A Comparative Study: How useful are the lives of William Marshal (c.1147-1217) and Richard Beauchamp (1382-1439) in explaining the nature and evolution of chivalry from the late Twelfth Century to the early Fifteenth Century? (original) (raw)
By comparing two knights of two different eras, can we record the evolution of chivalry? William Marshal (c.1147-1217) lived during the age in which chivalry was mid-way through it evolution. He lived the life of a knight who had to fight for his living and propelled himself through the ranks of the aristocracy due to his achievements on both the battlefield and the tournament. When he was knighted before the battle of Drincourt (1167) he held no land. However, upon his death he held the prestigious earldom of Pembrokeshire, lands in Ireland as well as being the Marshal of England during Henry III's infancy. Richard Beauchamp on the other hand was born into a noble family. His father was part of the Lord's Appellant which rebelled against Richard II (1387) and from this the Beauchamp family lost all of their land. However, upon Henry Bolingbroke (future Henry IV) usurping the crown from Richard in 1399, Thomas Beauchamp found himself in royal favour. Like Marshal, Richard proved himself on the battlefield. He was present at the battle of Shrewsbury (1403) and ventured on a pilgrimage (similar to Marshal). Upon his return he loyally served Henry V in France and became the lieutenant of Calais. Both of these knights lived in two different eras. Richard was more educated and learned of the ways of the chivalric culture than Marshal due to it's evolution. However, both were great warriors and leaders of men who extended their wealth. This dissertation discusses both of the lives of these great knights while comparing the differences of the late Twelfth and early Fifteenth Centuries.
Sign up to get access to over 50M papers
Related papers
thirteenth century was an era of growing population, extensive land clearance, expanding towns and rapid social mobility. Governments grew more powerful and legal systems more complex. Distinctions of legal and social rank also became more elaborate. All these developments affected the aristocracy of thirteenth-century Europe, but none will serve to define the aristocracy itself as a group within society. Rather, the aristocracy of thirteenth-century Europe defined itself by its self-conscious adherence to a European-wide set of common cultural values and assumptions embodied in the cult of chivalric knighthood. Before we discuss how the aristocracy changed, we must first know who they were. It is with chivalry, therefore, that we must begin.
IV The Central Middle Ages (900–1200)
Annual bulletin of historical literature, 1983
trends and the formation of courtly ideals 939-1210 (Pennsylvania U.P., $25) is an ambitious attempt to trace links between chivalric culture and revived classical learning, specially through the imperial court patronage of Germany. 'Medieval chivalry as a neo-classical institution' takes a bit of swallowing, but the discussion of texts and examples in the manner of Duby contains much of value to stimulate. J. Flori continues to add to the body of work which has made him a leading authority on medieval knights: 'Du nouveau sur I'adoubement des chevaliers' (Moyen Age, xci); 'A propos de I'adoubement des chevaliers au XIe siecle: le prktendu pontifical de Reims et I'ordo ad armandum de Cambrai' (Friihrnittelalt.
2020
MA Dissertation (2020) Chivalry in the Middle Ages has often been defined as ‘the religious and moral system of behavior that the perfect knight was expected to follow’.1 However, singular definitions of chivalry should be disregarded because displays of medieval masculinity and chivalry were a complicated mixture of social conditions, institutional influence, and individual motivation. Using fictional and 'factual' literature, the dissertation attempts to understand the multiplicity of masculinity and individual knightly motivations caused by competing factual and fictional depictions of chivalry. Overall, histories of chivalry and masculinity between c.1350-c.1410 in France have been treated singularly for one core reason: the ideal qualities of chivalry have been treated as the reality for all-knights, when in fact chivalric ideologies were unique to individuals and overlapped in both factual and fictional literature of the period.
'Richard II and Henry IV: Courts of Chivalry in Late Medieval England?'
This dissertation seeks to compare the courts of Richard II and Henry IV in terms of chivalry with reference to the great chivalric court of Edward III. It will be divided into three chapters; the first chapter will be a literature review assessing studies on the period up until this point outlining Edward III’s court of chivalry to form the point of reference for the rest of the study. The second chapter will focus on Richard II and will argue that his court of chivalry was more about peace than war and built on pageantry but also loyalty to the king. The third chapter will cover Henry IV’s court, arguing that he presided over a court which for all its promise at the beginning of his reign became militarily introverted; however it retained many of the same qualities of Edward III’s court. The overarching argument and therefore conclusion of this study is that in their own way, Richard II and Henry IV held courts of chivalry on terms with that of the court of Edward III, that great chivalric monarch whose legacy began with his coronation.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.