Forum Posts

hxcnoel
Nov 04, 2021
In Arthurian Legends & Romance
Reading Response 6 & 7 Not sure if it’s too late to turn in response 6, but I’ll still talk about the readings from that day regardless. The reading about Arthur and Lucius the Emperor of Rome was interesting to me because I learned what truage is. Essentially it seems like a tribute. I guess one of the big advantages of being a noble or high-ranking person in the government during medieval times was that you could demand tribute from people. It seems like you would want to make sure that your army vastly outnumbers the other guy’s army first though, just in case they get a little bit insulted that you’re demanding tribute from them. I could imagine that a lot of battles and all-out wars probably happened from one person or another deciding that they would rather fight it out instead of paying the tribute. But it seems like a responsible ruler would probably just go ahead and pay the tribute rather than risk the lives of their subjects and their troops. As far as the reading for today, I found it rather amusing, because Percival is fighting this totally random person, and they’re fighting each other savagely. But then all of the sudden they stop fighting and Percival asks the guy his name. Very funny. It’s like, “maybe if we’re going to randomly fight to the death, I should at least know your name first”. Then they proceed to pretty much flatter each other. “You’ve slain me!”. “No sir, you’ve slain me!”. It’s rather ridiculous, in my opinion. Were knights at this time period so eager for a fight that they would just pick fights with other random knights without even knowing their name? Supposedly knights followed this code of chivalry, but it seems like a lot of the readings thus far have been examples of times when these knights either blatantly broke their vows or seemed to just be ignoring them completely. It’s also highly problematic and gross that the code of chivalry didn’t really apply to those of low birth, so these knights could apparently just go marauding around and ravaging the countryside and having their way with whatever “low-born” women that they wanted with almost no consequences. So much for chivalry. In my opinion, a lot of these knights seemed to be no better than the Viking berserkers. But I also understand that a lot of this Arthurian legend is meant to be entertaining, so it’s not necessarily to be taken at face value. But I would imagine that a lot of it still does hold true, because history has so many examples of the rich, elite, or so-called nobility doing despicable things and getting away with it simply because of their status in society.
0
0
5
hxcnoel
More actions