View previous topic | View next topic

''Discretion is the better part of valour''

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

djgordy
44306.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:31 pm Reply with quote

Rory Gilmore wrote:
Or even ''Hit him, but only if he's smaller than you and your parents won't find out''.


Except that hitting someone smaller than you is rarely regarded as an act of valour.

 
Rory Gilmore
44309.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:36 pm Reply with quote

It is if they're being discourtious to a lady.

 
Celebaelin
44311.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:42 pm Reply with quote

That's not valiant, although it would be covered by the rules of chivalry. I shy away from calling it chivalrous; chivalric I think.

 
Rory Gilmore
44322.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:05 pm Reply with quote

Damn, I've been saying it wrong all these years. How they must have laughed at me. Oh, why didn't I hear their laughter earlier?

 
Celebaelin
44348.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:43 pm Reply with quote

I was just saying that chivalrous has more modern associations than chivalric, which is about knights and broadswords and who you can kill and stuff.

 
djgordy
44350.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:04 pm Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
I was just saying that chivalrous has more modern associations than chivalric, which is about knights and broadswords and who you can kill and stuff.


Oooh, I wouldn't say so. There wasn't exactly one 'code of chivalry' but all the variations are pretty close. Although fighting was a requirement under certain circumstances (this was the middle ages after all) it was not acceptable simply to pick a fight with anyone who happened by.

http://www.geocities.com/dronak/chivalry.html

 
Celebaelin
44358.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:34 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
I was just saying that chivalrous has more modern associations than chivalric, which is about knights and broadswords and who you can kill and stuff.


Oooh, I wouldn't say so. There wasn't exactly one 'code of chivalry' but all the variations are pretty close. Although fighting was a requirement under certain circumstances (this was the middle ages after all) it was not acceptable simply to pick a fight with anyone who happened by.

http://www.geocities.com/dronak/chivalry.html


We're at cross purposes here. The prescriptions imposed by the chivalric codes were what I was seeking to emphasise, the deferrence to women for example and indeed the implications of the rules of Courtly Love, which are different but related.

Admittedly I was poking fun at the concept of chivalric behaviour (which was in practice pretty much a Nobles only club and wasn't ever intended to be anything else) as opposed to chivalrous behaviour and suggesting that most people were, disappointingly, fair game generally due to the European feudal structures, much as they were in Japan in a similar era.

It's not exactly the same point but the imposition of Magna Carta (1215) was to limit the power of the King as far as the barons were concerned, that much of it was later applied more widely does not mean that that was the original intent or purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_law
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/sample-08.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/magnacarta.htm

 
Tas
44372.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:24 pm Reply with quote

Chivalry and Valour are not necessarily going to go hand in hand.
It MAY be brave (or stupid) to face an opponent capable of killing you, but infinitely more sensible to take him out from surprise/ambush/long range surely?

I am not chilvalric, chivalrous or dumb.

:-)

Tas

 
Rory Gilmore
44375.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:42 pm Reply with quote

Of course others may think ''That dick-head doesn't even fight properly, let's make it our buisiness to stop him''.

 
gerontius grumpus
44428.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:49 pm Reply with quote

To my mind some of the historic codes of honour seem far from honourable. In particular those of the Vikings, as mentioned in the Icelandic sagas and the Samurai. These seem to be more codes of obedience and bullying. They result in (to modern thinking) far from honourable behaviour.



Dives for cover.

 
djgordy
44430.  Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:00 pm Reply with quote

That'll be because you have different values to the ones that they had.

 
Rory Gilmore
44580.  Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:11 pm Reply with quote

I've never known anyone to call Vikings honourable. It'd be a laugh, though, I'm sure.

 
gerontius grumpus
44672.  Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:53 pm Reply with quote

The Icelandic sagas claim they were.

 
mckeonj
44733.  Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:48 am Reply with quote

Codes of honor as exemplified by recent 'honor killings' in Britain.

 
gerontius grumpus
45347.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:46 pm Reply with quote

Yes, exactly. The most dishonourable behaviour imaginable in the name of honour.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group