Scholar William Childers states that, “by Cervantes's day, then, chivalry was debased to the point where its ethos of altruistic service had been replaced by sloth and greed, overlaid with a thin veneer of pretense.”1 This quote helps us realize what the real problem is when trying to discuss whether the medieval chivalry effectively died by the close of the Middle Ages. Indeed, it is important to establish a clear definition of what chivalry was for William Marshal and his successors. It was clearly not an altruistic service at all. William Marshal first motivation into entering the tournament fields, which grant him his everlasting fame “as the perfect knight […] [who] almost became the living embodiement of the mythical Arthurian knight”, was “not only to affirm [his] prowess […] [but] it could also bring [him] rich material rewards.”23 Likewise, William Childers insists on the knight's “service to God and king.”4 Loyalty was certainly a crucial feature of medieval knights, however, it was not so much about the king but rather the lord, to whom a knight swore an oath. For instance, William Marshal chose to stay loyal to his lord Young Henry and thus to be named in the the formal list of “diabolical traitors” to Young Henry's father, king Henry II of England.5 William Childers' definiton of…