Was chivalry an ideal or reality in the Middle Ages? In this post, we discuss the meaning of chivalry, what was required to be chivalrous and ultimately whether it was a reality in the Middle Ages.
What Was Chivalry?
In the later Middle Ages, chivalry was an integral aspect of knightly life. It was an ideal to which all men could aspire. In reality, not all men would have the opportunity to display chivalric virtues. For instance, a male peasant working on farmland would have little opportunity to adhere to chivalric principles. His concerns would have centred around the survival of him and his family. Matters of chivalry would have been of little concern to such an individual.
Chivalry was then something to which all men could aspire, but a select few were able to attain it. These few were the knightly classes. Those who could afford a horse, armour and were required to lead and to fight on the battlefield for king and country. For these men, fighting was their profession.
Chivalry was an international code and had become an official institution. Manuals were produced which outlined the demands of chivalry; these were very popular and read widely amongst the aristocracy. When a knight was not on the battlefield, he could act chivalrously by showing courtesy to ladies. He could practice the art of chivalry by participating in tournaments.
Tournaments
Tournaments were an essential part of chivalry, they helped to make chivalry an international ideology. They were important in establishing rules and attitudes for chivalry. Indeed, tournaments made chivalry a reality, in front of spectators, as well as defining the laws of chivalry to an international class of knights.[1] Wars and quarrels were put aside for the sake of tournaments as Froissart describes in his ‘tales’:
Before the armies of England and France broke up after peace was made between Portugal (English allies) and Castile, a French knight was ‘…desirous of displaying his courage…He sent a herald to the English army, requesting, that since peace had put an end to the combat, someone would have the kindness to tilt with him…’[2].
An English squire, Miles Windsor volunteered, ‘…who wished honourably to be created a knight…’[3].
This episode reveals several things regarding chivalry. By jousting with the French knight, the squire can become a knight, something he had not been able to do on the battlefield. The squire can earn the knightly title by voluntarily taking up a challenge from the enemy. Although the French knight is on the opposing side as the squire, the rules of chivalry still apply, they perform three courses with the lance and ‘…then took leave of each other with much respect…’[4]. The two men both see tourneying as a way of enhancing one’s chivalric reputation. They show bravery, prowess and courtesy in this episode.
There is an essential link between tourneying and war because tourneying was great practice for real war.[5]. A knight could practice horsemanship and weaponry and also the chivalric relationship between prisoner and captor.[6]
Froissart describes the defeat of the French by the English at the Battle of Poitiers, and Edward the Black Prince’s chivalric behaviour. King John of France was in Edward’s captivity:
‘…and always the prince served before the king as humbly as he could, and would not sit at the king’s board for any desire that the king could make, but he said he was not sufficient to sit at the table with so great a king as the king was.’[7]
Edward shows courtesy to his prisoner, a chivalric virtue, he recognises his position, as a prince, Edward is lower in the hierarchy than King John. Even though John is the prisoner and the enemy, Edward shows a sense of position. This behaviour, to ransom, rather than kill high-ranking nobles of the opposing side, was standard chivalric behaviour, taught through journeying and in chivalric literature.
Henry V – Agincourt
At the battle of Agincourt, Henry V had to break the code of chivalry. Henry had many prisoners and he expected another French attack, Tito Livio reported: ‘So they put many to death, including many rich and noble men.’[8] One would expect to find contemporary criticism of Henry’s actions, however, the English never criticised his decision. In fact, the reports of the incident are followed by justifications. Thomas Elmham reported, ‘…for the sake of protecting their rear.’[9] Although this behaviour appears un-chivalrous, Elmham notes the executions were carried out due to practicalities. Henry acted chivalrously when he took these men as prisoners; he did not just needlessly kill the prisoners.
The Monk of Saint-Dennis claimed: ‘…the carnage lasted until he had realised and seen with his own eyes that all the men were thinking of flight rather than of continuing the conflict’.[10] Henry may have never been criticised, because he stopped the killing as soon as the threat of attack disappeared.
National Portrait Gallery, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The absence of criticism could be used to support Huizinga’s argument, that chivalry was just an ideal. Henry did nothing shocking, or damaging to his reputation, however, Henry demonstrated chivalry at other times. During the Agincourt campaign, Henry entered Harfleur, a town he had been besieging, the Monk of Saint-Denis reported: ‘As for women, he allowed them, out of compassion for their sex, to go off in full freedom and without impediment.’[11] The Monk also claims that Henry treated the knights inside the town with respect. Henry’s courtesy towards his defeated opponents could be why he was excused of killing the French prisoners. Henry was known for his plans to ensure the innocent were not harmed by his soldiers. Henry’s courtesies during war, a key element of chivalry, demonstrate chivalry in practice.
Henry V displayed other chivalric virtues, such as challenging the French dauphin to a dual, in order to save bloodshed.[12] These challenges were common; Edward III also challenged the French dauphin to a dual, for the same reasons. They fit well into the chivalric framework.[13] Even though these duals rarely happened, they were intended to illustrate the bravery of the king and his strife to emulate those chivalrous ideals.
The writer, Charny, claimed that there were three types of men-at-arms; those who tourneyed, those who fought local wars (for personal or local interests) and those who fought in war (national wars). Charny stated, ‘…one should have value and honor men-at-arms engaged in war more highly than any other men-at-arms.’[14] This was because in battle, a man could display all three kinds of military art in one day[15]. War, according to Charny, was the best way to demonstrate chivalry.
Chivalric Manuals
Two of the main chivalric manuals produced in the Middle Ages were Raymond Lull’s The Book of the Order of Chivalry and Geoffroi De Charny’s Book of Chivalry. Charny was writing in the fourteenth century and like Lull, he describes the essential qualities of chivalry.
Although Charny includes religious references, he does not pay as much attention to them as Lull. The Book of Chivalry prioritises success on the battlefield over all other chivalric virtues and is an extremely useful source for understanding the reality of chivalry. Charny was actually living out these chivalric virtues; he was still an active knight when writing, unlike Lull.
Lull was a thirteenth-century French Knight who, when writing had become a mystic. Therefore Lull’s work includes an emphasis on the religious aspect of chivalry. Lull intended his work to be a handbook for chivalry, ‘...the rule and order of chivalry is written in this little book…’.[16] This book was owned by knights and gentry and they probably would have used it as the author intended, as a handbook for chivalry. The fact that this book was translated and printed by Caxton is significant. Caxton would only print something which was in demand.
In the epilogue of Caxton’s edition, Caxton writes, that he presented the book to Richard III so that he could have young lords, knights and gentlemen read it, ‘…that the noble order of chivalry be hereafter better used and honoured than it hath been in days passed’.[17] Caxton believed that chivalry had been forgotten and that Lull’s book would inspire knights to take up chivalry, as their ancestors did.
The chivalric romances and the chivalric manuals praise chivalry and encourage it. However, other pieces of literature do not view chivalry in the same positive light. William Worcester, in the later 15th century, criticised the nobility for their decline in chivalry. Worcester suggests that chivalry was something which existed in the distant past and it was not a reality in the later middle ages. Indeed, there does seem to be a decline in chivalry following the Black Death. There were fewer wars fought, tournaments were postponed. However, there does seem to be a revival of the chivalric ethos with the amount of chivalric literature printed in the late fifteenth century.
Chivalric Literature
Chivalry was a popular theme in literature in the Middle Ages. Chivalric Romances, such as Malory’s Morte d’Arthur and Chrétien de Troye’s Yvain, largely reveal the ideals of chivalry. However, the chivalric manuals produced depict the real and expected qualities of chivalry. Borst claims that chivalric romances portray only the ideal of chivalry, they are poems and do not record history and are utopian exaggerations.[18] Chivalric romances were not intended to reflect reality, they were fictional. However, they contained messages and traits that a contemporary knight should aim to achieve. They are useful as historical sources because they can be used to determine what the expectations of chivalry were, as the manuals do.
Chronicles and biographies reveal the reality of chivalry in some medieval knights. Edward the Black Prince is often held up as the epitome of chivalry, his biographer, Chandos described him as ‘…the flower of chivalry...’ when describing his many chivalric qualities.[19] Although biographers cannot always be trusted to give a completely realistic picture of a person, Froissart’s tales support Chandos’s view that Edward was chivalrous.
Medieval Orders
Late medieval Orders are a good way of demonstrating the formalisation of chivalry. The Order of the Garter was formed by Edward III in 1348, and was originally established to act as an inspiration to the nobles to fight in France.[20] The Knights who were chosen for the Order had displayed chivalric virtues, such as diligence in arms, courage, honour and loyalty.[21] According to Froissart, the knights of the Order, ‘…swore a solemn oath to the King always to observe the feast and the statutes.’[22] The Order of the Garter made chivalry formalised and real, it became an institution. The Order had few obligations, but the fact the knights were sworn into an institution of chivalry is significant. Other Orders were established, such as the Order of the Knot of Naples, their oath-bound the knights to give aid in peace or war to their prince.[23]
There was a legal basis for chivalric behaviour. The ‘laws of war’ or ‘law of nations’ outlined the obligations of a soldier on the battlefield and were recognised by both the French and the English in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.[24] As the law had no sovereign head, the ‘Mother Church’ bound Christian soldiers to this law. The Tree of Battles, a book written by the late fourteenth-century canonist, Honorѐ Bouvet, outlined the laws of war. The book was widely read and its audience included the French King, Charles VI as well as many of the aristocrats of England, France and Spain.[25] The book gave guidance on how war should be properly conducted, including the protection of the innocent: ‘It is also forbidden under any circumstances to lay violent hands on the infirm and the insane…on the very old and the very young.’[26]
Keen claims that many non-combatants and common people were treated badly during war.[27] However, certain individuals, such as Henry V followed the laws of war. Henry V made provisions for the people of the places he attacked ensuring they were unharmed, some people did follow the law. The Tree of Battles demanded loyalty from soldiers, ‘A knight’s loyalty to the crown should override any obligations to any other lord.’[28] This demand is similar to the demands of the Orders. The book emphasises the importance of loyalty and discipline for knights, it encourages and demands chivalry. The book was intended as a guidebook for chivalrous behaviour during war, this may suggest that knights needed guidance on how to be chivalrous.
Huizinga claims, ‘The law of war was rarely observed.’[29] Although some knights did and some didn’t follow the laws of war, it is more significant that there was a law which demanded chivalry. The Law of Wars and The Tree of Battles formalise chivalry and outline chivalrous behaviour. Oaths were hard to break to a knight; they were a solemn promise and when carried out, demonstrated the reality of chivalry. The Orders made chivalry an institution and the law of wars gave chivalry an international law, they demonstrate the importance and reality of chivalry.
Chivalric Culture
Huizinga claims ‘…as a form of chivalrous culture, the oath was dying out at the end of the Middle Ages.’[30] The decline in the tradition of oath-making was due to circumstances; later in the Middle Ages, wars in France became less frequent, and therefore fewer oaths were sworn. Many of the oaths recorded by Froissart promise some heroic deed in France. Such as two young English gentlemen at Valenciennes: ‘...who had each of them one of their eyes closed with a piece of silk: it was said how they had made a vow among the ladies of their country, that they would not see but with one eye, till they had done some deeds of arms in France.’[31]
In the fourteenth-century poem, Le Vœu du Hѐron, describing feasts given at Edward III’s court, the earl of Salisbury asks his lady to place her fingers over his eye, ‘And I vow and I promise to Almighty God…That it will never be opened, for storm or for wind, By evil, or by torture, or by hindrance, Until I shall be in France,…And I shall have battled with great exertion.’[32] The vow to a lady was popular and a form of chivalrous behaviour, it promised of heroic deeds. Vows were taken before many witnesses, making it more important for the knight to fulfil their vow. Many knights did fulfil their vows, even if not fulfilled, the vow was not taken in vein, there was always the intention to fulfil it.
Courtley Love
To be chivalrous, a knight needed to be cultured when he was off the battlefield. Courtly love and love are often depicted as essential elements of chivalry and there is evidence to support this; Charny claimed, ‘And one should indeed honor, serve and truly love these noble ladies and others who inspire men to great achievement, and it is thanks to such ladies that men become good knights and men-at-arms.’[33] According to Charny, women could add to a knight’s chivalrous character, a woman’s love could encourage a man to fight better.
There is evidence for Charny’s claim, Froissart gave an account of Eustace d’Aubrichecourt who fought for Edward III, he ‘…often succeeded in knightly combat with noblemen, nor could anyone stand upto him, because he was young, deeply in love, and full of enterprise.’[34] Froissart does not mention the knight’s skill of arms, the emphasis is that he is in love and this adds to his success. Keen cites Thomas Gray to demonstrate the reality of courtly love; ‘Thomas Gray’s story of Sir William Marmion, whose mistress had given him a gold helmet, bidding him to make it known amid glorious dangers-and who nearly lost his life outside Norham Castle while fulfilling her demands.’[35]
Some knights went to extraordinary lengths to impress their mistresses as this example shows. Courtly love was more of a theatrical display during tournaments. Keen notes that Lord Scales was shackled by the ladies of the English court in 1465, ‘…when they chose him as their champion by placing about his thigh a gold chain with a fleur-de-souvenance (forget-me-not) hanging therefrom.’[36]
The Cry of Jousts of King Richard II, demonstrate ladies were an essential part of tournaments. They were spectators who could also be rewarded for their feminine virtues.[37] It was important for a knight to practice the correct social skills at social events such as the joust. According to the Cry of the Joust, a knight, ‘…will dance, and sing and lead a joyous life.’[38] There was a social side of chivalry. However, this was less important to a knight’s chivalrous image than his success on the battlefield and victory at the jousts.
This romantic ideal of courtly love and courtesy does not agree with Gower’s account of knights during peacetime:
‘…when among the poor people who are his neighbours in his country one strikes or hurts another, then in his prowess he throws himself into the quarrel and takes it on until the end. From this he expects to gain money and presents of bread and wine…’[39]
However, Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales emphasises not only the Knight’s warrior qualities but also his courtesy; ‘He never had any vileness said, In all his life...’[40] Chaucer’s Knight never swore or said anything rude, he has the ability to leave the warrior side of his personality on the battlefield and be a gentleman, he ‘…loved courtesy.’[41] Although Chaucer’s characters were fictional, they would have been stereotypical of contemporary characters, if there was no truth in the character, he would not have been entertaining for the audience. Chaucer, therefore reveals what people in the later Middle Ages would have expected from a knight. If knights were following the advice given to them in literature and handbooks, such as Charny’s, which popularity shows they probably were, Chaucer’s knight demonstrates the reality of chivalry.
More important to the chivalrous image than participating in the practice of courtly love was showing courtesy, especially to women. Courtesy is mentioned many times along with other chivalrous qualities; in Yvain, Perceval’s mother gives him advice on his way to becoming a knight, ‘He who does not honor ladies, must lose his own honor. Serve ladies and maidens if you would be honoured by all.’[42] There is evidence of knights showing courtesy towards women. Froissart records knights and squires patrolling the streets of captured towns to protect women of rank from being attacked by common soldiers.[43]
The idea of treating ladies with courtesy was put into practice from the advice given in literature. An English commander had with him his pregnant mistress when the French were besieging the castle of Thun, the noise of the siege engines annoyed her, so the besiegers allowed her to pass to go to another fortress.[44] This incident shows not only the reality of courtesy to women but also that chivalry was an international code. Courtly love and courtesy were encouraged because they demonstrated human qualities in a knight. By acting properly in social situations, the knight was seen to be educated and noble.
Chivalry was a formalised notion of ideal behaviour which any man, in theory, could aspire to attain. In reality, chivalry was the preserve of the knightly and aristocratic classes who were expected to demonstrate chivalric qualities on the battlefield and in social situations.
Accounts of conduct on the battlefield demonstrate that most medieval knights followed the advice of Lull, Charny and The Laws of War. The examples of courtesy towards women also show knights were reading these handbooks. The Orders reveal chivalry as an institution with an international code. The chivalric romances were fantasy, but they are important in revealing what people’s expectations of knights were. Chivalry was a reality in the Middle Ages, and was at least an aspiration throughout the period.
For a similar post, see Who Were the Knights Templar?
Featured Image Courtesy of Paulus Hector Mair, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
[1] Froissart, A French Knight and an English Squire Joust, http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/roye.htm [2] Froissart, A French Knight and an English Squire Joust, http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/roye.htm [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] M. Keen, Chivalry, (2005), p. 88. [6] Ibid, p. 100. [7] Medieval Sourcebook: Jean Froissart: On The Hundred Years War (1337-1453), http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html [8] Tito Livio, as quoted in K. Dockray, Henry V, (Gloucestershire, 2004), p. 153. [9] Thomas Elmham, as quoted in, K. Dockray, Henry V, p. 153. [10] Monk of Saint-Dennis, as quoted in K. Dockray, Henry V, p. 154. [11] K. Dockray, Henry V, p. 142. [12] K. Dockray, Henry V, p. 143. [13] M. Prestwich, The three Edwards: war and state in England 1272-1377, (1980), p. 207. [14] G. De Charny, A Knight’s Own Book of Chivalry, translated by E. Kennedy, (2005), p. 50. [15] Ibid, p. 50. [16] R. Lull, The Book of the Order of Chivalry, http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/middleages/topic_1/lull.htm [17] Ibid. [18] A. Borst, Knighthood in the Middle Ages: Ideal and Reality, (1968), p.188. [19] J. Chandos, ‘The Chandos Herald’, Translated by M.K. Pope and E.C. Lodge, http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/chandos_pope.pdf [20] H. Collins, The Order of the Garter 1348-1461: Chivalry and Politics in Late Medieval England, (2000), p. 34. [21] Ibid, 39. [22] https://archive.org/details/chroniclesengla00curngoog/page/n9/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater [23] M. Keen, Chivalry, (2005). [24] M. Prestwich, The three Edwards: war and state in England 1272-1377, (1980), p. 208. [25] The Tree of Battles. [26] The Tree of Battles. [27] M. Keen, Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages, (1965), p. 213. [28] The Tree of Battles. [29] J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages, (1919), p. 102. [30] Ibid, p. 89. [31] J. Froissart, The Chronciles of Froissart at http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/Froissart/?page=0039 [32] J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages, (1919), p. 88. [33] G. De Charny, A Knight’s Own Book of Chivalry, translated by E. Kennedy, (1996), p.53. [34] J. Froissart, The Chronciles of Froissart at http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/Froissart [35] M. Keen, Chivalry, (2005), p. 117. [36] Ibid, p. 212. [37] The Cry of Jousts. [38] The Cry of Jousts. [39] J. Gower, The Mirour de L’Omme http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/middleages/topic_1/satire.htm#mirour [40] G. Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales. [41] Ibid. [42] S. Painter, French Chivalry, (1940), p. 169. [43] Ibid, p. 146. [44] Ibid, p.p.145-146.
