Backlog: A Modern Knighthood

I am going to clear out some of my earlier writings and post them occasionally in order to both have them on record and for your, dear non-existent reader, reading pleasure.

The Modern Knighthood: An Exhortation


"In the beginning… no man was higher then any other, for all men were descended from a single father and mother. But when envy and covetousness came into the world, and might triumphed over right…certain men were appointed as guarantors and defenders of the weak and the humble" - The Book of Lancelot of the Lake

What is a knight? Many people think of him as a mindless brute, a sort of blunt instrument used for oppressing the proletariat. Others romanticize him as a totally selfless warrior, a perfect man. Obviously, neither of these views is correct, for mainly, the knight was an integral part of the workings of an extremely complicated, yet useful, form of government called feudalism. The part he plays within this system is more important than any other aspect of his life, and it has left us with a compelling, and potentially useful, example to follow.

In order to understand the usefulness of the knighthood in the modern context, we must first examine it in its original medieval context. The knighthood began during the Carolingian era in France, or, as it is sometimes called, the "Dark Ages" (tenth century A.D.). It evolved with the rise of feudalism of which it is an integral part. The kings of this era were almost powerless to exert power anywhere except the places they directly controlled. Because of the breakdown of the social order, the local magnates became more powerful. "The kings, therefore, appointed the magnates to be… counts, charging them with the defense, administration, and the judgment of disputes according to local customs." These counts were the backbone of the feudal system, not only because they ruled for the king, but also because they were responsible for maintaining a small army for defense of their county, which could in times of need be called upon for service in the king's army.

The knight was originally a wealthy peasant who owned enough land to buy his equipment and horse. This land was a grant from the king or local lord, and it bound the knight to fight for them in their army. At this point there was no concept of chivalry or defense of the weak. Instead they were just well armed and slightly wealthy brutes. "In his person, the real-life knight of the tenth century had little in common with the courtly heroes of the Round Table. Ignorant and unlettered, rough in speech and manners, he earned his living largely by violence, uncontrolled by public justice… The unarmed segment of the population, the Church and the peasants, were the victims or the bystanders."

However, time and the church forged the disparate and individualistic knights into a distinct class of society. The church's ministers, as I said, were often the victims of the erstwhile knight. They sought to change the role of knights from bullies to guardians, and harness its power to maintain order and stability and ennoble society. They did this through the movement known as the 'Peace of God'- "[In] the 'Peace of God'…spiritual sanctions were threatened against anyone who plundered or violated a church, struck an unarmed member of the clergy, or robbed a "peasant or other poor man". The prohibition was later extended to attacking other unarmed laymen- specifically merchants- and to destroying mills or vineyards and attacking a man on his way to or from church."

In addition to the civilizing influence of the Church, the knighthood went through one last defining reform, that is, the institution of the code of chivalry. All knights pledged to be faithful to the code of chivalry during their knighting ceremony. The code demanded that the knight "protect the poor people from the rich", "maintain and defend the holy Catholic church, … [and] uphold and defend his worldly or earthly lord." The last part of chivalry has to do with women and holiness: "You will soon be a knight… If you encounter, near or far, a lady in need of help, or any damsel in distress, be ready to aid her if she asks you to, for all honor lies in such deeds. When a man fails to honor ladies, his own honor must be dead. Above all, I beg you to go to church, to pray to Our Lord to give you honor in this world and grant that you lead your life that you may come to a good end." Part of the code was also the need for honor and valor. A knight must value his honor more than his life, and should rather die than allow himself, or anyone else, to impinge it, he must "…prefer death to dishonor…".

Thus the knight was no longer a man who fought exclusively for a lord or for private gain, instead, he was transformed into a holy warrior, beholden to his lord, his church and his high ideals. As the knighthood was formed mainly by the church, it became in many ways, the church's private cache of warriors. This influence on the knighthood is what made it such fertile ground for the crusades and for the establishment of what many argue is the pinnacle of the knighthood - the Knights of the Temple and the Knights of St. John, (or, as they are commonly known, the knights Templars and the Hospitalers.)

These knights were also monks, which meant they were completely under the auspices of the Catholic Church. They protected the pilgrim roads in the short-lived Kingdom of Jerusalem, and, after its fall, they defended Christendom from the Muslims. However, because they were under the Church and not the local rulers, they were able to act independently. Their code of conduct was much harsher than the normal knight's, because it was both religious and secular order.

The knights of this period who weren't Templars or Hospitalers were used for the defense of the country they were living in, and, more importantly, for the mediating of disputes. One of the knight's most prized possessions was his honor, in fact he must "…prefer death to dishonor…" and as such, he would be an impartial judge. Any problems, ranging from land disputes to Barbarian raids, the subjects brought to a knight to remedy.

The knighthood makes sense in the chaotic world of the middle ages. However, what possible good could it do in the modern world? Nowadays, at least in most Western countries, there isn't a need for roaming judges, castles, or a warrior class. However, that isn't what a knight is, it is just the form he took in the past. A knight is a man who dedicates himself to an ideal and lives and dies by it. Seen from that angle, a modern knight is possible. He wouldn't have to be a rich and powerful high-born man, just someone who was willing to dedicate his life to the principles of chivalry.

At first glance, it is understandable how one could mistake this idea as simply a fit of nostalgia. However, assuming the logistics, it would be easy to bring back the knighthood as a significant aspect of society. All the things we need are there for the taking, the ideals, the code, and the natural desire of good men to be great and honorable. We also have the history of the knighthood as it existed before to learn from. With a few changes to adapt the code to the modern world (obviously knights wouldn't need horses or swords) it could fit in quite nicely.
Before any construction of a new knighthood can begin, its foundations must first be laid. A reformed code of chivalry will be the basis of the new knighthood. Without chivalry the knighthood could not exist, it is essential for it to perform its duties. As the knighthood will need to be a completely independent entity, it will not ally itself with any church or faction. Partisanship will only get in the way of the knighthood's other goals. The part in the chivalric code that deals with the "[maintenance] and [defense of] the holy Catholic church" will have to be left out, not only so the knighthood is autonomous, but also so that people of all faiths can participate.

Spirituality will have a large influence on the knighthood, because the dedication to a belief in uniform truth is usually found in men of faith. Those men who don't have the concept of a god will fill that need with the chivalric code of the knights, the knighthood will become their higher power. It is absolutely necessary that the knight have the idea that he will have to answer for his actions, so he does not abuse the power entrusted him. That being said, religious belief will not be forced upon him, as long as he wholly dedicated to his code as a knight. Therefore, belief will be incidental and traditional in the knighthood, instead of institutional.

Implicit within the knights code is the defense of the weak against the oppressors. In the medieval code it was stated thusly, "protect the poor people from the rich", however this was just the way the need for protection most often revealed itself. In the new code of chivalry it would be revised to be clearer yet more transcendent. Namely, to protect the helpless against those who would take advantage of them. This revision would require a knight to save anyone in trouble, not just a poor man. It would make the knighthood a protection everyone could enjoy, not just those specifically named in the code.

In our "liberated" times, the part of the chivalric code concerning women would be considered outmoded and sexist. There would be a lot of objection if it were allowed to remain in the code the knights operate on. However, there is more of a need for this aspect of the code than ever before. Men have become, in a large part because of feminist groups, either weaklings or brutes. They have been taught to believe that women do not deserve any special consideration, so they are disrespectful and immature. Women have felt the loss of chivalry, and are becoming more and more dissatisfied with men. "I have deliberately tried to figure out the nations through its most important institutions of moral instruction-its families and schools-is turning boys into responsible young men. Young women, always the natural judges of the male character, say emphatically "No". In my experience many young women are upset… [about] how they are being treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them." In short, the average women is now feeling the loss of chivalry. She is unable to find a man who treats her like she knows she deserves, in other words, she cannot find a knight.
The disgust that women feel for men is a growing problem, and could account for the out-of-control divorce and single mother rates. Women, on the most part, try to civilize their men, but when the man has no real idea of how to behave properly to women, often these attempts fall on deaf or hostile ears. "When [boys are] asked this simple question, 'When have you ever been taught to what it means to be a man?' they are typically speechless and ashamed." As a result, women can't stay with boys who are abusive to them, and boys are more likely to leave their disillusioned and dissatisfied mates. The new code of chivalry (to be instituted by the knighthood) could go a long way in fixing this problem.

An extremely important aspect of the code of chivalry is the code of conduct concerning women. "When a man fails to honor ladies, his own honor must be dead." They must always respect, and be willing to prove that respect, to women. In this way the knight will shame the other men into behaving in a more chivalrous manner. Women will also grow accustomed to being treated well, and will eventually demand it from all men. Eventually the men won't need to be shamed into behaving correctly, they will act that way naturally because they will have been taught and influenced by the knights.

The part of the code of chivalry that will be the most emphasized, however, is honor and valor. Upon these values all other beliefs and aspects of the knighthood lie. An unflinching dedication to honor would ensure that knights behave properly, because they rightly recognize that whatever they do will reflect upon them and the knighthood. He must subjugate all his other desires and ideas to his honor, so that what he does will always be the right thing. An emphasis on valor, a large part of which is courage and fortitude, will ensure that a knight will have the bravery to do the right and honorable thing once he has recognized it. The most important purpose the new knight will serve is setting a good example through their actions.
The knighthood will be much more open to everyday interactions with those they protect than the medieval knights were, in fact, it will absolutely necessary that they are. Not only are they going to be need to be protectors, they will also need to be teachers. There method won't be in a classroom, instead the examples the knights set will be their lessons, and, when young men is ready he may join the knight in his patrols, to learn more what it is to be a knight, and perhaps join them.

In the book The Knight in History, Frances Gies says that the concept of chivalry and knightliness had so permeated society that even brigands would only assault knights one at a time. They did this because of the example the knight set. Often we hear the bemoaning of society that there are no role-models, that the rappers, sports stars, and politicians that people look up to are all morally bankrupt. On the whole, they are right. If we re-instituted the knighthood, however, there would be plenty of good role-models.

This function as a role-model emphasizes the need for honor. It is what separates the knights from these other morally bankrupt and weak characters. Only with by holding onto his honor can a knight hope to ennoble those around him, otherwise he will just be called a hypocrite. In particular, if he is to be an example for the lost men in the modern world, the "wimps and barbarians", he must always put forth an unflinching and unashamed strong masculine ideal by following the code of chivalry.

In order to be effective, the knighthood would need to be ever-present. The necessity of this will be addressed later in the essay. For the sake of argument, let us assume that it would always be present. Knights would be assigned to a particular area and, unless of some emergency, would stay in that area indefinitely. This would allow them to get to know the area well, but it would also have the advantage of letting the area get to know them well. As the knights have dedicated their lives to the chivalric code of their own volition, the people would get to see their upright nature, but also know and trust them as people. This would make the knights well suited as role models, because they would be righteous yet accessible.
Their function as role-models would also be the knighthood's best recruiting technique. Young men yearning for a purpose or belief could attach themselves to the knights instead of to a gang or some other deviant subculture. As they got old enough, these young men could follow the knights as they went about their patrols, and begin training for the knighthood, becoming squires. Even if they decided against becoming a knight, they would still have the positive and ennobling experience of helping to make their neighborhood become a better place.
Medieval Knights started their military training when they were seven years old, and, as a result, they were formidable warriors by the time they were knighted. Obviously, I am not suggesting that we start sending children to train for war. However, military training for knights is a necessity. Without it the new knight would be a paper tiger.

This military training would have two advantages. The first is that the new knight could patrol the streets with confidence in his ability to defend himself and bring relief to an ailing police system. The second is that the knighthood would be unified group of militarily trained and disciplined men not under the control of the government.
The modern police force is rife with corruption, under-funding and lack of man power. In many places, the police are scorned and hated, and their ability to do their duties is diminished because of it, as is evident from the lyrics of any rap song. As the police, especially in high crime areas, are understaffed, the knighthood could take up the slack. Not as law enforcement, but as a moderating influence. They could patrol the streets, and perhaps intervene in local disputes. The advantages of having good men who are willing and able to do the right thing always present is obvious.

These men would not be above the law, nor would they be an extension of it. That requires that you work for the government, and they wouldn't be. These knights are not to be another part of the executive branch, but civilians who have an upright moral code and the will and strength to carry it out. The knights, because of their training, beliefs, and the voluntary nature of the knighthood, would not be likely to go on crime sprees. On the impossible chance that they would, they will be treated like any other criminal and therefore easily contained by local, state, and federal police agencies.

The knights would be unsanctioned by the government, however, they would be able to act as independently as citizens. The constitution guarantees its citizens the right to move about as they choose and defend themselves. Whether they move as individuals or as a coordinated as part of a group is unimportant. After all, demonstrations are a huge amount of people gathering together for some goal unrestrained by government. The knights are people who would be walking around, setting a good example, helping people and, if necessary, interrupting crime. The knighthood is to be a civilian group neither for or against the government.

That being the case, what is the difference between a knight and a normal citizen? In short, the answer is that a normal citizen runs away from danger or catastrophe, while the knight runs toward it.

In the instance of crime, especially violent crime, the knight could put himself in a position where he could legally use force. For instance consider the situation of a mugging. The knight sees the crime in progress and proceeds to interrupt it as he is honor bound to do. He demands that the mugger stop and places him under citizens arrest. If the mugger complies, then the knight has successfully stopped a crime that could have become violent at worst and just illegal at best. If instead the mugger turns his weapon on the knight, the knight would have legal justification for using deadly force on the man threatening him. With the extensive training the knight would be able to deal with his assailant and either disarm of kill him. Thus, without breaking the law, a knight has protected an innocent person and brought justice to a criminal.
At first there will be many criminals who will resist the knights, and certainly, there will be knights who fail to defend themselves. (As a matter of practicality, the knights would probably patrol in groups of two or three in order to back each other up. This would also lower the casualty and raise the success rate among knights) Those knights will be small in proportion to the criminals who are brought to justice because the knights are better trained and because they are fighting for a cause. Once enough criminals have been captured or killed, and they see the knighthoods determination and vigilance in standing against them, there should be a dramatic drop in the crime rate. People commit crime cause they think they can get away with it. Once they don't think they can anymore, then they will stop attempting it.

If this protection was spotty or sporadic it would be pointless. It would be an added deterrent to crime, but criminals are used to overcoming obstacles. The knighthood, then, must be ever-present. Only by maintaining a constant presence, day and night, in an area could they hope to truly stifle crime. In the case of inconsistent protection, the criminals would not be assured of the inevitability of their capture. They would be much more willing to take the risks. By flooding the streets with knights, however, the criminal could be certain that any illegal act would be observed and dealt with.

Just fifty years ago, to be a part of a neighborhood was to be a part something bigger than yourself and your family. You were part of a community. Neighbors would talk to each other, and know each others' problems, and if things got tough, the neighbors would bind together. However, nowadays, there is no feeling of belonging to a community. With the upsurge and prevalence of crime people are afraid to leave their apartments, and technological advances, especially television, make it very comfortable inside their self-made prison.
The new knighthood could bring back, through their constant vigilance, a close neighborhood. People could feel safe about leaving their doors unlocked at night, and letting their children play in the park without worrying about someone trying to kidnap them. Along with this feeling of security, the desire for socializing with neighbors could be acted upon free of fear. Thusly the neighborhood would become as close-knit as before, like its own little world.

The youth watch T.V. to be entertained and are saturated by it. If you asked the average teenage boy about the American founding they would be befuddled, but if you asked them about what so-so did on the Real World, they could tell you in intimate detail. Part of the reason for this fixation on television is that the world does not challenge them. Allowing young men to join the knighthood as squires (and eventually knights) would solve this problem. How much more exciting would helping a modern knight fight crime be compared to some contrived sitcom or sappy drama?

Having young men participate in the knighthood would have another benefit. It would make for a better generation of young men. The squires would help the knights, and, in return, the knights would teach the youngsters about chivalry. The seeds of morality planted within the young men would germinate as they got older, and they would use them, thereby enhancing their own, and everyone around them, quality of life.

This is the more abstract and universal benefit of having an active modern knighthood. It would make good men. Society is cooperation between people. Its value is decreased by people who don't work to maintain and improve it. In the contemporary western world, apathy and disinterest are prolific. Not enough people care about the direction society is taking. As evidence for this I offer the terrible voter turnouts of thirty to forty percent in the last fifty years of elections. Voting is a civic duty and it is necessary to maintain a republic and not enough people are doing it. A knight's life is his duty, and a modern knighthood would produce men who would feel honor bound to fulfill it. These knights would raise the worth of society.

The knighthood, then, could be expected to revitalize politics without really participating in the political process, except through education. Most people would either have been exposed or participated with the knights. By observing the seriousness with which the knights take their duties, the citizens who did not actually train with them would still be inspired to take their own civic duties more seriously.

Similarly, the quality of politicians would improve because the people actually running for office would have been influenced by the knights, and would therefore try to be chivalric and upright. The next generation of leaders will be those trained and influenced by the knighthood. They would take their duties as public servants seriously and with a view to the public good, and not re-election. They would have as their example knights who gave their lives to protect the people. Compared to this, how inconsequential it will seem to lose a re-election? If the politicians are interested in serving the common good even at the expense of their own political career, then the caliber of politicians and politics will be greatly increased.

The people would also demand more from their politicians. After observing the self-sacrificing knights, day after day, month after month, year after year, giving up their lives to keep them safe, the people will begin to expect more from their public figures. They would not tolerate the flaky and fickle demagoguery that has become statue quo among modern politicians, because it would contrast sharply with the prime example the knights set every day.

Locke speaks about a people's right to revolution. In his time, it was possible for civilians to band together and oppose a tyrannical government, because the gap of quality between government and civilian soldiers was not that large. Nowadays, the government has soldiers with advanced training and equipped with technology that has capabilities far beyond anything a civilian could copy. As a result, an extremely important check on government is gone- fear of the people. With this fear gone, and with all its the military and technological advances, the government has nothing to keep it honest. A knighthood, separated from the government and trained up to the standards of military, but whose goal is the protection of the people, would be a significant check against a potential tyranny.

It is important to understand that the knighthood would not be an active check against government like a watchdog organization. They would not hold rallies or protests, endorse political candidates or investigate government abuses. The knights existence as a coherent group of trained and potent individuals will, instead, be a passive check against potential tyranny. The mere knowledge that there exists a group with the means and the will to resist any move on the part of the government toward despotism should be a sufficient safeguard.
These are only the most significant of the potential benefits that the reinstitution of the knighthood would bring. Our society, it is often lamented, is falling apart, but it does not have to be that way. We need men who are willing to stand and fight against corruption and moral bankruptcy, to return the nobility that is so lacking in our society. The knights that existed in the past have left us with a great legacy. Instead of leaving it in the realm of stories and reminiscence, let us make use of it and save our own society. Let us have a knighthood again.