🚀 go-pugleaf

Greetings from Arval!  Symon Frasier wrote:

> It is ironic, though, that the proliferation of "orders of chivalry" was
> contemporary with the decline and demise of the military and political
> institutions of "chivalry"...

Ironic in retrospect, yes; but not at all surprising.  The motivations for
the creation of formalized orders of chivalry were complex, but they
included several elements which were direct reactions to the decline of
those institutions.

The orders were, in part, an effort to revitalize chivalry by giving
knights a new ideal to which to aspire.  As military technology changed,
there was less need for the armored knight as a tool of state; but
something was needed to replace the social bonds which had accompanied the
military organization of old.  Knighthood was a traditional unifying
structure; monarchs made it more attractive by making it more prestigious
and bolstered their own power by focussing the new knighthood on themselves
as heads of orders.

Knighthood had also become an important tool of government finance.  A
large fraction of knights paid money fees in place of military service, a
practice which the crowns tended to encourage, since it enabled them to
maintain standing armies rather than having to rely on feudal levies.  But
in the 14th century, the proportion of eligible noblemen taking knighthood
had dropped alarmingly.  We have evidence of several efforts in several
kingdoms to impose knighthood on gentlemen of sufficient income.  The
orders had the secondary effect of increasing the overall glamor of
knighthood, thereby making it more attractive.  It was no accident that
Edward's Order of the Garter mixed the great lords of the land with lesser
nobles. 

The choice of the "order of chivalry" was also inspired.  It carried echos
of romance -- the first attempt to found an order in England was actually
called the "Order of the Round Table" -- and it harkened to the greatest
achievements of the Crusades by recalling the religious orders of chivalry.

Orders were powerful political tools as well: Kings and princes bound
themselves to their most influential vassals by oaths of mutual support
that went far beyond customary fealty.  The kings guaranteed the loyalty of
their companions, while the barons cemented relationships to the crown that
would advance their own interests in many ways.  The order formed an elite
combat unit in some cases, an inner circle of advisors in others. 

===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                         mittle@panix.com