Chivalric Knighthood without Feudalism?

I have no real concrete ideas here, fair warning. I’m just curious if a society without the broad economic trappings of feudalism could maintain chivalric knighthood. Perhaps one of the major Republics of Europe expands substantially, perhaps a non-feudal empire, like the Byzantines, incorporates knighthood into their ethos, or perhaps military religious orders maintain their importance.

Something more substantial than the modern knighting seen in places like the United Kingdom (or anywhere where knighthood is treated more like a distinction for a social club; by that metric, I’m a knight). I think, for purposes of this discussion, the requirement for skill at arms should not be abandoned. For practical purposes, gunpowder does make this largely redundant for military concerns, admittedly.

The only real substantial (but obviously fictional) example I have for what I’m looking for is the Jedi. No, I’m not asking if a society could maintain real-world Jedi, I’m just using them as an example because within Star Wars canon, they are peerless sworn warriors in a largely non-feudal society.
 
Plenty of societies produced mounted warrior nobility, the concept goes all the way back to the charioteers of the Bronze Age. So something like OTL's chivalric code of conduct could have emerged pretty much at any point anywhere.
 
Plenty of societies produced mounted warrior nobility, the concept goes all the way back to the charioteers of the Bronze Age. So something like OTL's chivalric code of conduct could have emerged pretty much at any point anywhere.

I’m not sure it would be that easy. Much of the idea of chivalry is based in feudalism. First, in the idea of all the reciprocal and personal obligations that everyone has. Second (and likely more importantly), as the Church’s way to reigning in a warrior class that, because of feudalism, had license to engage in all sorts of violence against whomever they wishes. Political authority was insufficient to the task (especially when they knights were said authority), but moral authority was up to it.
 
So what you're after is some sort of guardian class that doesn't have political power? Sort of warrior monks subject to the State and not any kind of centralised Church?
 
So what you're after is some sort of guardian class that doesn't have political power? Sort of warrior monks subject to the State and not any kind of centralised Church?

I’m open to scenarios in which either question is answered in either the affirmitive or negative.

Just to throw a couple of examples:
A Republic where all officers are knighted (officers are generally styled ‘sir’ after all).
Similarly, a government in which the franchise is given to knights.
The Military Orders survive as relevant political entities, maybe with lay knights.

As long as this society has actual military professionals who get a fancy ceremony and title, are bound by some chivalric code, and don’t have feudal economic obligations (yes, feudalism is one of those ‘but I know it when I see it’ systems), it should past muster.
 
I’m open to scenarios in which either question is answered in either the affirmitive or negative.

Just to throw a couple of examples:
A Republic where all officers are knighted (officers are generally styled ‘sir’ after all).
Similarly, a government in which the franchise is given to knights.
The Military Orders survive as relevant political entities, maybe with lay knights.

As long as this society has actual military professionals who get a fancy ceremony and title, are bound by some chivalric code, and don’t have feudal economic obligations (yes, feudalism is one of those ‘but I know it when I see it’ systems), it should past muster.
I think the problem is one of definitions.
Are you talking about civic honours being awarded to soldiers or military honours being awarded to civilians?
It has to be one or the other since both (honours being civic and military) is essentially feudalism.
 
I’m not sure it would be that easy. Much of the idea of chivalry is based in feudalism. First, in the idea of all the reciprocal and personal obligations that everyone has.
Are you suggesting that non-feudal societies aren't predicated on people having obligations? Especially for warrior nobilities, obligations are their reason for existing.

Second (and likely more importantly), as the Church’s way to reigning in a warrior class that, because of feudalism, had license to engage in all sorts of violence against whomever they wishes. Political authority was insufficient to the task (especially when they knights were said authority), but moral authority was up to it.
Yes, the Church most certainly played a massive role in establishing OTL's european code of chivalry. However we also can find examples of, not identical but broadly comprable, codes of conduct in areas beyond the Church's authority like Bushido in Japan, the code of martial conduct laid out in the Mahabharata, or Islamic Futuwwa (although each of those societies can be broadly characterized as feudal).
 
Are you suggesting that non-feudal societies aren't predicated on people having obligations? Especially for warrior nobilities, obligations are their reason for existing.


Yes, the Church most certainly played a massive role in establishing OTL's european code of chivalry. However we also can find examples of, not identical but broadly comprable, codes of conduct in areas beyond the Church's authority like Bushido in Japan, the code of martial conduct laid out in the Mahabharata, or Islamic Futuwwa (although each of those societies can be broadly characterized as feudal).

I’m suggesting that one of things that distinguishes feudalism is that society is more based around individual relationships. Government itself is a series of personal relationships and obligations: you owe your lord fealty and homage in return for his protection. You don’t owe homage to the institution of the crown of France, seperate from the person of the king himself. Again, feudalism is a ‘I know it when I see it’ sort of thing, and I hope I didn’t sound like I was excluding societies like Japan, which is a perfect example of what I’m talking about: the samurai bushido code is broadly similar to chivalric knighthood (though there has been some revisionism as to what, exactly, bushido was), and Japan was an excellent example of feudalism.

Roman equites would fit the bill.

How so? I’m unaware of any code that could be considered chivalric tied to them.
 
I’m not sure it would be that easy. Much of the idea of chivalry is based in feudalism. First, in the idea of all the reciprocal and personal obligations that everyone has. Second (and likely more importantly), as the Church’s way to reigning in a warrior class that, because of feudalism, had license to engage in all sorts of violence against whomever they wishes. Political authority was insufficient to the task (especially when they knights were said authority), but moral authority was up to it.

Based upon what I kept hearing from the professional medievalists on the late SHM the term "feudalism" has so many holes and caveats that it is pretty much useless and, anyway, its definition was formulated only in 1939 then reformulated in 1944 and then to a great degree debunked in 1974 (and then in 1999). :)

Then, of course, due to the fact that term "feudalism" was applied quite freely to the places like Japan, it is rather difficult to insist that the Christian Church is a "must" as far as the ...er... "chivalric class" is involved. Not to mention that the Japanese ideas about the code of chivalry was quite different from one in the Western Europe.

The next thing is an assertion that chivalry is based in feudalism. Knight most famous (outside the Arthurian legends and Song of Roland ;)) for his chivalry (and other virtues), Bayard, "the knight without fear and beyond reproach" was acting mostly in post feudal times (presumably feudalism effectively ended by about 1500 at least in the Western Europe) with loyalty directly to the king, not some feudal lord or the Church.
 
I’m suggesting that one of things that distinguishes feudalism is that society is more based around individual relationships. Government itself is a series of personal relationships and obligations: you owe your lord fealty and homage in return for his protection. You don’t owe homage to the institution of the crown of France, seperate from the person of the king himself. Again, feudalism is a ‘I know it when I see it’ sort of thing, and I hope I didn’t sound like I was excluding societies like Japan, which is a perfect example of what I’m talking about: the samurai bushido code is broadly similar to chivalric knighthood (though there has been some revisionism as to what, exactly, bushido was), and Japan was an excellent example of feudalism

I mean that might be good enough for the late Justice Potter Stewart but it would be helpful if you suggested exactly what you mean by feudalism.
 
I mean that might be good enough for the late Justice Potter Stewart but it would be helpful if you suggested exactly what you mean by feudalism.

Alex’s post pretty well illustrates the problem with that approach.

Besides, it seems like we’re discussing the feudal part of this question more than the knight part of the question.
 
What about Shogunate Japan and the samurai surviving? I know this isn't the traditional European knights or chivalric order but they are very similar? Also the samurai did survive longer in the real world.
 
I have no real concrete ideas here, fair warning. I’m just curious if a society without the broad economic trappings of feudalism could maintain chivalric knighthood. Perhaps one of the major Republics of Europe expands substantially, perhaps a non-feudal empire, like the Byzantines, incorporates knighthood into their ethos, or perhaps military religious orders maintain their importance.

Something more substantial than the modern knighting seen in places like the United Kingdom (or anywhere where knighthood is treated more like a distinction for a social club; by that metric, I’m a knight). I think, for purposes of this discussion, the requirement for skill at arms should not be abandoned. For practical purposes, gunpowder does make this largely redundant for military concerns, admittedly.

The only real substantial (but obviously fictional) example I have for what I’m looking for is the Jedi. No, I’m not asking if a society could maintain real-world Jedi, I’m just using them as an example because within Star Wars canon, they are peerless sworn warriors in a largely non-feudal society.

Can I try with an improbable example to understand if I got what you mean?
The Knights never lose Malta and "guide" the nation to Democracy in the XIX and XX century.
Nowadays' Malta is a Republic with a bicameral parliament (High Parliament = Knights. Low Parliament = Elected people.) in which the standing army is made of knights.
 
What about Shogunate Japan and the samurai surviving? I know this isn't the traditional European knights or chivalric order but they are very similar? Also the samurai did survive longer in the real world.
Can I try with an improbable example to understand if I got what you mean?
The Knights never lose Malta and "guide" the nation to Democracy in the XIX and XX century.
Nowadays' Malta is a Republic with a bicameral parliament (High Parliament = Knights. Low Parliament = Elected people.) in which the standing army is made of knights.

Both work!
 
Okay, so I think we can just apply the same formula to other orders (With the necessary modifications.).
For example (Very unlikely.) the Teutonic Order turns Lutheran without abandoning its old structure and Teutonic Prussia unifies Germany as in our timeline ending in a German Kaiserreich with a bicameral parliament like the one of alternate-Malta and all the officers in the army being knights.
 
What about Shogunate Japan and the samurai surviving? I know this isn't the traditional European knights or chivalric order but they are very similar?

Well, similarity is deceiving. ;)

In Japan status was tightly linked to the clan structure. While European noble who lost his feudal lord is still a noble, samurai without his clan is a ronin, someone in a social limbo with only 2 swords left out of his former noble status. Then, of course, European code of a loyalty did not require a suicide after superior's death and the loyalty was, in general, to the owner of the land, not to the clan's leader (in that regard Japan was closer to the Highland Scotland with its clan structure than to any Western European state). For example, after the death of Charles the Bold some of the lands returned to the crown and their owners were now holding them from Louis instead of Charles. That's was it. No suicides no loss of a social status or property, etc. OTOH, samurai did not have his own land: it was granted for the service and could be taken away at any moment, pretty much the same way as the estates given nobility for the service in Muscovite Russia.
 
Top