I addressed that in the latter half of the article. Chivalry is a Christian innovation. It moves the object of strength outside the self: from aesthetic, self-glorification, strength for its own sake to strength as a tool for the protection of a society, the service of others. But as I also said, you can't take history too literally. The expression of strength will look different today, even if the core chivalric ideal is the same- the marriage of strength and meekness. It's that self-sacrifice on behalf of the community at its core, only it won't be armored combat today as it was then. Does that clarify what I'm getting at?
The historic chivalric attitude existed with a far different community that no longer exists. The modern community would hold such services in contempt- and began to do so centuries ago, as Don Quixote was about.
BAP’s fondness for pirates and ancient olympians also ignores that the societies that produced them has all since wilted.
How is chivalry any less anachronistic and impotent than ersatz Greek themed athleticism in the current day?
I addressed that in the latter half of the article. Chivalry is a Christian innovation. It moves the object of strength outside the self: from aesthetic, self-glorification, strength for its own sake to strength as a tool for the protection of a society, the service of others. But as I also said, you can't take history too literally. The expression of strength will look different today, even if the core chivalric ideal is the same- the marriage of strength and meekness. It's that self-sacrifice on behalf of the community at its core, only it won't be armored combat today as it was then. Does that clarify what I'm getting at?
The historic chivalric attitude existed with a far different community that no longer exists. The modern community would hold such services in contempt- and began to do so centuries ago, as Don Quixote was about.
BAP’s fondness for pirates and ancient olympians also ignores that the societies that produced them has all since wilted.