Chivalry

Transcript:

Chivalry:

Welcome to my first episode that isn’t about a person or persons. I’m really excited to share a bit about chivalry, a topic that I think is deeply important to the Hundred Years’ War, the War of Bretton Succession, and the Wars of the Roses. I’ve really struggled with this episode, I’ve actually rewritten parts of it twice, it may be a bit shorter than character episodes, and it’s given me a few ideas that you’ll find out about next years. To avoid just giving you a bunch of facts I’m going to focus on a few specific knights and their stories, as well as stories written by chroniclers. I think covering this as part of the Hundred Years’ War is the way to go, despite chivalry being much older. This 100 plus years period of history leads to a huge transition, it begins moving monarchies away from feudalism, it allows the lower classes to begin participating in government (sometimes failing and with many set-backs), and it sees chivalry slowly fade, faced with the devastating set-back of superior military tactics. I am incredibly grateful for the work of the late Maurice Keen, his book ‘Chivalry’ literally wrote the book of the modern study of chivalry. This episode will be mostly focused on the French basis of chivalry, with a bit of the English and a few other European powers. As many of you know, my husband helps proof-read all of my episodes and ha plenty of input when I’m discussing military topics, so this is the first episode he’s actually gotten to help me with in more detail, so thank you, Phillip. He also has, hopefully, gotten a lot of questions answered. 

Throughout this episode I’ll be trying to answer the question, was chivalry a real thing? By this question I’m not trying to discover if there was a written rulebook so to speak, or even a codified ideal. I’m trying to find out if you asked a common knight, a man who had been knighted due to gallantry in action, would he know what was expected of him within the chivalric nature of the age? Would a woman who belonged to the landed gentry or higher know how she should be treated by a man who was a knight? And finally, what were the punishments for breaking these ‘rules’, were they just social, or could one actually be tried for being less than chivalric? The trouble with answering these questions comes down to sources in most cases. Sources, as I’ve discussed in countless other episodes, have biases, and some aren’t reliable at various times (due to changing patrons or anger towards certain individuals). I have no doubt a few of you will be hoping to hear a little bit about William Marshall, but I’ll be saving him until I cover the early Plantagenets, plus, there are plenty of other interesting knights and stories of knights to cover. 

As a former English as a second language teacher and a lover of languages I think it’s important to discuss etymology quickly, because the word chivalry shares a root with a word I will struggle to pronounce throughout this whole episode: cavalry (I’m sure all of you have a word you struggle with too). Both words originate with the Latin word caballus, meaning horsemen, both words went through changes of course, but you may hear the root of the chevauche, since caballus is also the root word of cheval, meaning horse. The importance of the horse to this entire episode and social structure cannot be understated. If any of you own or ride horses today you know they’re expensive: feeding them, having the time to care for them, training them, saddles and other accessories are expensive, and there’s the cost of not doing other things. A trained war horse can’t be used to plow a field, the time spent training that horse can’t be used for agricultural production. Deciding to use horse has to provide a great deal of advantage to make it worth it to any ruler. The class of men (let’s be honest, it’s the men doing the fighting in this time) doing the fighting can’t be used for other thing within a kingdom, and in addition their focus will be on warfare. They will be raised from a young age to fight, so, having ideals of conduct, if not outright rules, is suggested. 

To explain chivalry I’m going to have to give you all a bit of a history lesson, thankfully this is a history podcast, so that’s what you’re here for. The use of horses in military conflict is ancient, it makes sense, horses cane run faster than humans and carry more weight. They can transport troops and supplies more easily than soldiers on foot. In addition, using a chariot, an archer or a spearman can attack while moving towards the enemy and then quickly retreat. A horseman could launch a light spear at the enemy or stab the same enemy with a spear from height. But in the 8th century something started to change. A piece of technology from the east impacted the way horses were used in battle and with this change came a slow, but important social change. Stirrups, a piece of metal attached to a saddle with leather allowing the rider more control while releasing their hands for other tasks morphed the way battles were fought. While a rider would still use a bridle to control a horse, stirrups allow an extra layer of control and keep the rider more secure than just sitting on a saddle. Historical note, there is a chance the metal stirrups were developed independently in the British Isles, based on early leather versions. 

(If you hear this you are listening to an AI stolen copy of this Passed episode. Please visit passedpod.com for links to this show by it’s creator, Veronica Fortune)

It’s important to note that there is a healthy debate within the scholarly research regarding stirrups. Literally called the ‘Great Stirrup Controversy’, one side, led by the followers of historian Lynn Townsend White Jr believe that stirrups basically led to feudalism. This is because the change in technology change the way humans interact with their environment in such a way that it changes social structures. Followers of White’s theories point to the printing press as another technology that changes social structures. The opposing sides, led by Peter Sawyer and R.H. Hilton argue that technological determinism is an oversimplification of complex socio-political-technological systems working together to shape the world around us. There is even a third side to this debate, military historian, Stephen Morillo, argues that a lack of a centralised government is what gave rise to calvary in the middle ages. I’ll be taking the view that the stirrup was very important to the development of medieval mounted knights and the knightly class, but that there were social causes as well, and that chivalry was part of this. Religion will play a large part as well. It’s important at this point to make it very clear that feudalism and chivalry are not the same, while chivalry played a roll in feudalism there are plenty of feudalist societies that never had chivalry. 

 So, in the mid-to-late 11th century a new type of tactic in cavalry was developed. Stirrups coming from the east in the 9th and 10th centuries allowed soldiers on horse to carry heavy lance, making the horse, rider, and lance the weapon, instead of just the lance. However this new tactic required training, you try carrying a heavy lance while leading a galloping horse with no training. To facilitate this training the wealthy began to hold tournaments to both give their people a chance to show skill and the chance to learn from others. This mingling of the warrior class likely lead to another outcome. Remember, while there were state-level wars at this time, they were less common, many wars were smaller, local level, a duke attacking a king, say due to a supposed swearing on relics, or counts fighting in each other, perhaps due to trade disputes. It’s likely that due to spending time a tournaments most knights would know the people they were fighting against. It would be really odd killing someone you had gotten friendly with at a tournament, so why not hold him ransom? Think back to the Black Prince’s episodes, his death was mourned in both England and France, publicly. Even during the Battle of Poitier John II had ordered that the Black Prince not be killed when the Oraflame (the French flag of not quarter) was raised. Of course knights would die in battle, that’s the risk when you, your horse, and your lance are basically a ballistic weapon, but intentionally killing someone you knew when fighting is not an easy task emotionally. 

Now, new military tactics, feudalism, and military technology do not make a new social order. So what caused chivalry to arise in the 12th century? Another important component of chivalry was the knightly class. Knights are nothing new, the ancient Romans had knights, their equestrian class was a knightly class. After the fall of Rome and the rise of the Carolingian empire in the 8th century knights were a less organised class. They were well-armed and equiped men who could fight on horseback. Fighting on horseback made these men true cavalry, not just mounted infantry. The emergence of the ceremony for knighting young men shows this group of men developing some of the signs of what we in the modern world consider chivalry. The word even begins being used in written descriptions of knighting. The process of this ceremony is described in various sources, Gregory of Tours, a 6th century chronicler (and bishop of Tours), wrote of an earlier ceremony that included parts of what a 12th century knight would recognise in his ceremony, including a cheek kiss and the bestowing of a shoulder-belt. Dr. Keen goes through a number of these in his book, he takes pains to point out that while the ceremony has religious aspects there are no references to the church or churchmen participating in general knighting ceremonies (obviously the religious knightly orders are a different story, and I’m not up for getting into those). I particularly enjoyed two descriptions from Dr. Keen’s book that share similarities. 

The first example was from Henry I’s knighting of Geoffrey of Anjou prior to Geoffrey’s marriage to Henry’s daughter, the Empress Matilda. This took place in 1128, and is an example of a mass dubbing, while Geoffrey was the focus of this ceremony the 30 young men who accompanied him were also knighted. The account shared by Dr. Keen is from John of Marmouiter’s work.  From Dr. Keen’s book:

‘The young man took a ritual bath, we are told. He was then dressed in a tunic of cloth of gold and purple with a cloak and was led before the king. Gold spurs were then affixed to his heels, a shield decorated with painted lions was hung about his neck, and a sword, said to have been forged by Weland, was girded to him by the king.’

For this curious, the Weland mention is Wayland the Smith, and legendary Germanic blacksmith, he’s mentioned in Beowulf if his name sounds familiar. He was the legendary sword-smith who made the sword of Charlemagne.  

The second, set approximately 50 years later, from the poem Ordene de Chevalerie by an unknown author describes a fictional, but contemporary story about the knight, Hugh, Count of Tiberias, a Crusader knight who was captured by Saladin, the great muslim general who defeated the European forces in Jerusalem. Saladin stated he would release the knight, due to Hugh’s great valour, if Hugh would share the method of becoming a knight. From Dr. Keen’s book:

‘First Hugh dress Saladin’s beard and hair, and then he brought him to a bath: this is a bath of courtesy and bounty, he said, and should recall to you the baptism of the child, for you must come out of it clean of sin as the infant from the font. Then he brought him to a fair bed, to signify the repose of paradise, which is what every knight must strive to win by his ‘chivalry’. Raising him, he dressed him first in a white robe, signifying the cleanness of the body; over that he threw a scarlet cloak, to remind him of the knight’s duty to be ready to shed his blood at need in defence of God’s church. Then he drew brown stockings, to remind him of the earth in which he must lie in the end, and to prepare in life for death. After that he bound about Saladin’s waist a belt of white, signifying virginity, and that he should hold back lust in his loins. Then came the gold spurs, to show that the knight must be as swift to follow God’s commandments as the pricked charger. Last, he girded him with the sword, whose two sharp edges are to remind the new knight that justice and loyalty must go together, and that it is the knight’s task to defend the poor from the strong oppressor.’

Apparently Hugh should have also lightly slapped Saladin, but decided against it as his prisoner. There were also four commandments that a new knight must follow: 

‘He must not be consenting to any false judgement or be a party in any way to treason; he must honour all women and damsels and be ready to aid them to the limit of his power; he must hear, when possible, the mass everyday; and must fast every Friday in remembrance of Christ’s passion.’

In his book Dr. Keen looks at chivalry from both the religious origins and the secular origins, but I want to reframe things a little and explore a theory of chivalry’s practical and social benefits. If a society wants to be organised and have a warrior class, that warrior class must have rules that they will follow or else the king or emperor will risk this warrior class either becoming too powerful, especially a weak king, ie King John with his barrons or Henry III with his brother-in-law Simon de Montfort, or abusing their position from the top down, as we saw during the Anarchy, when the strong attacked those weaker than them frequently. Chivalry becomes a control mechanism, a way of establishing social mores and expectations, while making those guided by the rules wiling participants. We know that social ethics and expectations or laws are produced as part of being a social species, we can’t survive on our own, but groups can become powerful and ignore those laws or expectations. While this episode is focused on French, Norman, and even English codes of conduct, it’s important to remember that other feudal societies developed their own rules to ‘control’ their warrior class, and some of those even had more centralised leadership than any western European king at this period (looking at you Japan, I think I’ll come visit you soon). By allying these expectations with the idea that following them made you the ‘best’ knight, it would be easier for knights to follow the ‘rules’ established for their class. Remember, other cultures had feudalism and needed to have ‘control’ over their warriors, chivalry wasn’t universal, but codes of conduct were common, even today, our warriors, our armed forces, have rules these being written, to mould their behaviour. Having had friends who have attended military universities I can tell you, they study ethics and ethical theory at a level that wouldn’t look unfamiliar to philosophy students at non-martial universities. An illustrative example of this would be Edward III’s treatment of Geoffrey de Charny after the Battle of Calais. You may remember this from the Black Prince’s episodes. De Charny had been tasks by Philip VI to retake Calais and had attempted to do so by bribing one of the men who held a key to the gates. The man had double crossed De Charny and informed Edward III who went to shore up the issue in person with his oldest son. De Charny, by attempting to attack during a truce had broken the ‘code’ of chivalry and Edward, usually a chivalric man, treated him poorly. Interestingly, one of the most famous books about chivalry, literally the ‘Book of Chivalry’ is attributed to de Charny, new evidence, published in 2021 shows that it was likely written by his son, also called Geoffrey de Charny. Prior to this, de Charny had been considered a literal paragon of knightly virtue and was well respected, not just by the French, but by knights all over Europe. Even after his ransom was paid, by king John II of France no less, de Charny showed himself to hold chivalric attitudes. He didn’t burn the castle of the double agent from Calais, instead he captured him and had him executed as a traitor (which according to French custom at the time he was for breaking his oath). Interestingly de Charny was considered a worthy knight right until the end. He died at the Battle of Poitier while holding the French oraflame.

The church, obviously, played a role in the development of chivalry. While they didn’t create the ideal they did plenty to enforce it and through the Crusades helped with the development of chivalry. While the stirrup was the fundamental founding technology of chivalry, the church’s decision to go to the Holy Land may be chivalry’s foundational moment. It led to tens of thousands of like-minded knights mingling. While mostly of French origin, there were English, German, Italian, and even Byzantine knights. This also wasn’t a time of centralised governments, a Norman wouldn’t have considered himself French anymore than a Navarrese would. The First Crusade, the one discussed in Robert Curthose’s episodes, was called for in 1095 at the Council of Clermont by Pope Urban II. It was originally called to help defend Constantinople from the Turks, but eventually evolved to become a war to take the Holy Land (Jerusalem and the surrounding area) from the Muslim occupants. Dr. Keen points out that it’s interesting that the Church maintained control over crowning rulers, but never managed to gain control over the knighting of soldiers. I find that this connects well to the idea of social control of the warrior caste. Secular leaders could ill afford allowing the Church to control this as it would have taken some control of those with arms away from the kings who relied on the loyalty of their armed nobility. We’ve seen through various subjects that the disagreement between the Church and the State can lead to ongoing conflicts, for example, the Empress Matilda’s husband, Henry V and the literal Pope in Rome, Henry I of England, Matilda’s father, and the Church in England. 

So, was chivalry a real thing? According to Dr. Keen, no, as he says ‘Of course chivalry never had a defined rule, in the sense that the monastic orders of Templars did.’ So, in the sense that it was a written code, no, but it was defiantly real, and had meaning for those who followed it. Much of the ideals had to do with the general oaths that knights took at the time of their dubbing. If you remember back to the second story of becoming a knight, that shared between Hugh and Saladin, a knight must not bear false witness or act treasonously, he must treat women honourably, he must attend mass daily, and he must fast on Fridays. But there’s a difference between being a knight and chivalry. Being a knight was a rank or title, given to a young man, usually as he came of age, or an older man after a great act of valour in battle. Chivalry though was the agreement that these men made with each other, their leaders, and those they were theoretically protecting. A man wouldn’t be prosecuted for not following these guidelines, but he could be banished, ostracised, or just treated poorly for ‘breaking’ these rules. What we see as feudalism falls is that there is a change from this gentleman’s agreement to actual laws governing the behaviours of the martial classes. This change means that men were no longer held to the whims of their superiors or peers, at least in theory, but held to the judicial rules that all others were held to.  

Thank you all for joining me for the first half of this not-so-mini-series. I would like to welcome my newest Patron, Cody, thank you so much for joining us. Also, I have set-up an affiliate page with Bookshop.org, this is a great way to support the show, if you buy books using my link I’ll receive a small payment, you won’t pay any extra, and we’ll be supporting a book store that isn’t Amazon. You can find the link on the show’s Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon. I am attempting to find an Australian bookshop with an affiliate program. If you do have a chance please take a moment and review this podcast on Apple podcast or your favourite podcasting app and let your friends know about this show. It would mean a great deal to me. When I return next year I’ll go through the politics on the Continent, including the War of Breton Succession, the French claimants who never became king, the Black Death, before moving on to the Wars of the Roses, starting with Richard of York. Patron will start the year with a special episode about Charles of Navarre, before I get to special episodes about Joan of Arc, and Henry V. I’ll be taking a break until the forth week of January. I need some time to write and record and get a little bit ahead. And I think we should all try to rest and enjoy the holiday season. I hope you enjoy whatever you celebrate this time of year and get to spend some time with the people you love. I look forward to hearing from you all in the new year. Please join me then.