![]() In that regard, it is rather interesting to know that the feudal structure of then-contemporary Europe mirrored the Persian empire of the Achaemenids in their later ages. In contrast, the medieval knight was the dominant force in the European battlefield roughly from the 11th century to the 15th century, and thus both battle results and societal changes were dictated by their rising power and martial prowess. Simply put, the Roman social elites were militarily supported by disciplined and paid infantry forces – and thus battle results were mostly dictated by such professional legionaries (as opposed to cavalry). For example, while the equestrians mainly offered leadership roles on battlefields, the knights belonging to the middle ages also bore the brunt of the fighting. So while some nascent aspects of knighthood were possibly influenced (in a latent manner) by the Romans, there were also differences between the two, especially in combat and military affairs. In fact, as Robert Jones points out (in his book Knight the Warrior and World of Chivalry), there were many parallels between the so-called knightly class and the Roman ‘equestrian’ class, with their social status being equated to fighting on horses, their hierarchy within the society as political elites, and their capacity to produce leaders and ‘officers’ for the respective contemporary forces.īut of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Roman equestrian plainly evolved into the medieval knight – as such a scope would be an oversimplification. To that end, the ordo (or order) of knights harks back to a period that was far older than the established clergy of the middle ages. Now the knight of the middle ages was naturally not a unique creation of that particular period, but he was rather a result of centuries of influence and evolution that marked the social and military changes in Europe and even Asia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |