Maybe there is hope, yet.....

[Jaron Bernstein]

"Although the original practioners of our art, did have a element of religious mysticism to their art...we're a long time away from the society they lived."

I am not so sure of that, or if there was it wasn't a very large element. Just because there are half swording guards name a vera croce or bastardo croce does not a religious knight make. IMO the average medieval fighter likely thought of their fighting in the same way we think of driving a car today or the way a modern soldier thinks of how to use a rifle. Just the skill by which one gets through life, not an object of magic or worship.

[Justin Blackford]

I am inclined to agree, Jason.

Not everything in Western heritage is based from a mystical or socio-religious standpoint. Martial skill was simply how one learned to survive, like hunting, fishing, etc.

And, although I am aware of the many crimes that were perpetrated by many bad seeds who called themselves knights(hey, there's some in every group), I believe in the practice of chivalric virtues that were based from much more respectable knights and men-at-arms. I find that I can practice these virtues even though I am neither a knight nor a Christian, because the basic concept of gentlemanly behaviour is a good character builder, especially for someone learning a deadly skill such as fencing. The historical accuracy of what a knight's personal religious beliefs and political viewpoints are irrelevant to those of us practicing the Art in the modern day. I believe the two to be separate.

Anyway, great posts from everybody here! Good topics of discussion!

Justin

[Shane Smith]

Never bout with a drunk, if for no other reasons than legal reasons.

Just a note; George Silver says that no man is a perfectly good fencing Master until he can stand unharmed separately against three Masters, three valiant yet untrained men and three determined drunks. I think his position is valid. Unskilled people do the least fencer-like and unexpected things and if you are not prepared for all manner of non conventional attacks,you're in for trouble eventually.

Still, I agree completely with you guys letting the drunken fool be a drunken fool by himself. No good could have come of challenging him in any case, even if you did thoroughly trounce him...At least you would have been able to act as your own attorney when his relatives sued over the severe bludgeoning that he would have certainly suffered <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[s_taillebois]

No doubt a strong aspect of pragmatism was necessary to the martial arts of the period, and that vein carries through to our studies. On that level, can't evade it, from the physical view some things have to be done correctly in order for any of it to work. For us, as a effective sport or art, for them, obviously a much higher stake.
On the mystical aspect, obviously not all the original knights were concerned about such things to the level of such as Loyola or the like. But, the religious beliefs of the time, were not confined to the cathedrals. For example, at pilgrimage churches, it wasn't uncommon for some pretty bizarre little amulets to be sold and carried. Today, although quite a few of these survive, researchers really cannot pin down why some were carried or what they meant. It's very possible, that the religious references in the fechtbuchs (or for that matter in the named parts of weapons), may have had a meaning which was only indirectly related to the stated theology of the time.
Hard to express, but its not uncommon for people to integrate into their life, the wish to counteract fate (and in the case of the fechtbuchs and masters...a violent fate). So, much of the mysticism alluded to in the fechtbuchs, may not have been a established theology as such, but rather an informal expression of 'hedging their bets'.
Vexation is, to try to comprehend that context, we are compelled to view it through the dust. As no doubt, others will ponder why we placed the study of an archaic art, on the internet.

[Stacy Clifford]

And, although I am aware of the many crimes that were perpetrated by many bad seeds who called themselves knights(hey, there's some in every group), I believe in the practice of chivalric virtues that were based from much more respectable knights and men-at-arms.

Yes, the bad seeds seem to be the ones that get all the press these days, and revisionist historians sometimes give the impression that this was the norm. What I always try to remember, however, is that for every belief system that exists, whether religious, social, political, or philosophical, there is a bell curve of adherence for the people who claim to follow that system. You've got the bad seeds on one end, who only claim to follow it but never really do, and you've got the zealots on the other end who follow it to the letter in every aspect of their lives. Both of those are small populations, and everybody else is somewhere in the middle. In a case like chivalry it's hard to tell whether the bell leans toward the adherance or non-adherance side overall, but nonetheless you can safely believe based on human nature that for every bad seed out there soiling the reputation of chivalry, you could probably find someone else who made it shine and kept the ideal alive. You can see the same distribution in today's world by watching the news every night, so if you can find role models to look up to today who are capable of living up to your ideals, why believe that our ancestors couldn't do the same?

[s_taillebois]

And that's probably why, in the fechtbuchs and some of the masters contracts, there was often a common mention of moral or religious obligations. Being pragmatists, the writers and masters knew that along with the ability to effectively utilize a weapon...inevietably came temptation for misuse. (and that's just considering it on a personal basis, rather than mass events like the 100 years war, or the reformation/counter-reformation wars...One reckless loon with a sword, obviously could disrupt the common good...still can obviously)
Effectively a useful constraint on power. And for the period, even the ability to own a sword, indicated some preexisting power. Whether it was the means to own one (in a materially poor society by modern standards), or the inherited right to carry it.
At times, it seems our society might be better off if we adopted similar expectations for the training/use of our dominant weapons.
And sometimes, it seems that non-functional elements were added to the swords of the time as a moral reminder. For example, the coin insets which turn up occasionally in historical swords...a coin donated by a monarch during religious holidays (especially Easter) was considered to be both protective and a spiritual reminder. And no doubt these also directly reminded the bearer of what they had sworn fealty to protect. Plus other more obtuse meanings.

[Justin Blackford]

I could not have said it better myself, Stacy! This is the kind of stuff I always try to explain to all the negative minded people who are convinced that everything in the world is perpetually getting worse, but I always try to remind them that history repeats itself. It has definently done so with the concept of the behaviour of those who only claim to be gentlemen, and true gentlemen of the modern day. I don't think that chivalry is a dead ideal yet.

You can see the same distribution in today's world by watching the news every night, so if you can find role models to look up to today who are capable of living up to your ideals, why believe that our ancestors couldn't do the same?

I agree. Though, I believe that for those who have children and want to know who their kids' role models should be, it better be their parents. I think that is how so many knights and men-at-arms historically turned out with some good and some bad, they followed in the example of their forefathers. Simply put, bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour, and positive behaviour will lead the next generation to further behaviour of the like. I know that I might as well be saying "the birdie says 'tweet' " to a lot of people, but I think that the concept of true chivalry in martial aspect was something that one had to learn to emulate from the examples set out by those who came before.

Justin

[JeanryChandler]

With all due respect, I think you are both daft. Chivalrous knights? Maybe in a Disney movie. Not too many in any history book I ever read, and trust me, I was looking for 'em.

I guess there is no way to convince you lot though, we'll just have to settle it in a trial by combat next time we meet face to face, first 6 victories wins the issue... <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

(that was a joke btw, in case it wasnt' obvious... challenge still stands though of course <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

[Derek Gulas]

Jean, I would argue that there weren't many infamous chivalrous knights. For example, today you hear a lot more about bad guys than good people in newspapers. Maybe chivalrous knights didn't make it into the history books because they were well-behaved (relatively). Also, the mere existance of Chivalry, and the fact that it was held so highly would probably mean that at least some knights would try to follow it. Just some thoughts

[s_taillebois]

Some noble knights did get into the books. Albeit these are now some pretty obscure books. But it's human nature to remember the infamous. Plus, since the 60's our society has been infatuated with anti-heroes.
Mayhaps thats why ARMA and like interests are having a resurgence. Better to develop a martial arts discipline, and to acknowledge some nobility (of character) , even if it was a flawed one...
And anyway, things are clearly better, most of us will never use our swords and attendant skills for anything but discipline and exercise...very fortunate compared to our antecedents. And I personally don't recall anyone ever aiming a trebuchet at my house...not this week anyway.

[Justin Blackford]

Funny that you should mention that Stephen. I have a friend who is attempting to build a trebuchet.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, on the note of Chivalry, I certainly believe that at least some men of honour made it in the books. One of whom I read about was William Hastynges of Hastynges(not to be confused with William the Conqueror who won the Battle of Hastings). Hastynges(as it was spelled in Olde Englische) was a knight who was well known for his chivalrous conduct during his military service in the Wars of the Roses. In fact, a book was just published recently which included him. Surprisingly, this book also made mention of the equipment of the knights and soldiers themselves, and actually said that the armours and weapons were NOT heavy and cumbersome but the best technology of the day! Wow! Most "history" books that I've read which try to mention Medieval arms and armours usually say that the "heavy broadsword could cut through the cumbersome plate armour that was such a burden that if one in armour fell down, he couldn't get back up, and he needed a crane to lift him on his horse". That kind of stuff.

Justin

[s_taillebois]

Then he must have been quite a remarkable man. The wars between the Lancastrians and Yorkist's were usually marked by a fair amount of atrocities. The remains researched at Towton probably were typical. And there were a few political beheadings as a result of it all.
Trebuchet, I'd like to build one, but being a academic vagente tends to minimize the equipage.
Armour and swords of the time, pushing the technological edge of the period. Many forget that the late Med/Early Renn, had what amounted to as a water powered industrial revolution. To the point that some aristocrats put land use contracts specifically setting aside wood and ores for the mills. And anyway, to make a workable sword from carbonized iron, quite an art. Speaking from experience, it's hard enough with modern steels. (the metals of the time, might be why armour was somewhat inconsistant, with the way carbonized iron was made, very hard to keep hardness/brittleness under control...they could produce a 'steely' surface, but rarely could remelt (for consistancy) the 'steel' they sometimes got as a result. Wasn't until Huntsman at the start of the modern era that Europe could consistantly produce and melt steel. That's why all the damascening, it was a way for the Med/Renn to get some control over their process.