🚀 go-pugleaf

I first encountered this announcement on "soc.history.living", and my
response is colored by that fact.  I have read the excerpts on their web
site and have come to the following conclusion:

If you are interested in the interpretation of "Knighthood" peculiar to
the SCA, then this book will be of interest to you.

If you are interested in actual medieval knighthood or the history of the
development, acts, or philosophies of knighthood through history, this
book is not worth your trouble.

This is, of course, if the excerpts are typical of the book as a whole.

The individual excerpts are well-written and entertaining, but the book is
of extremely limited scope, and not really a book of history or for
"living historians".  It appears to concern itself exclusively with the
fictional subculture of the SCA's "knighthood" with some nods towards the
historical.

>Ello All,
>I am looking at a copy of the book right now.

Bryan J. Maloney (bjm10@cornell.edu) wrote:
: If you are interested in the interpretation of "Knighthood" peculiar to
: the SCA, then this book will be of interest to you.

> The cover even says "Chivalry and Romance in the Society for Creative 
Anachronism"

: If you are interested in actual medieval knighthood or the history of the
: development, acts, or philosophies of knighthood through history, this
: book is not worth your trouble.

> True enough...this book is about philosophies on knighthood in these 
'current middle ages' and where we get our ideas.

: The individual excerpts are well-written and entertaining, but the book is
: of extremely limited scope, and not really a book of history or for
: "living historians".  It appears to concern itself exclusively with the
: fictional subculture of the SCA's "knighthood" with some nods towards the
: historical.

>I wouldn't call the SCA a fictional sub-culture...sub-culture yes...but 
with over 80000 participants I wouldnt call it fictional.  :)

If you take the book for what it is...a book on the ideals of knighthood 
in the current middle ages it is quite a good book and the articles and 
stories are very true.  This book will not serve a  historical referance 
about any given time frame but our own...1966 through 1996.  In it there 
are stories that will touch you...annoy you...and make you laugh,but for 
those of us seeking for an ideal...call it 'knighthood' if you wish...it 
will help in that too.  From what I have read so far I would recomend 
this book to anyone in the SCA who wants to know more about our current 
middle ages and the "Facets of Knighthood" in it.


In service to a dream,
Lord Jason Thorne
Kingdom of Atenveldt 
Barony of Tir Ysgithr

In article <4h5aum$h7q@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, kolton@arizona.edU (Jason
Kolton) wrote:


> >I wouldn't call the SCA a fictional sub-culture...sub-culture yes...but 
> with over 80000 participants I wouldnt call it fictional.  :)

It's "fictional" compared to, say, the local incarnations of the Irish
Regiment of the US Civil War...


> stories are very true.  This book will not serve a  historical referance 
> about any given time frame but our own...1966 through 1996.  In it there 
> are stories that will touch you...annoy you...and make you laugh,but for 
> those of us seeking for an ideal...call it 'knighthood' if you wish...it 
> will help in that too.  From what I have read so far I would recomend 
> this book to anyone in the SCA who wants to know more about our current 
> middle ages and the "Facets of Knighthood" in it.


However, as I BEGAN my previous message, I stated that I first saw the
announcement of the book in "soc.history.living", and reviewed what I saw
from the perspective of THAT newsgroup.

Small technical point here, there is no such thing as'The Order of
Chivalry' unless the SCA has invented it. There are several Orders of
Chivalry, The Garter, Bath, Golden Fleece even the Legion d Honneur. There
are also some that survive in more or less their original form  the
Crusades , the Soveriegn Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of
Malta, and the Military and Hospitaler Order of St Lazarus of Jerusaem
being the most prominent. These latter two were originaly formed as true
Orders ie membership in them involved becoming a monk and "taking holy
orders" that is accepting vows of poverty,chastity and obedience.
Just geting on a horse in armour and whacking your oponent was called
being a 'man at arms' being a Knight-even a secular one - was and is a
very diferent thing. Hope you dont thing I used a sledge hammer to crack a
peanut, just thought yould like to know! 















'

Greetings from Arval!  Symon Frasier wrote:

> It is ironic, though, that the proliferation of "orders of chivalry" was
> contemporary with the decline and demise of the military and political
> institutions of "chivalry"...

Ironic in retrospect, yes; but not at all surprising.  The motivations for
the creation of formalized orders of chivalry were complex, but they
included several elements which were direct reactions to the decline of
those institutions.

The orders were, in part, an effort to revitalize chivalry by giving
knights a new ideal to which to aspire.  As military technology changed,
there was less need for the armored knight as a tool of state; but
something was needed to replace the social bonds which had accompanied the
military organization of old.  Knighthood was a traditional unifying
structure; monarchs made it more attractive by making it more prestigious
and bolstered their own power by focussing the new knighthood on themselves
as heads of orders.

Knighthood had also become an important tool of government finance.  A
large fraction of knights paid money fees in place of military service, a
practice which the crowns tended to encourage, since it enabled them to
maintain standing armies rather than having to rely on feudal levies.  But
in the 14th century, the proportion of eligible noblemen taking knighthood
had dropped alarmingly.  We have evidence of several efforts in several
kingdoms to impose knighthood on gentlemen of sufficient income.  The
orders had the secondary effect of increasing the overall glamor of
knighthood, thereby making it more attractive.  It was no accident that
Edward's Order of the Garter mixed the great lords of the land with lesser
nobles. 

The choice of the "order of chivalry" was also inspired.  It carried echos
of romance -- the first attempt to found an order in England was actually
called the "Order of the Round Table" -- and it harkened to the greatest
achievements of the Crusades by recalling the religious orders of chivalry.

Orders were powerful political tools as well: Kings and princes bound
themselves to their most influential vassals by oaths of mutual support
that went far beyond customary fealty.  The kings guaranteed the loyalty of
their companions, while the barons cemented relationships to the crown that
would advance their own interests in many ways.  The order formed an elite
combat unit in some cases, an inner circle of advisors in others. 

===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                         mittle@panix.com