The Cain Adamnain, also known as the "Law of Innocents" is one of the earliest examples of International Humanitarian Law, providing protection for women and non-combatants in war.
Within the treatise contains are rather disturbing description of a class of slave women known as the Cumalach. In contrast to the romanticized image of Celtic women as being fierce warriors - encapsulated by figures such as Boudica - the Cumalach here are presented in a grim fashion that brings to mind a conscript, being forced to fight by her male superiors while being of lesser status and rights.
Since Adomnan lived in the 7th century, this practice could possibly have been present during the Arthurian era. Meaning King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table would have encountered these women in their various wars and adventures, especially those involving the Irish.
I can imagine a potential narrative theme developed in relation to the concept of Celtic Warrior Women - both the good and the bad - and the (Male) Chivalric Code. The Cumalach, almost feeling like an inversion of the chivalric dynamic of "knight fighting for a lady", present an interesting dilemma for the KotRT to struggle against and even informing their personal beliefs about the Chivalric code and the treatment of women both in war and in court.
There's also another thing to consider: Arthuriana itself contains a few named female warriors/knights, the most famous being Britomart (as well as Guinevere, in modern actionized versions). The Cumalach would serve to contrast a stark reality of Celtic warrior women, separated by social class*, with one group being able to become prestigous knights while the other group are treated as disposable cannon fodder. Introspection by heroines and ladies abound.
*It should be noted that the named female knights (Silence, Britomart, Grisandoles, Melora, etc.) are from nobility, with some marrying into higher stations. Whilst the preceding Boudica herself was a queen.
I was today years old when I realized that Wyldon’s fiefdom is Cavall, which is Latin for horse.
Caval is a significant word as well because the French word for horse, cheval, is where the word “chivalry” comes from. Most of us know chivalry as a code of conduct, but originally, all it meant was that you were rich enough to own a horse and outfit oneself as soldier. It later became associated with knighthood and certain ideal behaviors. The code of chivalry came during the middle ages and was about honor, nobility, religion, and being a strong person who protects the weak.
So Wyldon, who is teaching people how to be knights, who is by all accounts a paradigm of knighthood (minus putting Kel on probation and all that), is literally from a fief that is the embodiment of chivalry.
I started reading the Protector of the Small books when I was around 11 or 12, and I have re-read them every year or so.
I also majored in English and took an Arthurian literature course where we talked about chivalry for three months and even watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail and talked about the significance of having a movie about knights where there are no horses (no chivalry).
Even with all this, I just realized this today. Now I feel kind of dumb.
Hi I care very much about Chivalric code bc people misconstrue it so much
The function of Chivalric code is to help people with less privilege live through your privilege. It’s empowering people without giving anyone the ability to throw you in jail for it.
Knights would do stuff for women in the middle ages because women couldn’t own anything or make decisions. The goal was not to get into her pants.
The reason that sometimes happened would be because you have women who are astounded at this guy who has found a loophole and is letting her live through his privileged life, and she doesn’t have anything of monetary value to give him, so the only thing she can really think to give him is...well...an intimate favor.
If that was her decision of her own accord and the knight verified that yes, she really wanted to do this, then according to chivalric code, he should have honored her decision.
Yes, there were jerks that abused this. Yes, centuries later some fedora-wearin' morons looked at the code for like five seconds and were like "I get it!!! I do favors for girls and I get sex out of it!!!"
But like oaths of poverty, chastity, etc: the function of the code was to live a life of humility and service to others; not to get as much as you can out of people.
People tend to remember chivalric code for the stuff people did; not for the way that it helped others.
Applying it in modern times looks very different than holding the door for a girl and then being shocked when she doesn’t make out with you. Most women have the ability and authority to open doors.
To live chivalrously today, think about the ways you’ve been blessed, and think about how you can help people who don’t have the same privileges as you. Rebels are absolutely necessary; sometimes society needs a kick in the face. But the world also benefits from a cleverly executed nudge from someone in a place of privilege.
what are your thoughts on King Aerys's Kingsguard? Do you think they were honorable knights are toadies who didn't uphold their vows?
Oof, that’s a loaded question. Bear with me because I have thoughts.
The Kingsguard are vital to GRRM’s interrogation of knighthood and his definition of a true knight; we’re meant to see how hard it is to live up to the ideals of knighthood in a world that allows for conflicting vows, how good knights in service to a bad cause handle it, how many of them dare to question the system itself, and how that reflects on their view of themselves and of the institution as a whole. Living up to the chivalric code is freaking hard which is precisely why it is the mark of a true knight.
So we have the kingsguard as a model of how crooked the current system is: this is an institution that is universally viewed as the embodiment of the chivalric code but its fundamental flaw -- the fact the their vows to the king are taken to supersede their original vows to “be just [..] protect the young and the innocent [..] defend all women” even though the knighthood oath is the foundation on which the Kingsguard oath is built upon - effectively compromises that same code, exposing its oath to be hollow in practice and presenting a conflict of morality that so many of the revered knights in Westeros fall to.
And that’s exactly what happened with Aerys’ Kingsguard – they took their oaths to obey and protect the king, even if they morally opposed his actions, to be of paramount importance and to be held above all else. Barristan Selmy’s reflection on his role during Aerys’ reign, though it shows his shame and regret for doing nothing in the face of Aerys’ atrocities, still show his belief that he was honor-bound by his Kingsguard oath to do exactly that.
Barristan Selmy had known many kings. He had been born during the troubled reign of Aegon the Unlikely, beloved by the common folk, had received his knighthood at his hands. Aegon’s son Jaehaerys had bestowed the white cloak on him when he was three-and-twenty, after he slew Maelys the Monstrous during the War of the Ninepenny Kings. In that same cloak he had stood beside the Iron Throne as madness consumed Jaehaerys’s son Aerys. Stood, and saw, and heard, and yet did nothing. But no. That was not fair. He did his duty. Some nights, Ser Barristan wondered if he had not done that duty too well. He had sworn his vows before the eyes of gods and men, he could not in honor go against them … but the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys’s reign.
The same sentiment is, more or less, echoed in Gerold Hightower and Jonothor Darry’s response when Jaime, ironically the only person to question the flaw in the system, struggled with the idea that he was just supposed to stand there and watch the king commit crimes without doing anything about it.
“As for Lord Rickard, the steel of his breastplate turned cherry-red before the end, and his gold melted off his spurs and dripped down into the fire. I stood at the foot of the Iron Throne in my white armor and white cloak, filling my head with thoughts of Cersei. After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, ‘You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.’
The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. “You’re hurting me,” they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. “You’re hurting me.” In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted’s screaming. “We are sworn to protect her as well,” Jaime had finally been driven to say. “We are,” Darry allowed, “but not from him.”
Hightower’s, Darry’s and Selmy’s stance isn’t surprising when you consider what we’re told of the Kingsguard’s oath.
The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king’s commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor.
Keep silent when counsel is not requested. Serve the king’s pleasure. That’s their duty. That’s what the system is telling them they are honor-bound to uphold and what they are expected to prioritize over their knighthood oath, standard morals, and even their own personal judgement. That is the standard rule of the Kingsguard - obey without question, regardless of what’s asked of you. Tommen’s Kingsguard were utterly baffled when Jaime pointed out that blind obedience to the king isn’t a good thing. Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent helped Rhaegar spirit away a 15 years old girl and isolate her in Dorne, then probably kept her there regardless of her wishes. They all considered this an integral part of their service.
This entire situation raises a difficult question about conflicting vows (“no matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other”); what a knight to do when duty and “honor” as accepted by society conflicts with basic ethical and moral code. Note that this is not just the view of the Kingsguard themselves, this is accepted Westerosi view. Ned Stark bore no ill-will towards Barristan Selmy who stood by and let his father and brother be brutally murdered without a trial, he was sad about having to fight Hightower, Dayne and Whent who were his sister’s gaolers. Robert Baratheon refused to have Barristan killed on the Trident because he wouldn’t kill a man for loyalty. He revered him for standing by his king, even though his loyalty meant that he enabled and defended a mass murderer.
But of course accepted Westerosi view means jack shit. Just because the system is corrupt does not mean the Kingsguard (or any knight, since all knights are expected to obey their lieges) are magically absolved of any blame or responsibility for their choices. The system was flawed when Jaime Lannister chose his knightly vows and recognized that blind obedience to a tyrant wasn’t acceptable. The system was flawed when Dunk risked his life going against Prince Aerion to protect Tanselle, and when he stood up to Eustace Osgrey once he discovered his lies. The system was flawed when Baelor Breakspear and Raymun Fossoway took a stand for Dunk, and when Brienne said of Ser Quincy Cox “he could have tried, he could have died”, and then went on to fight a hopeless fight to protect the children at the inn knowing that she would die. The system was flawed when Davos risked Stannis’ anger and retribution by smuggling Edric Storm out of Dragonstone. Knights take their vows willingly, accepting the responsibility and solemn duty to keep those vows and to stand up for those who can’t even if it meant their death; failing to do so in the name of duty to a tyrant is not good enough. That oath of obedience is no excuse. I generally find that accepting the idea that these knights did not have a choice or that there is a way to defend their actions buys into the rhetoric of Meryn Trant who would have us believe that he was completely justified in hitting 12-year-old Sansa, perhaps even that there was “honor” in it, simply because the king ordered it and he was sworn to obey the king. That it’s a thought process that could easily devolve to absolving the likes of Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch of their crimes just because they were following the orders of their lord to whom they swore an oath of obedience.
But it’s not like we don’t have examples of knights, even in Aery’s Kingsguard, either subverting or outright going against their vows to the king because they applied their own moral judgement and recognized that they shouldn’t obey the king. There’s Jaime Lannister obviously, but also, Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent - possibly Gerold Hightower as well - owed their allegiance to Rhaegar instead of Aerys, probably because they couldn’t handle Aerys’ madness and the way he was leading the realm to ruin…. but then they showed the same blind obedience to Rhaegar’s orders regarding Lyanna and saw Robert as merely a usurper. Which isn’t really an improvement. They just transferred the object of that obedience from one person to another. But this still shows that they were capable of finding wiggle room within their vows when recognizing that the king shouldn’t be obeyed without exception and that there were cases where disobeying the king was the correct course of action.
Now we can’t paint all the Kingsguard who followed the sentiment of prioritizing the king’s orders above all else, even when the king was evil, with the same brush - if we do, we’d be missing a crucial part of GRRM’s commentary on both the Kingsguard and knighthood. Because not every man who follows that sentiment is a vile monster or a terrible person. While Meryn Trant or Boros Blount are truly vile people who think nothing of abusing a child, or worse, think they were in the right to do so, we have Arys Oakheart who was ashamed of hitting Sansa and who tried to argue but ultimately participated in her abuse anyway, and we have Barristan Selmy who is also ashamed of standing as a silent witness to Aerys’ crimes but tries to rationalize it. It goes a long way in emphasizing that evil does not triumph just because bad people do evil things, it also triumphs when good - or relatively good - men do nothing.
That’s why I can’t talk about Aerys’ Kingsguard as a monolith entity when they obviously had different stances and views of the bounds of their oath. Jaime Lannister questioned the system and ultimately rejected the notion of putting the king’s orders first regardless of the cost when he chose the half-million lives inside King’s Landing over his oath to the king. Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent and possibly Gerold Hightower took liberties with their oath based on their moral judgement but instead of applying the same morals to Rhaegar, they just transferred their obedience from one person to another and ultimately followed the same sentiment. Barristan Selmy “did his duty” and suppressed his moral questions, as it appears Jonothor Darry did. Lewyn Martell…. Oh, who the hell knows, we have so little information about him (sigh, George), but while it’s safe to say he was Team Rhaegar initially, Elia and her children’s captivity during the Rebellion certainly complicate his position later on.
I tend to think that most of these knights fall under the category of the good men who did nothing or “did their duty” and let injustice prevail. They were no toadies but they most definitely broke their knightly vows. Challenging the system is hard, speaking up against an authority is hard, but it’s only through that difficulty - that test - that a true knight is made. They should have tried, even if it meant their death. They took oaths to protect the innocent and the weak but they squandered them. Aerys’ Kingsguard were not true knights; not one of them, from Barristan Selmy to Arthur Dayne to Gerold Hightower. They are no Duncan the Tall or Brienne of Tarth.
I’m so happy to welcome all my new followers to this blog! THANK YOU ALL! I wasn’t expecting such an enthusiastic response. It looks like we actually have a little knightly order starting here!
In response to a question from @urbanmegafauna, I’d like to talk a bit about codes of chivalry, old and new. What ARE the responsibilities of the Knights of the Annulet? Would anyone like to help me decide? :)
The Old Code from ‘Dragonheart’ is a modern invention, but it’s true to the spirit of real medieval codes of chivalry. I say ‘codes’ because there was no one code everyone agreed on... there were a lot!
Here are several versions from different periods. The first one is actually by a 19th-century historian (which is a shame, because ‘Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil’ is the best line ever) and ‘Charlemagne’s Code of Chivalry’ is actually from the Song of Roland, about 300 years after Charlemagne.
The shortest kind of chivalric code was the list of knightly virtues - qualities like courage, honour, and courtesy. Again, there were a lot of different lists! You can find two modern versions here and here.
I’ve been thinking about creating a code of genderless chivalry, either for myself or for the whole group if people are into that. Rather than just make one on my own, I thought I’d throw this open to the floor :) What sort of things would you like to see included in a code of genderless chivalry? Do any of you live by a code of chivalry already? If so, would you be willing to share it with us?
Ever go easy on Lucina during a match? If so did she ever find out?
“I would never do such a petty thing. To think that someone would find that chivalrous; that I’d treat her as if she didn’t deserve only the best from me...!”
Is it scary to think how Kirby is only just starting his road to strength. And he can still beat the 50 millenean who uses a legendary blade. And he can smash you BARE HANDED.i mean sure he copied a move or two, but...
“It’s scary to think that the only thing between Kirby and an uneven playing field on which I would win is my chivalric code.”
"Ahem. I would have thought that /any/ alternate of me would be respectful and would stick true to the code. Whether it was a winning or a losing battle, we did what was right and attempted to defend the galaxy. Besides; who said we lost? We were able to defeat him in the end." BI
“Wait, you...?
Ohh...”
“...However...it is also in the code to live one life worthy of respect and honor.
