5 ms·

While I applaud the preservation of spirit and tradition, I don't think you can really be a knight in the modern world. “In the past, the defence of the faith

by blfr 8y ago

While I applaud the preservation of spirit and tradition, I don't think you can really be a knight in the modern world. “In the past, the defence of the faith was riding horses, fighting enemies,” Fra Critien said. “Now we can defend the faith by being an example to those around us.” That first part is quite important. Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. And many crusaders went further than that. They chose a risky expedition often at a great expense of their families for no discernible earthly benefit. Being a gentleman in the modern world is laudable but it happens under a completely different set of incentives. Still, Malta is beautiful and definitely worth a visit. Especially for Europeans since flights and stay are very cheap.

jacobwilliamroy 8y ago
The Knights of the Order of St. John are more about offering cutting edge medical services to the poor than conquering the world. Even today, most of the knights I know are medical doctors. The others do various kinds of humanitarian work through their own foundations, in cooperation with the Order of St. John.
starbeast 8y ago
>Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. >And many crusaders went further than that. They chose a risky expedition often at a great expense of their families for no discernible earthly benefit. Come on, is well established history that they often got shipped out on Crusade for being thugs. Itinerant knights were a huge problem during periods of peace, so they got told that if they pissed off to the holy land, their existing crimes would be forgiven and they could be absolved of future sin, as long as that sin was not being committed in Europe.
purrcat259 8y ago
> stay are very cheap Currently, not so much for those of us who did not get on the property ladder within the last year :)
garmaine 8y ago
> That first part is quite important. Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. That’s historical revisionism. Modern ideas of chivalry mostly post date the age of knights. In their own time they were thugs and mercenaries granted land as a reward for their brutality in combat. (But the knights of this order were medicines, not warriors, in their primary purpose. What you say is more true of these knights, but not knights generally.)
- toyg 8y ago
  They weren’t just doctors - at their peak, these knights were fundamentally bankers: at a time were travelling with valuables on your person was extremely unwise, you could open an “account” with them in Europe, travel all the way to the Middle East, and withdraw your cash when there. It started as a simple issue of logistics, but soon the order realized all that cash could be managed, and they started loaning it out to kings and merchants, which obviously made them even richer. This is the likely cause of their eventual downfall, because kings of that age had the annoying habit of defaulting on their debts by “eliminating” their sources.
  - Lio 8y ago
    > This is the likely cause of their eventual downfall, ... I think you may be mixing in the history of the Knights Templer there. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta had no “eventual downfall” to any Christian King in the way the Templers did.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    You’re confusing the knights of Malta with the knights templer.
- benj111 8y ago
  >granted land as a reward for their brutality in combat. Isn't that also revisionism? You don't exactly win wars by being chivalrous. Hacking some one to death at point blank range isn't ever going to be nice. We attach similar ideas today, to modern soldiers. Cognitive dissonance isn't a new thing. Yes modern ideas of chivalry are just that, modern. I have no problems believing that they, and their culture believed they lived a 'good' life.
microtherion 8y ago
Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Having recently read A Distant Mirror, I was NOT impressed by what passed as chivalrous behavior then. Any norms of decent behavior they had was pretty much reserved for their own class.
- bostik 8y ago
  Long time ago I learned how the traits of "chivalry" were established. The tradition of a knight (or chivalrous person) opening a door to let other pass first was a defensive measure. Doorways were good spots for assassination and getting stabbed with a dagger was a realistic threat. So a knight allowed - possibly even forced - others to go through the doorways first. Even the tradition of hailing with your hand comes from the need to show to others that you were not wielding a weapon. Chivalry. A foul word.
  - frobozz 8y ago
    As with many "ancient" traditions, a lot of chivalric code stuff was invented by Victorians.
gus_massa 8y ago
> Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. > And many crusaders went further than that. They chose a risky expedition often at a great expense of their families for no discernible earthly benefit. You mean invading a foreign country because they worship the same god in a different way, and perhaps killing everyone there that oppose the invasion? Also, I don't remember about this particular case, but it was usual to distribute some of the conquered land/money/slaves between the soldiers.
- starbeast 8y ago
  I find that this site provides a pretty good overview of the relevant history - http://www.medievalwarfare.info/crusades.htm http://www.medievalwarfare.info/crusades.htm >"Sending young men off to fight in a holy cause temporarily stifled the internal wars that had afflicted the West since the collapse of Roman government . That a few of the early Crusading skirmishes produced victories helped Europeans regain a sense of self-confidence, after centuries of losing on nearly every front, they temporarily turned the tables on their military and cultural superiors to the east." >"The Church regarded crusaders as military pilgrims. They took vows and were rewarded with privileges of protection for their property at home. Any legal proceedings against them were suspended. Another major inducement was the offer of indulgences for the remission of sin. Knights were especially attracted by what were effectively Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free cards allowing them to commit any sins throughout the rest of their lives without incurring liability in this or the next world."
njharman 8y ago
You need to read more history if you believe knights were not thugs and warlords. And the crusaders were the top thugs in no small part due to church giving them licence to slaughter non Christians. and specifically set them selves as warlords at the expense of the states that existed in that region. Also knights were the state. Everything you said and implied is the polar opposite of historical fact. I'm dumbfounded. Its like meeting a flat earther.

by blfr 8y ago

jacobwilliamroy 8y ago

The Knights of the Order of St. John are more about offering cutting edge medical services to the poor than conquering the world. Even today, most of the knights I know are medical doctors. The others do various kinds of humanitarian work through their own foundations, in cooperation with the Order of St. John.

starbeast 8y ago

>Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. >And many crusaders went further than that. They chose a risky expedition often at a great expense of their families for no discernible earthly benefit. Come on, is well established history that they often got shipped out on Crusade for being thugs. Itinerant knights were a huge problem during periods of peace, so they got told that if they pissed off to the holy land, their existing crimes would be forgiven and they could be absolved of future sin, as long as that sin was not being committed in Europe.

purrcat259 8y ago

> stay are very cheap Currently, not so much for those of us who did not get on the property ladder within the last year :)

garmaine 8y ago

> That first part is quite important. Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. That’s historical revisionism. Modern ideas of chivalry mostly post date the age of knights. In their own time they were thugs and mercenaries granted land as a reward for their brutality in combat. (But the knights of this order were medicines, not warriors, in their primary purpose. What you say is more true of these knights, but not knights generally.)

toyg 8y ago
They weren’t just doctors - at their peak, these knights were fundamentally bankers: at a time were travelling with valuables on your person was extremely unwise, you could open an “account” with them in Europe, travel all the way to the Middle East, and withdraw your cash when there. It started as a simple issue of logistics, but soon the order realized all that cash could be managed, and they started loaning it out to kings and merchants, which obviously made them even richer. This is the likely cause of their eventual downfall, because kings of that age had the annoying habit of defaulting on their debts by “eliminating” their sources.
- Lio 8y ago
  > This is the likely cause of their eventual downfall, ... I think you may be mixing in the history of the Knights Templer there. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta had no “eventual downfall” to any Christian King in the way the Templers did.
- garmaine 8y ago
  You’re confusing the knights of Malta with the knights templer.
benj111 8y ago
>granted land as a reward for their brutality in combat. Isn't that also revisionism? You don't exactly win wars by being chivalrous. Hacking some one to death at point blank range isn't ever going to be nice. We attach similar ideas today, to modern soldiers. Cognitive dissonance isn't a new thing. Yes modern ideas of chivalry are just that, modern. I have no problems believing that they, and their culture believed they lived a 'good' life.

microtherion 8y ago

Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Having recently read A Distant Mirror, I was NOT impressed by what passed as chivalrous behavior then. Any norms of decent behavior they had was pretty much reserved for their own class.

bostik 8y ago
Long time ago I learned how the traits of "chivalry" were established. The tradition of a knight (or chivalrous person) opening a door to let other pass first was a defensive measure. Doorways were good spots for assassination and getting stabbed with a dagger was a realistic threat. So a knight allowed - possibly even forced - others to go through the doorways first. Even the tradition of hailing with your hand comes from the need to show to others that you were not wielding a weapon. Chivalry. A foul word.
- frobozz 8y ago
  As with many "ancient" traditions, a lot of chivalric code stuff was invented by Victorians.

gus_massa 8y ago

> Knights could have been thugs or even warlords but they weren't. Not because they would have been stopped by the state, which were fairly small and weak at the time, but because they largely chose not to. > And many crusaders went further than that. They chose a risky expedition often at a great expense of their families for no discernible earthly benefit. You mean invading a foreign country because they worship the same god in a different way, and perhaps killing everyone there that oppose the invasion? Also, I don't remember about this particular case, but it was usual to distribute some of the conquered land/money/slaves between the soldiers.

starbeast 8y ago
I find that this site provides a pretty good overview of the relevant history - http://www.medievalwarfare.info/crusades.htm http://www.medievalwarfare.info/crusades.htm >"Sending young men off to fight in a holy cause temporarily stifled the internal wars that had afflicted the West since the collapse of Roman government . That a few of the early Crusading skirmishes produced victories helped Europeans regain a sense of self-confidence, after centuries of losing on nearly every front, they temporarily turned the tables on their military and cultural superiors to the east." >"The Church regarded crusaders as military pilgrims. They took vows and were rewarded with privileges of protection for their property at home. Any legal proceedings against them were suspended. Another major inducement was the offer of indulgences for the remission of sin. Knights were especially attracted by what were effectively Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free cards allowing them to commit any sins throughout the rest of their lives without incurring liability in this or the next world."

njharman 8y ago

You need to read more history if you believe knights were not thugs and warlords. And the crusaders were the top thugs in no small part due to church giving them licence to slaughter non Christians. and specifically set them selves as warlords at the expense of the states that existed in that region. Also knights were the state. Everything you said and implied is the polar opposite of historical fact. I'm dumbfounded. Its like meeting a flat earther.