Saul's book picks up this narrative with the Duke of Normandy William the Bastard's invasion and subjugation of England in 1066. It was this violence that the church attempted to regulate, giving rise to a code meant for those horse-bound 'knights' which later became known as chivalry.

Then over time, because the Frankish clan structure combined with Western Christian practices, a martial elite arose which came to view violence as its primary and hereditary profession. Although the exact origins of the term 'knight' are unknown-as cniht in Old English and knecht in German both refer to a 'servant' or 'bondsman'-the fact remains that the concept of a servant-soldier fighting on horseback is the central concept of chivalry peasants need not apply.

'Knights', or mounted heavy cavalry, had first been used by the Franks in the previous two centuries, perhaps as a response to Muslim invasions from Spain in the 8th century. The term comes from the French word chevalier, or 'knight', who derives his name from cheval, or horse. Although not without its minor faults, Saul delivers on his promise to separate the common impression of chivalry as a fantastical code of conduct for brave and heroic knights from the reality that it was an aristocratic lifestyle with frequent internal contradictions which were often openly acknowledged and accepted by the contemporaries who practiced it.Ĭhivalry as a concept emerged around the 10th century AD in France when the Christian church began attempting to regulate the violence endemic to Frankish society. In Chivalry in Medieval England, Nigel Saul aspires to these aims as he discusses one of the most distorted topics in medieval history: the code of chivalry. Yet in point of fact, the idealistic history we imagine is almost always entirely false and it is the job of historians to sift through that illusory past and figure out where romanticism ends and actual history begins. Cover of Chivalry in Medieval England by Nigel Saul. A common sentiment, it is actually responsible for distorting the realities of our collective past because it makes us think that everything 'then' was a lot nicer, a lot simpler, and maybe just plain better than how things are now. How often have you muttered this phrase when thinking of something and wished that things could just be like they used to be. They just don't make 'em like they used to.

This is not who we are