(Historical) chivalry in (real and simulated) WW1 skies.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Edit: This thread is my gift to anyone who reads the first post before the answering. Enjoy the answers :).

The "chivalry" of WW1 pilots is a long lived myth and much debated subject. More energy has been wasted arguing whether it had any basis in truth or not than a Spad burns when making a U turn. I've just realised that part of the problem is, when we say "chivalry", we mean the poetic, arthurian myth that only ever existed during jousting tournament. If that. The chivalry of medieval knights that did exist, it was much closer to behaviour of WW1 pilots than Persival of Wales. 

So, what was the chivalry, once we filter fables away?

The knights were an elite, highly specialised, closed order of warriors. An international club, whose members recognized each other as something special, removed, above and beyond. Knighthood was not bought, inherited, or earned by having right skills and equipment - it was bestowed. Whether a robber knight or a templar, friend or enemy,  there was shared quality among knights you could only get by getting knighted yourself. They did fight and kill each other when needed, of course, but fights between the knights was completely different business than fight between knight and commoner. Knights could and would treat each other as worthy opponents, while other combatants were looked down and disregarded. As customs evolved, the expected fate of knight defeated in war by other knight was to be spared, imprisoned and ransomed away - and the imprisonment was opportunity for both to show how graceful captor / loser they are and gain recognition among other knights. It didn't mean the knights were less pragmatic in fight - rather, they were more pragmatic after the fight. Commoners, meanwhile, were massacred without second thought, completely impersonally, and, of course, no one thought of sparing them (neither had commoners reason to be graceful if they got their hands on not dead yet knight - they were not part of respectful capture deal, from either end). 

So, that sums the real chivalry for me. I think you see where it gets us with WW1 pilots. While exceptions happened, combat pilots in general did recognized each other. They were pragmatic in the air (as were historical knights) , but recognized enemies as their opposite numbers (again, like historical knights). Earning the wings was a rite of passage not unlike the knighting, and made aviator part of group above and apart non-aviators, and in some senses borders. Furthermore, only enemy aviators were worthy opponents - however many grunts you strafed on the ground , only the number of air-to-air victories had real meaning. Captured aviators got completely different treatment (from air personnel) than other services, again mirroring the behaviour of knights. Meanwhile, just like medieval commoners, ground troops were (dangerous) targets - they might be empathised with or just mowed down, but were not part of the same equation as enemy aviator. I think most of similarities was not aviators emulating knights, but rise from similar situation - people sharing the same passions, experiences, challenges and prestige recognizing or promoting each other. 

I think you expect me to end with some Kumbaya about how we are all here because we love simming and WW1 period and how it should bring us together and make us respectful to each other ?. Well, that's half of it. After all, the medieval knights could be perfectly vicious towards each other if they had personal reason :P. I'm rather thinking on how we mirror the behaviour in multiplayer, where AI commoners (and ground target) are not seen as "real" targets - we ride them down, sometimes die to them - like knight killed by crossbow bolt, it's more unlucky  accident than a defeat. While even a complete noob is a legit victory - he might have earned his spurs yesterday, but he was knighted. 

We are the damn knights of virtual skies. Because we are the only worthy targets for each other . 

Edited March 30, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[BlitzPig_EL]

Naw, we are meat servos, bringing mechanized death from above.  I see no honor in handing someone a fiery (virtual) death.

It's no different than a bayonet charge, just a bit cleaner.

[J2_Trupobaw]

What is this honour you speak of ? Notice that I have not once used the word, very purposefully. Honour in combat is mostly matter of Arthurian fables and Disney chivalry.

Honour was a tricky subject with medieval knights, and one part that did not pass at all to the skies of WW1. Medieval knight was a warrior, not soldier; there was no chain of command, the written law was in decline and the only thing that obliged knights to serve in war and (gasp!) follow orders, was personal covenant between vassal and souverain. There was no espirit de corps, either (there was no corps, just bunch of free people fulfilling their personal obligations together), no cameraderie, and the only thing that could keep a knight from abandoning his fellows when things went south was his word and conviction to keep it. So the honour was measure of personal reliability and reputation, defining how much other knights could depend on you while on campaign. In time, it became little more romantic and led to "honourable" treatment of enemies (as breaking the word given to enemy meant oyu're more likely to break word given to friend, too). By 1914, societies were no longer running on personal obligations alone, and honour became redundant.

There is actually more place for historical honour in virtual skies than historical one - as we are free people playing a computer game, rather than soldiers following orders, our word and will to keep it is the only thing that restrains us. But this has nothing to do with WW1 aviation, only with gaming :).

Edited March 28, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[DD_Arthur]

You've never been in the military have you Trupo?

[J2_Trupobaw]

No, and I was not knight nor aviator either :).

[HagarTheHorrible]

Honour and chivalry, along with the truth, are among the first casualties of war.  I suspect most, idealistic, people start out with a sense of morals and justice but soon lose them to the grim reality of impersonal death and the loss of friends.  That said the game can reflect reality in that you get a range of attitudes and moral chioices being made, even if the realities of the outcomes are very different (nobody dies or gets maimed) and a good fight and mutual respect for an opponents skill might sway the desicion as to choices made.  On the other hand if you come across play that you disagree with then that might colour your judgement which might, in turn, colour the judgement against you.  For example I don’t vulch, or at least not intentionally, and for my pain I was shot down by the enemy aircraft I had flown by, as he took off, next time, if the server allows, the pilot on the ground may not be so lucky ? depending on my humour at the time. ?

 

I soon learned that that there is no honour in the military (ambush practice) it’s simply a question of trying to slaughter as much of the enemy as possible with as little risk to yourself as possible.  If I was setting up an ambush it is a plan I holy concur with, I have a deep loathing of any form of explosives heading in my direction.

Edited March 28, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[No.23_Triggers]

57 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

it’s simply a question of trying to slaughter as much of the enemy as possible with as little risk to yourself as possible. 

 

Spot on. I'd sooner put a bullet in the guy's back when he's distracted, rather than finding out how good he is.

Edited March 28, 2019 by US103_Larner

[J2_Trupobaw]

I'm starting to wonder if you guys even read what I wrote or see the title and jump in to write your part :).

Edited March 28, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Triggers]

I think it had something to do with knights...or something...

[J5_Gamecock]

1 hour ago, US103_Larner said:

I think it had something to do with knights...or something...

 Now THAT'S funny 

[Panzerlang]

Might be time to read Don Quixote, the satirisation of knightly virtue was already underway in the 17th century. ? 

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Chivalry circa 1915

 

Pragmatism circa 1918

 

Sorry; couldn’t resist.   

 

 

[HiIIBiIIy]

 

[WWBiker_]

LOL classic cant open his chute now lmao

 

[Rattlesnake]

Chivalry in the war: Overblown, but sometimes it happened. And we should never diminish it because it represents tiny rays of light in what is otherwise the absolute worst, most pointless and evil situation that happens on this Earth.

Chivalry online: Not a damn thing is at stake, it's all pixels so one could argue that being the Franz Stigler of BoX isn't particularly meaningful. However, on a practical note I will point out that our hobby in general and Flying Circus in particular in particular  isn't exactly over-stuffed with participants in the servers, so I've been thinking over the notion that giving the other guy more of a sporting chance than you have to might make him more likely to want to repeat the experience. And as a bonus give you more satisfaction in your victories when you do triumph. So maybe choose to not be the third guy in on that bandit who already has his hands full, maybe not even the second guy in some cases. Just let the fight proceed. Ideas along those lines.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

45 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Chivalry in the war: Overblown, but sometimes it happened. And we should never diminish it because it represents tiny rays of light in what is otherwise the absolute worst, most pointless and evil situation that happens on this Earth.

Chivalry online: Not a damn thing is at stake, it's all pixels so one could argue that being the Franz Stigler of BoX isn't particularly meaningful. However, on a practical note I will point out that our hobby in general and Flying Circus in particular in general isn't exactly over-stuffed with participants in the servers, so I've been thinking over the notion that giving that sometimes giving the other guy more of a sporting chance than you have to might make him more likely to want to repeat the experience. And as a bonus give you more satisfaction in your victories when you do triumph. So maybe sometimes choose to not be the third guy in on that bandit who already has his hands full, maybe not even the second guy in some cases, just let the fight proceed. Ideas along those lines.

 

Agreed.

 

What I do online actually depends on if I fly ww2 or ww1. 

If I fly ww2 then I'm always looking for a quick kill and not a drawn out fight. I'm trying to get in and out as quickly as possible so I spend very little time being a good sport when flying WW2 fighters.

 

When flying ww1 I see it a bit differently, I like to be gentlemanly and like to 1v1 a lot of time. Sometimes I wont even shoot the guy down and I'll just leave when I know I've beaten him.

 

In both WW1 and WW2 if someone gets in front of me and tries to steal my kill I will shoot him down (or damage him at least) along with the guy I was fighting.

If I'm fighting a guy, I expect friendly's to act as cover from other enemies and not try to jump in front of me to take my kill.

 

Sometimes I show friendly pilots less mercy than enemies, especially since it's friendlies that seem to be more dangerous and get me killed, especially Spitfire pilots.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Legioneod

[BraveSirRobin]

39 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

In both WW1 and WW2 if someone gets in front of me and tries to steal my kill I will shoot him down (or damage him at least) along with the guy I was fighting.

If I'm fighting a guy, I expect friendly's to act as cover from other enemies and not try to jump in front of me to take my kill

 

If he's in front of you you're supposed to be covering him, not shooting at him because he got into a better position than you.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

If he's in front of you you're supposed to be covering him, not shooting at him because he got into a better position than you.

I said if he jumps in front of me when I'm already on the target.

 

If i'm shooting at a target and you jump in front of me while I'm shooting, then you deserve to get shot down.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Legioneod

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Legioneod said:

I said if he jumps in front of me when I'm already on the target.

 

Then he's in front of you.  That means you should cover him.

[Legioneod]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Then he's in front of you.  That means you should cover him.

Doesnt work like that bud. I'm already on target doing damage, so there is absolutely no reason for anyone to jump in front while I'm shooting, I'll gladly shoot anyone who does it.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Doesnt work like that bud. I'm already on target doing damage, so there is absolutely no reason for anyone to jump in front while I'm shooting, I'll gladly shoot anyone who does it.

 

You don't own a target just because you shot st it.  If someone is in front of you, then they're in a better position than you.

 

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

2 cents.  If someone cuts in front of me, and I know I'm going to hit a friendly, I will cease fire.  They shouldn't have done it, but they did, and now the circumstances have changed, and whether I like it or not, they are now in the catbird seat, and I'm not.  Depending on the angles, I might even give myself the liberty to shoulder shoot.  But if you find yourself getting pissed off enough to intentionally direct your fire from the enemy onto the friendly,  just don't do it.  After all the enemies are down, and the battle is over, you can type "thanks for cutting me off, you moron" in the chat.  That will be enough.   There will be other enemies to shoot down.  Save your ammo for them.

Edited March 31, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 3/28/2019 at 7:44 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

No, and I was not knight nor aviator either :).

 

I don't think Knights allowed full beards and it would have caused too much drag in any WWI machine.

You could have been a US Civil War general tho (P.G.T. Trupobaw)

Edited March 31, 2019 by Klugermann

[Cynic_Al]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

If he's in front of you you're supposed to be covering him, not shooting at him because he got into a better position than you.

 

Just being between me and the target doesn't always dictate being in a better position, but anyone doing that to me can be certain of getting 'covered'.

On 3/28/2019 at 9:40 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

I'm starting to wonder if you guys even read what I wrote or see the title and jump in to write your part :).

 

I've been wondering that since I started using these forums.

[BRONCO_66]

Hide in the SUN, dive on the unwary, kill them and run away...

Damn, it's hard to follow those rules

 

[BraveSirRobin]

36 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Just being between me and the target doesn't always dictate being in a better position, but anyone doing that to me can be certain of getting 'covered'.

 

 I think we just solved the mystery of why no one ever went on your server. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

All I have to say is I'll be shooting a lot of parachutes and I will be sure to render a chivalrous salute from me helm!

[US103_Baer]

Furball-world problems

[E_Davjack]

[edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.
Violations of this rule will result in the following:
 
First offense - 3 days ban on entry

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[Slap]