>"Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly."
What does /his/ think about this concept? How real do you think it was in the past times? Basically it comes down to "try not to be a cunt to those below you". It included various things from helping the poor, acting in a civilized manner whatever the cause and generally not abusing your power and wealth, and instead using them to improve the community you rule over.
Today people mostly view lord-peasant relations as outright abuse and mistreatment. I'm not denying such stuff happened but we also often neglect other possible sides of those relations.
Come on you fags this is interesting
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/12/whatever-happened-noblesse-oblige.html
interesting read, it shows from a surviving example how noblesse oblige would've actually worked
That's part of chivalry and courtesy. It's quite specifically a code of conduct that appeared in France in the Middle Ages, and was most prominent from the 12th to the 14th century.
It was very real as an ideal, and more real in practice than one might think.
part of the trouble is that for everyone noble or royal who did act with noblesse oblige, there were 5 more who did not
>>1181083
It was definitely a real thing.
The problem, in terms of studying this sort of thing in a historical context, is that good things are seldom reported. At any given point in history, nobody talks about all the hundreds of ordinary lords who were governing their subjects fairly and decently, but the couple who were utter dicks or incompetent moron are heavily reported on.
>>1183630
>The problem, in terms of studying this sort of thing in a historical context, is that good things are seldom reported.
Yes, that is true. History is the documentation of wars. Good times are never praised.
Here's a question for you, his - does Noblesse Oblige still apply today? Is Noblesse Oblige just feel-good charity?
Dumb question, bug does it compares somehow to what Confucius said or is it a totaly different idea ?
>>1181083
>How real do you think it was in the past times?
Fairly often I'd imagine.
>>1183836
I dont think it does, philantropy isn't being responsable of a population and a land, noblesse oblige would be an obligation to mentain what you inherited and keep it alive while philantropy is just you supporting poeples you are mos likely not related with and dont have any boundaries or abligation toward them.
>>1181083
It's a good concept, though not always practiced. Then again the problem that caused the French Revolution wasn't that every noble was an asshole, it was that nobles were outdated and unwilling to relinquish their now outdated privileges.
>>1181083
>How real do you think it was in the past times?
it wasn't
>>1181083
It makes nobility work very well.
It's obviously a truth of some sort.
