[MR] Chivalry (was: Templar challenges Osama)

[Tatsushu .]

>Besides, no true knight who lived accordingly to chivalry would ever
>stoop to challenging a diabetic old man, who is missing a kidney. A
>champion of his maybe, but not the man himself. A true knight does not
>make war on the infirm, women, children, or the mad. The author's
>knowledge of chivalry leads a little to be desired.

While I appreciate the rest of your post (I missed the first post, 
regrettably), I have to question this last statement.  It is a narrow 
statement about what is 'knightly' and 'chivalrous'.  If said infirm madman 
is causing the deaths of many others (and, let's face it, he's non-Christian 
so that would have made the decision easier for many European knights), then 
I see no reason that a knight wouldn't make war on him.  Furthermore, I 
think it depends on the time and place for your definition of 'Chivalrous'.  
Even more it depends on your own personal interpretation of the code of 
chivalry.

Look at Hugh le Despencer the Elder, attacked as a part of the traitors 
responsible for corrupting Edward II and executed at the age of 90, IIRC, in 
1326.  I don't recall Froissart mentioning anyone having a problem with 
making war against him.

Old, mad, infirm, women, and children can be made war against if it is 
necessary; is it not important to protect the innocent women, children, old, 
and infirm from those who would do them harm?  That is not to say that one 
does not weep for such neccessity.


-Ii

_________________________________________________________________
>From Beethoven to the Rolling Stones, your favorite music is always playing 
on MSN Radio Plus. No ads, no talk. Trial month FREE!  
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio