|
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
| No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
Re: Origins of Knighthood: The Knights Protector of Aerdy (Score: 1)
by CruelSummerLord on Fri, February 25, 2005
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Based on popular response and last night's LGG discussions, I am quite happy to agree. Perhaps what accounts for the falling standards of knighthood in the Aerdy heartlands (as opposed to Ratik and the Bone March) is a decline in standards of testing, or maybe the trustees began appointing knights based on brute strength and tactical ability, ignoring the standards of honor and justice that drove the Knights of old (and the Knights who still served in Bone March and Ratik).
However, I still really like the idea of the Knighthood being tied to the Great Kingdom in the same way as medieval theories of divine kingship had the king tied to the Church, or the Shakespearean idea that the health of king and land are intimately tied-when one suffers, so does the other. Scotland suffered after The Thane took over, England suffered when Lear tried to divide his kingdom, Denmark suffered with Claudius on the throne, etc.
Based on my conversations with Gary on GreyTalk, it's not incompatible with the whole idea of appointment based on merit. Perhaps the Council Gallant in the GK proper began to lower its standards for appointment at the same time that the quality of the men sitting on the Malachite Throne declined as well? Bone March and Ratik didn't have anything to worry about, since they avoided the moral rot that overcame the rest of the kingdom. Hence why the Knights Protector were at their strongest in those two provinces. |
| Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
