Is chivalry dead?
>>76187558
There is no "lady's " Anyomore
So neither gentlemen
Is kinda a tragic.
>>76187558
Did it ever exist? Weren't knights mostly just mercenaries that acted out of self interest, with some regard for their feudal master?
>>76187558
No, people deserving of Chivalry are dead
Not while i'm alive.
i think they have moved on to making Mirage: Arcane Warfare, never bought the deadliest warrior stuff, but Chivalry is not dead, yet.
>>76187558
Yes next thread please
>>76187558
jesus christ that shitty mail
look at the size of those rings baka senpai
>>76187902
They were in the beginning (around thr 9th or 10th centuries), but the chivalric code ,which began development in 1170 AD, forced knights to live and act in specific ways.
>>76187558
>being so socially crippled, you believe chivalry to be dead
when was the last time you made any new friends?
>>76187558
Chivalry is sexism incarnate and has no place in the year of our lady 2016
maybe for me.
a car full of women broke down in the middle of a street.
they all struggled to push their heavy SUV to the side.
i didn't help.
>>76187558
yes that game was fucking awful
wrong board though fuck off back to
>>>/v/
>>76187558
Unfortunately no, some retards still try and treat women like special Princesses without realising the damage it does.
See: White Knights
>>76187558
I still find people playing it occasionally
I think people still play it but its NOWHERE near as good as mountain blade
>>76187558
chivalry was created for women's rights, it must be abolished.
Chivalry = beTa
>>76187558
chivalry is how you impressed your princess' parents into giving her to you. it had nothing to do with how you treated her
>>76187558
It still exists, I hear kids these days call it "sexism" or something like that.
>>76187558
Chivalry is not what you think it is
Its a book/law of conduct in battle such as dismounting from your horse to attack the combatant on foot if he loses his horse.
Theres only like 1 or 2 lines in there about women
>>76187558
Yes. Chivalry governed combat among knights. Seeing as we don't have duels anymore or the institution of knighthood as a relevant combat related position there is no reason for the chivalric code. Very little of it actually had to do with women
>>76187558
It died at Verdun, and no not in 2016 but about a century earlier.
>>76187558
it is now.
>>76189143
This. The overwhelming amount of "rules of chivalary" were centered around expectations of an honorable knight in warfare, or dealing with his lord-liege, or fellow knights etc. Not much about treating ladies right.
>>76188991
i dont see how Swordfighting and not using a crossbow in combat against fellow knights has to do with sexism but i hear this too all the time
>>76187558
It died 25 October 1415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
Noble knights got BTFO by commoners with long sticks with strings attached.
No it's just that reddit is alive and all you nu-males want everything handed to you while indulging in escapist fantasies of grandeur
Yes.
Fortunately niggery isn't dead so women can still get dickings and be abandoned in single motherhood.
>>76187558
Chivalry never lived. The concept first emerged in the 13th century, and the stories about chivalry glorified the 10th and 11th centuries, it's just a concept with no real basis in reality
Yes, and Western women killed it.
>>76189407
that was dumb
>mlord France! theres MASS mud on the field, such that all our men would sink into it and the enemy would then pelt us with arrows. We must fight them elsewhere
>France: nah its good, just send them into the slaughterhouse; im sure everything will work out
France was known as the laughingstock of the world for centuries for a reason
>>76187558
Chivalry is reserved for ladies, so yeah, it's pretty much dead.
>>76189603
>France was known as the laughingstock of the world for centuries for a reason
Except they weren't, you fucking leaf. France was the greatest military power for centuries, and even after disastrous defeats like Agincourt they still managed to come back from the brink of destruction. The "cowardly French" meme is just because of WWII, where they were, in fact, cowards
>>76189603
b-b-b-but its just dirty commoners armed with puny bows! Surely it is nothing against our noble ironclad knights!
They literally thought like that.
>The French force was not only larger than that of the English, their noble men-at-arms would have considered themselves superior to the large number of archers in the English army, whom the French (based on their experience in recent memory of using and facing archers) considered relatively insignificant.[24] For example, the chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were "ten French nobles against one English", ignoring the archers completely.
>the chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were "ten French nobles against one English", ignoring the archers completely.
>>76189955
>Except they weren't, you fucking leaf. France was the greatest military power for centuries,
spotted the Quebecer
hows it feel to know France doesnt even want you back?
>>76187558
Chivalry gave way to the Victorian era which gives us cuckery. Fuck chivalry.
>>76189955
t. Québécois
The eternal anglo got you good, deal with it.
>>76190180
>>76190277
I'm an Anglophone, I despise Quebecois, but I despise historical revisionists even more
>>76190501
>anglophone
spotted the Quebecer
only you guys use francophone/anglophone as actual terms to divide Canadians
Ive been to BC, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories,Ontario and Newfoundland BUT the only place where i heard that was Quebec
nice try
>>76189407
>Noble knights maymay
They used crossbows which are forbidden by Papal Bull.
Besides Yeoman are a step above commoners, long bows are a bitch to use.
>>76187558
No, it just exchanged sword for katana and helmet for fedora.
I would rather not mention what happened to horse.
>>76190841
>They used crossbows which are forbidden by Papal Bull.
The french did
>Thousands of troops appear to have been in the rearguard, containing servants and commoners whom the French were either unable or unwilling to deploy. Wavrin gives the total French army size as 50,000: "They had plenty of archers and crossbowmen but nobody wanted to let them fire [sic]. The reason for this was that the site was so narrow that there was only enough room for the men-at-arms."[29] A different source says that the French did not even deploy 4,000 of the best crossbowmen "on the pretext they had no need of their help".
>>76187558
It's kept alive by international military treaties and agreements (chem/bio/nuclear weapon/torture limitations etc) in a way
>>76187832
>>76188323
>>76188786
chivalry had literally nothing to do with treating women though
it was more about respecting your country, your church, the people around you in general and maintaining honourable means of combat
It's actually got a pretty solid playerbase most nights, and people don't really Beyblade on public servers anymore. Hopefully Mordhau comes out soon.
>>76191118
i think there was like 2 lines in there about being kind to widows and orphans and being generally courteous to women of fellow knights
>>76191118
>your country
*your lord
>>76191240
There is a line about respecting weakness and defending weak people.
>>76191348
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
>Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.
>Thou shalt defend the Church.
>Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
>Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
>Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
>Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
>Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
>Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
>Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
>Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and E
>>76191408
>respecting weakness
Gay as fuck boiiiii, I don't like chivalry anymore
>>76189407
It actually had nothing to do with 'le peasants btfoing le knights'. It was the French BTFOing themselves by an entire army of heavily armored knights on terrain that was the worst possible for knights. Very muddy, its been proven that once the knights feel on the ground, it was so strong that they couldn't get back up. Agincourt was not a battle. It was a slaughter of unarmed prisoners that had been incapacitated as a result of the mud. What helped was that the french nobility was extremely impetuous and wanted to charge without any sort of order or plan, so the constables plan got thrown out the window before anything even really happened. By no means did yeoman prove to be more useful than knights, its just that french leadership failed massively. The real death of knights/chivalry was the widespread use of gunpowder.
>>76191659
mason order please go.
>>76187832
the only gentlemen that exist now are on leddit
>>76191769
>its been proven that once the knights feel on the ground, it was so strong that they couldn't get back up.
Yeah, and Katanas are the sharpest swords in the world. Right?
Take your bullshit and GTFO.
>>76187558
>is a knight's hinirbattle code that had sections dealing with how to treat women dead
Seen any knights lately?
>>76191548
Nice, but its from 19th century publication. In medieval values first comes god, second Lord, country gets third place at best.
>>76191408
That line is from a 'code of chivalry' that is actually fictional, from a French guy who wrote a book in the 19th century. 19th c. Romanticism invented the myth of a 'code of chivalry'. There was no code. Only loose guidelines based on medieval chivalric literature and ancient rules of combat. Real chivalry at its core was about being a good warrior. Being brave, fearless, being powerful. The romantic stuff was mostly relegated to literature, didn't get much practice in reality. This idea that knights felt obligated to defend the weak and women is 19th c. Romantic bullshittery
>>76191902
Yeah I guess you know better than actual historians and scientists who tested the soil at agincourt and did real life simulations with armor. Fucking idiot
>this whole thread
>tfw no more m'lady's for us supreme gentlemen
>>76192334
>did real life simulations with armor
Some slack jawed historian professor couldn't carry plate armor as efficiently as a medieval knight that had literally trained to wear it since he was a boy? I'm chocked.
>>76192597
Guess you'll just have to get your fill of ladies from anime.
>>76192816
The actual literary evidence talks about how knights were stuck in the mud. There were simulations done where they went to Agincourt and made the battlefield as it had been 600 years ago by digging deep enough to get to the soil of that period. It was very wet and sticky mud. A man carrying 60 lbs of armor, who was thrown down, would've been unable to move. It would've made it extremely difficult for a knight to walk in. Add in the fact that the French were extremely crowded and squished together, men were literally drowning and being crushed to death in the mud. There was an armed fight with the english , but by that point they'd already been through a haze of English arrows, had had to run through mud that was extremely sticky , had to do this all while squished together, so that when they reached the English lines, they were very tired. Many fell of exhaustion. There was a brief combat, but they were held back. Mud, exhaustion, and crowd conditions defeated the french. If theyd been adequately led, with good field conditions, they would've won easily. Youre retarded btw, and ironically you have no argument if you just reject scientific and historical evidence for no reason
