"Explosion" in Manchester

[Husar]

Only a few posts back you claimed the opposite:

I didn't I was talking about "what Pannonian meant" aka the warrior code. He may have meant something close to the knighthood oath, but such a thing does not have to exist just because the knighthood oath existed...

[Gilrandir]

I didn't I was talking about "what Pannonian meant" aka the warrior code. He may have meant something close to the knighthood oath, but such a thing does not have to exist just because the knighthood oath existed...

I'm not sure myself whether the latter existed and if it did whether it was in the form I linked. Perhaps it was a romantic introduction of later age writers. Or it was changed to look romantic.

[Husar]

I'm not sure myself whether the latter existed and if it did whether it was in the form I linked. Perhaps it was a romantic introduction of later age writers. Or it was changed to look romantic.

Well, given that knights were noblemen and noblemen were supposed to be better humans than peasants and the whole nobility was backed by religious logic and so on, it would be relatively safe to assume that they did have some more or less official moral code, whether they stuck to it or not.
Warriors on the other hand exist(ed) all over the world, in hundreds or thousands of different cultures, religions and tribes and to assume they all had some moral code that could now be used to decide whether a guy is a warrior or not seems a bit like a stretch. Supposedly pictish warriors would sometimes throw themselves into roman spears so their buddies could kill the Roman, so if that's true even the suicide aspect would not be a part that wasn't done by warriors before.
And just because one can say ISIS terrorists are warriors and have a kind of bravery, that doesn't make them any more noble or less despicable anyway. The assumption that the label of warrior would imply some kind of virtue seems quite off to me.