There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Chivalry
I`ll do a major re-write of this article next week, since there are two major problems with the current version. In short:
First, Chivalry was, as it is said correctly, a CONCEPT, and nothing more. It wasn`t just ideolized in art and literature, it existed mainly there and hardly in the real world.
Second, even if a noble (most of whom weren`t knights, or even knight-born (ritterbürtig in german, meaning having the right by birth to become a knight one day), the "rules" of chivalry only applied to there own class. So while two nobles might fight with honor and respect on the battlefield, a commonor on the same battlefield couldn`t hope for any mercy. Same went for woman and children in a village during a raid, which was the main form of warfare in most of the middle ages. Gmb (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why a major rewrite is required. The points above can be added, but they don't really contradict what they article already states. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Weas; the article is actually surprisingly decent, and while of course your improvements are welcome, I hope you're not going to get rid of everything already there.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)