In what ways do the codes of chivalry and bushido differ from one another?

[Graphic]

They're often compared but I wonder how similar they really are.

Interested in comments

[Rosacrux redux]

Hmm... a pretty fundamental difference: while Bushido was actually practically implemented in most cases, the supposed "chivarly code" was a post-medieval invention, to view favorably our (rather barbaric) medieval ancestors.

[nokhor]

well, there's courtly love associated with chivalry and i don't know of a similar thing in bushido, and bushido has seppuku which chivalry does not.

[The Wizard]

Hmm... a pretty fundamental difference: while Bushido was actually practically implemented in most cases, the supposed "chivarly code" was a post-medieval invention, to view favorably our (rather barbaric) medieval ancestors.

Explain late medieval romances and courtly love stories and the ideals expressed by the stories about the Round Table Knights and the Paladins of Charlemagne?

Anyways, bushido was the code of an entire class, while chivalry was an ideal expressed by the church, militant knightly orders, and the nobility. It helped spread Christianity, but being an ideal, many of those saying they practiced it actually being just more opportunistic humans. Oh well, at least that got us ahead of the rest of the world in the end!



~Wiz

[Hurin_Rules]

Hmm... a pretty fundamental difference: while Bushido was actually practically implemented in most cases, the supposed "chivarly code" was a post-medieval invention, to view favorably our (rather barbaric) medieval ancestors.

I have to disagree with this. Chivalry was practiced in medieval Europe-- it just meant something different in its early stages than what the word has come to mean today.

In its earliest days, chivalry [O.F. chevalerie, from the Latin caballus, or horse (especially a pack horse)] meant simply a group of horsemen; you still see it sometimes used in that sense today-- the chivalry of France was decimated at the Battle of Agincourt, for example. By the 12th century, the code had come to mean prowess at arms, and by the 13th/14th century it also took on the connotations of protecting the weak and being courteous (especially to women).

The primary function of early chivalry was to lessen the horrors of war for aristocratic soldiers. Thus, instead of enslaving and selling one another, knights ransomed each other and treated each other well while in captivity. In this sense, chivarly really was practiced in the high Middle Ages. There are numerous accounts of relatively bloodless battles and captives being treated like kings. The king of France even voluntarily went back into captivity when his sons broke some of the terms of his ransom agreement in the 100 years war-- the king felt it a point of honour to adhere to the code of chivalry, after he had given his word to respect it.

Now, the one thing we don't see is much respect to peasants. You may think this shows that chivarly was never followed, but you have to realize that medieval conceptions of chivarly were different than our own. Knights did not see it a violation of the aristocratic code of chivalry to brutalize peasants, so long as they didn't brutalize fellow knights. When non-knights began to proliferate on the battlefields of late medieval Europe, the code became increasingly difficult to enforce. But it was always an important code to the aristocracy.

I'd really like to hear more about the Bushido, which I know nothing about. What did the Bushido say about peasants, and was it followed?

[Pindar]

Except for the notion of fealty Bushido has no moral corrolate.

[Watchman]

As long as we're discussing the viable forms, not the heavily ritualized and debased ones that were developed after both groups lost most or all of their military function, then the main differences between the two "warrior codes" could be termed social.

As a side note, both would have found a fair bit of common ground with the various other "warrior codes" that have been practiced by the full-time warrior classes of just about any culture in history that had one. Heck, both of them were direct descendants of archaic "barbarian" codes regulating the relationship between a lord or chief and his armed retainers anyway...

Anyways, the feudal chivalric code doesn't seem to have been quite as strict as the Japanese warrior ideology. This most likely stems from the fact that the loyalty of the Japanese bushi went to their clan, whereas the European one derived from the practice of enfeoffement to subsidize the raising and maintenance of troops for regional defense. The fact that the web of an European lord's feudal obligations tended to get pretty complicated pretty fast also meant that they could often do pretty much as they pleased when called upon - and the supposed superiors of the feudal pyramid quite often found themselves fighting their own nominal underlings. The Hundred Years' War is probably the most extreme example of this - technically speaking one of the monarcs was a vassal of the other by, among other things, contracts dating back to the creation of the Duchy of Normandy in late 10th century...

The ideal of chivalry was partially formulated and encouraged by the Church to rein in the destructive ambitions of the temporal lords and their private armies (the miles, or "warriors"; the class of non-noble professional soldiers who later fused with the nobility to produce the knightly nobility), and duly contained a lot of theory on the concept of "just war" (the Crusades were an offshoot of this) and a somewhat more formal recognition of the unwritten "rules of war" generally observed in the subcontinent. The chivalry of the warrior class and the nobility was above all pragmatic; they made a living by war, and duly had an interest in encouraging customs related to the reasonably humane treatment of POWs (or at least those worth a ransom, such as the highly trained heavy cavalrymen or the feudal lords themselves...). The practical details regarding land inheritance, conquest and diplomacy were also a concern, in no small part due to the aforementioned complex web of feudal ties.

The Japanese of old seem, on the whole, seem have regarded being captured by the enemy as pretty much both a capital offense in regards to one's own status, obligations and honor, and a proof that the captive was scum better off dead. The practice of Bushido seems to on the whole have been quite fastidiously ruthless if not downright bloodthirsty, with very little quarter asked or given and entire clans utterly annihilated by the victor to keep troublesome vendetta-seeking heirs from causing trouble. This undoubtly had much to do with the general emphasis on maintaining one's face, honor and general social integrity upon the pain of death if necessary prevalent in the whole culture. I think the sociologists call the prhenomenom the "Shame Culture".

The European warrior aristocracy seems to on the whole having been more in the opinion of it being a good policy to treat one's captives well (unless there's a pressing reason not to, of course, and the fate of the lowly grunts naturally very much depended upon the circumstances), if only because it was more politically convenient in the long run to spare them and extract oaths of loyalty or engage in other such diplomatic chicanery. A sullen but cooperative neighbor was generally preferable to one pissed off at you having executed his dad in cold blood, to simplify the idea greatly.

[Hurin_Rules]

Very informative. Thanks.

[Pindar]

one's face, honor and general social integrity upon the pain of death if necessary prevalent in the whole culture. I think the sociologists call the prhenomenom the "Shame Culture".

I think it should be pointed out that the notion of honor in Japanese does not include moral rectitude. Rather, the concept appears to be tied to success. Thus, a captured enemy has lost 'honor' by and through his failure and can be dealt with accordingly.

[Watchman]

Sounds like that could be respelled as "has failed his liege lord/clan name/duty/whatever". And the Japanese seem to have been big on atonement by blood - "the shame of X can only be washed away with blood" and all that rot. The basic idea has been pretty popular around the world, when you think about it - most just practiced it through vendetta instead of suicide...

[Pindar]

Sounds like that could be respelled as "has failed his liege lord/clan name/duty/whatever"...

Honor as a concept is not exclusive to bushido. The word, whether applied to martial excercise, or a family relations, or an individual appears to relate to the success of the project deemed significant. Thus if one were to say: "Tanaka is an honorable man" it implies accomplishment not that the subject is a good person.

[Hurin_Rules]

Honor as a concept is not exclusive to bushido. The word, whether applied to martial excercise, or a family relations, or an individual appears to relate to the success of the project deemed significant. Thus if one were to say: "Tanaka is an honorable man" it implies accomplishment not that the subject is a good person.

I'd agree if we confine honor to medieval and non-western modern usage. In support of this interpretation one could site the medieval uses of honor-- in the high Middle Ages, it meant ownership of lands/castles. The 'honor of Montgomery', for example, meant a castle and its surrounding lands. But there are other usages that include the concept of moral rectitude. Think of Antony's Eulogy of Caesar in Shakespeare-- when he says 'for Brutus is an honourable man', he does not mean honourable in the sense of successful, but honourable in the sense of honest/morally upright. For women, honour was closely connected to their morality (specifically, chastity) rather than success.

[Pindar]

I'd agree if we confine honor to medieval and non-western modern usage. In support of this interpretation one could site the medieval uses of honor-- in the high Middle Ages, it meant ownership of lands/castles. The 'honor of Montgomery', for example, meant a castle and its surrounding lands. But there are other usages that include the concept of moral rectitude. Think of Antony's Eulogy of Caesar in Shakespeare-- when he says 'for Brutus is an honourable man', he does not mean honourable in the sense of successful, but honourable in the sense of honest/morally upright. For women, honour was closely connected to their morality (specifically, chastity) rather than success.

My statement was only concerned with honor in Japanese.

[Hurin_Rules]

My statement was only concerned with honor in Japanese.

Yep, I know, I just wanted to note that it also applies to western medieval and some modern usages of honour, but not all.

[Pindar]

Yep, I know, I just wanted to note that it also applies to western medieval and some modern usages of honour, but not all.

Gotchya.