Was Chivalry a Turkish monopoly in the Middle Ages?

Question

The great conqueror Tamerlane was reported to have said that militarism should be confined to only one race: The Turks. Before him, the Frankish author of the gesta franconum has claimed that the Turks were the greatest warriors ever. Again, many Europeans (among them Chevalier Folard and Napoleon Bonaparte) have described the Turks and Circassians as the bravest and greatest warriors in the whole world.

From that we could conclude that the Turks were known to be as the greatest warriors in the Middle Ages; even to some centuries in the New Ages...why is this so? Was fighting ability and chivalry that superior among the Turkic races?? Was it a monopoly of chivalry??

Answer 1

Sorry, but you have a problem here.
Fighting ability and chivalry may overlap but are not synonymous.
As far as that chivalry that means consideration of women goes, Turks know nothing of chivalry that they didn't get from the west.
They still have precious little of it!
soyledigim taniyorum, kardesim.

Answer 2

Well, the concept of chivalry went a little bit beyond just being brave and a great warrior, at least in the West.

A man who followed the code of chivalry was expected to be brave, loyal, and skillful in warlike arts--so far not much different than the Turks or the Japanese code of Bushido.

However, chivalry was also influenced by Christian ideals: a knight was to not destroy churches, monasteries, convents, was to observe the various Truces of God (which prohibited battle during certain religious seasons, such as Easter), and was expected to treat his defeated foes honorably.

Unfortunately, most of these "rules" applied only to others of the knight's own class, and often were noted more in the breach than the observance. Basically, too, it was open season on the peasantry, with wholesale slaughter, destruction of homes and crops, and the usual practice of raping and pillaging.

War was hell a long time before Sherman made the observation!