Author - Steffanie Saissore
Title - A Treatise on the Knight
A Treatise on the Knight
By Steffanie Saissore
Part I: Ideal versus Reality
There is the assumption that a knight is a paragon of virtue and honour…yet, when everyone has their own perspectives and ideals on the subject, how can one live up to the expectations of the title? Even more interesting, the title of knight is one of the very few titles that seem to demand a certain type of attitude or behaviour from the bearer of said title. Little expectation is placed upon a baron or even a marquee. The higher up the chain one goes, there are certain expectations, but no one seems to demand a stringent code of behaviour or guiding principal as that of ‘knight’.
Technically, a knighthood is the lowest form of noble title and one that is not passed from holder to heir (typically father to son in most cultures). A commoner can be knighted, thus elevating their position, but only barely as there are still many demands placed upon a knight. You owe allegiance to a lord…sometimes the king, though more often a minor noble from whom you are granted a parcel of land to oversee and maintain. The size of the domain can vary, but is usually small, likely consisting of a small fortification, a town and some fields. The only requirements, at this point in time, placed upon the knight, are to ensure the land produces enough to pay the taxes levied and to provide protection to the serfs and commoners that work the land.
So, at this point, nowhere are demands placed upon a knighted individual to uphold ideals of honour, chivalry, or to some religious authority.
Yet, somewhere along the way knightly orders were established; vows and codes of conduct created. Knights became the protectors and the enforcers of justice in the land. Certain orders arose to provide charity and aid to the less fortunate while others of more martial bearing would go off to liberate lands held by the infidels (or whomever happened to not be an ally of the knighthood’s king and country).
From this, or perhaps because of the rise of these orders, the concept of honour and the virtuous warrior arose and took hold. The poems and ballads took a more romantic view point and in turn influenced and impacted the general perception of the knight…the lowliest of the nobility suddenly became the most respected, most admired, and the most ridiculed of the noble class.
When I say knight, what immediately comes to mind? I would imagine, depending upon the time period and one’s own history, that it would be that of a tall warrior clad in shimmering armour with a certain noble bearing about them, an aura that might demand respect and perhaps even invoke a sense of awe in the beholder. One would suspect that this person would be eloquent in speech and showing proper deference to his betters and respect to his opponents. We might even go further and say that we would expect them to never attack from ambush nor attack an unarmed opponent and never to search for a way to place an enemy at a disadvantage. The individual would adhere to a strict code of conduct and would uphold both the law and see justice done. A bastion of purity, justice, faithfulness, and loyalty.
And you would be sorely wrong.
Now, this is not to say that knightly orders did not have codes, laws, and other guidelines that they attempted to adhere to, but to assume that an elite warrior would hamstring themselves in combat is rather naïve and short-sighted. In war, there is no such thing as ‘fairness’ or ‘equality’. Yes, a knight would likely avoid attacking an unarmed peasant, but to give the enemy the time to prepare before the hammer fell would be ludicrous. The whole announcing one’s intent to do battle with another man…is rather romantic and in keeping with the tradition of chivalric behaviour and likely did occur from time to time. However, in the matter of war, it is generally likely that both sides knew of the impending conflict long before any announcement of the kind was ever made.
The slap of the gauntlet across the face coupled with some witty insult…well, as amusing and even inspiring as that might be, probably never really happened…okay, I will concede that it might have happened in the case of a challenge of a duel, which to be fair is not warfare and falls under a completely different set of rules. In fact, I think the concept of duels came well after the romanticized knight. But that can be for another time.
The codes might have prevented certain orders from waging warfare against certain groups, countries, or whatnot, but by and large would likely have not placed limitations upon the ways in which war was waged.
A brief note upon warfare…war is not civil, it is not kind and it is not forgiving. It is not something that one engages in lightly (or at least should not be engaged in lightly) and despite all attempts to the contrary, it is a brutal and bloody affair that impacts everyone. Now, war need not be the simple annihilation of the opponent’s force…in fact, most wars never accomplish that end. Generally speaking, one must simply cripple the enemy’s willingness to continue to wage war. The how to and such would extend this beyond the subject at hand. Now, that does not mean that one ought to commit acts of atrocity nor show contempt or disdain to the enemy…there are certain things that just ought not be done or acted upon. The ends justify the means is, at least in my perspective, unacceptable.
So, we come to a conundrum of sorts. On the one hand we have the ideal warrior (perhaps even idolized) who can do no wrong and is the bastion of all that is honourable and just, yet on the other hand we have the brutality of the war and all of the injustices that might occur (whether perceived or actual). How then can this warrior stride into battle? Can romanticized honour have a place on the battlefield? And this is where we find the first crack in the gleaming armour. Let us take a closer look then.
In the case of the aggressor, the desire is to win the conflict as quickly as possible and in such a manner as to prevent the defender from desiring to retaliate. As the defender is at the advantage, the attacker must commit sufficient force to take the objective and break the will of the defender to continue fighting. The holding of the objective is not necessarily important to the end goal of the war but simply the means for the attacker to achieve victory. Obviously, the defender is going to want to prolong the battle to weaken the attacker’s ability to win and their resolve to continue. Now, I must admit to a certain bias at this point as I tend towards a somewhat more ideal concept of warfare…I would like to think that I would place the non-combatants under fire and would avoid certain acts of barbarity…but all things being equal, one never knows what one will do until in the thick of things. That, and even the best laid plans fall to pieces at first contact with the enemy.
So, does a knight give up an advantage? Do they spurn certain armaments or tactics as being dishonourable? Perhaps, the question ought to be, would it be a greater dishonour to not bring your fullest effort to the field of battle and engage the enemy with your greatest effort? To me, the answer is simple, and perhaps a little romantic in itself. In order to show due respect to one’s enemy, one ought not to hinder one’s ability on the field. Show them respect by committing yourself fully to the effort. Hindering oneself is an insult, not just to your enemy, but to your general as well.
What then of the concept of disdain for range weaponry? First, I personally believe that to be a fallacy of fiction. There may have been orders (or individual knights) who would not use range weapons themselves (be it from a lack of training or ability), but by no means does this mean that ranged weapons would not see the field. Just because a knight might not personally use such weapon does not mean they will not have others who will fill that role for them. The same goes with siege warfare…one cannot batter down the walls of the defender with cavalry charges and swords. An order may not themselves make use of such weaponry, but again, knights rarely made up the entirety of an army; and that is yet another misconception many have. Wars were not fought by droves of knights; commoners, militia, men-at-arms, even mercenaries filled out the rest of the army…knights were generally the better armed and armoured of the forces and served specific functions, namely as shock troops.
Since, for the most part, knights were rare (given the expense needed to properly arm and train), they could not be tossed into the general grind of battle and their best use, from the aggressor’s stance would have been to crush the weakest point of the defender’s force. The reverse is also true, the defender holding their own knights back for the right moment to hopefully smash the attacker. The noble knight would have little say as to when or where they would take to the field and less say in who they came up against.
It would be nice to assume that a knight might give quarter to a lesser foe and only seek out ‘worthy opponents’. Nice, and makes for good stories, but complete drivel and utter nonsense. In the heat of battle you are not going to pause and let some green foot soldier go past you as you now have an enemy behind you and even a green rookie can still kill a knight. Also, as a knight, you are one of the most visible targets on the field and the most heavily armoured…as such, the enemy is going to work to get you off your feet and overwhelm you. They have no care for your ‘code’ or your ‘honour’; you are the enemy as well as a symbol…destroy enough symbols and you can destroy the morale of an army. The enemy knows this and will strive to draw knights into situations to do so. Again, one need not destroy the army to win the battle (or even the war).
Thus, in war, the knight cannot afford to be selective of his opponent…cannot afford to give quarter to any that oppose him on the field. The battlefield is where the strong, and the lucky, win the day and unfortunately ideals will care one only so far.
For me, going with the romantic ideal of the knight, this can and should only appear off the battlefield where posturing and rhetoric will win you the social battles. Flowery words and elegant prose have no place where the blood flows and steel flashes…but can, when used in the proper arena prevent bloodshed. The right insult at the right moment can inflict as much damage as one’s weapon could. The court (be it noble or public opinion) is where a knight can shine by example. Warfare is brutal and has no place for self-imposed limitations. That said, in the case of personal feuds between individuals, I have no problem and fully encourage the idea of honourable combat and the like…so long as it remains between the two individuals. There, one can strive to be the gleaming warrior.
Regarding codes of honour, vows, and oaths…this can be tricky to cover as every culture has its own concepts of what constitutes honour. In turn, vows and oaths can also be very personal, going beyond just merely what a culture defines as ‘good’ or ‘ethical’; they can even border on religious and religion itself can be a very touchy and convoluted concept depending upon who one speaks with. With that in mind, there are certain ideals that do seem to cross through the various cultures, though some are perhaps antiquated and no longer applicable in this time.
The first one that seems to be commonplace is that a knight not bring physical harm to women and child. Now, I would still adhere to this with the caveat that so long as the woman not pick up arms (or be known as a warrior), I will not strike them. Children ought to be spared the horrors of violence at any rate and no one ought to bring harm to them.
Sanctions about not attacking the ‘innocent’, the ‘weak’, or the ‘defenseless’ are somewhat less universal, but not uncommon. In a sense, this is more a common sense thing in my opinion as one who would pick on the defenseless is less a warrior and more just a bully and a thug and in turn deserves nothing but contempt. Some claim that the measure of a person can be gauged by the quality of their opponents/enemies…for one to pick on those that cannot fight back speaks great volumes about a failure of character.
To aid and/or protect the weak...as a knight, you have a duty to protect the people who work your land and the idea can be expanded one’s lord’s and even to the subject of the king (assuming of course a traditional nobility exists). I have had the argument about whether or not it would be better to teach how to defend versus doing the defending…in a sense it can be very much like giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to. For me, I would take a combined approach…defend them whilst trying to teach them how to defend. For some people it is difficult to come to terms with the idea of having to or even needing to fight against others so it is not a simple thing to just ‘train’. For me, if I can remove the threat, then I will; if not, I will do what I can to minimize the threat and give those I have aided the means to protect themselves.
The concept of keeping to one’s word…comes back to vows and oaths which are prevalent throughout all cultures. There seems to be common theme throughout all cultures wherein a person is only as good as their word; that is, if a person is known to do what they say and be honest, they are worthy of trust and respect. Those that cannot, or willfully break promises are generally reviled and will not be dealt with. In this age, there appears to be an increasing tendency for many people to say one thing and then do the opposite (or fail to live up to their promises)…it is because of this that to be a knight is a trying endeavour as one is constantly striving to stay true to their word while having to deal with a constant stream of liars and con artists. It is very tempting to give in, but if one wishes to be honourable, it is imperative to remain true to one’s word, regardless of where it might land you. That said, there is nothing saying that one need always give a vow or promise….just be very careful how you tow that line.
For me, it is far easier to be honest and upfront…being honest means not having to remember what tales you have told. Yet, in an effort to be polite and civil, we end up telling little white lies in an attempt to not offend or placate the feelings of others. As one who is esteemed as being honourable, one is assumed to also be polite and respectful towards others. This then creates an interesting issue for one attempting to be seen as honest and trustworthy. Is it better to be truthful in all things or can one be allowed to tell the occasional white lie? The danger then lies in an increasing use of falsehoods. I cannot really provide a solid answer to this particular issue, though I can offer up some suggestions.
For myself, I find that I would prefer to get along with others than constantly bicker and fight. In order to do so, I have had to bite my tongue from time to time. Does this make me a hypocrite? I do not think so since on the flip side, I will not slander nor spread rumours (whether false or real) about anyone I have interacted with. I will also do my best to ignore or at least not let others’ comments colour my first impressions of people. I may be a little cautious at first, but then again, I tend to be cautious in general out of an inherent shyness, but I do make an effort to give everyone a chance to prove their character to me. I even go so far as giving most a second chance…I do tend to be a little overtly optimistic about people at times. However, if a person has proven that they cannot be trusted or even be civil, I will not give them the time of day. I still will avoid from gossiping and such, but if asked by someone I will merely tell them that in my experience, that person is not to be trusted or dealt with very carefully. It is not for me to tell someone never to deal with another person. For me, this is what an honourable person, and a knight, would do.
I would caution against swearing oaths or making vows in public, with perhaps an exception or two. The main reason I would discourage this practice is that it is easy for the unscrupulous to twist and manipulate your words into something that was not meant. It also locks you into a course of action that you may be ill-prepared to undertake and thus will leave you open to scorn and ridicule. It is very easy to speak hastily when the blood runs hot and emotions high. Do everything you can to not say or do anything that you will regret afterwards when you are in the heat of the moment. Let the moment pass, calm yourself, analyze what happened and then decide. Do not let your passions dictate your actions…there is nothing wrong with being swayed by emotion, but do not swear an oath or make a vow when you cannot think clearly. The only time I would make a public oath or vow (outside of ceremony) is if I was set on bringing ruin to an individual that had done me a grievous wrong. Then again, this sort of plays into the conceit of being judged by the enemies one has.
Continuing along with the concept of oaths and vows (though perhaps I should acknowledge the fact that oath and vow generally mean the same thing, though the only real difference is that with an oath the promise is made while invoking a divine witness while a vow is simply a solemn promise). These are not meant to be made on a whim nor frequently…to do so diminishes the importance and the overall meaning associated with the act. Someone constantly made a vow or oath for everything they were to do shows a disrespect and diminishes the act to the point of it becoming trivial and well, meaningless. This in turn negatively impacts how others will treat the person. One who is honourable would do well to think carefully about whether or not they ought to make such promises, especially publicly. Instead, this would be a case where action speaks louder than words; if someone wrongs you, address it and solve it to your satisfaction. Only in the most extreme circumstances should one step out in front of the public and loudly proclaim an oath to avenge oneself or to right some wrong. Of course, if and when you do so, make sure you carry through…even if you fail at the attempt, if you can point to and prove that you threw everything you had into it, I would commend you. Remember, sometimes success is less important than the effort in which you applied. If you fail, but did so in style and grace (along with the effort), I believe one can still keep one’s head held high.
There might be more to cover, and I have the feeling that I have jumped from point to point, but perhaps I will return with another installment to what I suppose one could call a treatise on the knight.
Author
Topic: YC - 116 Writing Contest - 2nd Place - Non - Fiction (Read 1048 times)