So you want to be an SCA Knight: Is God On Your Side?

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 6:09 pm

Kynaz- the Roman Republic and Early Empire had a rank called "Equites", which is generally translated as "knight" (some scholars use "middle rank" to avoid comparison with medieval knights, but that oversimplifys the meaning). The military/social rank was originally of horsemen, rich enough to provide their own mounts (legions were formed of the upper classes, who had to provide their own equipment, to standard), and generally considered military elite. By the late Republic, and into the Empire, the rank became more and more social, rather than military, and most didn't use horses in combat even if in the Legions, but it held some of the military trappings for a long time (insignia and such). By the late Empire, especially in areas like Britain where limited manpower had to protect large areas, mounted soldiers became more common. Anyway, it would appropriate for me to be a "knight", if not a "true" medeval one. Besides, when the SCA was founded, they weren't doing William Marshal, they were doing King Arthur.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 7:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Bringing me back to the 19th century doctor analogy --
In a theoretical 19th cent Scope SCA
-- just because Germany forbade Jewish doctors in the 19th century -- doesn't mean one can't play a 19th century Jewish doctor Just be sure your personna is not practicing in Germany!!!

>There is a difference, we know there were Jewish doctors in 19th century Germany. I don't know if there were Jewish knights in Medieval Western Europe!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"doctor" in the above example should have been "lawyer" --
It seems immensely fitting that in thinking of Sigmund Freud I make a slip of replacing the intended with its opposite.

Jews in 19th century Germany were forbidden from being Lawyers.
Its fascinating that two movements that have shaped the 20th century owe themselves to official government bigotry:
Freud wanted to be a lawyer - he became a doctor instead and thoughts on thought would never be the same,
while Karl Marx's father converted to Christianity so that he could become a lawyer - laying the groundwork for Karl Marx's low opinion of religion and the middle class.

So -- I hope the example is better -
Jews in 19th century Germany were forbidden from being lawyers - in our theoretical 19th cent SCA - does that mean you can't be a 19th century Jewish lawyer personna?
No - it just means you can't be a German Jewish lawyer.

Wait,
now that I think about -- the example is even more on point --
Can you play a 19th century American Jewish lawyer?
Well, we can point to documents of the Bar Association which reject Jews from membership.
(I'm thinking of this as equivalent to manuals on chivalry which may list the church as a requirement)
But, just because the Bar Association didn't take them, doesn't mean they couldn't practice.

....sorry think I'm getting derailed --
Point is (taking your assumption as a given) -
To be ANYTHING at all in medieval France one had to be Catholic -- whether a Smith, a Cobler, or a Knight.
There is nothing special about knighthood in this. (see my note on guilds from before)
But in the SCA we're not IN France.
We're in "West Kingdom" or Ansteora" or "Trimaris".
ANd these are kingdoms of their own right - kingdoms which do not have an official religion nor do they have restrictions imposed on infidels.
The "Guild of Trimarian Shoemakers" does not require swearing on the cross. What makes the Trimarian order of Knighthood any different??

Just as in Eastern Europe they had Chivalry without taking Roman Catholicism (and if you read the invectives -- the Orthodox hated the Catholics and vice versa),
imagine if you will that "Trimaris" (I'm just being random here) is a small principality surrounded by mountains on the continent somewhere that, while accepting the whole structure of Chivalry has not adopted Catholicism as a national religion.
Without a national church and without restrictions on other professions -- why and how could the Catholic church attain control over knights??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
FIrstly - the assertion that all knights in period in catholic countries were Catholic by requirement should in some way be strongly documented.
> Does it matter if they were Catholic by requirement or by preference? I do agree that documentation would be interesting however.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess the question is - would it be impossible for the non-Christian in all situations of knighthood?

I think the Spanish Jews being addicted to tournaments is at least a strong point in giving doubt to the notion that Knighthood was limited to the Christians.

If, as you say "knightly images" in heraldry are not indicative -- then never mind on that.

...as another note -- a friend metioned that the fighting style of Talhoffer was strongly influenced by the teachings of two masters who happened to be Jewish.
(he never did follow up with the materials - just had their names)

Actually, going with my notion developed below of a small , worthless principality --
there were alot of small dinky kingdoms in the Middle Ages (SCA timespan - or even limit yourself a start date of ...1160? is that the start of "true knights").
Can you comfortibly say that none of these petty kingdoms allowed non-Christians knighthood??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
>Fascinating. I was not aware of this. Although I should mention that helmets and swords may not necessarily reflect knighthood. I think it would be interesting to find out if there were non-Catholic knights in the 15th century
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately, someone else will have to research the details (if that's even possible) -- my interest is outside of Western Europe for precisely the reasons that came up on this discussion (it is fully apropriate for my personna to be a Jewish Warrior Nobleman).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
...though even if there were, I suspect they were an aberration. This could be like the fish skeleton bar grills, period, but the exception to the rule.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The difference between non-Christian knights and bar grills is that the existance of the first would possibly provide insight on important social dynamics in the middle ages.
...and -- there's the sticky question of personna involved -- are we rejecting the portrayal of cultural minorities??
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
>That was largely my point. It didn't matter why the knights were Catholic. If all knights were Catholic, portraying a medieval knight that isn't Catholic would be ahistorical.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My point is, however:
1) that Knights were no different from cobblers in this respect.
2) a Knight's required "catholicness" is dependant on him being knighted in an exclusionarily Catholic kingdom -- seeing that SCA kingdoms do not have a state religion, there is no reason for the knight to be Catholic (unless he wants to be).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
However --
if one portrays a European Knight on Crusade -- then that Knight certainly has to be Catholic
>Well, not under your definitions unless I misunderstood them, but I agree with your point completely.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you do misunderstand my point (though maybe the foregoing has clarified it).
I'm talking about personna consistency --
Ie: My personna is Turkic. His culture is Judeo-Turkic.
If an SCA king knighted me, it would be akin to a Western king knighting a "Saracen".
It wouldn't change my personna in the least.
And I certainly would not swear on a cross
or even participate in a knighting with Christian imagery.

...incidentally, just occured to me that Spain would be interesting to look at on this for a number of reasons -- forgetting for the moment the possible Jewish knights --
the relations between Christian and Moslem kingdoms was not always one of enmity.
Are there possibly known examples of Feudal relations between Moslem and Christian nobility??
If I'm not misrecalling the poem -- one of the things El Cid was praised for was his equal respect for oaths to Christians and Moslems.

In contrast - if someone is playing a Templar -- well, the whole raison d'etre of a Templar is Christian.
If someone's a Crusader -- his whole point is "killin' for Jesus".
So -- taking Christianity out of those portrayals is ludicrous.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
...and that gets us to Scope issues
. . .
>Well yes, but most of these would not be knightly personnas. No knights in Japan and China or Central Asia for the most part. We cover Western Europe, not Japan, China and Central Asia, except that visitors to Western Europe from those areas/cultures can be represented at our events as visitors to Western Europe. And yes, if one of those visitors exemplified chivalry and met the requirements and wished to take on the obligations of a Western European knight, they could be knighted by an understanding and liberal monarch. Of course then they would have to follow the chivalric guidelines and codes. One of which is typically to defend Holy Mother Church, which is part of what started this thread. Which relates to separate topics on other threads including does it make sense to knight an Aztec, Mayan, American Indian, pre-chivalric period Celt/Greek/Roman etc. except that now we bring in the religious conflicts inherent in such a decision, but that is not really the main point of thise thread, although technically I guess it is actually a big part of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See that's the root and heart of the issue.

Firstly -- if a European monarch (in a hypothetical European country that was very unchurchly) were to wish to honor a foreign dignitary with knighthood -- would the "protect the church" part of the shpiel be mandatory??

...as an aside -- are there instances of French kings kinghting Russians (or something of that sort)?
COntrary to the wishes of some fundamentalists -- Greek Christianity and Catholic Christianity were quite different religions (and judging from some medieval Russian sources - a catholic was no better than a pagan - maybe worse)

And Secondly -- Is a Roman Equis a "knight"
I think Owen would say Yes.
Is a Faris (of the Middle East) or a Turkic Boghatur, a Russian Bogatir, a Djigit from the Caucasus... ??

The discussion is, I put to you, circular (or tautological) --if you say "this, this, and this, and protecting the Catholic church define knighthood" then the answer is -- those guys are not knights and non Christians can't be knights.

...um ...wasn't there something about the whole chivalric ideal (I'm talking Romance chivalry rather than church chivalry) being actualy an import from the Middle East??

I think the intent of the SCA award was the general definition of Knighthood -- ie: as simply the English word for Warrior Aristocracy.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
but it was quite close post period -- and before the enlightment - that there were Jewish Knights made in England -- why would the English go and do something like that?)

> I believe I already touched on this specifically, but as far as out of period knighting of Jewish Knights in England, I don't see that that has anything to do with medieval knightings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The relevance is because this was before the Enlightnement -- so that the thoughts on the subject should be close.
The question is -- what makes for a knight in the 1000 years covered by the SCA?
Well, the brit society just post Cromwel had some newfangled ideas -- but it was still just as religiously exclusionary as ever.
At the very least -- the question bears asking -- did something in their conceptualisation of knighthood change from what it was in 1599??
If it had not -- than the precedent holds.
If it had -- what was it? and does it possibly shed light on what you're trying to examine.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I am interested however in your prior mention of Spanish Jews who may have been knighted. Sounds like a great research project.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have fun -- Like I said -- I have enough on my hands studying Turkic culture.

So anyhow -- YES - if your personna should be Catholic you should be playing at it in asmuch as it doesn't infringe on others around you.
But -- NO - the SCA Kingdoms are not catholic lands -- and thus - a Knight of the SCA Kingdom certainly does not have to be Catholic.
------------------------------------------

Oh, and I'm in thorough agreement that forbidding religious exhibition is silly.
I have a religious acrostic on my buckler too.

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 8:19 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Unless you use technique known to have been historically used, you aren't practising [b]historical western martial art. I study what I do to get a better insight into the man-at-arms of the 15th century as a fighting machine.

Oh, where I come from, and what the pro's tell me (regarding warfare) is that amatures study tactics - professionals study logistics.

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I would argue that most of the techniques one sees on the SCA tournament field are precisely linked to medieval tournament techniques, and, allowing for a more realistic combat system, the few untrealistic ones can be winnowed down even more. You choose (as do I, by the way) to study the fechtbucher to understand a wider range of martial techniques than *just* tournament combat, but the techniques in the SCA are reasonably medieval; a swinging blow is a swinging blow, for the most part. Some of our weapons (i.e., unpadded glaives) and equipment (i.e., indestructable shields) do negatively modify that, I know, but the framework, at least, is there.

And as for my comment about techniques and strategy, I wasn't mis-quoting it, I was making up my own. In mass warfare you're right; professionals study logistics. But in single combat amateurs study *techniques*, professionals study strategy. The concept is precisely like the Japanese distinction between giho and heiho. Techniques are, by themselves, unimportant (although doing them well *is* important); if that weren't true, there would be "one true way", and all Dukes would fight more or less alike.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Payn · Post by **Payn** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 8:25 pm

Here I come... late to the party

When I get knighted.. I mean IF I get knighted, I want a vigil.

During this vigil I am going to build me a small church with stained glass windows. One that can be erected the night before my knighting and that I can have people come in and talk with me in private. I aspire to have the tub of water and the white linen robe. I think it will be COOL!

That being said. I personally am a paranoid agnostic (not really sure that there is a god, but there IS a higher power out to get me). My persona is soldier on levy in 1369. The church plays a major part in his life. Luckily it is before the Great Schism so I don't have to deal with all the nonsense. To dismiss religion entirely is to not play my persona to what he would be.

Fritz the peasant

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 9:05 pm

Well I guess I will have to disagree with you again Rhys....

For strategy to work, one must have thier technique down pat - so they do not have to think about it. That is why every martial "art", and every modern military practises "technique - be it a kata, or target practise over & over, ad nauseum until it is second nature to the practitioner or soldier.

To be able to contemplate a "strategy" in combat, one has to have their muscle memory and basic technique to the point where it is a natural reflex. Otherwise, the combatant will be unable to either execute technique, or be able to formulate a strategy.

------------------
Bob R.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 9:57 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Well I guess I will have to disagree with you again Rhys....

For strategy to work, one must have thier technique down pat - so they do not have to think about it. That is why every martial "art", and every modern military practises "technique - be it a kata, or target practise over & over, ad nauseum until it is second nature to the practitioner or soldier.

To be able to contemplate a "strategy" in combat, one has to have their muscle memory and basic technique to the point where it is a natural reflex. Otherwise, the combatant will be unable to either execute technique, or be able to formulate a strategy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly right, and it's not at all at odds with what I said. The *specific* technique doesn't matter. Go back and re-read where I said that while the technique isn't important but doing it well *is*. I said that in exactly those terms in *this* thread.

Still, amatuers worry about technique; strategy is much more important.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 12:58 am

If we are going to be re-enactors instead of "the middle ages as they should have been", aren't we going to need a lot more peasants? Don't we need all three estates?

A friend (now dead) taught me that there were essentially three skill levels.
1. Shit happens, and a telling blow lands. You don't know why.

2. You have learned how to throw a blow, and make it land in openings when they appear.

3. You make the openings appear, and launch your blow to take advantage of it.

Luck, technique and strategy.

Fafrnugn · Post by **Fafrnugn** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 1:14 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Owen:
Much easier for you christians, too; where am I going to get a goat and four roosters for every bout?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't know you were dating again.

Sorry...low impulse control

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 6:10 am

As a wise man once told me, of course god is on my side, you're to fat for there to be room on yours.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 6:30 am

Actually Rhys,

I did read what you wrote. Regardless of your personal feelings, it is bad advice for a person inexpert - to become expert you need to repeat technique until it is second nature. If you leave off excersising any length of time with a weapon, your technique deteriorates as well.

Unless you are just flaunting your own 'expertise', it is really not relevant to 70% of any crowd of "fighters", other than as a bit of advice for what to do once they progress beyond a certain point.

I think we have derailed this thread enough - if you think the topic merits further discussion, then I'd start it were I you.

------------------
Bob R.

knyaz · Post by **knyaz** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 8:44 am

Yeah Owen, that was my point. What is the Scadian definition (if any) of a knight. I am well aware of the Equites-which is why I discounted them as knights. Military elite exist in most cultures-so is a samurai a knight? He has most of the same responsibilites, privilages and training as a European knight. What about a Cheyanne war leader, Muslim Amir, ect. All warrior elites, all supplying troops to their lord, all holding fealty obligations. What is your definition of a knight? ...and how many Equites were NOT Christian at least in name (by say, 4th century). I'm not talking about men who still held the superstitions of there fathers, hell WE still do that. Besides, as I said before...Whisper the word chivalry-which is what i believe the SCA calls it's knights- and you are talking about Christian European Knights. I am not questioning the value of Equites, or Samurai for that matter, nor am I suggesting that you shouldn't call yourself an Equite. If you earned the rank I personally would give you all the respect and deference you'd earned-assuming you reciprocated.
"Knight" may be a comfortable, recognizable comparison -but it's not really the same thing. A European Knight was an "attempt" at the embodiment of God's ideal champion, holding himself in service to his worldly lord and God. Whether a man actually lived up to that ideal, or if he even tried very hard is a seperate matter.
What any of these ideals have to do with the SCA is up to it's membership to decide. Whether you decide to create a fictional kingdom or censor your members-you can't change history.
Blackcross

AngusGunn · Post by **AngusGunn** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 10:58 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
 Well, I don't mind you praying for my safety, if you don't mind my lighting a stick of incense for you.

Angus, say hi to "Sir Bunny" for me.

[This message has been edited by Alcyoneus (edited 02-06-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Will do. Will we see you at Gulf?
Angus

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 12:44 pm

Quote: "As a wise man once told me, of course god is on my side, you're to fat for there to be room on yours."

I guess I have to be careful about the jokes I tell in chat, they may inadvertantly become SCA theology!

LOL. Richard

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 2:42 pm

Getting back to the original question...
Yes, God IS on my side.

-V

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 4:51 pm

I myself am not in the SCA but the group I'm in has the same problem with religion. I am not a catholic, but I play a Landsknecht solider so my persona is. If someone ever gets offended and says I am pushing my views on them I will reply, "they are not my true views, and you are now pushing your views on me." It is always hypocritical when you tell someone they can't pray cause you are pushing views or offending, cause you are doing the same. I think it should be up to the individual to decide. It is just a game after all. Bad garb offends me more than religion, and most reenacters have bad garb. I wish sweat pants and modern shoes where banded in the SCA.

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 6:57 pm

You're all just jealous that YOUR god isn't a party animal.

My gods are on my side. Usually laughing. I like deities with a sense of humor.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 10:41 pm

By the way, Avicenna was an admitted athiest.

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 12:07 am

So, it seems was Frederick II. At last he shocked Muslims with his smart remarks about Christianity. Getting excommunicated just meant that he and the Pope didn't get on. Any Emperor worth his salt needed to get excommunicated every now and then, just to know he was being effective. But shocking Muslims with your impety? Gasp!

We in the New Varangian guard (granted, we are re-enactors, not the SCA) portray relgious activities as an integral part of our re-enactments. See http://www.geocities.com/indunna/hodegon.html

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 11:32 am

Incidentally --
Richard,
it occurs to me that we've played into your difficult phrasing of the question and are making the "proof" more difficult than it needs be --

What I'm talking of is Spain.
...pre-1491 (the fall of Grenada to the Christians).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
>Well yes, but most of these would not be knightly personnas. No knights in Japan ... We cover Western Europe, not ...except that visitors to Western Europe from those areas/cultures can be represented ... And yes, if one of those visitors exemplified chivalry and met the requirements and wished to take on the obligations of a Western European knight, they could be knighted ... Of course then they would have to follow the chivalric guidelines and codes...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Undeniably Spain is smack dab in Western Europe.
Unless again you make your definitions circular and say that Western Europe means Catholic country.
And unless you make your definition of "knight" circular for this argument by mandating that Catholicism is part of the definition.

If we leave the issue of Christianity for our argument,
we remain with a Warrior Nobility AND the added concept of "courtliness".

CAn we agree on that??

If we can -- I put it to you that the Warrior Nobles of Al-Andalus were fully knights long before any Catholic.
Most of these would be Moslem with a spatering of Jews:

On a day of danger and distress I remember your message.
You are good, and there is justice in your mouth and your heart.
I remember the message which comes to console me
When sorrow appears. I put faith in your help.
When your servant in his youth lay asleep in his bed,
you sent Seraphim to tell him of your great goodness.
They sat down beside me, and then Michael said:
"This is God's message who pleads your cause:
On the day that you cross waters of sorrow I am with you."
And Gabriel, too, his companion, who heard of me
As he stood in your chariot's retinue, said to me:
"When you walk into the fire, it shall not burn you.
I shall speak to the flames, and they will never destroy you."
This is the message which I grasp like a sword in the hand.
I see swords before me. I trust in your sword.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You owe it to your Maker to pursue
a righteous course, and He must give you your just desserts.
But do not pass all your days in
His service; set aside a
time for God and times for yourselves
Give half the day to Him, half to
your own needs â€“ and then give
wine no respite all night long!
Put out the candle light â€“
let your goblets shine instead.
Scorn the voice of singers â€“
let your jugs sing for you.
Since you will not find wine, song,
or company in the grave â€“
let this, O fools, be your reward for all your labors.
Samuel ha Levi (aka Ismail ibn Nagrel'a) called Samuel Ha'Nagid (the ruler)
Warrior, Poet, Visier of Granada, defender of the (Jewish) faith - 993 CE - 1055 CE

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 09, 2002 12:27 am

Knyaz touched on this, so I might as well get my feet wet. (OH MY GOD'S THE SHIP'S SINKING! ...no, just some bilge wetting my feet. I HATE wet feet...

)

I cannot speak on Scadia, y'all seem to have it covered. However in Markland, we have traveled a different road. Religion is NOT forbidden. It is frequently celebrated. For the Pagans we even had an incorporated Hall of the High Ones, which performed legal marriages. Since I'm a lay reader and such at our Episcopal church, I've done field services for anyone who wants to attend. For well over a dozen years at Jamestown's MTA I've led an Anglican service of Morning Prayer and the Great Sufferage based on the 1662 Prayer Book. Some folks from our camps (and other camps) come for worship, some come for education, some come for entertainment. It doesn't matter whether Marklanders come or not (it's actually useful to have a Pagan or a Quaker to send to the Commanders Meeting, which takes place at the same time as the service) at least they have the option. The only complaint we've ever received was about ringing the church bell too early!

I've gone to Beltain feasts (didn't get the black bean), and performed Viking pagan marriages. I've led a pilgrimage to the National Cathedral (the Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul: http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/ ) My son and his wife were married three times: One civil, one Church, and one Viking in front of the Marklanders at Hastings. If that doesn't stick...

One year at MTA a crew of former and current Marklanders portrayed a group of Teutonic Knights, complete with Priest. Not PC by today's standards, but VERY illuminating. During the day their intensity was scary. In the evening these rabid crusaders stopped talking about slaughtering Slavs and Orthodox Russians and anyone else who crossed them, and sat down and shared our beer. THAT's an education for anyone who has read about three lines in a book or seen one Russian movie!

Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, 800 varieties of Christians of various flavors: Anybody can go off to part of the field and hold a service and invite all who are interested. And if someone decides they want his or her Rabbi or Shaman or Priest to come by and bless and event, that's cool too, especially if they have a sense of history and do it in an appropriate, historical (and non-threatening) style.

If you want to pray before combat, that's cool. If you want to PREtend to pray before combat, that's cool too. If you want to mutter a discrete curse, well... if you must. If you want to wave a vodoo doll, expose yourself, and have relations with a goat before combat; large, strong people will gently but firmly escort you from the field and turn you over to the proper authorities!

Gee, think about it; it's just like real life in America. Religious freedom, whadda concept! (SMILE inserted here, NOT to be mistaken as a sneer by the thin-skinned or tetchy.)

Seriously, that's how the game is played in Markland. I hold my personal faith dear, even if I here the old gods laughing. But some of my best friends are heathens, and I would not harm them, nor restrict them from any civil form of worship, for the world. For myself, I live in the faith that God will sort it all out in the end, and many folks may be in for a surprise.

"The problem with being an historian in heaven is that most of the souls that you really want to ask: 'WHAT were you thinking?' probably won't be there!" (Uncle Atli's Very Thin Book of Wisdom)

------------------
Full time civil servant, part time blacksmith, and seasonal Viking ship captain.

Visit your National Parks: www.nps.gov

Go viking: www.wam.umd.edu/~eowyn/Longship/

Hit hot iron: www.anvilfire.com

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Sat Feb 09, 2002 10:13 pm

Quote: "The problem with being an historian in heaven is that most of the souls that you really want to ask: 'WHAT were you thinking?' probably won't be there!"

LOL. That is perfect!

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 1:13 pm

Norman, those are interesting questions that go to one of the key points of this discussion. Is it possible to recreate/reenact/emulate medieval chivalry accurately, without religious elements. In particular, was knighthood possible/acceptable/recognized for non-christians (or non-Catholics) in Western European chivalry.

As far as I am concerned, this does not mean were all knights true believers or just paying lip service. What I am really asking in this respect is; were knights made/officially recognized and accepted in Western Europe without them at least being expected to be christians or Catholics?

The Spanish knighthood possibilites are very interesting to me. So far pretty much everyone responding via E-mail or otherwise has said their opinion is Western European Knight = Catholic usually, Christian at a minimum. The only exceptions being Eastern Europe (obviously not part of the question asked) or possibly some backwater areas where Christianity had not taken a firm hold and still had elements of other faiths/paganism/etc., but even there the official party line seems to have been Christian if not Catholic. I hope that someone with more knowledge of Spain than I have, could provide more information regarding the faith of the chivalry there. I certainly had never heard of non-Catholic or non-Christian knights in Western Europe or I would not be asking the questions I am asking. If there were non-Catholic/non-Christian Knights in Spain, my usual question applies; is this a singular or rare abberation from the norm or was it common practice? Great stuff so far Norman and thanks for the info. Can any body shed more light on his suggestions?

-Richard

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 12:15 pm

Richard,
I think you're not entirely following my last post.

What I'm saying is this --

It is INDISPUTABLE that the "chivalry" of Al-Andalus before the Reconquista was NOT Catholic (most were Muslim and some were Jews).

The only thing left is to either accept this as a Systematic Structure of non-Christian chivalry in Western Europe or to admit that your question is rather a statement of tautology -- "the only persons to be defined as knights are Catholic noblemen warriors in Catholic countries of Western Europe"
...and then what about the various heretics, Cathars, Lutherans, Abegesians... anti-pope followers... excomunicates...
(even the Templars were finaly burned at the stake - how Catholic were they?)

the bottom line is -- "How do you define Knight??"

...another part of this discussion I'm having trouble with is the earlier "Ritters" and "Chevaliers" and Equitets" and whatnot --

You take forgranted that "Knight" is some sort of High Medieval phenomenon.

But, I believe, they called themselves "Knight" all along --
so when is it that they start being "Knights" by your definition??
This may have a little to do with how we answer your religion question --

Now some will want to start at some early period and point to parts of Europe that didn't get Christianised until later (weren't there pokets of Paganism through the 11th or even 12th cent?) - basically as a position that "Knight" is simply the English word for any "Noble Warrior Class".

You tend to dismiss this --
So -
Did they start being "knights" when the pope blessed them for Crusade?
At this point they've got religion but no "chivalry" in the "Romance" sense.

So shall we say that it is sufficient to be a Catholic "bruiser"?
...or is this somehow not quite satisfying?

Is it rather the Romantic chivalry that made them knights?
...in which case you're talking a MIddle Eastern import (from what I've read) -- and the Muslim world had been at it for at least 4 centuries earlier.
...and you'd have to reject all the early bruisers of the Crusades.

The other piece you keep conveniently skipping is this:
the "required" Catholicism of knights in the High Middle Ages is indistinguishable from that of all of the trades in the same countries.
If you hold that Catholicism is indispensible to recreating Knighthood,
then shall we hold it as indispensible for recreating Coblers, Tailors,
armourers?
Following your argument about knights --Since any non-Catholic practicing any trade in "Western Europe" (other than "usurer") was, to use your words "a singular or rare abberation from the norm",
than shall we limit all personas (except "usurers") to Catholicness??

...and what about such aberations as "knighted women"?
=================================
As a bottom line last thought on the issue -
If Saladin was good enough for king Richard,
who are you for him not to be good enough for you?

...oh (I keep being about to send this and getting new ideas) --
there's that thing called "the nine worthies"
(I'm familiar with the Cloisters tapestries, but I believe these are just an illustration of a standard Medieval thought) --
there's the three greatest Christian Knights,
the three greatest "Hebrew" knights,
and the three greatest knights of "heathendom".

Yes I know that these are guys long dead at the time and Yes I know that the "models" were not realy medieval knights.

Point is -- they (their medieval legendary selves) are held up as paragons for the Medieval society.
Therefore -- the Medieval society that held them up as paragons DID NOT consider Christianness as innate to knighthood.
It is therefore perfectly consistant with medieval thought to reflect a Medieval Knightly Order that does not require Christianness. The issue of specific numbers of Christian knights or non-Christian knights, or religiously chauvenistic tracts on the meaning of knighthood are therefore irrelevant.

==================================
On the second piece of your question -- "is it right to require ommision of the religious element?" I have always been in agreement with you.
But I get to have my Jewish paragon of knightly virtue as much as you get your Catholic.
==================================
AS the Turkic tribesmen knew all along, and as Chingis Khan put into a written law --
Equality of religions before the law is a wonderful thing - pray all you want to whichever God you want - as long as you pray for my success and continued welfare.

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

Hildewulf · Post by **Hildewulf** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 2:59 pm

In _The Battle of Maldon_, "cnight" describes several doughty Saxons who die in a valiant struggle against the murderous Vikings. No mention of religion is made in connection with it.

In Aelfric of Bede's translation of the Bible, the word for disciple is "leorningcnight". Yet the disciples clearly aren't reknowned for their prowess in battle.

If they had different conceptions of the word in the tenth century, who are we to profess to pin it down now?

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 4:38 am

English is the only language I know of that has no connecion with horses in their name for knights. Everybody else - French chevalier, German Ritter, Spanish caballero etc, have something to do with horsemanship.

The old English word "cnicht" meant "retainer, servant, young man". Nothing to do with horses, or even fighting. It only gained that meaning later.

------------------
Egfroth

"I can't help it. I was BORN sneering" - Pooh Bah
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:05 am

What abpout the very word Chivalry?

Derived from French meaning "what horsemen do"

I also think that it's the same root entamology (words not bugs) as Cavalry.

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 4:35 am

Yes, but that's a crappy (ptui!) french import. And cavalry is a crappy (ptui!) Latin import. The English word for horse is "horse"!

------------------
Egfroth

"I can't help it. I was BORN sneering" - Pooh Bah
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:45 am

The way I see it, Knighthood is a european thing. Really to be a "knight" means you would have to be English,as they were only known as Knights in England.The phenomenon of "chivalry "was known throughout Europe, members belonging to the same social class,but going by many regional names.Also it meant being a member of the Christian faith.Saracens were not considered to be knights,even though an armoured mounted saracen would serve the same function in a military role.Same goes for a viking or early celt.They would be "knight like" but not knights.While Samuri and early roman equites would be similar in function to a "knight" It would not be the same thing.Its kind of like saying isnt a British SAS, a member of the US Special Forces? Or isnt a world war one fighter pilot an astronaut? .....Otto

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:57 am

But on the other hand, non historially speaking,if we are talking about the SCA,a knight can be anyone from anywhere,of any religion. We have kingdoms that never existed in the medieval period.Totally different customs and ways of doing things. Ohhh yea...Gods on my side,at least hes been very very good to me......Otto

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:12 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The way I see it, Knighthood is a european thing. Really to be a "knight" means you would have to be English,as they were only known as Knights in England. The phenomenon of "chivalry "was known throughout Europe, members belonging to the same social class,but going by many regional names.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless you limit yourself to the highlighted definition, how do you compare the "equivalent" classes of France, England, Spain, Germany ...in all time periods that you have decided to group under the rubric... and then distinguish that general class from what may arguably be the equivalent in (let's make it basic) -- Eastern Europe
or for that matter - Middle East, ...Western Asia, ...Eastern Asia
It was my understanding that the English social structure after the Norman invasion (and in large part due to that invasion) was substantialy different from the other North Western European countries (in lawschool I took an elective in European law - and there are significant differences in very basic underpinnings -- and arguably the English system is not even Feudal in the same way the continental was - or vice versa - the continentals were not Feudal the way the English were),
and the Northern countries had a differrent structure from Italy ...and even more different Spain...
and then you get the detail that "Germany" was a whole group of "culturaly similar" nations that kinda blend into Central Europe's partialy Turkic and Slavic nations (ie: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland ...)
Once you expand past a specific local social phenomenon, how do you distinguish the one subset from the other one -- it seems a sort of necessary slippery slope - if we accept French, maybe we should accept Italians, if we accept Italians, maybe we need to accept the Spanish, if we accept the Spanish -- why not the Moors?
if we accept Germans, then we goota keep the Hungarians, if we keep the Hungarians, maybe we need to keep the Russians, if we keep the Russians, then maybe the Mongolians fit too....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Also it meant being a member of the Christian faith.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now you're making a tautology out of the argument.
The whole question here is precisely whether or not "Christian" is a necessary concomitant to the term "knight" -- you therefore need to at the very least prove your assertion.
And then what about "cobler"? If coblers in England were required to be Christian -- does that mean that "Christianness" is part of the definition of "cobler"???
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Saracens were not considered to be knights...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Putting aside "saracens" by which I assume you mean non-European Muslims.

If you take as a given that "knights" is a general Western European phenomenon,
and presumably you include Christian Spain --
How can you in any principled fashion exclude Muslim Spain??

But now to get back to non-Europeans --
If it was good enough for Richard - why aint it good enough for you?
- as I understand it, Saladin was called "the flower of Saracen chivalry".
In a similar vein -- I remember reading an Arthurian romance where there was a "Saracen knight" -- yes, he eventualy converted, but he was considered a knight prior to the conversion.
(its a sort of "test of gods" story -- he jousts with Gawaine and when Gawaine wins he decides that proved that Gawaine's god was true while his was false -- but the point of the story for my illustration is that it was not a war situation - it was a "non-deadly" sports contest - and Gawaine treated it as a proper contest between equals)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Same goes for a viking or early celt.They would be "knight like" but not knights.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, when it comes to temporal scope - where to draw your lines?
Is the Norman nobleman going on Crusade a knight? Was he a knight before the Crusade was called? Was his dady a knight? Was his grandpappy a knight?
If Carolingian period "knight type people" are not "knights" but the word used in their language is the same -- at what period do they become "knights"??
What is it that happens to them that makes you say "this guy is a knight but his dad is not"??
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Its kind of like saying isnt a British SAS, a member of the US Special Forces? Or isnt a world war one fighter pilot an astronaut?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No -- its more difficult than that -- that's why the dispute.
It's like trying to answer the question - are the British SAS and the US special forces in some way groupable? Does the group you've now invented include the Soviet Gvardia? How about Napoleon's "immortals" (I think that's what he called them)? The Tzar's Cossacks?

That's the question we've got -- there's this amorphous thing "knight" which we have admitted works in certain cases as a translation of other terms -- like "chevalier", "ritter"... etc.
Now, we're trying to figure out how that transitivity is logicaly limitable.

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

Tom Knighton · Post by **Tom Knighton** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:49 pm

Ok folks...I read this thread and saw some things I agreed with and some that I don't. I saw one person say that they think all SCA knights should be Christian, not PORTRAYING Christian, but must be. Heart and Soul. I'm not a Christian. I am a pagan, and have been since before I joined the SCA. My persona is Christian. My tourney ritual actually starts teh night before. I perform a ritual for the protection of all teh participaants in teh tourney. I do this privately and really don't ask anyone if it's ok. Some of them may prat for my safety and that is perfectly fine with me. I may be totally wrong in my religious faith and I don't mind having all may bases covered

. I do, however mind any idea that keeps religion at the forefront of the SCA. I honestly don't see where the big deal is. As long as you acknowledge the proper religion for your perssona, where is the harm?? We don't require religion for inclusion into any of our peerage. We shouldn't. This isn't re-enacting. I did that with the Civil War groups and I didn't have nearly as much fun. I do this for fun. I love history, but I don't want to totally be immersed in it. I LIKE FLUSH TOILETS

. I am personally of the opinion, to each their own. I won't force my religion on you if you won't force yours on me.

Now on that note, I have no problem with a fighter praying before a fight. There is nothing wrong with it in my opinion. Ask for protection or help from God. I have probably already done the same thing. In the end, we are here to have fun, not start another crusade or inquisition (bad spelling I'm sure!)

Bran

[This message has been edited by Bran Mac Scandlan (edited 02-21-2002).]

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 5:22 pm

SCA Knights are just that: Knights of the Society. They aren't medieval knights, so they shouldn't be limited to any faith or persona origen.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 9:05 pm

Good points Norman, Bran and Owen.And everyone else for that matter. I looked up the middle ages in the dictionary today, and the definition included the dark ages too. I always seperated the two, with a very fuzzy line I'll admit. And different folks will have many different opinions of when the 1st knight came to be. The 1st knight probably didnt even know he was a knight LOL.And the Queen of England still knights people.Now really, who is "more" of a knight,A pop star in London without sword or harness?Or the accountant in Peoria Ill. that wears armour and lets people beat him with a club? In my opinion the accountant is more a knight..Otto

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 9:26 pm

The only problem I have is that it is frowned on to mention God in any SCA context, but I have seen lots of Pagan folks having actual religious rituals at events. What a drag.
-V

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:39 am

Vitus,

that is a problem of improper carying out of a legitimate structure design to protect the religious sensibilities.

As I understand the SCA rules which I have read -- the intent is to paralel the US Constitution's relation to religion --
That is:
Everyone is free to perform whatever religious rituals he wants
but he may not use the power (or the apearance of power) of the "state" (or in the SCA - "the club") to get others to participate in his religious practice.

Now, IMHO - the SCA fails on both sides of the issue -
Folks may frown upon a fighter praying before battle,
but then we have all sorts of events structured on a religious theme (whether "Beltaine" or "Twelfth Night").
IMHO - it should be the opposite -
you wanna pray or perform a religious ritual? - GEZUNTEHEIT
you want to hold a "Christmass" or "Beltaine" or "Dionisian revel" or "Saturnalia" event? -- NO WAY

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)