanish caballeros. The rite could be different, it changed several times over the course of time, but its essence was the same - the subject swore an oath of loyalty, on adherence to some norms of behavior. And if you can explain to me how the company of a Rusich (or Rusyn) is fundamentally different from the accolade of the Frankish Chevalier, I will be grateful to you.
                  And the knights, as a common, single phenomenon, were not.
                3. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 8 August 2020 18: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  In different countries. In France, for example, they were called the Chevalier, that is, the rider and were ordained in the Chevalier. In the Holy Roman Empire - a ritter, that is, also a horseman. Somewhere else somehow.

                  That is, the fact that in multilingual countries one and the same is called with words that sound differently is unknown to you? The word sword (Russian) sounds like sword (English), espada (Spanish), Schwert (German), kard (Hungarian), etc. But the sword from this does not become a club or a boot. Another thing is that it is inconvenient to list a bunch of names, therefore, over time, a general concept appeared.
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  if you explain to me how the company of a Rusich (or Rusyn) fundamentally differs from the accolade of the Frankish Chevalier

                  The fact that the Chevalier was part of the culture of the conditional West, but not the Russians.
                4. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 19: 30 New
                  +1
                  Well, we survived. In your opinion, Russia was not part of the common European culture in the Middle Ages ... In general, you have a very, how to say ... distorted idea of ​​the era in principle.
                  The discussion is moving to a completely global level. It is unlikely that we will find a common language.
                  I adhere to the point of view, according to which, Russia was an integral part of Europe, albeit with its own characteristics, that the Russian nobleman was no different from the European nobleman, just as the peasants of conditional France, Germany and Russia did not differ from each other - the same problems, concepts and moral and ethical base. Significant differences began to appear only with the onset of modern times in Europe. Before that there was a single world, a single cultural space, common basic concepts. It is enough to look at how many marriages were concluded between Russia and Europe, in how many political processes of a European scale the Russians took part, how easily the representatives of the Russian nobility adapted in the West ...
                  If Russia and Europe are different cultural spaces for you, our discussion becomes absolutely pointless.
                  I propose to complete it.
                5. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 8 August 2020 21: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  In your opinion, Russia was not part of the common European culture in the Middle Ages
                  Do you know that Russia was Orthodox and Europe was Catholic?
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  I adhere to the point of view that Russia was an integral part of Europe, albeit with its own characteristics
                  And the institution of chivalry was one of those features. For the Nth time, a knight and a feudal lord are not identical concepts, just as a knight and a heavily armed horseman are not identical. And certainly in Russia there has never been any cult associated with chivalry. Later, already under Peter, this concept came into use, and before that there were simply vigilantes, nobles, landowners, etc. Be so kind as to show at least something where it says that there was an institution of chivalry in Russia.
            2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 18: 34 New
              +1
              Mikhail, my personal opinion.
              The Western feudal phenomenon and, accordingly, chivalry as such was not possible at the initial stage of the formation of the Old Russian state. For a banal reason, the method of feeding was carried out by the polyud, and not from the feud!
              That is, the prince in the winter period corny dragged his squad and yard behind him to feed him !!!
              Even with the emergence of the system of governorship and churchyards, there was no serf peasantry. So, only large feudal lords - boyars - could support themselves more or less from the land! The rest had to pay salaries and feed from their table. Perhaps this is where our domestic concept of the princely table - the throne comes from !!!
              In fact, we came to serfdom at the time when Europe rejected it.
              So the closest concept to a knight is our local cavalry, and later landowners. By the way, the latter was obliged to serve by Peter the First, but with his death a series of indulgences began, which ended in "the freedom of the nobility"!
              And the last thing. The myth of chivalry emerges during its decline and was supported by its tournament history.
              Regards, Vlad!
            3. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 19: 06 New
              +2
              Vlad, I agree completely. As far as the economic underpinnings of this phenomenon are concerned. But as far as the exclusively military and social role of chivalry is concerned, in Europe and in Russia it was formed in parallel. If we consider the knight as a landowner, then yes, the local cavalry are our first knights. The irony of fate lies in the fact that it was precisely during this period that the orientalization of the Russian army took place and our "knights" from this very period did not resemble the European ones at all. Back in the XNUMXth century. Russian cavalry could compete in the quality of heavy weapons with the best examples of Western European, but as soon as they switched to the "feudal" method of manning the army - if you please - crucibles, sabers, bows-sulitsa and heavy cavalry inexorably turns into light.
              However, if you do not consider the method of recruiting the princely (boyar) squad, but look at it as an exclusively military unit, already from the middle of the XNUMXth century. we will see in Russia the most that neither is knights, with all their attributes - heavy weapons and a specific military culture, very similar, if not at all identical to Western European and the same ethics. This can be seen especially clearly in Novgorod and Galich, which directly contacted Europe.
            4. Phil77
              Phil77 8 August 2020 19: 14 New
              +2
              Michael! What is the difference between our heavily armed warrior and their / conditionally / knight? Literally and on the fingers? Estates? Everything?
            5. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 19: 32 New
              +2
              Yes, I don't see any difference, except for the economic basis on which they existed. But Vlad has already written everything correctly about the base. And so - one to one, "knights" are.
            6. Phil77
              Phil77 8 August 2020 19: 35 New
              +1
              Oh! The argument, for the sake of the argument!
            7. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 19: 45 New
              +2
              Not at all. The opponent proves that there is a difference, but it is not clear how he sees it. The answer “that one has passed initiation and the other has not” somehow does not suit me very much - it is too formal and far-fetched.
              I am literally saying that if you include in the concept of "knight" and ritters and chevaliers and knights and caballeros, then it should also include knights, and bagatur and samurai (samurai) and other heavy-horse riffraff all over the world. They are all knights then. And if you separate one from the other, then everyone from everyone. But then it turns out that there were no knights at all, for this very concept - "knight" - is the earliest century from the XVIII century.
            8. Phil77
              Phil77 8 August 2020 19: 51 New
              +2
              Friend Michael, the most ancient order, this is the Order of Saint Saint Lazarus! 1098. One cannot argue with this! And yes, they fought without helmets. Why? There were lepers, alas!
            9. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 20: 41 New
              +1
              The question was whether the Order of Lazarus was knightly? Or was it the final resting place for the leper knights?
              By the way, a knight (brother of the order) is always equal to a secular knight? After all, the holders of the orders: Bath, Garter, Black or White Eagle were also knights? Then cavalier = knight or sir?
              There are a lot of questions that can be continued endlessly!
              Mikhail is right there is an option to put on blinders and see the situation in a narrow way, but you can turn around and then there will be little space !!!
              The deeper you dig, it gets worse and worse !!!
              But in addition to the "Western European" model of the knight-feudal lord, the Byzantine version of the feudal lord-knight was also recognized. By the way, without dedication, gold spurs and orders !!! So Mikhail's version that the knight is, first of all, a heavily armed rider, and secondly, the owner of the allotment with serfs has more than a legal basis.
              At the same time, I will give an equally interesting topic for discussion!
              Knights are an estate, and in the ancient world - equestrianism (Rome and Athens) is also an estate !!!
            10. Dart2027
              Dart2027 8 August 2020 21: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              So Mikhail's version that the knight is, first of all, a heavily armed rider, and secondly, the owner of the allotment with serfs has more than a legal basis.
              It all depends on what is meant.
              The word knight, as a designation for a heavily armed horseman, has long become a tradition. Well, you can't remember what TV was called there in all countries, and so they said "knight" and everyone understands what it is about. In this sense, there really is nothing to argue about.
              Again, the word knight can be used to refer to feudal lords (as well as TK), but this is less common.
              But in the article the author speaks specifically about the cultural component of the institution of chivalry, and this is a completely different matter. In this sense, knights are a purely Western European concept, just like samurai is purely Japanese.
            11. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 22: 10 New
              +1
              The author writes not about the cultural, but the legal component of the institution of chivalry, or rather the ethical and legal !!!
              If on the fingers, the knights treated the peasants like cattle, killed, robbed, exercised their right of the first night, etc. Looking at this chaos, the church fathers tried to codify it - to bring it into order with legal and ethical norms !!! However, it was unsuccessful. Golden spurs continued to heat the fields, hunt livestock and exercise the rights of their wedding night! It is culturally even to sing obscene songs about peasants “I hate peasants, I hate them. I will tear the rent from them, I hate! Etc. (The song is real)!
              All this disgrace will continue until the Battle of Conte (if I do not go around). The Flemings collected 700 spurs after the battle, including Count Artois! After her knights have already fought all who do not hit!
              Well, the last clergymen, too, did not disdain to wear armor on horseback with a sword in their hands, to siege the castles of neighbors and enjoy the right of the first wedding night !!!
            12. Phil77
              Phil77 9 August 2020 05: 01 New
              +1
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Count Artois!

              Count Artois! Robert! Like him as a hero, according to Druon! Cute! Adventurer! Hero! Knight! soldier
            13. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 August 2020 05: 36 New
              +1
              Quote: Phil77
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Count Artois!

              Count Artois! Robert! Like him as a hero, according to Druon! Cute! Adventurer! Hero! Knight! soldier

              And the nephew of the above-mentioned Count Artois !!!
            14. Phil77
              Phil77 9 August 2020 08: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

              And the nephew of the above-mentioned Count Artois

              Oh, oh, oh! I identified myself! But how much like my uncle !!!! belay
              * -Here is a mustache, you, and the spitting image of Volodka Trynkin, spitting image! *.
              Gorgeous and lovely * Diamond Hand *. laughing
        4. Dart2027
          Dart2027 9 August 2020 06: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          The author writes not about the cultural, but the legal component of the institution of chivalry, or rather the ethical and legal !!!
          We can say that about this too, but starts with:
          Nowadays, the image of the knight is romanticized and built on myths. This is largely due to the influence of modern culture on a person. Despite the fact that the heyday of chivalry in Europe fell on the XII-XIII centuries, interest in that era and warriors in armor still exists today. Numerous TV series, feature films, books and computer games that are released every year are living evidence.
          And then comes the discussion about the realities of life.
    2. Phil77
      Phil77 9 August 2020 04: 47 New
      +1
      Good morning, Vlad! Well, apparently, it’s a knightly! So they write. hi
    3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 August 2020 04: 54 New
      +1
      Hello, Sergey!
      For some reason, I got the impression that the Order of Lazarus is closer to the Franciscans. Almshouses guarded by brothers. The social orientation is unambiguous. However, this is a matter of sincere respect. The ideology of the Tramplers, Hospitallers, Livonian and Teutons is resting on the sidelines !!!
    4. Phil77
      Phil77 9 August 2020 04: 57 New
      +1
      No! Closer to the Hospitallers! But ... a cross, exactly green! On a black background!
    5. Phil77
      Phil77 9 August 2020 09: 21 New
      +1
      And what surprised me most of all was that they accepted lepers as brothers!
  8. Dart2027
    Dart2027 8 August 2020 21: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    The answer “that one has passed initiation and the other has not” somehow does not suit me very much - it is too formal and far-fetched.

    Dear - I do not know what suits you and what does not, but a person became a knight after being knighted, this is reality. The dedication might look different, but it was. For example, during the siege of Jerusalem, Balian II Ibelin, the prototype of the GG film "The Kingdom of Heaven", before the start of the actual battle, knighted 60 people (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0% B0% D0% B4% D0% B0_% D0% 98% D0% B5% D1% 80% D1% 83% D1% 81% D0% B0% D0% BB% D0% B8% D0% BC% D0% B0_ ( 1187)). If you have other information, then name the source.
  9. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 9 August 2020 04: 59 New
    +1
    Hypothetically! What is the difference between the decision of Prince Yaroslav before the battle for Kiev to raise 60 young warriors to swordsmen or mushroom ???
  10. Dart2027
    Dart2027 9 August 2020 06: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Hypothetically!

    Quote: Dart2027
    a person became a knight after being knighted, this is reality. The dedication may look different, but it was

    The source of the fact that it is not.
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    the decision of Prince Yaroslav before the battle for Kiev

    The source of the fact that in Russia there was a cult of chivalry.
  11. Phil77
    Phil77 9 August 2020 10: 11 New
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    The source of the fact that in Russia there was a cult of chivalry.
    You can put it another way., The cult of people who professionally wield weapons. And, yes! Origin!
    You * + *!
  • Operator
    Operator 7 August 2020 12: 45 New
    -1
    What kind of "lord" (a purely specific English term used on the outskirts of Europe - the British Isles)? The Russian-language term for a medieval European landowner is "feudal lord", however.

    PS Exactly the same scumbags (knights and landsknechts) in relation to their compatriots were their later eastern counterparts - Zaporozhye Cherkasy / Cossacks / Lytsars (foremen and privates). Only the tsarist ordering of Cherkas (starting from the 17th century) up to their deportation among the civilized Don Cossacks made it possible to end the criminal lawlessness in Little Russia.
    1. Sertorius
      Sertorius 7 August 2020 14: 36 New
      +3
      [quote] The Russian-language term for the name of the medieval European landowner is "feudal lord", however. [/ quote]
      The term "feudal lord" is German-speaking, but accepted in the community of Russian-speaking historians (Marx and Engels are our everything!). Analogs to the English "lord" used by contemporaries of the era of chivalry: "dominus" (Latin), "senior" (French). The Russian analogue is "master, owner".
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 7 August 2020 15: 29 New
        +6
        "Lords, Peers, Seers", something from the cartoon about Treasure Island, Odessa Film Studio! wink
        Quote: Operator
        What kind of "lord" (a purely specific English term used on the outskirts of Europe - the British Isles)? Russian-language term for the name of a medieval European landowner

        Well, Andrew you gave! Feudal lord - Feud, a purely Germanic definition of the landowner and his allotment, for which, according to his vassal oath, he is obliged to put up a (spear) military detachment. In our case, the term “votchina”, which is the closest in concept, is “patrimony”. The main one leaving the "local cavalry". Which, according to the category book, served for "estates", "dachas" and "features". However, almost all service classes served for the land. Some received in "feeding", some in the "fatherland" (put on). Only mercenaries and Cossacks received money. The latter, however, are mainly "lead, potion, cloth and bread"! All this is so interesting that some "researchers" of the origins of domestic corruption draw "terrible conclusions about its invincibility in Russia !!!
        As for the lord, the British are not obliged to speak Russian, as well as the Russians in English !!!
        A classic example is Emperor Caesar! Now explain to me the wretched one. Why is "king" in Latin "Rex", the Eastern Greeks have "emperor" - "Caesar" (king), and the Roman concept of "imperium", no German "Reich" in the teeth! laughing
        1. Hantengri
          Hantengri 7 August 2020 20: 05 New
          +3
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Feudal - Feud, purely Germanic definition of landowner

          Why purely Germanic? Isn't the feud from the Latin feudum?
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 August 2020 18: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: HanTengri
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Feudal - Feud, purely Germanic definition of landowner

            Why purely Germanic? Isn't the feud from the Latin feudum?

            Yes, essentially a derivative of Domainus !!! Owner !!!
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 7 August 2020 22: 09 New
          +1
          determination of the landowner and his allotment, for which, according to the vassal oath, he is obliged to put up a military detachment (spear).
          For the feud, the vassal is obliged to military service on agreed terms. The amount of military power to be displayed is one of these conditions and depends on the size of the fief provided. It can be either a knight himself (one piece), a knight's spear (a knight with a minimal armed retinue - all combatants), or a very large ban - a detachment of knights-vassals under one banner - that is, a banner. Or even a whole army consisting of several bans.
      2. Operator
        Operator 7 August 2020 19: 45 New
        -1
        In German, "feudal lord" is Lehnsherr (suddenly).
        1. Sertorius
          Sertorius 8 August 2020 01: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          In German, "feudal lord" is Lehnsherr (suddenly).

          Feudalherr is a feudal lord.
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 August 2020 03: 43 New
            -4
            Where did you see the analogue of the German prefix herr in the Russian word "feudal lord"? laughing
            1. Sertorius
              Sertorius 8 August 2020 05: 38 New
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Where did you see the analogue of the German prefix herr in the Russian word "feudal lord"?

              Feudal is a Russian word ?! Download yourself already Yandex translator.
              The prefix herr? Not the end of the word - just a prefix? What universities did you study at, dear?
              So as not to bother: "Prefix, prefix (lat. Praefixus) is a significant part of a word that stands in front of its root and supplements or changes the meaning of the word." At school, they pass it in the 3rd grade.
              1. Operator
                Operator 8 August 2020 14: 22 New
                -1
                Yes, it turns out, you are a purely concrete innovator in the Russian language - with your "feudalcher" (God forgive me) laughing
  • sivuch
    sivuch 7 August 2020 12: 45 New
    +1
    Count Valerand, stumbling upon peasants who were chopping wood without permission, captured them and cut off their legs, making them useless to work for their master
    In fact, this is guaranteed death from blood loss, only longer and more painful.
    1. Alf
      Alf 7 August 2020 16: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: sivuch
      Count Valerand, stumbling upon peasants who were chopping wood without permission, captured them and cut off their legs, making them useless to work for their master
      In fact, this is guaranteed death from blood loss, only longer and more painful.

      Exactly. Having died, they will not be able to work for their master.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 7 August 2020 13: 18 New
    +3
    The article is not relevant.
    A different image has long been forming in the mass consciousness.
    A knight is a petty (including literally) dirty trick.
    Morale is bad, armor up to the 14th century is crap, in a battle with a non-European enemy it usually suffers defeat.
    Myth versus myth.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 7 August 2020 16: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      The article is not relevant.
      A different image has long been forming in the mass consciousness.
      A knight is a petty (including literally) dirty trick.
      Morale is bad, armor up to the 14th century is crap, in a battle with a non-European enemy it usually suffers defeat. Myth versus myth.

      Are you kidding or serious? Seriously, I'll answer briefly.

      The Knight is a professional Warrior, and at the same time a Christian; an ideal combination as a continuation of the traditions of St. George the Victorious, St. Dmitry of Thessaloniki, St. Maurice, etc.

      The morality of chivalry is the basis of the code of honor of real officers (and not only), even today.

      Armor in Europe has always (always in world history!) Been excellent, and since the 14th century it has become the best in the world.

      If European chivalry were constantly defeated in battles with external invaders, then Christian Europe would no longer exist.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 7 August 2020 17: 07 New
        +2
        I wrote
        A different image has long been forming in the mass consciousness.

        If we develop the thought, then the image of the same orders of knighthood is almost always negative.
        The idea of ​​the worthlessness of the knights is widely spread by the same Yandex-Zen and other mass platforms
        The morality of chivalry is the basis of the code of honor of real officers (and not only), even today.

        This also needs to be filtered. And it will be like with the code of bushido - in words it is straight ubermenshi, but in fact it is not clear where thousands of slippers came from. and traitors
        I am for a balanced approach
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. ee2100
        ee2100 8 August 2020 00: 08 New
        0
        I will fully join the author of the comment. Some members of the forum are trying to completely discredit the author of the article. You first read the title of the article, and then "run wild". In my deep conviction, the attitude towards chivalry is formed purely individually, from personal preferences, etc. We can guess about the "inner world" of the inhabitant of the Middle Ages, about his thoughts, feelings, worldview, etc. Different historians have different opinions on this, and this is understandable.
        Some lovers of fossil arthropods with mentoring rhetoric say, there is no given publication and simply referring "like teach materiel"
        Chivalry is diverse and it is simply impossible to fully reveal its essence in one article.
        Let the connoisseurs of the history of Russia answer, who can be equated from the Russian soldiers of the Middle Ages to a knight?
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 8 August 2020 13: 03 New
          0
          Quote: ee2100
          Some lovers of fossil arthropods with mentoring rhetoric say, there is no given publication and simply referring "like teach materiel"

          And what else to do with you if you know catastrophically little about the era, and while trying to reason and create sensational discoveries. Here is an author, whose knowledge of the Middle Ages is more than just superficial, opened us another America, which honestly earned in my eyes the name Captain Obvious. And I would have studied the topic before writing, maybe I would not have done it.
          Quote: ee2100
          Chivalry is diverse and it is simply impossible to fully reveal its essence in one article.

          Gold words. Opening America too, bravo. Move in the same direction and you will certainly come to the realization of some great truth, for example, you will understand that not every knight in Europe was a landowner, that is, a feudal lord in the narrow sense of the word. And then, you see, it will come to you that heavily armed horsemen at all times and in all regions played the same role in the state, despite the differences in appearance and weapons, and at the same time they called themselves "ritter", "chevalier "," caballero "," knight "," bagatur "," samiri ", etc.
          And then, perhaps, ask yourself a question: and, in fact, why do we, such smart and competent ritters, Chevaliers and Caballeros, consider "knights", while the rest are not?
          In the article, the author speaks mainly of French chivalry, but there, in France, there were no knights at all - there were just that "chevalier", from "cheval" - a horse. "Knights" were in German-speaking countries and were called ritters.
          You, as well as the author, would not be bad at first to define at least the term "knight" - what this term includes. The same Germans, for example, considered Russian vigilantes to be "knights". Maybe they knew better from their XIII century?
          In short, I continue with my mentoring tone and will continue to repeat to you - guys, read books, smart books by real historians, you will know more and you will not have to "reinvent bicycles" with square wheels. The fact that you are trying to think about historical questions is fine, but the answers to the overwhelming majority of them have long been available and they have been given by people who know much more about the topic than you do, the formulations of the answers have been honed in long disputes between these people, and continue to be honed in many questions so far.
          So, Alexander, teach, "teach materiel." Teach yourself and pass it on to the author of the article on occasion - before you write something, you need to read a lot. laughing
          1. ee2100
            ee2100 8 August 2020 19: 44 New
            0
            It is a HUGE honor that you honored my humble comment with your "all-white" answer and even almost to the point. Continue to star on this sub-site and teach the wits of all those who are not in your circle. am
  • Sertorius
    Sertorius 7 August 2020 15: 05 New
    +2
    Prominent examples are the famous Templars and Hospitallers, two knightly orders that actively fought against the Saracens (Arabs) and other representatives of non-Christian civilization.

    Very interesting.
    Can the author name these other representatives, against whom it was the Hospitallers and Templars who fought? Is it about a couple of lost battles to the Tatars, where several dozen Templars participated?
    Why are the Saracens, in the author's opinion, only Arabs? In the Middle Ages, a different opinion existed.
    And what is non-Christian civilization?
    In one sentence to fit so much absurd!
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 7 August 2020 16: 50 New
      -1
      Yes, the author just got into something other than his corporate theme - hence the low level of the article.

      In addition, people know, judging by the text, there are only TWO spiritual orders of knighthood, while there were almost a couple of dozen of them (and this is not counting the local knightly brotherhoods).

      Meant "other non-Christian civilizations"))
      1. Sertorius
        Sertorius 7 August 2020 17: 09 New
        +1
        Good time of the day, Mikhail! Chatillon finally abandoned?
      2. Phil77
        Phil77 7 August 2020 19: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        only TWO spiritual orders of knighthood,

        The history of the emergence of the Order of St. Lazarus is very interesting. It is, among other things, the oldest of the orders / 1098 /, but it is interesting to others. Almost all of its members were lepers, wore a green cross on a black cloak. At first they were engaged only in charity, but since September 1187 already participated in the battles. Moreover, they went into battle without helmets, terrifying the enemies. However, in the Battle of Forbia, they lost almost all of their personnel. The Order is still alive today, doing charity work in France.
  • BAI
    BAI 7 August 2020 17: 05 New
    +1
    All knights who received the title by inheritance are the descendants of bandits who obtained property by plundering either the local population or a foreign one. Initially local. When there was nothing to plunder in the localities, raids on neighbors began. And only then, after legalizing the loot, they began to be knighted for merit. And the descendants of these knights no longer have anything to do with banditry on the roads.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 7 August 2020 18: 37 New
    +2
    Generally, in "Ayaengo" romanticization, how to say, is relative:
    Here we consider it not superfluous to make a reservation and bring arguments more serious than the concatenation of purely romantic events, in support of the fact that the sad state of morals of that time presented by us is not in the least exaggerated by us. It is regrettable to think that the brave barons who fought over the English liberties with the representatives of the crown power, the very barons to whom we owe the existence of these liberties, were themselves the most severe oppressors and stained themselves with such extremes of despotism that were contrary not only to English laws, but also to the dictates of nature itself and simple philanthropy. But, alas, we should cite at least one of the many pages of the work of our famous historian Henry, who collected so much valuable material from the chronicles of that time, to prove that it is difficult to invent anything darker and more terrible than what was happening then in reality.
    The Saxon Chronicle describes what atrocities were committed during the reign of King Stephen by important barons and castle owners, who were all entirely Normans; this description is striking proof of what frenzy they were capable of when their violent passions were fueled:
    “They brutally oppressed the poor, forcing them to build castles for themselves; and when the castles were ready, they filled them with wicked people, rather devils, who indiscriminately seized men and women, if they suspected that they had money, threw them into dungeons and subjected them to tortures more fierce than those endured by the holy martyrs ... They strangled some, stuffing their mouths with mud, others hung them by the legs, or by the head, or by the thumbs, and under them they made a fire. Others tied ropes with knots around their heads and tightened the knots until their skulls burst; others were thrown into dungeons teeming with snakes and toads ... "
  • Kwas
    Kwas 7 August 2020 20: 36 New
    +3
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    I wonder how long ago the author was visited by the revelations that he presented in the article? I don’t want to brag, but such thoughts came to my mind back in school.

    Regards, sir, but I join the voice of the author's advocate. Not all people were visited by wisdom and education in due time, and these people are not guilty of that. Legends, similar to the debunked author, were in the heads of very smart people with some gaps in their education. Knowing, probably, the quality of modern education, as well as the efforts of our ideological opponents, you should not be surprised at this. So let him write it, and we will discuss it, and it will be useful.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 8 August 2020 08: 53 New
    +1
    It seems to me that many, including myself, perceived the article negatively because ... Shpakovsky !!!
    Judge for yourself, Shpakovsky has already taught us that an article about knights looks like this: a clearly delineated subject, good (sometimes excellent) graphic content, some work with sources. So we have a bar. The author did not take this bar, unfortunately.
  • Slug_BDMP
    Slug_BDMP 8 August 2020 10: 14 New
    +1
    The illustration for Ivanhoe is cool! Knights of the 12th century in armor of the 15th century. As a child, I read this book with great illustrations, where knights were depicted in corrugated "Maximilian" armor. True, then I did not know these details and just "dragged" from these pictures.