Why Some People Like Knights And Some Don't?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- What is the reason for this mysterious fact? Let's find out!
Remember to Like and Subscribe, as it really helps the channel grow!
Music by:
Kevin McLeod
www.incompetech.com
You speak a lot of wisdom.
why do some of us like them? idk maybe cause we are related to many knights.. as for others eh... peasant's like shiny things.
Nice video.
Bro I don’t care about knights I care about the people, story’s and the armor fighting style history art setting time period in general and for knight being good is not at all the cases they were brutal thugs that ward with each other like gangsters in a turf war “there were knights that stole killed the innocent and robbed people and in slaved people of different religions or race” and I’m not at all talking down on these people; we don’t know what the world was like back then we all like to think that we would have been one of the good guys in the past that we would have stood up no we probably would just be trying to survive and think that the horrors of your time are normal.
For example Teutonic knights, where greedy , territory thirsty gangs who roam accros old Baltic tribe lands(Prussian, Samogitian) and convert peacful people by force and brutality to christianity. Prussians where taken by Teutonics, Samogitiant refuse to obey, and suvive. For me Teutonic knighs all where best example of "fallen knight" archetype
There were fallen knights in the Teutonic Order, even sometimes in the position of Grandmaster, but in its essence, the Order was a noble thing.
Things aren't black and white. There is no "good pagans bad Christians" reality, nor the opposite.
So apparently christianization and killing a bunch of rapists is considered pillaging now.
1:03 With all the respect, when people conflate materialism with desire of easy living or lack of moral values, this really bugs me, since materialism is not about viewing material gain as the endgoal of life. You can hold materialist views on life while also having high moral values and understanding the concepts of honour and self-respect.
I strongly believe the one goes against the other because when you place high value in material things (materialism) your values can be bought.
@@TheApocalypticKnight materialism means that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, that it predates the consciousness (for example, idea of soul is one of the forms of religious view on consciousness) and that our consciousness itself (and, by extension, our opinions, perceptions and decisions) are shaped by our material conditions. This such view makes possible different forms of research and analysis of the events of the past (for example, we can find the logical and practical reasoning behind customs, beliefs, ideas etc, which were attributed to the will of God or supernatural powers). The material conditions of our world shape our perceptions and opinions (which make our worldview), and by using available means, our will and consciousness, we change the shape of our material conditions according to our needs, and this new material existence reshapes consciousness of ours and of people who come after us. So the cycle goes again.
The idea of placing high value in material goods and gains over duties, laws or moral values is called acquisitiveness or possessiveness.
Hey man, I have a question for you regarding Agincourt. That battle is regarded as "the battle where Chivalry died", but when historians explain that, I've heard several say that this was the death of the OLD Chivalry, which was very elitist and extended more toward your equals than anyone else, and in its place was born Henry V's vision of chivalry, where everyone was special. Would you say this is an accurate statement, in your eyes?
I would say that in general, chivalry started declining when the common man negated the combat advantage of the knight.
@@TheApocalypticKnight Very true. In battle, the common man was allowed to do things that the Knight was forbidden from doing, and to my knowledge, one of the biggest things he was allowed to do was fight dirty, something Knights were STRICTLY forbidden to do. This isn't really a battlefield example, but last time I was at Scarborough Fair, which was a few years ago, I was watching the melee part of a tournament between two two-man teams of Knights, and one Knight decided to grab a handful of sand and throw it at his opponent's face. When that happened, I literally yelled out, "HEY! CHEAP-SHOT! Disqualify him!"
What happens when a knight discovers that the majority of his entire order has turned to evil? I found myself in such a position & I tried to remedy it but they endeavoured to kill me for my efforts. All the same the order will enslave every single man woman & child if those who would still serve God oppose them.
Generally knights just ignored the moral code and did their own thing. There have been instances were knights trampled their own men just to be the first to the battle as they saw them as beneath them. The idea of a noble knight was more fiction than fact although there are of course instances of knights doing good.
You mention people who were not good at being knights. Saying all or most knights were like that is the perfect example of a modern man projecting himself.
@@TheApocalypticKnight i agree
Knights were just gang leaders government aren’t ever good people there just people but the knights thought poor deserved to serve their divine blood and they were probably just like gangsters fighting for power and influence using the rules and social politics of the time
First
Shut up.