Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mobius" data-source="post: 375091" data-attributes="member: 6124">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mobius, post: 375091, member: 6124"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification