When we think about knights, we usually have
noble men in mind, heroic warriors whose gallantry was unsurpassed. We’ve all heard the tales of King Arthur
and the knights of the round table, which included the dauntless and dashing Sir Lancelot
and his spirited son Sir Galahad. But Arthurian legend is just that, legend,
and knights in real life bore no resemblance to these romantic depictions. We might look at the oath the knights of the
round table took, which was all about chivalry, not being greedy, not taking land by power,
not being cruel, or murderous, to always be merciful and of course always to do your best
to protect women – sometimes referred to as damsels. It all sounds good on paper, but it hardly
mirrored reality. Welcome to this episode of the Infographics
Show, How medieval knights were not noble, but cold-hearted killers. First of all, what was a knight? A knight was basically someone who was a skilled
warrior, and someone who was also highly skilled at fighting on horseback. The Old English word for knight actually means
something like servant, or boy, and knights throughout the Middle Ages might have been
in the services of the country, a rich nobleperson, or the church – the crusades for instance. They were basically military men, but over
time developed codes of conduct, or what we call chivalry. For their service they received land. All they had to do was pledge an allegiance
to the king or an overlord. An overlord might have a number of knights
in his service, the more the merrier if you wanted to take someone else’s land. These knights, though, were not born to the
peasant class. They were of noble birth and would as kids
(pages) learn from older knights how to fight and hunt. When they reached the age of 15 they became
squires and after that if things went well they could receive a knighthood. That usually happened as it does in the movies,
with a sword being tapped on the shoulders and the new knight swearing his allegiance. Things like jousting tournaments actually
took place, as did round table meetings. They also had a code of conduct, and they
were supposed to embrace charity, faith, strength, loyalty, moderation and justice. So far, this all sounds rather like the knights
of the round table, but this is the Middle Ages we are talking about, a time when life
was brutal for most people. One example of brutality is that these knights
were often given the right to pillage. Yep, they were allowed to ride into some small
village and take what they wanted. This was not good for the peasants or craftsmen
that lived in those villages as they could not defend themselves. As Steven Pinker points out in his book on
the history of violence, “The Better Angels of our Nature,” the knights would often
be busy ransacking villages and any resistance was met with obscene violence. This was not about being noble, but taking
what you wanted because you could. They saw themselves as superior to the peasant
classes; it was their right to take what they wanted. As Pinker says, though, this proved to be
very problematic. The reason was because the commoners that
worked on the land, called serfs, were owned by the landholder. That meant that when they were killed, or
hurt, or stolen from, the landholder lost out, too. In turn, that landholder would plan an attack
on someone else’s serfs. The only real losers of course were the poor. In an interview with Scientific American,
Pinker says, “Statistics aside, accounts of daily life in medieval and early modern
Europe reveal a society soaked in blood and gore. Medieval knights—whom today we would call
warlords—fought their numerous private wars with a single strategy: kill as many of the
opposing knight’s peasants as possible.” Being a knight wasn’t always about protecting
the land and being a noble warrior, but being a strong force that was high enough in the
hierarchy that you could get away with murder. As one person put it, “medieval knights
indulged in relentless, brutal acts of savagery.” You can see this in picture form in a book
called “The Medieval Housebook”, which is a series of illustrations from the 15th
century. As one encyclopedia tells us, the Middles
Ages were tough times. It says, “In competition for sometimes scarce
economic resources—land, crops, livestock, peasants—neighboring estates frequently
resorted to the sword.” So, yes, you needed a good stock of knights,
aka, hired killers. We often see knights as leading the charge
in battles, mostly overseas affairs at the orders of the King. Except, according to some sources, in the
late Middle Ages about 80 percent of knights didn’t even bother fighting. They let regular soldiers go to war instead. All they had to do to get out of military
service was pay what was called scutage. This was also sometimes called “shield money”
and if the king could collect enough cash from the knights, feudal troops could be bought
and sent to war. These knights were not conscientious objectors,
rather they just didn’t want to fight. The great knights got out of military service
and were replaced by poor folks. Still, at times the king did tell landowners
that it was time to buckle up, get some armor on, find a good warhorse, and go to battle. Some knights that did go to war in other countries
wanted very much to be properly compensated, especially as they had been forced to go. Despite chivalry codes it is well known that
after battles they would plunder entire towns of everything worth anything. This was their bounty and rightfully theirs
after victory. We are also told that as well as taking the
bounty, the knights would often slaughter the peasants of the defeated town. That was seen as fair game, after all, the
losers were heretics. Some critics also tell us that these knights,
who may have seen humanity at it’s worse, probably suffered from we called Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder. The knights could be extremely violent. As there was no justice system at the time
that properly functioned, people often took the law into their own hands when they believed
their honor had been lost. So, for a knight that has experienced carnage,
it’s perhaps not surprising that some were capable of inflicting their own kind of extreme
violence. One historian talking to Spiegel Online talks
about the knight called Sir John Arundel. According to the historian, Sir John’s gang
of knights entered a convent to shield themselves from bad weather. They decided to violate the nuns in there
and steal some riches. They then took the nuns on their ship, but
decided to throw them overboard after they had made use of their bodies. This was during the Age of Chivalry. It's not something we see in Hollywood. As the book, “Chivalry in Medieval England”,
points out, knights were capable of terrible atrocities. But we have created the fallacy of the brave
and noble knight because it suits us to think that the powerful were fair and noble. That book tells us that there were three things
that knights fought for, and those were “land, gold, or war booty.” This is certainly not how we have portrayed
knights throughout history. We seem to have mystified the past, which
might be dangerous considering how much we have to learn from history. While knights may have had this code of conduct
that said be good to women and don’t kill the meek, much of the code was about obedience
to those above you, to the king, to the religion, to the country. That’s the code of soldiers today, but it
doesn’t mean all soldiers are immaculate regarding their ethics. Although one writer is less critical when
talking about these people, writing, “Although many knights failed to live up to the ideals
of the chivalric code, many others did. Like the image of the cowboy in the American
Old West, that of the chivalric knight, while often exaggerated, continues to provide a
standard of conduct to which many aspire.” Do you agree with that? Do you think romanticizing the past is dangerous? What can you tell us about knights? Tell us in the comments. Also, be sure to check out our other show
Why Living In The Dark Ages Sucked. Thanks for watching, and as always, please
don’t forget to like, share and subscribe. See you next time.
OK.
Here's the thing. "Knights" are an entire social social class (well, about half of one, given how few lady-knights there were), across most of a continent, for almost a thousand years. Trying to ascribe any sort of single analysis to their level of morals or conduct is going to be over-generalized to the point of uselessness.
You want to know what knights were, morally? They were people. Rich people. Think about Hollywood stars and business tycoons. Some of them are horrible scumbags, relentlessly exploiting others for their wealth. A few of them are bona-fide idealists, sacrificing their fortunes in the service of some cause they believe in. Most of them fall somewhere in between, ostentatiously giving to charity, but then using that giving to boost their own social status. That is knights. Some of them were bright-eyed idealists, aspiring to a higher moral purpose. Some of them were murderous savages. Most of them were just people.
Were most of them rapists? Yup. But so were most poor mercenaries or peasant levies (and samurai, and Mongol riders, and North American Native warriors, and...); that isn't a characteristic of knights, that is a characteristic of premodern fighting men. Did they gain their wealth from exploiting the peasantry? Sure, but so was the ruling elite of virtually every complex society in history before the Industrial Revolution. They were abiding by the morals that they had been taught as children. I am sure that our great-grandchildren will look at us in horror for something we all do today that is totally acceptable.
TLDR: Knights were people. Wealthy, combat trained people, but people. Anyone who claims they had some special moral stance (whether better or worse than the average person) beyond that is either an idiot or lying to you.