It's true. I think.
And in my opinion it has many factors (like personal duelling and ambushes happening on a dayly basis) but it's major factor is the completelly different basis of violence.
In the beginning, war was not just about destroying everything about the enemy. After the Dark Ages, when major threads like Wandals and other 'barbarian' tribes were hunted down, and countries began to form, warfare became more and more a question of honour as well. And that is because violence has dangers for both parties. In a war, emotions, agressions, personal needs, animalistic instincts become unleashed, that can become uncontrollable. That was witnessed after the 30 years war for example, when the war ended, but violence and robbery did not. Payed armies simply went after their own needs, and that was truly a problem in Austria, French, Hungary, Germany...I guess everywhere.
So because war was such a delicate matter, almost every culture tried to control that unbelievably mighty beast that's called war / battle / violence. That Knighthood emerged in so many cultures (Samurais, Musaas, Armies of Seth, Eagle Warriors of South Amerika, Knighthood in Europe, the Eternal Tenthousand - the elite of Persian Armies, etc), is no coincidence! It is, beside other factors, a silent compact of the elite. Fighting in a Knightly fashion meant not to destroy everything. It meant winning battles, taking hostages, that were set free, for money. Beside the fact that this makes a living, one should note the quite humanly approach. Not killing your worst enemy? Accepting him as a
knight? This is, almost beautiful. Enemies, who are actually the two sides of the same coin.
Now, this whole knightly stuff also meant, people, who could not take their own personalities, their own names to war, were simply not allowed to do so. Knights around 11th-13th centuries actually shouted their own names and ranks in battle - to let everyone know, that that particular familiy is something t behold, and to find an enemy that has quite the same ranking. That makes battle a personal matter. It's about you and your adversary, who is almost a mirror of yourself in his armour, so battling yourself actually was not even just phylisophic. Armour makes possible not seeing the human inside, it invites violence. It is a right in itself, a disguise that takes avay personality and nothing but knighthood and an amalgam of a living being and metal skin remains. It has nothing to do with things of a dayly life.
It was truly a different kind of battle we fight today.
Sometimes people say Knights were nuts. Not using general strategies, walking into traps
they knew about , and stuff like that. But was that truly so bad? Elite against the elite, and those whose business was not war, did not take part. Only around the hundred years war did things begin to change, and exactly that was what the french did not notice. THAT particular war was not about honour or heroism or knighthood, it was about life or death matter between two countries. That makes a difference.
So anyway, with the 14th-15th century, uniform emerged, witch is an important matter as well! Knights all had different armours, everyone was unique a personality in the army. He had to take responsibilities for his actions, and could not hide in the mass. Theiy were knights, after all <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
It's also no coincidence that the emerging of the uniform, the countries loosing their individualism, the melting of the enemy into one mass without personality, the mass prodiction of firearms and the times of mass destruction, mass killing of innocents, mighty war crimes all came togehter. Right after everyone who has two hands is taken into war and given highly destructive weapons, the mighty beast of battle is unleashed, and leadreship is not enough to controll it. I sometimes wish the Kinghts were still here.
....or are they? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
This is my opinion, why Medieval & Renaissance fighting was about individualism.
Szabolcs
