[MR] 5th Peerage

[David Chessler]

The SCA covers 1000 years, depending on whom you ask: from roughly 600 AD to
1600 AD. In 600 AD, knighthood had not yet been invented: that came in the 8th
century, starting with Charles Martel (Mayor of the Palace after 714) who
invented the European system of heavy cavalry that became the Feudal system.
Land grants to support the knights were developed by his son and grandson,
Pepin and Charlemagne. This system of knighthood and heavy cavalry never
developed in Scandinavia, which is a very important period for the SCA.

SCA heavy fighters typically wear armor like that of the 14th and 15th C,
although the rules of the list assume 12th-13th C armor (the mail hauberk).
However, gunpowder weapons appeared toward the end of the 15th C (the last
battles of the 100 years war, 1485). By the end of Henry VIII's reign
gunpowder was in widespread use in "modern armies" and the longbow and
crossbow were falling out of use. The last medieval tournaments occurred
during the late 14th C. although there were a few attempts to revive it in the
early 16th C. (Henri II of France died jousting in 1559, but that was about
the last.)

Heavy armor was largely obsolete by the end of the 15th C, although the
breastplate remained in use for years. However, any large firearm of the day
could penetrate any practical armor.

By the second half of the 16th C, upper class and noble men were switching to
light thrusting weapons, that could be worn with civilian clothing became the
rapier. Moreover, during this period in England and elsewhere knighthoods were
granted to military leaders who had no specific training or expertise in the
use of arms, specifically the military sword. Thus, the rapier is the weapon
of nobility in the last years of the SCA period (the reign of Elizabeth I).
But the institution of knighthood had become degenerate (or evolved) and no
longer required demonstrated expertise in swordcraft or, perhaps, any other of
the chivalric skills.

So our present chivalry, the white belts, are reflecting the European military
class from about 800 to about 1500. They perhaps reflect military skills of
the early period as well (600 to 800). But military skills, use of weapons, of
the final century (16th) of the period are reflected by the white scarfs of
the rapier.

Heraldry (blazons, coats of arms, etc) also appeared later in the SCA period.
The 12th C is often cited. And, I have heard it it claimed that any well-to-do
character, would or could have used some form of heraldry toward the end of
the SCA period. Sumptuary laws were going out of style.

The SCA doesn't admit gunpowder weapons, probably because of the dangers
(particularly of the early types). And equestrian combat has to be strictly
limited both because of the dangers and the expense. Certainly, it will never
be as popular as fighting on foot. (But then, English knights had fought on
foot for most of the period of the 100 years war, which is the heart of the
SCA period).

So arguments that rapier was not a knightly weapon in period can be justified
only by dropping the 16th C from the period. Arguments that knights must be
military men, with training and ability as men at arms, also require that one
drop much of the 16th C from period.



--

YIS

Davitt il Bigollo da Pisa
Erudit de l'Academie de Espee de Atlantia
Storvik (rapier)
Roxbury Mill (other things)

------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:54:47 AM EST
From: chagankhulan at clan-whitewing.org
To: "Achbar Ibn Ali" <achbar at earthlink.net>Cc: Becky Day <rwday at cox.net>,
atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [MR] 5th Peerage

> I have to wonder about a word I've seen in some of these posts that, to my
> knowledge, is wrong or at least misleading.  Rapier or fencing requires
> armor, Combat archery and Siege weapons for combat require armor , even
> the latest aspects of Equestrian require armor....so, why are we referring
> to these as non-armored activities?  Admittedly, thrown weapons and target
> archery do not require armor but the others I've listed most certainly do.
>  If it requires armor, makes use of a weapon and is considered a martial
> activity - all of the above require marshals and must check in with an MoL
> - where's the difference?
> The difference is in our history and traditions. Knights were our first
> Peers for many reasons and knights are perceived as fighters in heavy
> armor wielding great - or at least large - swords. It is simply tradition.
> Laurels came next and a couple years later the Pelicans were created -
> then termed Imperial Pelicans... So we have a 40+ year tradition of heavy
> weapons folks being Knights. As several people on this list have noted -
> historically there have been knightings of folks who were not of a social
> rank or wealthy enough to really be knights but their prowess on the
> battlefield gave them that right or their pouch of gold bought them that
> right.  There have been a number of knightings in the last decade or so in
> Great Britain that gave men the rank who probably wouldn't know what to do
> with a sword if their life depended on it. So, all that aside I return to
> what I think is the main reason - simple tradition.  The (oh good grief,
> yes) We've always done it that way, tradition.
> The SCA does evolve and change, albeit slowly, and I see nothing really
> wrong with that. In the beginning we had Elves and Dwarves and such and
> some of the really old names are grand-fathered in because if they were
> presented to our heralds today they'd be laughed out the door.  More
> recently we've seen a movement for more correct or period terms  Event
> Steward for Autocrat, etc.  Not good, not bad, just another phase of an
> ever evolving group.  Some of us will embrace the changes, others won't. I
> suspect it would take a return of the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs
> to wipe out all our so-called BAD old habits.
>    Perhaps it's time to take a long, close look at the Society's
> definition of what is required to become one of any of the Peerages,
> but most especially the Knights, and think about what those
> requirements mean.  That may be the defining answer to whether those
> "non-armored" disciplines could become knights or not.  You might be
> surprised.
>
> Chagan
>
>
>
> >  Archery, Thrown Weapons, Equestrian and all, could this not be
> > covered under a Laurel peerage?   Why do we need to add a 4th, much
> > less a 5th Peerage.
> >
> >
> > Achbar
> > ========================================================================
> >                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
> >     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
> >   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> > Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
> >
>
>
> ========================================================================
>                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
>