The romantic Knight in shining armour

[david welch]

I found this on another board and wanted to pass it along to people that don't go to other boards. Minor editing.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=83808

People have a romantic notion of medieval knights. This is a letter written by Ulrich von Hutten in 1518. It is reply to a suggestion that if he was not happy he could return to his peaceful life in the country by Willibald Pirckheimer after Pirckheimer read an earlier letter from von Hutten recording his experiences at court. To me, it is an interesting window into the life of the people we would learn to emulate. It definitely gives me an idea how important skill at arms was to them on a daily basis.

"Do you know what sort of place it is to which you ask me to return? Do not make the mistake of equating your own situation with mine. You city people, who lead comfortable, placid easy going lives, seem to think that a man in my position can find peace and quiet in his country retreat. Are you so ignorant of the turmoil and insecurity to which my sort is subject? Do not imagine that your life has anything in common with mine. Even if our estates were large enough to support us and our patrimonies ample, there are many troubles that deprive our minds of peace. Our days are spent in the fields, in the woods and in fortified strongholds. We lease our land to a few starving peasants who barely manage to scratch a living from it. From such paupers we draw our revenues, an income hardly worth the labour spent on it. To increase our revenues would require enormous effort and unremitting diligence.

Most of us are, moreover in a position of dependence on some prince to whom our hope of safety is attached. Left to ourselves we would be at everyone's mercy, but under princely protection we still live in constant apprehension. Indeed, whenever I leave my tower I face danger. If I fall into the hands of those who are at war with my overlord, they seize me a carry me away. If my luck is bad I lose half my patrimony in ransom... No wonder we must spend large sums on horses and arms and employ retainers at great expense to ourselves. I cannot travel a mile from my home without putting on armour. I dare not even go hunting or fishing except clad in iron. Not a day passes without some dispute or altercation breaking out amongst our retainers. Often it is nothing more than a contention among stewards, but every quarrel must be approached with caution, for if I respond aggressively to a wrong done to one of my men, I may find myself embroiled in war while submission or concessions lay me open to extortion and a thousand new injuries springing from the first. And, remember, these quarrels arise not among foreign rivals but among neighbours, relatives and even brothers.

Such then are our rural delights; such is our leisure and our serene peace. The stone structures in which we live, whether they stand on a hill or in the plain, are built for defence, not comfort. Girded by moats and walls, they are narrow and crowded inside, pigs and cows competing with men for space, dark rooms crammed with guns, pitch, sulphur, and other materials of war. The stench of gun powder hangs in the air mixed with the smell of dogs and excrement and other such pleasant odours. Knights and retainers go to and fro, among them thieves and highway robbers, for our houses are open to all, and how can we tell one armed man from another? There is a constant din of sheep bleating, cows lowing, dogs barking, men working in the fields and the squeaks and creakings of carts and wagons. Wolves can be heard howling in the woods beyond.

Each day is filled with anxiety over what the morrow might bring - worrisome trouble, perhaps, or tempests. We must think about digging and ploughing, pruning the vines, planting trees, irrigating the meadows, sowing, spreading manure, cutting hay, reaping the grain, threshing and picking the grapes. Let the harvest fail, and we suffer terrible privation, with poverty, confusion, sickness, misery all around us. Is it to this life, then, that you are inviting me to return? Shall I leave court for an existence which is anything but the calm have you city people imagine? Do you really think that peace and tranquillity await me in my tower? And if you do not think so, what strange twist of your mind has led you to offer me such advice?"

[Jeff Hansen]

Cool, thanks for sharing.

[CalebChow]

Thanks for sharing!

That was pretty well written; I wonder what the response was.

[Craig Peters]

It’s certainly an intriguing document. Von Hutten’s description has to be one of the least romantic discussions of country life and court life. Save for the parts about gunpowder and firearms, his discussion of the less pleasant side of living within castles probably holds true for much of the Middle Ages, and not just the Renaissance/Reformation period.

I would caution people when reading this though about over-generalizing von Hutten’s experience as representative of the noble or knightly life. The sentiment in the second paragraph of this document is indicative of the fact that it is a product of the Holy Roman Empire, which was particularly turbulent. While violence was certainly common in England and France, von Hutten’s emphasis upon the constant danger he faces when leaving his tower, and daily potential for strife, violence, or feuds among his retainers are problems more common in the Empire than elsewhere.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Romantic? I was watching the History Channel about the Dark Ages in Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed (I don't know if anybody here watched it), but one of the professor said that knights during those time have more in common with Tony Soprano than anything that is protray in a lot of movies and books. They were more like thugs. And they didn't begin building castles and other impressive structures until after the Cruisades which they brought science and math back from the Middle East. Ofcourse I don't mean to diss knights, but the truth about them is not very glamorous or romantic at all. Ofcourse you have to admire their adaptability buy assimilating other cultures' knowledge and tried to make themselves better. If it weren't for them, maybe we still be living in the Dark Ages. Look what happened in the 20th century...from the atom bomb to airoplane. Maybe we are still living in the Dark Ages.

[s_taillebois]

The nobility was quite capable of hiring designers for castles , and building them prior to and during the crusades. Although the forms may have been slightly different earlier, such as the motte and bailey. And in outremer, the traditional conception of the stone castle, had already reached a high state of development. Krek des Cheveliers for example, remains one of the best examples of European fortifications, and that was designed by the order which had it built. Inevietably there is cross cultural influences, for example the pointed arch, brought into Europe through the Spanish Moslems. But the Spanish Moslems obtained the concept from the Sassanid Persians. One of the reasons that Outremer lasted as long as it did, was because these European fortifications provided a center from which to project power. And it took the Moslem's quite a while to figure out ways to get rid of them (often it was the Turks, who'd learnt from the Persians...who did the best in ridding the Moslem areas of these fortifications)
And yes, the nobility were a bit thuggish. But also they did provide a form of social stability (counterbalanced by the church) in a problematic period in history. That system would not have stayed in place so long if it had not worked, even if certain aspects were repressive.
That said, the freeman, yeomanry class had their means to act. If a Lord did not provide some of the boons required under his obligation, revolts were not uncommon. It wasn't unknown for villages to riot if the local lord had not provided beer (or some other boon) for feast days. Hence the reason for the man in the letter needing to wear armor. That said, in some cases, the poor in fuedal Europe (as repressed as they were) had a better chance of actually contacting their leaders than we do, and by more than just secondary means. It wasn't uncommon for the nobility, as a gesture of charity or atonement, on certain days to roll through the streets handing out bread. Not something you'd see today, and not without a pre-prepped selection of the poor.
So yes, the nobility could have been considered goons. But they did not have the complete range of power implied in some sources. There were counterbalancing forces such as the church, the crown, and such lower offices as Reeves (although appointed by the nobility...some Reeves worked as much for their own interest, or the villagers as they did the Lords)
And by the late middle ages/Renn. (to their great irritation) some of the nobility had to adopt modes from the rising middle classes. which included trade, mills, other pursuits not all that linked to silk and armour. For example, by about the period stated in the letter (1510) one of my distant aristocratic ancestors had set up selling books, not exactly the silk and armor paradigm people often assume. Apparently the books paid better than the title did...

[Craig Peters]

And they didn't begin building castles and other impressive structures until after the Cruisades which they brought science and math back from the Middle East.

Considering the earliest surviving stone castle in Europe is from the 10th century, I think you need to double-check your facts.

[s_taillebois]

And on the bayeaux tapestry, there are scenes showing the Norman's building a type of temporary castle. Especially in Northern Europe, they were very aware of the abilities of castles and like fortifications for projection of power. And actually the ancestors of the Norman's were the people who taught them that lesson. When Charlemagne ordered the local aristocracy to pull down their early castles (motte and baileys) life got much easier for the Vikings.
The Moslems had fortifications, but these seemed to be more along the line of city wall fortifications such as those at Damascus, Jerusalem, or Edessa.
I''m probably mistaken but structures such as Krek Des Cheveliers seemed to have come in with the European invaders. And some Moslem historians have acknowledged the contributions to their architectural traditions.
As far as weapons technologies some interchange was inevietable, Byzantine siege tactics, European strongpoints, Moslem horse breeding (although not used for armored chargers still a big influence ) and etc....
Elements which put the social system in place which was finally breaking up about the time of the letter which started this thread....

[david welch]

Most people I have talked to outside of WMA (and some people inWMA) seem to have an idea of the Knight as either the French Chivalric knight of literature, or to the other extreme as being little better than iron covered cave men.

That was one of the reasons I liked this letter so well, that it helps put them in a real world context. They were neither of the extremes, but much more interesting.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I thought there is a reason why they call it the Dark Ages, Medieval period, for a reason. I hear at the time they were trying to advance themselves after the Roman empire collasped. It was a slow steady process with trouble along the way like the invasion of the Vikings, which threatened to pull them back deeper into the Dark Ages. But eventually with knowledge and science they gain from the crusades and other cultures like Greece they eventually progress to the Renaissance period.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

I thought there is a reason why they call it the Dark Ages, Medieval period, for a reason. I hear at the time they were trying to advance themselves after the Roman empire collasped. It was a slow steady process with trouble along the way like the invasion of the Vikings, which threatened to pull them back deeper into the Dark Ages. But eventually with knowledge and science they gain from the crusades and other cultures like Greece they eventually progress to the Renaissance period.

While it is true, that Europe had lost much of it's knowledge and science, which they regained from the crusades, that doesn't mean that they didn't know to build castles, or how to build them.

[david welch]

I thought there is a reason why they call it the Dark Ages, Medieval period, for a reason.

There is a reason it is called the dark ages. That period of history has very little extant written records left so we can not "see" what went on then clearly. It is "dark" to us. The name "dark ages" has nothing to do with what that period was like, but instead it has to do with the materials we use to study them.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

There is a reason it is called the dark ages. That period of history has very little extant written records left so we can not "see" what went on then clearly. It is "dark" to us. The name "dark ages" has nothing to do with what that period was like, but instead it has to do with the materials we use to study them.

Well, that is one of the reasons, that it is sometimes called the Dark Ages.
For more info, check Wikipedia.

Ah... Wikipedia. The sacred source of all knowledge!

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I thought there is a reason why they call it the Dark Ages, Medieval period, for a reason.

There is a reason it is called the dark ages. That period of history has very little extant written records left so we can not "see" what went on then clearly. It is "dark" to us. The name "dark ages" has nothing to do with what that period was like, but instead it has to do with the materials we use to study them.

Exactly, it has little written records because nobody back then knew how to read and write, not even the nobles. Only the monks knew how to read and write. I believe the Romans called them barbarians. After the Roman Empire fell, their was very little left in term of civilization.

[Stacy Clifford]

Although it may be true that fewer people knew how to read and write during the "Dark Ages" than during earlier Roman times due to lack of available schooling, that doesn't necessarily mean all of civilization took a nose dive and no records were kept. People who could read and write were valuable to the ruling class and were kept around for administrative purposes during all periods of history, the skill was never completely exclusive to the clergy. There are other reasons records may be limited or lost from those times. While Roman knowledge was preserved in faraway places like Greece and Turkey, new knowledge produced later in western Europe probably stayed there and much of it may have been destroyed in the constant warfare, village burnings, cultural upheaval and other mayhem going on during the period. And depending on who was doing the writing, the culture of the times may have dictated that many things we would like to know now just weren't important enough to waste valuable parchment and ink on back then. It's not safe to assume that just because there's not much left, then there must not have ever been much to begin with. History is a messy thing.