The Age Of Chivalry & Hounour (1 Viewer)

[Cardigan600]

Yo Troopers, was reading a article in one of my Cavalry books, but as usual cannot remember which book. I think it was during the Napoleanonic war. An English Officer was just out for a ride to excersise his horse, when all of a sudden a young French Officer appears, so the young French Officer draws his sabre and charges the English guy, so after a short exchange the French office is wounded, so basically the English Officer said enough, go and get your wound seen to, but the French guy wouldn't listen and comes back for more, so the English officer had to kill him. Thought it was a nice story and though even at war the English Officer was letting him off with a small wound.
Bernard.

 

[theBaron]

I imagine there were many among the French who felt the old code of chivalry was "bourgeois" (though that concept had to wait a generation to evolve), or representative of the ancien regime, backward, and therefore, to be repudiated.

That's not to say that every Frenchman acted that way, nor to ignore many who were of noble birth, or of noble conduct, but there were probably many who considered themselves enlightened heralds of the new age of reason.

We've been paying the price ever since.

Prost!
Brad

 

[theBaron]

And in contrast to that Frenchman's conduct, we have anecdotes from the Seven Years War, in which a concept of chivalry and proper conduct is shown.

In one, a Pandour drew a bead on Frederick, from a place of ambush. The king spotted him, rode up to him, and called out, "You, sir!" The sniper was so embarrassed that he removed his cap and bowed as the king rode away.

In another, Frederick came upon one of his Jäger, wounded, and lying in wait for an Austrian, to ambush him. Frederick called him to attention and scolded him for hiding like a robber, and told him to stand in the open and fight like a Prussian!

Quaint notions, to be sure, and in light of the purpose of combat, perhaps foolhardy. But those notions suffered a body blow in the French revolutionary wars.

Prost!
Brad

 

[theBaron]

And another question, perhaps--does the concept of mercy come and go, throughout history?

How much emphasis did the ancients put on mercy in combat? Was it a choice reserved for the victor, who might show mercy, to be generous?

Certainly in Europe's middle ages, it was an ideal, if not always honored. To be strong and victorious, but to be merciful, was an ideal for the knight or the man at arms, wasn't it?

The concept seems to have emerged again in the 18th century, especially after the waste of the wars of the 17th. In the enlightenment, warfare was almost seen as it is now in our time. That is, that it is possible to conduct warfare surgically, without devasting the countryside, and with distinctions between combattants and non-combattants. Also, just as in our time, in the 18th century, an army was an expensive weapons system, relatively speaking. Almost like our high-tech weapons systems, if the mere threat of applying them could achieve the result, so much the better for your state treasury.

Interesting topic, Reiter (that is to say, Trooper), prost!
Brad

 

[Cardigan600]

Yo Trooper just reminded me watching a Documentary one night about the Holy Crusade. Richard the Lion Heart was unseated from his horse in battle, seeing this Zaladin (is that right) sent some of his bodyguard down to King Richard with a new horse, so he could remount and carry on fighting them. But those days are long long gone and will never return, sad when you think about it.
Bernard.

 

[Tex]

On the same note, during the American Revolution, a British sharpshooter had a clear shot at General Washington, but did not fire because he thought it ungentlemanly.

 

[Dickbuttons]

If you remember the movie the Patriot with mel Gibson (I realize many knocked this movie in another thread), but the British were upset with the colonial militia, because the militia sharp-shooters were doing the ungentlemanly thing of "shooting the officers."

It's okay to shoot and kill the privates, but not the officers.

dick

 

[Spitfrnd]

Yo Trooper just reminded me watching a Documentary one night about the Holy Crusade. Richard the Lion Heart was unseated from his horse in battle, seeing this Zaladin (is that right) sent some of his bodyguard down to King Richard with a new horse, so he could remount and carry on fighting them. But those days are long long gone and will never return, sad when you think about it.
Bernard.

The way it is usually reported, Richard had been unhorsed and was fighting on foot with his men. Seeing that Saladin sent an aid with two horses to present Richard since Kings should not fight like commoners. Of course both these leaders had no difficulty ordering the slaughter of thousands of opposing prisoners. I think ruthlessness and expediency in battle is hardly a new concept nor is chivalry a dead one. They have been both been a fact of war since the ancients. In certain periods of time, it was more customary to accord safe conduct to the prisoners of the upper classes, especially royalty or the commanders of armies but even that varies by nation, culture and even unit (as well as their most recent experience preceding the event). I think the trend has clearly been toward less barbarism and the extension of decency in battle beyond the elite.