muuuwaahhhh

John1992- Little ole me? I sent you to the dictionary? What about LivingByBeats? I was just trying to rise to the ocassion :-)

Chivalry shows respect, and it is often underestimated in courtship

see, this is why i only date cowboys and elves.

i just got lost in my own forum topic..what about me? and what about the dictionary? huh?

Well you wnat em to anzlye the onpening message. My humble anzlye is She is a nosense woman who is looking to point out flaws in men. It takes a special man to endure that. It seems she as a need to have her relationships to met a certain standard and spells it out planly. Fine no problem with a woman who knows what she wants. She is being fair in every aspect but oen thta her choice to refuse to show love or give people anymore chances. She writes liek the world is Black and White and that all peopel who are not white are black and evil when some of them might be grey. now that everyoen is sleep by my borign message i would liek to get to the bottom line. She is not worth your trouble because she refuses to take a chance on you. It not you it's her so you shoudl move to the next dating profile interest. Then again I am propably seen as some punk kid who doesn't know anything being only 18.

You cannot and should not ever ask for more than what you are giving.........is that what you are trying to say??? Are we keeping score?????


Chivalry is dead??? Only in your own world.....
Are you afraid of an independant woman that knows what she wants????

Can you live up to those expectations??? If not, then why ***** about it......go on your merry way..........look for someone who will bow down to you and do whatever you ask.........I hear you can get them mail order!!!

wow.... go to sleep and all the strange people suddenly post...
did anyone actually read the opening topic?

my discussion content was regarding chivalry and the difinitive appications of the narcissitic woman/man in this day and age, as even having the capacity to deserve to receive what said person is demanding....

how you all went from that to this on page three? uhh well okie dokie...

Chivalry was formed during the Middle Ages in opposition to the harsh brutality prevalent in that era.

To me, chivalry means hope, kindness, respect, integrity and courage. We can all have hope that our fellow man is capable of love. We can all show kindness to others and respect the opinions of same. We can all show courage to stand up against injustice and unkindness.

Today, I believe chivalry survives and is displayed in the trustworthy and admirable actions of people, who realize that strength and gentleness are not in opposition to one another.

“The man who combines both characters – the knight – is a work not of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium”. C S Lewis.

Lewis believed that without the knight, we have two types of people: those who are fierce in battle but cannot be gentle elsewhere, and those who are gentle in their real lives, but completely useless. The knight is the person who can be both fierce and gentle, but such behavior is learned.

Thanks for the comment britty :)
Chivalry in its true nature was actually invented in the time of the roman empire, however as I'm running out for thanksgiving I do not have time to copy/paste the referential material. Knights were invented by Rome to manage control of the outlying regions, which later evolved into the royal houses of europe. Prior to the roman expansion, all european area's were tribal and fuedal in nature.

for those of you that are interested, i have a personal oath to which i adhere to define my character. It is the only paragraph which i have ever heard (coming from the movie kingdom of heaven - though transliterated for today) which defines my character exactly.

"do good so that God will love me. Speak the truth even if it leads to my death. Be absent of fear in the face of all adversity, and safeguard the helpless." That is my oath.

ok: knights....

Roman society was strictly hierarchical, with slaves (servī) at the bottom, freedmen (libertī) above them, and free-born citizens (civēs) at the top. Free citizens were themselves also divided by class. The broadest, and earliest, division was between the patricians, who could trace their ancestry to one of the 100 Patriarchs at the founding of the city, and the plebeians, who could not. This became less important in the later Republic, as some plebeian families became wealthy and entered politics, and some patrician families fell on hard times. Anyone, patrician or plebeian, who could count a consul as his ancestor was a noble (nobilis); a man who was the first of his family to hold the consulship, such as Marius or Cicero, was known as a novus homo ("new man") and ennobled his descendants. Patrician ancestry, however, still conferred considerable prestige, and many religious offices remained restricted to patricians.

A class division originally based on military service became more important. Membership of these classes was determined periodically by the Censors, according to property. The wealthiest were the Senatorial class, who dominated politics and command of the army. Next came the equestrians (equites, sometimes translated "knights"), originally those who could afford a warhorse, who formed a powerful mercantile class. Several further classes, originally based on what military equipment their members could afford, followed, with the proletarii, citizens who had no property at all, at the bottom. Before the reforms of Marius they were ineligible for military service and are often described as being just barely above freed slaves in terms of wealth and prestige.

Most of the freed slaves were able to purchase their freedom through service in the military and or different campaigns. When the roman empire expanded into the gaulic and germanic states, as well as into the briton states, the waring tribes unified as a defence against the expansive roman armies.

Once the roman armies had subdued the opposition to their expansion the method by which they kept order in those regions was through offspring conscriptions.

The eldest sons of the different chieftans of each village was taken to rome, trained as a solider of the equestrians then expected to stand in campaign for the different roman endevours. If a village or fiefdom were to rebel against rome, the equestrian sons would be slain as a penalty for rebellion against the state.

However, the sons, were also treated as heads of authority and representatives of each warring tribal region. this later formulated the royal houses of europe as the roman empire transformed from a military empire, to a religious state. Which allowed the catholic church jurisdiction over the different royal families of europe at the time of the european dissention.

Knights were appointed or "knighted" to manage the different jurisdictional area's within each kingdom, with different rankings as dukes, lords, viceroys and so forth sprang forth from the original roman class structured system.

cheers!

Living by beats - Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
I only celebrated one whilst I was in Canada quite a few years back.

Thanks for the info on the knights, although I never really took C S Lewis to be talking about a knight in the literal. Men or women (can do battle for others in many circumstances - not limited to the field of battle).

At the time of reading Lewis, I was thinking of William Wilberforce who struggled for many years to abolish slavery in England. That fits my image of one who is chivalrous.

As for the origins, that I am sure has been debated by many experts.

Horatio Alger Jr. (during his first year at Harvard) wrote an essay entitled Chivalry. There are various different accounts in regards to origins of chivalry or to the nation where it began, although he states the Roman Empire sowed the seed as it were.

It is felt that the best supported account fixes the origin of chivalry as a regular system in the eleventh century. It spread throughout all Europe, especially in France and Spain.
It seems to have arrived in England at a later period.

The first point required of those who aspired to chivalry in its earliest state was the following: - "To speak the truth, to succor the helpless and oppressed, and never to turn back from an enemy."