With this in mind, answer the following prompt. Your response must be at least 150 words and refer very specifically to characteristics of chivalry and knighthood If you were a knight 1,000 years ago...

Would you prefer to be born into knighthood, or earn knighthood with a wealthy sponsor? Why?
Which tenet of chivalry would be the easiest for you to follow? Why?
Which tenet of chivalry would be the hardest for you to follow? Why?

There's something romantic about being a knight — and no, we don't mean sweep-a-fair-lady-off-her-feet kind of romantic. Between the tall tales of heroic deeds and depictions of gleaming, glorious suits of armor, the life of a knight has been made into something grander than it actually was.

The desire to take up sword and shield and live the life of a knight immediately goes out the window once you learn a little more about what that life was actually like. While your the experience of knighthood varied greatly between kingdoms, no matter which banner you bore, they all shared one common quality: life flat-out sucked.

It wasn't entirely impossible for a peasant-turned-warrior to be recognized for greatness and rise in status, but that was exceedingly rare (for reasons we'll get into shortly). For the most part, knights were generally are born into the role. If your father was a knight or if you were of noble birth but far from the line of succession, knighthood was for you.

This meant that, for the most part, from the moment of your birth, you'd be expected to become a knight and fight for your lord. The process typically began at age seven. You'd be given off to a noble to learn as much as you could. The quality of this childhood hinged entirely on the whims of said noble. Then, at age 14, you'd become a squire.

i would say the answer is erm c but if you dont agree im so sorry