Honor
...was there no personal concept akin to points raised by Scott, others in this thread?
Which points, specifically?
Understanding of "personal" behavior in that age/place revolves around the embedding of the individual in an honor-hungry continuum: everyone had their superiors and their inferiors. You expected (and were expected by others) to bring honor to your local superiors and get honor from your inferiors. You fought for honor only with your equals. Nobody "had honor" outside of that embedding in a social group. Dishonoring your superior often took a lot of work to "recoup" the damage. Some patrons used the social tactic of forgiveness when dealing with a transgressing inferior; the idea being that they have so much honor it's not worth getting even over; therefore, they are ascribed more honor by the community. This could backfire, of course, just like it does for Microsoft every day. They are foolish because they try to claim honor they have not earned/been ascribed.
OT a little bit, the word "shame" often comes up in the same discussion: in a lot of societies, shame is a good thing--"having shame" means knowing your place in the social hierarchy. It is the direct opposite of being a fool. Only we could take that concept and make it an evil to be abolished. ;)