[MR] Teachers, shields and history

[David Chessler]

------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:54:07 PM EST
From: "Vivian V. Morgan" <vivianvaz at lairhaven.com>
To: <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
Subject: [MR] Teachers, shields and history

> Please bear with me as I vent a wee bit here, which will involve a longish
quote.  My lovely Lady Magdalena LaRosa has returned to school (and doing
well, I might add).  This semester, she is taking Public Speaking.  One of her
first assignments, interestingly enough, is to create a personal coat of arms
to represent herself to the class.  Here's the fun part.  Below is a quote
directly from the assignment.  No lie.  Here goes:
> 
> 	"In ages past, every person possessed a Coat of Arms of one kind or
another.  One of the important points to understand about these shields is
that they were never intended to give physical protection in battle.  Their
purpose was not to turn away arrows or bullets or for people to hide behind. 
Usually they were too thin or fragile for this use."
> 
> She goes on:
> 	"On the shields were symbols representing clan signs of the men who carried
them.  These signs told who the man was, what he sought to be, and what his
loves, fears, and dreams were.  Men carried these shields in order that anyone
they met might know them.  Even when they rested in their lodges, their
shields were always kept outside where all could see them.  They might be hung
up by the lodge door or the smoke hole, but they were always kept outside
where people might see and learn from them."
> 
> Feel free to respond directly to me or to the list if you want an open
discussion.  I would love to hear questions, comments, or opinions.  She
showed this to me several days ago and I've been having hives ever since.  I
have had no one yet to vent to except her and, patient as she is, I don't want
to wear her out on this.  I mean, isn't an important part of public speaking
to "check your facts?"  Can she really believe someone would lug a big piece
of wood into battle just to show people a picture?  I can't imagine why she
would think anyone would carry something they couldn't block or kill with. 
Magdalena really wanted to oppose the teacher on this one but, as she had
already disagreed with her vehemently on a previous point, she didn't want to
push.  After all, it was the first class and she doesn't know, yet, if she is
dealing with a vindictive personality.
> 
> Thank you for letting me share and thank you in advance for any commentary
you may have.
> 
> In Service,
>   Lady Yenega de Santurce
>   CaerMear, Atlantia
>

First question is when did "modern" coats of arms come into use? The answer
seems to be the 12th C. Before then, the concept does not seem to exist,
except as "personal seals" used to sign documents in an age before widespread
literacy.

Roman legions used insignia held aloft on spears, but these were usually
eagles, similar for each legion. The painted pattern on the shields was
usually the same throughout each legion. For greeks, romans, and most others
the shield was large because it was the main means of defence. Shields were
also disposable, because they were primarily wood, and would break or split.
Indeed, they were used to catch the edge of a sharp weapon. 

By the time of Charlemagne, there was a military class that held land (was
given land), in return for which it provided armed retainers when needed--when
requested by a superior, possibly the king. Indeed, Motte and Bailey castles
were built, especially in France, to provide bases for such armed men to
protect against invasion and large-scale banditry.

When coats of arms came into use, the use was allowed only to knights and
nobles. Their followers wore the colors and sometimes a version of the arms of
the leader. This continued to a greater or lesser degree until our civil war,
where in the early days, companies and regiments were raised and equipped by
the wealthy, who selected the uniforms. Hence "zouaves." This was an attempt
to provide some unit cohesion, but the most important element was the unit's
flag. The flag replaced the eagle of the roman legion, and has the same mystic
power. Hence the emphasis on capturing the enemy's battle flag, which
persisted through the civil war.

In any event, only a small minority of Europeans ever had personal insignia,
and even fewer had recognized coats of arms. Only the military class, which
was a distinct class of knights and nobles, would use coats of arms for
recognition in battle. Peasants, soldiers, mercenaries, even non-commissioned
officers, had no need for these. The commercial class, merchants, would have
had seals or designs that they used to sign documents.
--
Mr. Satterthwaite
At the sign of the Bells and Motley
David Chessler
At sign chessler<at>usa.net

</at>