Was Chivalry in Decline During the 14th and 15th Centuries

Far from disappearing, chivalry during the 14 and 15th centuries it was actually going through somewhat of a revival, some historians even go as far to say it was experiencing a â€Å"renascence† in the late middle ages albeit an imperfect one. Even though it appears in this period of medieval history that chivalry was becoming all the more popular, fashionable even, the meaning and spirit behind chivalry that were so important during the first crusades were dilapidated, therefore one can see why it can be viewed that chivalry was in decline in the 14th 15th century. This is especially apparent seeing as Chivalry became a tool to be wielded by those privileged enough to have the money and influence to use it. Furthermore despite the large amount of bravado surrounding chivalry in the later medieval period, this just underlines the fact that chivalry in the 14th and 15th centuries was a hollow shell of what it had been in the time of the crusades. Kilgour indentifies chivalry in the early medieval period as the â€Å"First heroic age† where a â€Å"fusion of military glory and religion† was achieved for the first time. In his description of the glory of chivalry in its early days Kilgour only stresses the devaluation of chivalry in its time of decline in the 14th and 15th century. The writings of J Huizinga in which he describes the return of chivalry as †a rather artificial revival of things long dead, a sort of deliberate and insincere renascence of ideas drained of any real value† offer a clear analysis of chivalry and its decline as an ideal with any real meaning during the 14th and 15th century. Even though to a large extent he is certainly right to view chivalry as a hollow shell of what it was, his statement is slightly implausible because by no means were there no chivalric deeds performed that would not have seemed out of place some 200 years earlier during the crusades, for example: â€Å"A knight of the nation of Hainault named Sir Loys de Robessart. One day it happened that his enemies found him in a village with few of his people with him. There they attacked him and staged a fine skirmish. And although his enemies where great in numbers and much stronger he drove them out of he village. Thereupon a great force of his enemies renewed the attack, and although he sighted them at a distance, all the same he disdained to flee or to show any signs of fear. But with very steady, noble and virtuous courage sallied forth and in order to uphold the honour of this order of chivalry and of himself he determined to hold his ground, and there he died gloriously, for before he di ed when he saw he could not hold he made his men withdraw to the castle, for which act he was greatly praised both by his enemies and his own men. † From this example it is apparent that there were cases in which chivalric actions were not completely selfless, suggesting to one that chivalry was not in decline. Never the less mindful of Maurice Keens remark that the value of chivalry signified by the heroic ideals of the earlier romances has been lost to sight in a quest for imitative decoration, it is thus easy to see that perhaps even the most selfless cases of chivalry recorded by historians like the tale of Roberssart just suit to underpin the inherent flaws in late medieval chivalry with their â€Å"quest for imitative decoration. There is however one issue in the early medieval period that is conceivably the defining factor in best determining if there was a decline in chivalry in the 14th and 15th century, one that is not explored by Huizinga or Kilgour. It is whether the state of chivalry in its â€Å"first heroic age† was any different in its ideals and value before it had collapsed into a â€Å"mad, exaggerated display. One aspect that might prove this conclusion to be correct is raised by Maurice Keen who observes that some of the evidence describing chivalry, although being less plentiful in the 12th century is remarkably similar to what is being said two or three hundred years later. This example is enough to convince one that there was little difference in the spirit of chivalry at its beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, suggesting that there was not a decline in chivalry due to it losing its meaning because that meaning was unchanged in some two hundred years. Despite her argument there is some evidence which disproves Maurice Keen’s notion of a chivalric spirit unchanged over two hundred years, which apart from being implausible, is proved to be inaccurate due to the evolution of chivalry as a tool to be used for selfish ends further undermining the ideals for which chivalry stands. The best illustration of chivalry being used as a tool is when it started to be harnessed for means of propaganda. This can be seen most prominently at the Vow of the Pheasant and the banquet held at Lille in 1445, in which the banquet was used to lavishly display a sense of chivalry with the intention of trying to gain the adequate support to initiate a crusade along the Mediterranean. However this was no excessive imitation of the past but was a calculated move by King Philip the Good, a move which perfectly illustrates the decline of chivalry in the late Middle Ages. What one also needs to understand is that this was not an isolated case. Chivalry was used as a tool in other ways as well. For example many Dukes’ Counts and court officials hoped that by exploiting the genuine respect for chivalrous values and conduct they could â€Å"solidify† respect for their rather â€Å"shaky† ducal authority. This point is interestingly supported by Maurice Keen who despite her previous argument explains that â€Å"chivalry was something secular princes could exploit† mainly because it was taken so seriously by â€Å"a very important sector of people. What makes her statement even more plausible is that it is reinforced by Raymond Kilgour, whose view is that an event such as these pageants evolved without a â€Å"deeper value to society† such was the extent to the dilapidation of chivalry, and its decline in the 14th and 15th centuries Despite much evidence to prove that chivalry was in decline in the late medieval period of the 14th and 15th centuries, some events just do not lend themselves to be interpreted it in this way. Especially when taken into account that a definition of the word decline is â€Å"the period when something reaches its end† this is particularly interesting as there are some documents which raise the question whether chivalry actually ever reached a period of definite decline at all in the 15th and 14th centuries, despite its withering spirit. One such piece of evidence that supports this view is a table listing all books printed in Venice in reference to military affairs. This specific document is useful because of all the works devoted to military affairs or dealing with them, the most prevalent category of book published was that of the laws of war and chivalry. The fact that this table lists books on chivalric warfare as being so popular this late on in the 1400’s must denote that chivalry was not in decline, for if it was going through a tangible Decline it would surely not have been such a popular subject for publishing. However if we are to take Huizinga’s view that chivalry was nothing more than â€Å"a rather artificial revival of things long dead† this would explain why even though chivalry exercised a â€Å"disastrous† affect on wars in this period of late medieval period it was still so wrote about. Another interpretation which supports Huizinga’s view is that litterateurs of the time where probably trying to capitalize on chivalry as a popular subject, similar to the way that secular princes used chivalry as a tool as Maurice Keen pointed out. Chivalry in practise was obviously not in decline in the late medieval period however in spirit it was, a perfect exhibition of this is shown through the disastrous effect chivalry had on the outcome of wars and on France itself. This was mainly the doing of King John the Good whose reign was â€Å"disastrous† to France because of his â€Å"chivalric prejudice†, as is pointed out by J Huizinga who rightly claims that it was King Johns â€Å"chivalric stubbornness† and carelessness which cost him the battle of Poitiers in 1356, as well as one of his most celebrated chivalric knights Geroffroi De Charny. This use of chivalry almost seems as though it’s being used to keep up appearances with what was fashionable at the time no matter the cost, and as a result underlines the decline in the spirit of chivalry and therefore the decline of chivalry itself. In conclusion the â€Å"cult† of chivalry as it is sometimes called in the later middle ages is generally considered by the majority of historians who deal with it indirectly or directly as meaningless, and therefore it has to be perceived as being in decline. Karl Brandi labelled the elaborate protocol at play in chivalric court as an â€Å"impressive, sumptuous yet wholly meaningless shell. † Similarly J Huizinga described chivalry as â€Å"naive† and â€Å"imperfect. † Raymond Kilgour on the other hand stated that chivalry was an â€Å"extravagant† illusion to try and maintain a feeling of â€Å"significance. † All these statements overwhelmingly point at a chivalry in a dire state of decline in the late medieval period, however in reality it was going through a revival. Despite this revival, chivalry was weak in spirit and had disastrous effects on society, the outcomes of war and on France itself. From this assumption it’s hard not to see that although chivalry in practise was not in decline in practise its meanings and ideals were, hence why one can see that chivalry was in decline in the 14 and 15th century.