Talk:Knight/Archive 1

User 208's contributions: Can we integrate some of the useful & viable stuff into the main article? user:sjc

Yo, sjc, I read this book, nice synopsis by this guy. Probably needs an article in its own right dealing with late Roman military technology as a bridge between Roman military and dark age knighthood. DarkStar

Yeah, it's a pity JHK's not about, she'd have a fair idea how to address this. user:sjc

Abyssinian/Ethiopean Knights

If anyone's read Flashman on the March (G M Fraser), there is frequent reference to Ethiopean Knights who wore distinctive silver gauntlets as a mark of their social position. Does anyone have any more information on Abyssinian/Ethipean Knights?

Kneeslasher.

Armored cavalry

Addendum(Knighthood for Dummies) Hey, I'm not an Historian, just a history buff, but a few years ago I read a book entitled "Arthur, The Last Roman Champion Of Britain" in which it was suggested that the legend of Arthur was based on an actual person. In this book it was reported that while the Romans were still occupying Britain as a Provence two technological changes created revelutionary changes in how the Legions operated.

The first was the introduction of steel as what we would now call a strategic material. Steel was/is not only better than bronze for making weapons, it also allowed for the making of body armour at a practical weight in the form of a chain mail shirt.

Chain mail armour is, however, a lot heavier than the leather body armour that had previously been worn by the average Roman soldier. The result was that if the soldiers wore the chainmail they couldn't march more than about ten miles a day, even on good roads. Traditionally the Legions averaged about twenty miles a day, and could be force marched almost twice that distance, and built a stockade for themselves at the end of the day. They could march farther if they loaded the armour onto carts, but that left them vulnerable to ambush on the way. So the introduction of chain mail significantly increased their strategic response time.

Then, near the Danube, some Romans observed the use of the stirup by some mounted archers, barbarian mercenaries that were in thier employ. The combination of the new armour with the stirup created what came to be called cataphracti (which in latin means something like "The Armoured Ones"). They put chain mail on the riders, it is likely on the horses as well. I've never heard this suggested, but it had been a couple of centuries since the invasion of Gaul, so they would have had access to the horses that lived wild in the dense forrests of western Europe. These horses were larger than those otherwise available to the Romans and would have been able to bare the load. (If you want to see what I'm refering to here, just rent the movie "Ladyhawk" and get a load of Rutger Haur's mount.)

Rome's Grand Strategy had by this time changed from expansionist in nature into an effort to simply maintain it's borders. The new heavily armoured infantry was broken up into smaller units and distributed along the frontier in fortified outposts. All such infantry in a given provence came under the administrative control of a military leader called a Dux. At a central location in the Provence a rapid response force of cataphracti, heavy cavalry, would be ready to respond to any incursions accross the border. This force was under the command of an officer who's title escapes my memory, but I recall it sounded a lot like the later medieval title of Count.

If barbarians raided accross the border and laid siege to one of the outposts, or if the outposts heard of an incursion nearby, a mesage could be sent by fast horse which would bring the heavy cavalry in short order. Even a handfull of cataphacti would be sufficient to break the formation of a large body of infantry and once their formation was broken the cavalry could start in to cutting them up one at a time. Hard work, but rewarding. Given that the barbarians would not have had the same kind of military discipline we associate with the Legions it is reasonable to assume that charismatic leadership on the barabarian side might have rallied it's infantry to reform and make second, or even a third stand against the Romans. It is also reasonable to assume that the cataphracti would note who it was that was jumping up and down, and yelling things like, "To me! To me, my brothers!" ect., and make a concerted effort to end his life in a magnificent way that would inspire his kin to write a song about his heroic death. To sum up, the Romans switched from mobile infantry that could stalk an enemy like a predator to a set up that vaguely resembles the defensive squad of an American Football team, a "defensive line" of strong slow or stationary units with fast, mobile units acting as "linebackers" in the form of the cataphracti

All this happened shortly before the last Roman Legion left Britain to plant their own man on the Imperial throne. They succeeded, but were destroyed in battle by another legion with the same idea less than a year later.

My speculation is that when they left they took most of the armour and all of the swords with them.

A few comments on the above. Cavalry in Gaul wore chain mail already, thus so did the calalry alae of the roman army. This did not mean that they had heavy horses. The cataphracti wore scale armour, which was heavy, true, but still did not necessarily require draft horses of the sort one sees in films about mediaeval knights.

Steel, or iron, was in use long before the time you suggest. The 'average roman soldier' wore steel lorica segmentata' armor made of strips of steel - they marched in this, and dug palisades in it as is shown on Trajan's column.

'The barbarians' actually made up all of Romes cavalry, and were highly trained. The Roman equestrian class had stopped being a citizen cavalry by the mid Republic. First other Latin tribes, then Gauls, Germans and finally Pannonians, Syrians, Sarmatians were used as cavalry.

The stirrup was not used until the early middle ages.- However, it is often found in films, which has little to do with historical accuracy and a lot to do with insurance costs for actors if they ride without stirrups. The Gaulish saddle, adopted by the Romans, had four horns to hold the rider in position. --Nantonos 20:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Misc

"The female equivalent is a Dame." - This is mentioned twice in the article. Which one should we get rid of?

---

hi! my name is natalie, and i am a student at newark high school; i will be inputting information from the research paper.

Hi, Natalie! Welcome to Wikipedia! You may want to create a login name for yourself so that all of your edits to the encyclopedia will tagged as coming from you rather than from an anonynmous IP address. The FAQ also contains a lot of good information about how to use and edit Wikipedia.

Atlant 15:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wives of knights - source?

Wives of knights, however, are entitled to the honorific "Lady" before their husband's surname. Thus Sir Paul McCartney's wife is Lady McCartney, not Lady Paul McCartney or Lady Heather McCartney.

Can someone provide a source for this? I find it strange that she should be Lady McCartney, just as if her husband were Lord McCartney... -- Jao 10:30, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form, 2002 edition, page 79: "The wife of a knight is known as "Lady" followed by her surname, and she is addressed as is the wife of a baronet ... She should never be styled Lady Edith Brown, unless the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl."

The Times Style Guide: "The wife of Sir John Fenchurch is simply Lady Fenchurch (together, Sir John and Lady Fenchurch) ... Again, to repeat this essential point, no wife of a baronet or knight takes her Christian name in her title unless she is the daughter of a duke, a marquess or an earl." (their emphasis)

Proteus (Talk) 12:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Proteus. -- Jao 18:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Persian Knight

• If you do not want to use the word "knight" for the Persian figure in the caption of the image, then you must change the definition of a Knight to be specifically reserved for a European warrior. And if so, you must cite your source for that definition. Otherwise, the Persian warrior completely fits the description of a Knight specified in the article. I'd like to remind you that the Kermanshah area was heavily Hellenized, therefore there are even reliefs of Hercules in the same area. Therefore it wouldnt be erroneous to use the word "knight" for the figure in Kermanshah.

No, I do not need to change the standard connotations of "knight" at all. But if you think that any armored mounted fighter is a knight, then so is a samurai— and the concept collapses in confusion. Translating the Roman class of equites as "knightly class" led to historical confusion, so during the last century "equestrian" has been the usual, and less misleading, translation. The image of a Roman knight is a medieval one. The image of a Hellenistic knight is a novelty.

• We are not sure the Persian Knight is Khosrow II for sure. Some sources say that, but there are valid disputes about that. Therefore lets just suffice to the term "Sassanide".

"Sassanid" at least. (After thirty years of "Sassanian" it's been hard for me to switch.)

• Do you know of an earlier relief of a Knight anywhere? If so, please provide indication. This Persian Knight predates any European one by several centuries. Unless you know of a Roman relief of a Knight somewhere perhaps?--Zereshk 06:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reliefs of armored cataphracts will doubtless turn up if you Google "Cataphract" on Image mode, I'm sure. By your definition, wouldn't the armored cavalry on Trajan's Column do perfectly well as "knights"?

If this is your personal project, I won't intrude. I'm removing this from my Watchlist. I merely thought the two images needed id'ing...--Wetman 08:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Persian Knight 2

No, I do not need to change the standard connotations of "knight" at all. But if you think that any armored mounted fighter is a knight, then so is a samurai— and the concept collapses in confusion.

Well, confusion is what the article leads to with the current definitions; it seems to me that by your reasoning, a Knight is merely a European warrior. Otherwise, the Persian warrior is almost identical in appearance to the generally perceived image of a Knight. The Samurai does not carry a lance sitting on a horse. He carries katanas and is generaly perceived by himself, without his horse. I think the differences are quite obvious: This Persian warrior is far more similar to a Knight than a Samurai or a soldier depicted on the Trajan column.

"Sassanid" at least. (After thirty years of "Sassanian" it's been hard for me to switch.)

Sassanid is good. Im used to Sassanian myself too.

Reliefs of armored cataphracts will doubtless turn up if you Google "Cataphract" on Image mode, I'm sure.

Even the wikipedia Cataphract you mention, speaks of the Sassanids and Parthians and Iran.

If this is your personal project, I won't intrude. I'm removing this from my Watchlist. I merely thought the two images needed id'ing...

This is not my personal project. Im just trying to add. When I first saw the Persian warrior relief, I was so shocked by the similarities of it to the popular image of a Knight, that I began questioning what I had learnt from my sassanid-Byzantine-Roman history. If you think the physical appearance is merely not enough to qualify the mounted Persian warrior as a Knight, and that there must be more to it, then we can retract the image from the article. But we then have to mention that a Knight is conventionally a warrior of European tradition.

I could have said the relief of the mounted Persian warrior (by itself) was from somewhere in Greece or Turkey, and (if you had not seen the image before), you would have easily accepted it as a "Knight". Wouldnt you agree?--Zereshk 14:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Knights Bachelor are commoners

A knight is not perforce a nobleman, at least not in England. Only barons (i.e. those who held directly of the King) were considered Noble. This was true in Anglo-Saxon times, and is made clear by the large jump in weregeld. Later, when the Commons were included in parliament, it was basically the knights who were formed the large part of the Commons. See Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law for a cogent discussion of the matter. Many of the source documents in Stephenson and Marcham, Sources of English Constitutional History are also illuminating. Robert A West 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All knights are commoners unless they have been ennobled. They are also not "aristocracy" as suggested here. Kittybrewster 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Honorific orders

There's an inconsistancy here. The page states that the Order of Lazarus was abolished in the 1800's but the Order's own wiki entry states they are active today. Any ideas on what goes on here?

Chivalric orders

I believe the section Chivalric orders contains fabulations. If I were to add "Order of Crescent Rouge, founded by Jean Mark II of Bourbon in 1423," would it be deleted?--Ezeu 09:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No refusals, so I guess that means consent - hence the section "Chivalric orders" goes.--Ezeu 09:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA)

I believe the SCA should be mentioned as a link since they have "knights" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.228.15.205 (talk • contribs) .

Is Paul McCartney a good example here?

Since we are talking about the correct form of address for a knight (or the wife of a knight), is Paul McCartney really a good example? His real name is James Paul McCartney. Wouldn't the correct form of address for him be Sir James McCartney? Of course, his wife will still be Lady McCartney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neb-Maat-Re (talk • contribs) .

What is the correct way to address Sir Elton John's partner to whom he is now married?

Does anyone know? Xaqua 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Split Knight (honorific)

I've added the {{splitsection|Knight (honorific)}} suggestion as this modern-day use of the title is unlike the Middle Age use addressed by most of the article. A new Knight (honorific) article would mention the Middle Age origins of the term and link to Knight. What do people think?
Thanks, David Kernow 13:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it should be. The honorific title is the information I was looking for but its highly inconvenient to scroll down the whole page. PowerGamer6 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, I was also looking for the title and it would be much more convenient to have it as a seperate article. Icecradle 12:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what the links in the Table of Contents are for. Septentrionalis 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, such a move would imply that there is an actual difference between mediaeval knights and modern knights. Just because the usage has changed does not mean they are different things. Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the responsibilities and commission bestowed on modern knights the same as in mediaeval times? If not, I suggest that there has been more than a change in the usage of the title. But I don't know. Regards, David Kernow 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a continuous evolution, which the present text vastly oversimplfies. Tudor knights, whose chief responsibility was paying scutage, weren't the same as the knights of the Black Prince, any more than they were the same as Sir Alec Gielgud. Septentrionalis 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely split it out. The concerns Proteus raised can be discussed in the Knight (honorific) article to ensure there is no miscomprehension. Proto||type 11:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue the other way around. The article titled, "Knight" should cover the social and military institution, which has evolved from leader of footsoldiers, ala Birhtwold or Beowulf, to armored cavalry, through the Tudors and Stuarts to its current status as an honorific that sometimes reflects military accomplishment. This is the logical title for such an article. There should be a separate article on "Armored Heavy Cavalry", probably under that title. Note among other things that not all armored heavy cavalrymen were knights, some were of the sergeantry. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, we cannot, nor should not leave out any mentions of the origin of what would be the future knight. We already have a brief mention of its roots in a seperate section in this article that is only one paragraph. It absolutely should not be moved from there. Furthermore, the ``Spahs`` of Persia were noblemen who held higher status in society and many myths were originated around them. The similarities are eerily. Zmmz 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The roots of the types of armor and weapons worn by armored cavalry (not limited to knights, as noted above) would be better and more thoroughly explored in my proposed article on "Heavy Armored Cavalry." Robert A.West (Talk) 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, there must be a correlation made with the knight and the original heavy armoured cavalry, since not only the armor and weaponary, but also the folklore and literature surrounding them was eerily similar to the future knight. The [one] sentence mention of the roots of this is very much appropriate.Zmmz 02:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, The article should be split. Fosnez 09:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do not split, per Zmmz, Proteus and Septentrionalis. (Yes, Zmmz, I still owe you research.) Robert A.West (Talk) 05:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Since it's not (yet) possible to redirect to a section of another article, how about the "Knight (honorific)" section becoming a few words of summary plus a "Main article: Knight (honorific)" link (i.e. use {{main}})...? Knight (honorific) could then consist of the current section but expanded and linking back to the Knight article.  Regards, David Kernow 11:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Redundant paragraph

The following paragraph seems to contain nothing not elsewhere in the article Septentrionalis 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the term is from Anglo-Saxon "Cniht" meaning "boy" or "page boy". Just as Marshal meant "Horse Servant" in its origins, but was later a term of fairly high rank in the Middle Ages, it is not exactly known how the simple term cniht meaning "boy" rose to prominence but a fair guess to assume it was in Anglo-Saxon England before the time of Alfred the Great, who uses it in the honorific sense. From the 13th century, the rank of some knights became effectively hereditary. Concurrently, Militant monastic orders were established during the time of the crusades, and from the 14th century imitated by numerous chivalric orders. The British honours system originates with the chivalric Order of the Garter, and the knights bachelor, and has diversified into various other orders since the 17th century. Knights would learn how to ride horses from other more experienced knights.

Sepahbod (Knights of Persia)

Everything comes from somewhere, yet, unfortunately due to some biased views, many simply may not accept some facts. With that being said, here is what scholars believe to be the origin of the Medieval Knights. Keep in mind that the Oriental Ninjas differed significantly to the Knight, moreover--they appeared approximately 800 years later than the original source. Originally, Romans connected with the Persians in wars over territories in the East, mostly fought in the Persian colonized territory of *Mesopotemia, now in modern Iraq (a land that before Arabs invaded Persia and moved their own people there, i.e., the Arabs/Iraqis, it used to be *the Cradle of Civilization--home to Persian ancestry, i.e., Elamites, etc.). From then the Romans adapted to cataphracts and cavalry tactics of the swift Parthians of Persia [1]. After that, Europe was introduced to what would be the Medieval Knights, whom incidentally look almost identical to the Persians [2]. Only the name, the newly designed helmets and the romantic mythology seem to be the difference here. Persians themselves got the idea from two Old Iranian tribes, Scythians, and Sarmartians[3]. Scythians, who later became the second dynasty of Iran, or the Persian Empire, are known in Iran by their real name, Ashkanian (Parthian; 190 BCE and 224 CE, also known as the Arsaces Dynasty). Of course, during the reign of the third Persian dynasty, the Sassanids, Rome would come in contact with cataphracts and cavalry again, like for example when Shapur II demolished the Romans under the command of Emperor Valerian[4]. However, keep in mind Rome too would crush the Persians; yet, in the end no one came out the true victor. Zmmz 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. The above paragraph exhibits a complete misunderstanding of the term, "Knight." The term refers to a specific social position within a feudal community, rather than being a term for heavy armored cavalry in general. In fact, being a heavy armored cavalryman has never been either necessary nor sufficient to be a knight: witness carpet knights and sergeantry. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the word Knight and its role in the West has to be explained clearly and separately from the East. However, it is also necessary to inform the reader about the origin of the Knight; where this heavily armored, horse rider, warrior came from originally. And, once doing so, it is rather easy to see that how the knight looks astonishingly like their original counterparts, warriors of Parthia and Sassanid Persia (although the word knight itself was not used in Persian). The European knights had copied the gear EXACTLY as it was worn by those who invented it, furthermore, many of the customary images we have of knights, such as men kneeling down before a knight, romanticism, folktales etc., were copied from the heavy cavalry warriors of Persia, via Rome. More amazingly, it seems even the malevolent Dragon so present in European mythology, originally was taken from Persian mythology, who called it Azi Dahaka (Chinese also simultaneously wrote about dragons; yet, benevolent dragons)[5]. Even the Knight in chess, a game that came most probably from India, yet it was made into the game we know; chess pieces like the King, the Knight, its modern rules, and even the term checkmate that is an alteration of the Persian phrase "Shah Mat" which means, literally, "the King is ambushed"[6], have all clearly come from Sassanid Persia. As such, it is important to indicate where the European knights borrowed such ideas and gears from, and it has to be explained clearly rather than just be brushed aside. That is why there are different sections for the article Knight; they include their role in the West, as well as their history/origin. I agree with that article. Zmmz 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a little sidenote here. The word check-mate is derived from the Persian word "keesh maat", not "shah maat". Same thing though. Just a fine tuning.--Zereshk 09:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know about that; my source was the Merriam-Webster dictionary.Zmmz 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting evolution of modern Persian usage; is this ideological? The OED gives shāh māta as the origin. Septentrionalis 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement, "European knights had copied the gear EXACTLY as it was worn by those who invented it," is simply contrary to the consensus on this history. The argument is that "A looks like B in a drawing, therefore A and B are the same." This fails to take into account that any picture of a man in armor on a horse, will look pretty much like another picture of a man in armor on a horse, regardless of the details of construction of the armor, which are what are revealing here. The armor used by early Gothic and Frankish cavalry evolved from that used by Gothic and Frankish footsoldiers, rather than being copied whole from a Persian model as asserted above. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If it looks like a dock, walks like a dock, talks like a dock, it probably is a dock. The article written by American scholars about the history of cavalry, under the heading `What is Cavalry?` says this, ``By 1400 B.C., the use of smelted iron to make weapons gave the infantry supremacy. Tribes of nomads in Asia were the first to use Cavalry. Cavalry was used for scouting and pursuit of a routed enemy, but with a few exceptions infantry remained dominant in Europe until the threat of light cavalry relying on archery, typified by the Mongols, brought about the adoption of heavy armored cavalry, developed first by the Parthian Empire.``[7]. The armor used by early Gothic and Frankish cavalry evolved from that used by Gothic and Frankish footsoldiers, and they in turn had taken note from the heavy cavalry of the Roman army, who were introduced to this gear and ideas from the inventor of the heavy cavalry by Persians Parthians, and Sassanids. There is now archeological evidence that show a 2000 years old chess piece set that has the Knight, the King, etc., which looks exactly the same as chess pieces today, confirming that the mythology of what would later be associate the European knight, existed in Persia cenruries before the Medieval times. Persian folklores, archeological evidence from Sassanid Persia, e.g., the enormous 1700 year old rock relief that [shows] how the Persian knight looked; EXACTLY as the Gothic and Frankish cavalry, and later the European knights looked. So, they didn`t invent it, and archeological and literature shows clearly the Persians did ; therefore, if they didn`t invent it, they must have been inspired by it, code word for copied it. It is mind-boggeling how in the face of overwhelming evidence, some still try to deny the facts, perhaps due to thei biased views. Bottom line, I have provided many refrences, you have nothing to back up what you say. I gave numerous proofs that shows it was invented in Persia, what proof you have that says it was not? Zmmz 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to sign. Your assertion of bigotry is a cheap shot. (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Please refrain from such needless attacks -- they neither add to your credibility nor improve the mood of your correspondent.

Your "overwhemling evidence" is a quotation from a source that gets several of its facts wrong. For one thing, Northern European cavalry was well-established by the time of the Mongol invasion. For another, your source ignores (or just glosses over) the enormous loss of skills and knowledge that is often called the Dark Ages. A lot of technology had to be re-invented or rediscovered, and that took time. Life in medieval Europe would have been a lot better if they had been able to copy as you suggest, but they lacked roads and a stable money supply, among other problems. I am not at home, so I don't have my books on the subject to hand. I'll get back to you with some citations in a couple of days. The history of technology is rarely simple, but endlessly fascinating. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they had to ``reinvent`` everything in the Middle Ages, they sure either had psychic abilities, or were immensley inspired by other cultures and literature, in this case, Persia. My sources were not just one, if you bother to read the above texts, you will see my sources very eclectic; from the British museum, to articles about the history of cavalry by American military historians, to articles about Rome; however, it is intresting that you are now questioning scholars from the West, without naming ONE single source, not one. And, about the bigotry; it was stated ``some may be blinded by bigotry``, which is a factual statement relating to any culture--you were not mentioned in name, nor was the word ``you`` used. The role of bigotry in history was simply being discussed, as it relates to this and other articles. Once again, I gave proofs that shows it was invented in Persia; what proof you have that says it was not? Zmmz 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be disingenuous. Before you edited your comment diff here it contained the phrase, "You still try to deny the facts, perhaps out of bigotry." I accept that you rephrased the comment not to be a personal attack, and thank you for the change of heart, but I replied to the comment as it stood when I composed the reply. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Although, I highly doubt that one of my sources, who happens to be http://www.cavhooah.com/history.htm, gets some info wrong--yet, I ONLY am concern about the invention of heavy cavalry, ancestor to European heavy cavalry and the knights, which was invented by Iranian tribes, and then introduced to the Romans by the Iranian, or Persian Parthian Empire. Are you quesioning that? That question was already settled centuries ago by Western historians. By the way, this particular source is from Western scholars on military. Zmmz 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As for sources, I am going back to matters that I studied about thirty years ago -- forgive me for not having my old sources at the tip of my fingers when I comment in talk. But, I did promise you something and am overdue, for which I am sorry. I ask your indulgence while I deal with other more vital concerns in life first. You will note that I have not updated the article itself, which would be improper in the absence of verifiable citations.

BTW, "www.cavhooah.com" doesn't represent itself as serious scholarship, and it is not written by acknowledged scholars. "This site was created by a Cavalry Trooper, for Cavalry Troopers"[8]. This is nothing against the site, but they are on the same level as, say, a Wikipedia article. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That may very well be, but I hope we aren`t disputing the fact that the origin of heavy cavalry, ancesters to the knight goes back to Parthians and Sassanids?[9] Zmmz 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we are not as far apart as we appear. I am simply viewing the process as far more complex and adaptive than I think you are. I will try to dig up my sources this weekend, not least because I could be recalling wrong, or because more recent scholarship could have superseded what I learned. Again, my apologies for not getting to the library sooner. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Sparta

Sprtan knights are mentioned by Herodotus in his histories. He mentioned that they escorted Themistocles back to Athens. They are also thought to be the same as the 300 Spartans. Is that the first references of a knight? Kyriakos 03:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m not sure how that can be related to the knights the 300 Spartans? They had no heavy armour, they were not part of a heavy cavacalry, and they were not noblemen heavy cavalry personell with folklore around them. By Themistocles time, Parthians had well established the first use heavy cavalry a few hundrad years before; however, most likely those gear and tactics found their way into Greece, and of course to Rome, when some of the Iranian tribes like the Sarmatians defected to the Romans. But, it is intresting though that when Romans killed Sartacus, the Parthians who symathized with him, took revenge and punished the Roman badly in two wars. Romans finally then adapted to heavy cavalry tactics, and their army as such became even more powerfull.Zmmz 03:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sparta had the 300 members of the royal bodyguard mounted on horseback, but fighting on foot. Equites is usually translated with knight and the Romans called anything on horseback equites (riders). This is a stupid anachronistic mistake of translators. Not all heavy cavalry units are knights. Knights are limited to a special social class during the Medieval ages and Roman non-patrizian nobility is usually called knights in lack of another fitting describtion. They were simply riding into battle on horseback. Not everybody wearing armor and riding on horseback is a knight (heavy cavalry). And never forget for the Persian style heavy cavalry exists a real name: cataphracts

cataphracts had developed a unique way of fastening their lance to the horse (not used throughout all the periods they existed) and they relied on a very different fighting style than knights.

Roman heavy cavalry units can also be of the Scythian type. You call them climbari.

Wandalstouring 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

I'm moving this paragraph here for discussion because it has too many problems for a simple rewrite:

"The concept, together with the notion of chivalry came to full bloom during the Hundred Years' War. The 'dubbing' of a knight at this time became a highly compex ritual. During the same period, however, the importance of heavy cavalry was reduced by improved pikemen and longbow tactics. This was a bitter lesson for the nobility, learned throughout the 14th century at battles like those of Crécy, Bannockburn and Laupen, so that during the 14th century, heavy cavalry began to be replaced with light cavalry. The "knights in shining armour" of the 15th and 16th centuries, by that time in full plate armour, were mostly confined to the jousting grounds, and the romantic Pas d'Armes. The chess piece was named in this period, around 1440. Via the transitional Cuirassiers of the 16th century, cavalry again became dominant in light, unarmoured form, in the 17th century, and not usually associated with knighthood."

Some of this information is valid, but a great deal of it is suspect and it's completely unsourced. Among other things, fifteenth century knights were certainly not confined to the jousting grounds. Fails to mention changing cavalry weapons and firearms. This overplays the longbow: during the same period the weapon was in decline outside the British Isles. French tactics changed in the latter part of the war and delivered a crushing blow to the longbow corps at the Battle of Patay in 1429. Durova 17:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you read one point other than the author intended: he intended to claim that plate was confined to the jousting grounds, which is my understannding . Of course, this is a sign that clarification is needed. It is preferable to repair and source unsourced text than remove it; but I think the original writer of this is long gone. Septentrionalis 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, of course, completely incorrect. Plate reached its apogee during the 15-16th centuries, in attempts to protect the man at arms from longbow and, later, arquebus fire. Plate was also used for jousting, but plate became more prominent in the early 16th century than ever before, and was immensely heavy due to its extreme thickness (in order to make it "shot-proof").Larry Dunn 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The knight chess was names the Knight later-on, but it is important to note that the chess pieces were created in Sassanid Persia, and the pieces, as well as the rules, to date remain the exact same way as it was created back then. Yet, certainly the pieces were later re-named. But, the other info is intresting to know, or at least look into. ThanksZmmz 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of this (except for the part I just struck out). What do you mean "Fails to mention changing cavalry weapons and firearms"?? The mention of Cuirassiers does precisely that, information now lost from the article with your removal. Yes, the role of the longbow is often overplayed. That's why we have pike and longbow tactics. It was the pikemen rendered heavy cavalry obsolete. No, they didn't just disband their mounted troops after Laupen, please do mention the battle of Patay as an example, but don't just delete an entirely valid paragraph without replacement. sheesh. The "institution" section was now lacking discussion of the main period this article is dealing with. dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sir Julius Caesar

Whoever keps putting that up, stop it. It's irrelevant. And stop changing the context of the open paragraph so it fits. This page is dedicated to the miliary defintion of the knight. No need to add worthless confusion. One non-miltary example will suffice. CJ DUB 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not true. The article is entitled, "Knight", not "Medieval heavy cavalry." As such, it should cover the economic/social estate from the origins of the title to the present. It would be improper and misleading to do otherwise.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

heavy cavalry at present redirects here. this is a provisional solution. Somebody should actually sit down and branch out a dedicated article. This article is dedicated to the concept of "knight", notably during its heyday in the 14th and 15th centuries. Of course there will be military aspects involved, but detailed discussions of heavy cavalry should go to a dedicated heavy cavalry article. dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"heyday in the 14th and 15th centuries of knights" ??? You must be joking. They were irrelevant then. At this time there was a heyday of RE-ENACTMENT of knights. It looked pretty impressive to the ladies in the court if steelclad noblemen battled for their entertainment. A very important point of knights that nobility did not want to miss after knights became pretty useless in real battle. The armor commonly depicted as "knight`s armor" (see first picture of the article) dates back to this period and it is much heavier and more protective than anything a real Medieval knight wore in battle (cranes were used to get them on the horses, Medieval knights mounted on their own or with a little stool).

Heyday of real knights (fighting in battles, governing villages) was during the time of crusades 11th-12th-13th century. Wandalstouring 09:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Equite

Please note that the word Equite was current in Medieval Latin as a word for "Knight" (in the sense of horseman) and not simply revived during the Renaissance. At the very least, it can be found being used in William of Tyre's Chronicon during the Twelfth Century. It's also worth noting that by the Middle Ages, the Latin word Miles had come to have connotations of service (in the sense of service to the state), making "Knecht" (in the sense of Servant) a reasonable translation from Latin into English.

I will read Wm. of Tyre; if this is correct, it is probably an example of the occasional mediaeval writer, like John of Salisbury, who attempted to write Ciceronian Latin with more or less success. If I seem skeptical, one reason is that the singular of equites is eques. Septentrionalis 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He uses eques frequently, but he calls (the man who was to be made) Baldwin I of Jerusalem, egregius miles (in the taking of Nicaea, at which he is clearly mounted). See also here. Septentrionalis 16:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel like there should be some mention about the significance of knighthood and its change following Cervantes/Don Quixote...I'm not qualified to say though.

The change began before Cervantes; a century or two earlier, Don Quixote would not have been funny. Septentrionalis 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

History of knight → Knight – Rationale: Knight was moved to "History of knight" in a very bizarre move by brand-new user. Not discussed on talk page, only reason given in edit summary is "study" (whatever that's supposed to mean). (copied from the entry on the WP:RM page)

Normally it would be proper to ask for other Wikipedians' input on a requested move, but this one is pretty clear-cut. This is more of a notice that things are being taken care of than a request for comments on it, but if you have any constructive remarks then feel free to add them here. --Icarus 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy move -- The move is fairly clueless and renders the previously-useful {{otheruses}} a link to nowhere. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy move. Agreed. Clueless newbieism. Choess 07:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

minor

Cavalier would be the english form of Chevalier.