Similarities Between Saul's 'For Honour And Chivalry'

Saul's 'For honour and chivalry' is a realistic and synoptic portrayal of Medieval chivalric culture - extending from 1066, when the Normans first introduced chivalry to England, up to the commencement of the Tudor dynasty in the 15th Century. He explores a plethora of pertinent topics, including: the use and impact of the cult of Arthurianism on politics and warfare, the treatment of women and the military customs abided by soldiers for personal glory and honour. The structure of the book us unique. It does not document events chronologically but thematically. Saul traces the metamorphosis of chivalric culture throughout the ages and the evolving prestige associated with 'knighthood' in elite echelons of society. This amalgam of topics is

cleverly combined and consequently the book itself is a multi-faceted and extremely original read.

Throughout 'For honour and chivalry' Saul assesses and discusses the effect of chivalry on warfare, Christian ideology and the mantle of Arthurian Romanticism.

The chivalry-kingship relationship is illustrated throughout. Saul shows how monarchs such as Henry V, Edward I, II and IV employed the chivalric movement for political and military objectives, allowing the the tradition to be revitalised and transformed; moreover, how kingship itself evolved into what he suitably named 'chivalric monarchy'. As such, knights were integral to parliamentary debates, on the bate field, necessary to maintain order in the shires and as the embodiment of the chivalric doctrine. For example, in 1346 Edward III's troops were victorious not only due to good tactics but also the chivalric code. Edward III also created the Order of the Garter, nationalising chivalry and instilling a sense of Arthurian romance into warfare with France. By virtue of the consecutive English victories between 1337 and 1360 a 'new paradigm of militant chivalric rule' was inaugurated, whereby antagonistic military operations overseas had become the criterion of valued kingship and sine qua for a prosperous kingdom. Richard I was another monarch who used chivalry to his advantage: as an excuse to attack the infidel in defence of Christendom. However, for kings like Richard II, this was a hazardous legacy because he did not satisfy peoples'

expectations.

In addition, Saul is realistic in his portrayal of Medoieval England, not influenced too much by Arthurian tales of romance, avoiding preconception and remaining logical in his examination of social mores.

He comments 'to write about chivalry in medical England is to embark on a voyage through a world at once glamorous and violent, alluring yet elusive'. The romantic notion of chivalry seems to have been nurtured due to the demoralisation that urbanisation and industrialisation caused. Saul exposes the more realistic code of chivalry that was followed by the aristocratic, stating that 'studying it focuses our attention on the social group which made the biggest and most forceful impact on the contemporary world'. Also, Saul utilises a substantial quantity of statistical data to prove all his points and looks at the architecture of the people as an externalisation of their military principles. Saul demonstrates that chivalry did intact lessen when less compassionate kings were rulers, such as Henry III and Sir John Clanvowe even wrote about the knights' profligacy: 'For the world holds them worshipful those who are great warriors and fighters, and who destroy…many lands and waste much good food to those who have enough and spend outrageously on food, drink, loathing and building, and in living in ease, sloth and many other sins'. In Henry VIPart I Shakespeare dramatises the dysfunctional nature of the dynastic-chivalric relationship and like Malory, Saul emphasises that

chivalry is not actually the epitome of courtly love and ritualised ethos: the man who surcces is not romantic Arthur, but the pragmatic and reasonable Lancelot.The War of the Roses led to the centralisation of monarchial power, thus undermining 'the self-authenticating honour-based society of the Middle Ages'. Saul insightfully concludes that 'what is remarkable, however, is not so much that chivalry died but how long it took to die'. Nevertheless, Saul's argument is not always corroborated by other historians. For example, Harvey-Wood cites evidence that William's army killed 100,000 innocents but Saul uses an instance of WIlliam sparing Exeter, even though having blinded a hostage to assert his authority. Here, Saul could perhaps not been completely objective or comprehensive about WIlliam's behaviour, but on the whole, he is generally realistic in his depiction of Medieval culture.

Saul investigates the evolving roles of knights and gentry in society, looking in particular at social dynamic and the hierarchy inherent in military tradition of the time. Before the chivalric period, the claim that nothing equalled 'the quest for fame and pride in the achievements of fame' was debatable. Post-1066, however, the influence of Anglo-Norman aristocrats 'softened and civilised the conduct of war', leading to the introduction of chivalry. As time went on, new classes evolved, such as the gentry and urban professionals. This meant that morality and peaceful activity replaced ancestry and military skill as determiners of nobility. Plunder and lucrative ransoms were inducement enough to go to war - a point which Saul demonstrates by accentuating the correlation between honour and profit for coeval men. In anything, opulence acquired in war was proof of military prowess. However, Saul perceptively argues that the majority of Edward II and Henry V acolytes did not gain or lose monetarily, but rather fought for glory and distinction. Traces of culture extracted from Old English literature like Beowulf and the Battle of Maldon illustrate the desire for glory and military triumph was commonplace. Saul documents the tradition of high-ranking men obligated to fight during the 1370s and 80s to the array of men who fought for status after 1389. Concerning this issue, Saul comes to the convincing conclusion that the ritualisation of war caused a 'repertory of symbols, actions and devices which could simultaneously glamorise war, mitigate the worst of its horrors and embolden those who took part in it'.