[Discuss] Re: Royal Status

[bpratt]

On 10/4/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One might argue that it is a point of nobility to compromise, to be able
> to
> > admit when one is wrong. I mean there's nothing in the Chivalric Code
> that
> > states, "And remember, you're always right about everything."
>
> Chivalry is knights, rather than noblemen. The two aren't mutually
> exclusive, but they aren't the same thing.



Knights are nobles - landowners, the ruling class, with the military power.
A knight who wasn't a noble was called a man-at-arms, or serjeant, or
something of that nature. And since knights really are the foundation of
medieval feudalism - again, military power is what created and enforced
"nobility" in the first place - its perfectly legitimate to use them to
extrapolate what kinds of things are "noble."

We're getting way off topic here though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20061004/1512c420/attachment.htm