Fred, was there any part of our history oneof your relearives was not involved in.
Just to exploit the obvius, a John Thurston is shown as one who died at the Alamo,
In any event the Book "Mayflower" asserts the 10% of or populattion descendended from mayflower people.
I am guessig that another 10% are descended for Mass Bay (John Thurston Settled In Sudbury in 1657.
But i digress.
One difference, that I feel in my gut is that Early Chivalry immediatelt descended fron waves of Horsemen that swept into the former Roman Empire starting in the late 4th Centurly.
Before that, many 'teutonic" and Gothic Tribes were alloewed to settle in the Empire.
Gothic Cavarly, as you wwill recall, were Flavius Aetius" allies at Chalons in 451.
Franks, Goths seem to be te major force as Karl deGrosse (Charlemagne)
was able to set up an Empire one the ashes of the Western Emire.
When he died he left each son a third of his Empire, setting the stage for the arguablly internicine troubles still not settled.
It is not my theory alone that the battle of France did not end until 1945 and it requiered unwonted interventions fron a spewling power in the "New World".
So, I think the Chevaliers were descendants of the idea of the Roman Equus' and those of the many Germanic Tribes who reshaped Europe.
They had no code , an a Bushido like code really never existed in the West.
For one thing, the early Chivarly of the West were simply horse men.
When the Merovingnian Empire Came apart, the law of the state went with it and it was replaced in the dark ages by dozens of feudal Kingdoms held together by personal oaths.
More attention has been paid to the istory of the Dark Ages as it played out in Britain.
Eventually, the Saxons non feidal and largely non horsed fighting force called House karls and backed by a militia called the "fyrd" gripped the area of Roman Britain,excepting Wales.
Hwever, things tooks a different turn when the descendents as seafaring raiders turned horseman crushed the Saxon Kingdom.
The Normans won partially because of their horsemen, many as portrayed in Cecillia Hollands the Firedrake-- just went along for the loot.
Their type of feudalism was iron clad and simple---and remember the imprisonmemnt of the Bruce's Child in an iron cage.
Sorry to be so diffuse.
Prior to the Saxon hegemony over former Roman Britain and the submergence of rather rich little cultures in Mercia, Anglia, East Saxony, Sussex, etc.
The integration, for example, of East Anglia was completed in 620 when the Kingdon was conquered by the West Saxons after previously being conquered by the Vikings (Danes mostly),
Things were chaotic to say the least.
The Mercians fell to the Vikings, then, probably out of self defense, they West Saxon annexed this former KIngdom in 919,
Saxons did not favor mounted fighting-so kniththood and Chivalry were only a gleam in God's eye in 919 as far as former Roman Britian Went.
Their is mush to discuss.
But a Bushido like Code for mounted warriors-even as far along as the 10th century, just was not in the cards.
At least not for another century at the least in former roman Briton, although the legend of Arthur does speak otherwise.
So-the thought was there-it just had not germinated.
Arthur defeated, perhaps usin cavalry lessons from the mainland, with his "Britain's.
"Arthur and the Anglo Saxon Wars" might shed some light on this period, as he and a force of mounted and non mounted romano Britain temporary put the Saxons on check at Mount Badon.
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"