Chivalry is an evocative word, conjuring up enchanting images of gentlemen in shining armor mounted on white horses fighting bravely to save damsels in distress, protectors of the poor and oppressed, servants of their virtuous kings and guardians of the Christian faith. But this is not an accurate view of medieval chivalry, rather it represents the romantic mythology of chivalry and what it aspired to be. Medieval knights and men-at-arms were first and foremost practitioners of violence, whose mentality and worldview were underpinned by chivalric ideals, particularly the primacy of honor and valor. Yet chivalry was also a complex ideology full of inherent tensions and contradictions, inherent in some of the ideals of chivalry themselves, not simply in the deplorable inability of fallible men to achieve them. Chivalric culture simultaneously celebrated and venerated qualities such as honor, valor, loyalty, courage, and mercy alongside more "civilizing" values ​​associated with court life. While most historians admit that there are difficulties in establishing a universal definition of chivalry, precisely because its exact influence on the practical conduct of business is notoriously difficult to assess, as it might mean different things to different individuals at different times, it is nevertheless clear that for For a long time aristocrats in Europe motivated ideals. As such, the study of noble conduct, as gleaned through the comparison of theoretical prescriptions with actual aristocratic practice, is still of central importance to medieval history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In his seminal 1984 study, Maurice Keen defined chivalry as an "ethos" that constituted the norms, values, practices, and rituals of medieval aristocratic society from the High Middle Ages onward. More recently, Richard Kaeuper has advanced a more circumscribed definition of chivalry, as the values, ethics, and ideals of knighthood, as practiced by the knights themselves or as described by writers of the time. Chivalry in this latter sense is often associated primarily with court romances, which offered a very heroic and idealized vision of chivalric values ​​and behavior. This gave rise to a final way in which the term "chivalry" is defined and used: as an eternal ideal of elegant, civilized masculinity, reflecting a modern, nostalgic fantasy of a world of medieval knights who treated war as a game noble. John Gillingham defined chivalry "as a code in which a key element was the attempt to limit the brutality of conflict by treating prisoners, at least when they were men of 'gentile' birth, relatively humanely". I suggest that compassionate treatment of defeated high-ranking enemies is a defining characteristic of chivalry.' Finally, Craig Taylor chose to use the term "chivalry" as a "proper noun, to refer to the people who formed the chivalric or aristocratic class, rather than to chivalric culture in its broadest sense or to the ideals, norms, or ethos of knighthood. There are, however, methodological and historiographical problems inherent in the discussion of chivalry. First, to evaluate the influence of chivalry, and more specifically of chivalric texts, on the public, it is necessary to measure the behavior of knights and men. of arms with respect to the theoretical prescriptions set out in Froissart's Chroniques Of course, it is practically impossible to state the motivations of an individual in a particular situation and thereforedemonstrate that an action is the direct result of the ideas and values ​​presented in specific texts. Indeed, Sidney Painter famously declared that he could find no time during the age of chivalry "when knights refrained from robbery and accidental murder, protected the church and its clergy, and respected the rights of defenseless noncombatants in war ".In reality, chivalric texts such as Froissart's Chroniques offered a subtle and complex discussion of chivalric values, while at the same time championing values ​​that were undoubtedly influential and popular among their audiences, such as honor, skill, loyalty and courage, but also asking important questions about the tensions inherent in knighthood and these ideas, encouraging moral debates about the differences between virtues and vices. Indeed, Froissart raised questions about chivalric violence, especially when it was directed against civilians, as in his accounts of the sieges of Calais (1347) and Limoges (1370). Indeed, in the last books of his Chroniques and in revisions of earlier materials, Froissart increasingly explored the distance between the high ideals of knighthood and the brutal realities of war and politics. Froissart was not content simply to describe the reality of chivalric behavior but, rather, sought to uphold a higher standard, articulated and justified through the idealistic and romantic models he was narrating. His Chroniques offered a complicated mix of celebration of valor, courage, and adventure, along with thought-provoking discussion of the consequences of violence and the victims of war. In this essay I will use the term "chivalry" according to Taylor's definition, that is, to refer to the people who formed the chivalric or aristocratic class because chivalry is inextricably linked to the martial world of the aristocratic knight on horseback. Therefore, the existence of chivalry was based on that of the knight: no knighthood, no chivalry. Furthermore, I resist the temptation to use the term “cavalry” as a theoretical term in the way some military historians have recently used it. As Kaeuper has persuasively argued, “to define chivalry in terms of the more romantic and civilized messages supposedly offered by chivalric literature would be to ignore the overwhelming presence of contradictory themes in exactly the same texts, particularly the powerful encouragement of violence and 'aggression". .' This essay will explore the fundamental pillars of key martial qualities that were celebrated within chivalric culture "honor, courage, skill, loyalty and mercy", particularly the dichotomy between chivalric theory and practice. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect knights and men-at-arms to live up to such quixotic standards. Yet valor and honor were so ingrained in chivalric culture through the constant celebration, glorification, valorization and encouragement to win honor through demonstrations of valor and courage, whether in tournaments, jousts, or on the battlefield and was therefore by its nature necessarily violent, that attempts to control such powerful impulses through prohibited moral and legal measures were inevitably compromised. Indeed, more moderate qualities such as mercy, magnanimity, and moderation were deformed by the brutal reality and demands of endemic warfare. The brightest stars in the constellation of chivalry were valor and honor. These two celestial bodies exerted an indelible influence on the mentality of the chivalric elite, who understood that the practice of valor produced not only material gain but also honor, fame and glory, which in turn served as "true.