The western canon of chivalric heroes. Three pagans, three jews, and three Christians, bold men who fought and won with virtue and honor.
8 Likes
Officer it was #2 he’s the one who stole my hair spray I’d know him anywhere
Julius Caesar having different shading on his back leg than anyone else in the lineup throws it off just a little. Is there any reason why these particular nine are featured?
2 Likes
They are all considered “virtuous” warriors in the chivalric canon, those “worthy” of aspiration and glory. Hector was an honorable warrior in the Trojan war. Alexander the Great defeated his enemies with wit and strategy. Caesar respected Pompey Magnus during the civil war and lamented his death. Joshua conquered the Promised Land while outnumbered and through faith, to the point of commanding God himself in battle (Joshua chapter 10). David conquered the Philistines and slew Goliath and showed a heart of mercy and respect towards his enemies. Judas Maccabeus stood up against the tyrannical Seleucids to enact justice. Arthur in Camelot legends was basically the poster boy of chivalry. As was Charlemagne, who had his own paladin knights of his own. Godfrey of Jerusalem showed great piety and bravery when conquering Jerusalem and was elected it’s first king.
I sorta explain this in the image tbh. But that’s why. It is not an idea I came up with myself:
As for Caesar’s shading, it was intentional. Was trying to make him look as if he was stepping forward, giving some depth.
5 Likes
Yes, but the chilvaric canon is a bit of a vague term, unless this is some specific christian denomination classification I’m unfamiliar with. As well, there are a good number of figures who fit the general definition of “worth” for aspiration and glory that aren’t pictured here, and how aspirational certain figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar actually are is very much a matter of opinion.
I’d wager you’re treading a little on heresy with that interpretation, but I digress. It’s just a bit strange that Joshua is featured, but Moses isn’t.
It seems the sole through line with all these figures is their historical relevancy to general western civilization on the basis of military conquest over any other. Which, if that’s the classification necessary for determining the worth of emulation, makes me wonder why there’s so few people here.
If some degree of moral fiber is also required, why were Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar chosen over Hernán Cortés and George Washington? Surely the latter pair possessed far less warmongering aspirations than the former, and both fought what they each believed to be moral wars motivated by the betterment of humanity over conquest.
I’m just a little confused by the qualifications or the purpose. All the folks featured here are historically significant, and certainly militarily brilliant, but virtue seems a little far from some.
2 Likes
I tried to edit the previous post to point out much of these were not my personal picks, merely what has been featured in medieval tradition. To clarify, these are Catholic, but they predate the Protestant reformation. It’s a bit antiquated, but as a medievalist I just find it fascinating.
If I had my own picks, I would replace Caesar with Scipio Africanus, and Arthur with Alfred the Great, keeping in mind with the medieval chivalry mentality. I am aware chivarly has outgrown this timeframe, but the “canon” was formed during that time and context.
It says it in verse 14, plain as day. I don’t mean to brag, but to defend my qualifications on such an interpretation, I do have a biblical studies minor along with a history degree. I primarily went to college with a focus on Biblical and Christian history. Saying that, I am quite familiar with what is heresy and what is not. In the story, God willingly obeys Joshua’s commands to still the sun and moon. The text even mentions this was an anomaly.
As for including Joshua over Moses, Moses was seen as more of a civic/law figure. Joshua is primarily known for his conquest of the Promised Land. Moses is not recorded to have fought battles, unless we go by Josephus in History of the Jews. Hence why Joshua was likely included.
This would be incorrect from the perspective of three figures here: Hector, Judas Maccabeus, and Arthur, all of which were defenders of their homelands in their respective stories. Hector was protecting Troy from a Greek invasion due to the scandal of Helen of Troy. Judas Maccabeus led open rebellion against the Selucid Empire. Arthur did not conquer Britain, he defended it from the Saxon invaders. Much of the unification of Britain in the old stories was by King Vortigern and Arthur’s father Uther.
These people are post-Columbian historical figures, for one thing. They were born after the middle ages. (Historians traditionally view the end of the middle ages as around 1453 with the conquest of Constantinople.)
5 Likes
Good art, and the Wikipedia page and conversation made for an interesting read.
^ also probably my pick for most bananas miracle in the whole Bible imo, like I’m not a physicist, but I’m pretty sure if the sun/earth stopped moving, the entire earth would get screwed up real fast.
3 Likes
What about Baldwin, Leper King?
Let’s see: Washington had Benedict Arnold attack Canada with the idea that the US could seize that portion of Britain’s colonies while removing a sizable threat to his troops (he failed miserably in this), and Cortez was heavily involved in the fall of the Aztec empire thanks to his military involvement in killing the Aztec’s emperor. Not seeing the latter being all that chivalrous tbh, and Washington was more pragmatic than truly chivalrous during his time as a US general.
2 Likes
These are amazing. Love the art style you gave for these characters.
1 Like
Fascinating historical figure in his own right, but heavily fictionalized in Kingdom of Heaven. He largely was incapable of actual fighting due to his leprosy, he was carried into battle on a bed where he merely commanded and then negotiated with the Sarassens. Godfrey in contrast was practically the leader of the First Crusade and because of his bravery the crusader knights elected him king over Jerusalem.
Not only this but Washington was notoriously a poor military organizer in terms of troops discipline and professionalism. He had to contract a Prussian military officer to make his army actually professional. Where he excelled was his strategy, but as you pointed out, there were some really dumb ones he chose. People also forget his poor performance in the French-Indian Wars.
I think Cortez frankly gets a historical bad rap because the majority of the fighting was him turning other mesoamerican tribes against the Aztecs, who then did a majority of the fighting. The Aztecs being a hostile imperialistic force in the area that they all hated. People say the technical advantage was dishonorable, but guns were hardly used in the conquest of the Aztecs, as they were notoriously inefficient and inaccurate in those days. It was largely done through pike and cavalry warfare. Cortez however was certainly brave.
If we are to call Cortez dishonorable for the use of horses (none where in the new world) and guns in warfare, we ought to call figures like Alexander dishonorable for his efficient and future-thinking military strategy, or Napoleon for inventing modern military tactics, or the USA for the use of heavy aerial combat in most of our wars. Technological advantage is an important part of all war from a historical perspective, Cortez was just utilizing his own.
Also: The Aztecs were vicious. They were an hyper-imperialist power who was slaughtering it’s neighbors, kidnapping people, committing human sacrifice, etc. that all of their smaller neighbors despised and feared. There is a reason the other Meso-American tribes joined Cortez, they all had a mutual hatred for the Aztec Empire.
Thank you. Tried to make most of them have period-accurate armor.
5 Likes
I don’t see how this a counterpoint to either warmongering aspirations on the level of Alexander the Great or somehow less chivalrous in conduct than him either.
The Aztec empire was at that time sacrificing 8,000 people a year (primarily kidnapped/POWs from neighboring nations) and was unbelievably unconcerned with the thought that the Spanish army would ever attack one of the largest Aztec cities unannounced. Moctezuma II died from a rock to the head during a speech, not because of military involvement.
If chivalry here is defined as not successfully eliminating one’s opponents in swift and decisive fashion without devolving to barbarism or poor conduct, that eliminates pretty much every one of the nine worthies.
4 Likes
Arthur’s face is lopsided.
1 Like