Movies and games paint knights as heroes, but remember, these stories are from the nobility's POV. Commoners probably did see some knights as thugs. But we gotta look at history in context, not black and white. Life back then was tough, knighthood was one path to power and security.

Accusing knights of being 'glorified thugs' is an oversimplification of a very intricate social and military institution. It's true that knights, especially in the early medieval period, could be seen as heavily armored warriors serving local lords, often enforcing their will on the peasantry. However, as time moved on, the romantic idea of chivalry started to gain ground, and with it came the concepts of courtly love, piety, and honor, though often idealized.

During the High Middle Ages, the Church endeavored to limit the violence by knights through movements like the Peace and Truce of God. These efforts were aimed at protecting non-combatants and church property and mitigating the destructiveness of feudal warfare. Additionally, many knights joined the crusades not just for earthly reward but also in the belief that they were participating in a holy mission.

Of course, we can't ignore the fact that knighthood and martial prowess were often exploited for personal gain. Some knights indeed were little more than glorified mercenaries. However, to truly understand knighthood, I recommend reading about the lives of famous knights like William Marshal or accounts of the Knights Templar for broader perspective.

New to this sub. Really thought knights were just like what we saw in movies. Interesting to see there’s another side to this.

Knights? More like the king’s muscle. Just keeping the peasants in check and fighting for more shiny stuff to hoard.

This is a bit harsh but not entirely wrong I guess? Some knights def lived up to that 'noble warrior' tag but plenty had their thuggish sides. It was all part of the gig back then, protecting their lord's land, which sometimes meant getting rough with the locals.

You're touching on a key issue in medieval historiography. The ideal and the reality of knighthood often didn't match up. Yes, there were codes of chivalry, but there were also knights who exploited the peasantry, seized land through conquest or cunning, and participated in wars with more interest in plunder than in any lofty ideal. However, it's important not to generalize—a knight's behavior varied widely by region, period, and individual. Check out Maurice Keen's 'Chivalry' for a more comprehensive look at the knighthood.

lol, don’t forget they had to earn their keep, not just sitting around looking shiny! Warfare and tournaments weren't exactly for the faint-hearted 🗡️

It's a common misconception that knights were mere bullies in armor. The reality is way more complex! Sure, some could be brutal lords over the peasantry, but knighthood also came with a chivalric code. Most notable among the values are courage, honor, and protecting the weak. There's a fascinating account of knights from Geoffroi de Charny's 'Book of Chivalry', written in the 14th century, detailing the moral and martial expectations of knights. It's not all perfect or followed to the letter, but it gives a nuanced image of what knighthood was supposed to represent.