By and large, the critical response to Chaucer's tale understood that he was parodying or burlesquing the aesthetic excesses of chivalric romances such as Sir Beves of Hampton, Guy of Warwick or Horn Child. This idea probably began with Thomas Warton who, in his History of English Poetry, claimed: Warton was probably wrong about the prevailing belief concerning the tale. Some critics have understood the object of Chaucer's scorn as not only the romances that seemed to laud chivalric ideals, but the chivalric ideals themselves. In concert with the Tale of Sir Thopas it seems to take issue with chivalric excess, specifically the “martial honor” that characterizes knightly behavior. More recently, Helen Phillips has made a more nuanced argument about chivalry, claiming that the romances that Chaucer was making fun of were not seen as antiquated, nor were they simply a nostalgic recollection of an idealized chivalric past.