Determining the end of chivalry

As a student of Richard Kaeuper, it should come as no surprise that medieval chivalry is one of my research interests. Currently, I am preparing two different online bibliographies (one geared for grade school teachers) and one exhibit on the subject. Attempting to reduce such a complex phenomenon as chivalry to about 26 linear feet is forcing me to make significant (and perhaps controversial) interpretations. One of the largest that I am facing to date is determining how to discuss the "end of chivalry." Did it end? If so, when? How? Why? By whom/what? Or did it rather transform into something different from medieval chivalry? If so, the same questions apply. And since we here approach the "Early Modern Age," the source material expands, modes of thinking are changing, and the methodologies available to the historian multiply as well.

The old wisdom, that chivalry was shot down with gunpowder weapons, has been pretty decisively refuted by now: chivalry far outlasted the advent of gunpowder. It also did not really come to grief on the "rise of infantry" or the changing character of the late medieval army (best exemplified, perhaps, by the armies of Burgundy): to Philippe de Commynges, chivalry was still a potent presence, despite the fact that knights often dismounted and sometimes fought with infantry formations.

At very least, neither of these explanations is in any way sufficient by itself. My advisor would argue (and I would largely agree with him) that "chivalry" as such ended when the core of the warrior's identity and loyalty changed. Religious validation became somewhat less important, and loyalty to the state comparatively more important, in ways which left the practice of arms roughly the same while changing the mentality of the man who practiced them. Honor slowly became bound up with serving the state, not necessarily with personal renown gained through deeds of prowess. This (hopefully accurate) paraphrase and summary seems a good explanation, especially when combined with the other (less individually convincing) explanations above--after all, as Strickland has demonstrated, the character of armies did change over time, as the decline of the longbow in Tudor England demonstrates (e.g., among London militia companies, not to mention yeomen).

So, for purposes of an exhibit with limited space, WHEN can we say "Medieval chivalry is no more"? My own slowly evolving opinion is that, for sake of convenience, medieval chivalry ended in 1559, when Henry II of France was killed in a joust. Henry VIII of England, another king who strongly identified himself with chivalry, had died in 1550. And Maximilian I of Germany, the "last knight" and master of the tournament, had died earlier in 1519. It seems to me that, if pressed against the wall, one could say that the passing of the last great "chivalric" monarchs of Europe conveniently marks the passing of medieval chivalry, and the culmination of all those changes which historians identify, often individually. Debatable, surely, and I am still thinking this through, but as a stopping point (and one HAS to stop somewhere) it seems to hold much promise...

Anyhow, back to thinking and writing and commenting on students' work...

thoughts about qualifying exam prep...

So, that time of year is coming up, the time of qualifying exams. I have resigned myself to the fact that, no matter how much one studies, one is never "ready" for these things...One simply attempts to reach a certain "comfort" level of unreadiness. For medieval history here at my university, there is no set reading list--understandably, since it's hard to formulate any kind of comprehensive plan for a massive geographical space over the period of a millennium (one expects to teach the general "High Middle Ages," "Late Middle Ages" courses, naturally, but that's mostly a matter of finding a half-decent non-textbook textbook, and tailoring the course to your own interests, unless you are creative...whatever). On the other hand, how do you process all this information, especially if, as I am doing, you are developing a minor field in modern history as well? [My major field is medieval European history, minor field 1 is medieval monasticism/art history, minor field 2 is modern Germany--which last is really a rather major minor field, and one in which I have various research interests.]

To deal with this situation, I have been attempting to put into practice a bowdlerized version of Duke's system for preparing their history grad students, which is based on preparing a portfolio of their fields, teaching and intellectual philosophies, etc., and which is supposed to serve not only as a exam prep but as job market prep as well. Very useful, it seemed to me, if rather intense, having learned about it, if I'm remembering correctly, as a prospective from another prospective while visiting an institution which was not Duke. The full description, for the curious, is here:
http://www-history.aas.duke.edu/graduate/handbookpreliminaryexams.php

My own approach has been to design a series of syllabus templates, at several levels (introductory, upper level seminar, and graduate seminar), which should cover major teaching topics while at the same time solidifying my reading and grasp of the field in general. So far, not bad, I think. We'll see how it goes in the "dry run" in about a week.

In the mean time, there are certain to be more posts of a more-or-less esoteric nature on various archaic points of history and historiography, some of which will probably be driven by frustration and a lack of sleep. They say it only gets worse from here...