Roman "knights" ?? - need ideas

[Daiymo]

Re: "WHAT IF" Scenario

I've always wondered what happened if the Roman Empire had survived and developed into the Middle Age?

It did. It was the Byzantine Empire.
(Sorry just being a smart ##S)

You bring up an interesting point, though. A non Christian pagan Roman Empire may have developed a chilvaric code, but as Mik says it would depend very much on the development of the stirrup. Without it you cant heavy the heavy armored French knight.

I still like the pre 1066 model of feudal lords and retainers (like the Vikings and Saxons) for Hobgoblins. Knights seem to refined for goblinoids

 

[Drakmar]

hmmm.. Praetorean Guard (sp.) would probably be what you are looking for.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hypothetically...

You bring up an interesting point, though. A non Christian pagan Roman Empire may have developed a chilvaric code, but as Mik says it would depend very much on the development of the stirrup. Without it you cant heavy the heavy armored French knight.

Given time (without the collapse of the empire), would they have realized that and developed cavalry tactics? Considering the fact that the Romans make crappy cavalrymen (which is why they rely on auxiliary units), would they have embraced such a "barbarian" tactics into their professional army training?

 

[mmadsen]

I'd suggest that, at least in terms of D&D-style, there's a subtle difference between a knight/knightly order, and a bunch of Fighters on horses.

What is the difference to you? Is it important to you that knights wear full plate armor? That they have a chivalric code? That they woo women from afar? That they fight with religious fervor against the infidels? What elements are you going for?

 

[Mobius]

What is the difference to you? Is it important to you that knights wear full plate armor? That they have a chivalric code? That they woo women from afar? That they fight with religious fervor against the infidels? What elements are you going for?

Knighthood was very different from the time the rough term was invented (Charlemagne had knights) to the end of the medieval era with all the heavy articulated plate and horse barding. By all accounts, the knights of Charlemagne's court were murderous boors who thought nothing of killing each other when there wasn't an external enemy to whack. The French knights who argued over who would stay behind to cover the retreat in the Holy Land were a whole different breed of noble warrior, so I guess what your concept of knighthood is depends upon which era you are basing it on.

That being said, the Romans didn't have either the heavy horse that knighthood came to represent, or the chivalric code, or the notion of courtly love ... none of it. Every time you remove one aspect of 'knighthood' as we know it, you get less and less like a knight and more and more like a fighter on a horse.

 

[Emiricol]

<i>To me</i>, it is really not that specific. It's that certain, "[insert snobby French cliche here]" that sets the "knight" apart from mere mortals. Many cultures have had elite men who towered above other men - in their acts, their deeds... These are the men who ultimately represented the ideals of the day. Men held up as examples to other men. <i>Who made other men strive to be greater</i>. Who generally fought for more than the money they could loot from small French coastal villages.

Never mind that most of it was all BS. There's a lot of examples - Beowulf is a good one I suppose, as he never wore interlocking metal plates when he took out Grendel, Inc. and I'd laugh to see him pining away at some Swiss maiden's window.

So I figure, what might inspire a Hobgoblin (or a Roman) to legendary greatness? Certainly not just being a consummate warrior. Half the damn country have that one covered just fine. And the whole unrequited love thing just isn't their style. Their very code of honor was very different, I'd imagine.

Thus my dilemma I definitely recognize that this is all subjective as hell anyway, but hoping some of it flips the creativity switch to the "on" position for me...

 

[Mik]

Ah, I see more clearly some of what you are looking for, Emricol - the motivation for a hobgoblin to become a courtly knight.

I'm no medieval scholar, so some of this is probably 'made up history', but I'd say the warrior needs something else - outside pressure - to become more of a knight.

For the Franks, one of the initial pressures was heredity. Not the passing on of bloodlines, but the passing on of property. Third and Fourth sons of families with lands had little chance of getting the family manor when the patrician passed, and some of them took to what could be construed as brigandage to fund themselves.

Now, rulers are a canny lot, and they saw that these mounted thugs were very effective warriors. Also, the cost of maintaining a single unit of heavy cavalry was prohibitively expensive. In the brigands, they had ready-made cavalry units that could maintain themselves, a nice savings on the usual cost of outfitting troops.

The rulers wanted to be able to call on these younger sons in wartime, but dreaded their disobedient streak. The introduction of the Church is claimed to be the essential difference between the 'thugs on horseback' and the 'chivalrous noble' phases of the knights' development.

By attaching religious sanction to the knights' existence, the Church managed to have influence over their actions. The church espoused a code of conduct that left the riding, fighting, and feasting in place, but put a lid on the protection racket, cursing, and whoring.

Nobles and rulers played along, providing hospitality for the knights, activities (tournaments), lands for those who acheived great things, honors and praise, and relatively puffed-up positions in their armies. Closer relations with the church and improved public reaction (due to cutting down on the brutality) cemented the image of the knight as a courtly warrior.

A lot of the specifics of the knightly codes and so forth are Christianity-specific, but if you wanted to keep specific aspects, I think a way can be found to influence hobgoblin behavior or fabricate an impetus.

So, to sum up:

(Mounted warrior + great skill + no inheritance) + (savvy leadership + need of heavy cavalry + expense of standing force of cavalry) * (influence of powerful church) = knight.

There's my take on it.
=Mik