Originally, being a knight was a military accolade, with religious overtones. In early Medieval times, one was knighted after proving oneself as a warrior, and after a childhood spent in training with one’s horse, sword, armour and other things.
At some point - I don’t know exactly when, but maybe sometime during the early Renaissance - knighthoods were given out to people who didn’t necessarily have any military connection. It was a title given out to very important people, but not necessarily military ones.
My question is, firstly, when exactly did this change occur, and secondly, was there a large outcry of complaint from knights who had earned their title through military valor?
I find that link dubious and overly romantic. In Gies The Knight In History, it’s shown that in the early medieval times “knight” simply referred to a warrior who fought mounted. There was no social position attached to the term. The French and spanish terms for knight are Chevallier and Caballero which both mean simply “Horseman.” Likewise, in German they’re called Ritters, or “Riders.” The only specialness attached to the position was due strictly to the superior fighting ability of a mounted warrior. They got paid more than foot soldiers and this translated to greater social status over time as wealth is wont to do. If a peon managed to steal or otherwise acquire a horse, sword, and armor during the early medieval period, he was as much a knight as any other mounted warrior.
But more often, knights came from the upper classes since those were the ones who could afford the expensive gear in the first place. As the middle ages wore on, the idea of chivalry began to really take hold and make knighthood a matter of social class as much as fighting ability. Increasingly, your daddy had to be a knight in order for you to become one. Otherwise, you were simply a man at arms, even if mounted. Chivalry, orginally a sort of “fraternity of fighting men” kind of thinking, began taking on the romantic images of virtuous men fighting for the favor of their lady, reciting poetry, etc… In 1066, a knight was just a brute and that’s all that was expected of him. In 1485, he’d be expected to be a gentleman as well.
It was during the later middle ages and the rennaissance when the nobility enacted laws intended to bring back the good old days when peasants knew their place and didn’t have enough money to wield economic influence. Laws such as sumptuary regulations that determined what the various social classes could wear.
There were indeed nobles and knights who did not like the idea of a wealthy commoner buying his knighthood. It might have begun with the very first rich merchant to do so.
I think it was more like, in 800, all the Knight had to be was capable. In 1200, the Knight had to be downright skilled and well-armed. In 1500, he had to be educated and have polite court manners. In 1800, he had to be a ballroom dancer.
What mbh posted applies to the German nobility as well. Most continental nobility, unlike the British version, included untitled nobles roughly analogous to the untitled gentry of England where they were regarded as gentlemen and ladies, but technically still commoners. I supposed Mr Darcy and Mr Bennett from Pride and Prejudice are fairly representative of this class.
In Germany there was the Uradel (Old Nobility) and the Briefadel (nobility by creation beginning in the early modern period). A family of the Uradel carried more social prestige, even if they were only Ritters or didn’t even have a title, than a Baron or Count of the Briefadel.
I noticed that in the British parliament, the House of Commons had statues of men in scholarly robes. The House of Lords had statues of knights in armor. I guess they commemorate the means by which they got their power.
