Knight - Writers Forum

A. Night · 07-04-2005, 08:27 PM

Well basically I was just wondering how people would define a modern day-knight.

Shawn · 07-04-2005, 09:04 PM

I guess the modern day knight would be a commander of a tank. Since, tanks are considered cavalry and they are in charge.

mammamaia · 07-05-2005, 08:45 AM

i can't see any connection to a tank commander besides the horse/tank bit...

knights were about much more than charging their opponents with lances deployed, atop their trusty chargers... it was an entire code of conduct, involving chivalry... which is not just having a proclivity for killing folks...

i don't know that there is any modern day counterpart, since chivalry is definitely dead these days!

Kane · 07-05-2005, 09:23 AM

Nay, Lady. Chivalry doth liveth amongst someth.

barnsturm · 07-05-2005, 11:07 AM

I'd say a Navy SEAL, or Green Beret, or Special Forces.

Knights have been romanticized to always represent honor, etc. but in simple truth they were professional soldiers of the highest quality. It has been argued that one of the bigger reasons for the Crusades, at least at the start, was that there was a class of warrior in Europe that would threaten the control of the Catholic church if their energies were not directed toward a safer target. (Vs. making land grabs when they got edgy.) So they were sent back to Palestine. By the Fourth Crusade, "christians" were fighting "christians" for control of Constantinople (Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox church).

All because knights needed an outlet.

Funny how history repeats itself 1000 years later, huh?

DoobieKeebler · 07-06-2005, 12:04 PM

It's too bad the word has such a negative connotation, because "mercenary" in its nicest sense is probably the best parallel. The kind of person who works as the head of security for a private individual. Kind of like that old cliche where John saved Fred's life during the war and now Fred protects John.

Sephiroth · 07-28-2005, 11:22 AM

well, that depends on how you mean it, "knight" orignally meant "servant". during the crusades and such, the word was used as a military term by The Templars, as they believed they were Servants of God.
so by this logic today a knight could mean anything from a missionary, to someone who just helps people and such.

Nickie · 07-28-2005, 01:48 PM

From what I think, a modern-day knight would be the sort of gentleman who helps out women in distress (old ladies, young kids), is literated, worldly, charming, but lethal all the same. Sort of James Bond, imao.

playstation60 · 07-28-2005, 02:18 PM

I would say the secret service....they could be considered as knights. Knights were to protect their king....the king in this case would be the president.

kintaris · 07-28-2005, 03:00 PM

make up a modern day knight - although it would probably end up a man who has a tendency to ask for vodka martinis and have a new bird every couple of years...

kin

ThatWierdGuy · 07-28-2005, 03:53 PM

I have an interest and study Medieval history (particuarilly European and East Asian), so I guess I'll give you some information on what I've learned on the Medieval Knight. When talking about a Medieval Knight there seems to be two sides of the coin, one is the heavily romanticized version that knights were honorable people that were fighting for the greater good, and the other is that they were brutal murderers hell-bent on pillage.

Even though most knights fit the latter, you have to understand the mindset of people in the middle ages, not just in Europe but in East Asia and the Middle East as well. In defense of the knight, the slaugtering of civilians, rape, and pillage, were very common with any type of soldier, not just a knight, and not just in Europe but in any civilization that has reached its own version of the middle ages. This includes but not limited to, the Mongols, the Japanese, the Vikings, the Chinese, the Slavs, and the Muslims.

Contrary to the recent popular belief, there were plenty of knights that did follow the ideals of chivalry, especially when reading the journals of knights in Western Europe and the Crusades. Western Chivalry was first implemented by a group of French bishops to keep the knights in order (the knight also started in France), likewise, the Muslims implemented their own version of chivalry to their version of the knight for similar reasons. There were knights that did try to live up to the ideal knight, and didn't participate in rape and pillage, even in the Crusades. The Arthurian legend, was already in its present form in the later middle ages, so Medieval society already had their romanticized version of knights, it was not a 20th century invention.

Speaking of the Crusades, the recent thought seems to try and paint the Muslims as the victims in Medieval history, ignoring the fact as to why the Crusades happened. This is promoted mainly by authors who pick and choose parts of history while leaving out others. If you want the true reason why the Crusades happened, you will have to get a clearly unbiased published source and one that is published by an actual historian.

Yes, one of the goals in the Crusades was to try and take back the Holy Land, but another reason why it happened was a matter of self-defense.
In the 7th century Spain was taken over by the Muslims, and it would have been all of Europe if it wasn't for Charles Martel. If you thought the Crusades were a slaughter, the Moors were "at least" just as bad as the Crusaders. The Muslims attacked first, starting a constant fear of another Muslim invasion in Europe until the Crusades started. It also didn't help that European kings were constantly being threatened by Muslim rulers, demanding for surrender of Europe, and their religion. When looking at the primary sources of the knights fighting in the Crusades, they are making constant references to the capture of Spain, and hoping to eventually take back Spain. Another fact that a lot of authors leave out was the Jureselum was *originally* a Christian kingdom. Before it was taken over by the Muslims, Europeans would go on a "pilgrimage" to Jureselum to attone for their sins. This is why the Crusaders said they wanted to "take back" the Holy Land, they were literally taking back land that was lost to them.

Also, there seems to be recent misconceptions due to Hollywood about the amount of knights in a European army. First off, according the Frances Giles, one of the leading medieval historians, the bulk of a Medieval European army consisted of trained peasants and mercenaries, only less than 10% were actually knights. This was also the same in the Crusades, although recent movies would lead you to believe that most of the army consisted of blood-thirsty knights, particuarilly knights Templar, which was an extremely small order when at its height, only consisted of about 3000 knights spread throughout Europe and the Middle East. The reality is, most of the Crusaders were not knights but trained peasants and mercenaries. As for the actions of the Cruaders in Jeruselum, you should also know that there were plenty of knights that refused to participate in the slaughter, and some that even tried to stop it. You should also know that a similar slaughter was not uncommon when Christians were fighting other Christians. There have been recent theories that the slaughter of Jureselem might not have been by the knights at all, but by the European footsoldiers and mercenaries. Actually in other captured cities, there were some knights, particuarilly the Knights Templar, that allowed the Mosques to stay intact, and allowed the Muslims to continue to worship. Of course, this same treatment was not seen in the Muslim invasion of Europe centuries earlier.

Source: Frances Giles "A Knight in History"

Off topic but interesting, there was a French knight, Pierre Terrail(but more commonly called Bayard), who defended a bridge against 200 Spainish troops in the later part of the 15th century. I thought it was just a myth but apparently there are sources from both sides referencing it. Unfortunately, due of advancements in the Renaissance, he died of a gunshot wound. As for fighting off 200 people, I believe it is possible, Musashi, a famous Japanese Samurai, was famous for making that claim. (although there are no other sources that proved he actually did it)
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/P...-de-Bayard.htm

ooghost1oo · 07-29-2005, 01:01 PM

A militant man, like a SEAL or a tank commander, doesn't necessarily fit the bill. Fighting was just a part of a knight's life.

If you're talking about a 'romantic' knight, it could mean upholding ideals. A stand-up construction worker, or an uncorrupted police officer. One who still sees the good in the world, and in spite of today's cynical and clinical atmosphere, holds onto that spirit and works to make the world a better place.

Knights were also nobles. Leaders. Managers. Politicians and land-owners. Businessmen. Many politicians who come from the upper echelon of society, though a majority are greedy, corrupt, and self-serving, could be considered as knights. Knights were merely born into their positions, into families that were already in the life. Like politicians and filthy-rich yuppies.

ThatWierdGuy · 07-30-2005, 01:23 AM

Although you probably already know this, not all knights were of noble birth. A peasant or squire could become a knight with years and years of training, or proving himself in combat.

In the 15th century there was a significant rise in knights that became mercenaries rather than owing allegiance to a lord. There was a lot of backstabbing and switching sides during this time. Also, because of the increasing dangers of war in the 15th century (the knight was no longer at the top of his game, the gun was invented at this time), most knights turned to a life of crime, figuring it was both safer and easier to earn money. Some of the most infamous bandits were previously knights.

Also in the 14th-15th century there was an increasing amount of the lone-wandering type knight looking for work. This was due to the fact that lords were unable to provide lands to recently knighted men, and that these men didn't want to swear loyalty to a lord. Its no surprise that Lancelot started appearing in Arthurian legend at this time.

mammamaia · 07-30-2005, 08:10 AM

the 'knight errants' weird guy mentions above were the equivalent of today's mercenaries, if that helps...