The History of Christian Chivalry

The History of Christian Chivalry 

In feudal Japan, the renowned samurai warriors lived by a code of conduct called bushido that entailed ritualistic disembowelment either to avoid capture by enemy forces or to atone for heinous criminal acts. During the Golden Age of Piracy, thieves and brigands operated under articles of agreement known as the Pirate’s Code, which divvied up loot according to station and punished desertion with marooning. And across the Great Plains of North America, indigenous warriors demonstrated their bravery through a practice known as counting coup, in which they sought to touch an enemy warrior without harming him, the victory in such a scenario hinging not on wounding the enemy’s body but rather his pride. 

These cultures originated on different continents, thrived during different time periods, and had little to no contact with each other, yet they all operated within the same framework of reciprocity- that is, should injury be done upon a man, he is entitled to retaliate, and should a man do injury upon others, he has a responsibility to make amends, either through payment or suicide. This idea can be summed up in a single word: honor. 

Honor is a rather complicated thing, encompassing everything from basic etiquette and obligations to great acts of valor and courage. It is built around the concept of peace yet deeply violent, and while it often deals in the material, it is also quite spiritual, enforced at the very least by the threat of physical harm but more often than not more dependent on the promise of eternal damnation. Honor, therefore, is enforced not just by men with big sticks but by religious clergy who are themselves pacifists. 

So constant is the human necessity for authority that religious figures have for thousands of years prescribed rules of war. Buddhist monks devised for elite Chinese warriors the sacred code of se sok o-gye, the Islamization of Persia and Arabia turned the originally fraternal concept of futuwwa into a moral obligation, and Hindu scripture commands warriors adhere to rules of war known as dharma-yuddha. But what about Christianity? 

While Europeans had various codes of conduct to which they adhered prior to the spread of Christianity, the universalization of honor across the continent began in the eighth century with the cavalrymen of Emperor Charlemagne. The term chivalry itself is derived from chevalerie, the Old French word for horse soldiery. So noble were the cavalrymen of Emperor Charlemagne that they inspired in men of lesser rank a sense of gallantry, and it is that which sets European chivalry apart from its Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist equivalents. 

Unlike other codes of honor, Christian chivalry did not cut across class in an equitable sense but rather referred particularly to the behaviors of aristocrats and trickled down after the fact. That is to say, instead of demanding men of all stations behave the same way or suffer the consequences, Christian chivalry placed the responsibility on the shoulders of the European nobility, with whom it charged noblesse oblige, the belief that nobles are not just gifted by God with higher rank but also charged by Him with a heavier burden, and should nobles succeed in shouldering this burden, they will inspire in their subjects a deep sense of loyalty that will unify them far more effectively than a code of conduct or article agreement that neglects complexity in favor of simplicity. 

While the non-Christian honor codes operate with less nuance, making it easier under those codes to punish those who violate them, the more compassionate, Christian chivalry yields a far higher return on investment. From this, it could be presumed that inherent in Christian civilization is a sense of honesty that creates order rather than chaos and allows for growth in a healthy direction. Thus, the great success of Christian civilizations around the world can most definitely be attributed to the unique facets of Christian chivalry. The democratizing force of, say, the North Indian izzat could be viewed as practical in that it cuts across class yet dishonest in that it neglects to acknowledge that some men are charged with power and thus have higher obligation, whereas the noblesse oblige that sprung out of Christian France is far more honest and therefore effective, leading to a more successful society and happier citizenry. 

The civilization that bakes into its honor code a recognition and even celebration of different stations in life will always thrive while the civilization that resists and decries said stations will always fail. For evidence of this, look no further than West and East Germany, or else North and South Korea, the latter of both not coincidentally Christian but purposefully so. The devout Christian faith of successful nations and the atheist insistence of failed states cannot be dismissed as correlation but must be acknowledged as causation, as must democracy’s great failing: the assassination of noblesse oblige in favor of equally shared responsibility despite the impossibility of equally shared power, allowing bureaucrats to defer blame eternally while reaping the rewards of power, their livelihoods not tied to their station yet invigorated by them, their offices a revolving door of replaceable individuals with no real skin in the game. It is for this reason democracies always find themselves at war with the natural hierarchy. 

Perhaps the liberal democracies of the modern West would do well to abandon their crusade to snuff out differences amongst man and look to the model of medieval Europeans and even the successful modern African states such as Ethiopia. What has come to be associated with holding doors open for women and footing the bill at a nice restaurant originated, like counting coup and dharma-yuddha, as a code of conduct for warriors, and only a rejection of the secularism which renders the West’s morality null and void and a return to the Christian tradition of chivalry, and all that entails, that the West will find its footing once more and thrive as Christ intended.