Code of Chivalry: The Bridles of Medieval Europe

While the chivalric code has rarely taken the shape of a formal code of conduct, its effects can be observed in the way medieval life was shaped from the way wars were waged to the way nobility behaved. The original meaning of the word “chivalric” was derived from the Old French “chevalerie” and referred to a specific class of knighthood, specifically “horse soldiery”, but later developed to encompass all knightly ideals. These ideals were partly assimilated by the aristocracy of medieval Europe thus redefining the virtues nobles stood by at the time. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, the term had evolved to circumscribe a moral system chiefly composed of three pillars - military ethos, knightly piety, and courtesy - that sequentially dictate the noble life. However, chivalry was not always sanctioned by the clergy circles of Christianity.

Due to the warfare-eccentric aspects of chivalry, Christian societies had difficulty in adopting the chivalric way of life and were most times against it, as warfare and killing, in general, was considered sinful by the Catholic Church. It was not until the conception of the Christian rendition of Just War (Ronald), a theory arguing war can be justified in the eyes of God if it is the last resort in reconciling a conflict (Jeremy), that the City of God began to reconsider the ethical values of chivalry. This bore fruition to the knightly piety, a religious denomination of Christianity that was embraced by knights and clerics alike due to its equitability and catholic nature. Knightly piety played a pivotal role in the knights’ participation during the Crusades by the Roman Catholic Church, endearing them by justifying their participation in war as a holy cause. In effect, knightly piety dictated the religiosity of an individual and how Christianity and war can co-exist.

Whereas knightly piety described the relationship between Christ and warriors, military ethos extends way beyond that and embodies the ethical mien of all manners of warriors and combatants. This ideology was influenced by predating philosophies of war, such as the Chinese Confucian philosophy, and attempted to conform to the Just War theories to formulate a de facto code of conduct that can logically be deduced by people of all backgrounds. The purpose of war ethos was, and still is, to enact a predicate where soldiers will take action with ethicality in mind, protecting against immoral exploitation of conquered populace and nefarious usage of the power bestowed upon soldiers like the usage of a weapon to strike an unarmed fighter (Ronald). Its primary principle is to protect those that show weakness rather than do injustice to them and as a result, the essence of military ethos can be applicated to other prospects of life. An exemplary such application is that of military courtesy. Military courtesy, which is customarily depicted between military personnel regardless of force, is the recognition of chain-of-command within an armed force and the respectful interaction between officers dependant on their rank.

Although military courtesy is restricted in between military members, chivalric courtesy abstracts from that subset and uses societal standings as the indicators of one’s rank and how he or she should be treated. It imposes a habitus of politeness and civility as well as adherence to elementary etiquette and decorum conditioned on one’s stature. These dignified traits were espoused by the upper class of medieval Europe and were deemed to be traits of the quintessential patrician. Consequently, chivalric courtesy became integrated into upper society and, as is with any culture, the middle and lower classes began to imitate and assume this type of behavior in quotidian life. Courtesy was to be demonstrated in perpetuity inclusive of romance which bred life to a new category of literary works that revolve around “chivalric romance” conveying the status quo of the times. These works focused on highlighting the life of a noble knight and explored the medieval notion of courtesy, showcasing the doctrine that courtesy should be applied in all facets of one’s lifestyle.

In contrast to the chivalric ideals set forth by literary works of Medieval Europe, many researchers argue that chivalry simply existed to restrain the blood-lusting warriors of the Middle Ages. Although its cogitation was relatively progressive for its time as “chivalry expressed itself collectively as a confrerie, a sort of corporation, even a college, all of whose members enjoyed an egalitarian solidarity”, when its essence is contemplated from a philosophical perspective, numerous scholars concluded that a man of chivalry must find joy in war to participate in it, therefore “the courageous knight is driven by sadomasochistic urges”. Another decisive factor of a knight’s courage was conjectured to be his “sadness”, his capability to grasp the concept of death. From the point of view of Christianity, some scholars regard knightly piety and the “Just War” merely as a manipulation tool for personal gain devised by the Church to assemble and exploit the substantial force comprised of the knights in the Middle Ages. The rhetoric of “Peril, Flight and the Sad Man: Medieval Theories of the Body in Battle” by Katie L. Walter argues that chivalric code solely existed as a restriction on the “freedom” of knights to act indecently as unscrupulous usage of power was rampant in medieval Europe.

On one end, chivalry is a staple of the Middle Ages that represents the idealistic modus vivendi of a citizen in a conflict-ridden era of constant bloodshed. It seeks to transcend knighthood from a barbaric sect of warriors to an exemplary creed that abides by personal beliefs and, in its latter stages, the word of God. On the other end, chivalry could be regarded as an elaborate apparatus to repress the turmoil of the age and allow warriors to be employed under the pretense of a holy cause to achieve self-serving goals. The extent of which either statement is true is debatable although it is certain that, while medieval Europe was a volatile period, the chivalric code of conduct was respected, at least in part, by many across Europe and as such, it ultimately served as a beneficial tool that pursued to contain the volatility of the epoch.

Works Cited

1. Walter, Katie L. 'Peril, flight and the sad man: medieval theories of the body in battle.' Essays and Studies, vol. 67, 2014, p. 21+. Literature Resource Center. Accessed 21 Nov. 2019
2. Adams, Jeremy duQuesnay. 'Modern Views of Medieval Chivalry, 1884-1984.' Classical and Medieval Literature Criticism, edited by Lawrence J. Trudeau, vol. 154, Gale, 2013. Literature Resource Center. Originally published in The Study of Chivalry, edited by Howell Chickering and Thomas H. Seiler, Medieval Inst., Western Michigan U, 1988, pp. 41-89. Accessed 18 Nov. 2019
3. Musto, Ronald G. 'Just Wars and Evil Empires: Erasmus and the Turks.' Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800, edited by Lawrence J. Trudeau, vol. 231, Gale, 2014. Literature Resource Center. Originally published in Renaissance Society and Culture, edited by John Monfasani and Ronald G. Musto, Italica, 1991, pp. 197-216. Accessed 18 Nov. 2019