[MR] Arts for fighters

[JBRMM266 at aol.com]

Duke Logan wrote:

I said  that being the "difference" between knights and  whatever . . . 
 
I agree.  And not only because of the possiblity of winning  Crown.
 
If the three Bestowed Peerages, Knighthood is the one that has a basis in  
history. And by the latter part of our period, the so-called High Middle Ages,  
the expectation was that a Knight would be more than a champion at arms.  
Diverstiy of interest and diversity of accomplishments were expected of a gentle  
knight.
 
William Marshal, who most of us know as a real-world paladin, was not only  
the best jouster and tourneyer of his age.  There is an account that at a  
revel where for some reason the musicians had not arrived in time for the  dancing 
to begin, Sir William sang well enough for the others to dance until the  
musicians finally arrived.  Just one example of the talents expected of  such an 
one.
 
A big reason for the emphasis on the gentler arts was probably to temper  the 
ferocity of those men who, in their heyday, were the most powerful military  
force in existence. If they were at least somwhat cultured and able to 
maintain  themselves in what one might call polite society, they would be less likely 
to  be savage brutes off the battlefield. To a large extent, it worked. Not  
perfectly, but it worked.
 
If we seek to capture, in any part, the spirit of that time, then expecting  
gentler accomplishments of a knight or squire is, in my honest and heartfelt  
opinion, entirely reasonable.
 
Your servant aye
Donal Mac Ruiseart

 
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.