Errors in The White Company

[Jehan de Pelham]

I see the truth of it.

Agreed.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

[Destichado]

Historical research my foot. Everyone with a history degree knows full well and good that anything done outside an ivory tower might as well not be done at all, as far as academia is concerned. We here are doing less than preaching to the choir, we're preaching to OURSELVES.
If our goal is to educate the outside -which it had better be or we're wasting our time here on the internet, away from the university- then we must appeal to the outside. That means a palatable product in a palatable medium that serves your purpose by promoting your message while leaving the consumer asking for more. How many things serve that purpose?


Think about your goals, ladies and gentlemen, and how to go about pursuing them.
We as a group cannot serve academia, they will not allow us to do so without degrees, research positions and publications. Some of us who have degrees (or are pursuing them) can do this indivdually, but as a group we are dismissed.
We cannot serve the general public without appealing to them in terms they are willing to accept and digest.


If we are attempting to do neither of these things -if we're simply and solely in it for ourselves and our own personal enjoyment and enrichment- then this is nothing but intelecutal masturbation. If you or I think we have a better technique than the others, who cares? We wouldn't be doing anything with that technique, so what we do and how we do it is ultimately of no concern to anyone but ourselves.

Jehan, you had the right of it the first time.

[^]

+++

[earnest carruthers]

Destichado
"If we are attempting to do neither of these things -if we're simply and solely in it for ourselves and our own personal enjoyment and enrichment- then this is nothing but intelecutal masturbation."

Oh so you see reenactment as an altruistic affair?

Most reenactors/larpers/SCAers do it for themselves, any external benefits are value added not intentional - by most that it is. Self-education yes, but passing it on to the wider world? Pass on what a personal perspective of what we believe? Hell we dress up and do things and then think we are right. Pass on half baked notions of history?

"We cannot serve the general public without appealing to them in terms they are willing to accept and digest."

That is incredibly patronising especially as we are members of the self-same public. Also in respects to Conan Doyle I wonder what sources he drew upon to write his works, I would bet the classics such as Froissart and Mallory because Doyle benefitted from the same kind of elitist background you rail against, ironic really.

It is not our job to convert the masses, what rank arrogance as that assumes a position of being correct in the first instance.

Also different people are turned on by different things, one man's White Company is another man's Far Side of the World - Patrick O Brian - who was an ace historic fiction writer (and historian) with wide appeal and no dumbing down.

Also to add to Peder's list:

Tuchmann - Distant Mirror
Tuchmann - August 1914

Supremely well written and engaging - I am not even interested in WW1 or the 14th C for that matter.

McCall - The Medieval underworld
Leyser - Medieval Women
Giles Milton - Nathaniels Nutmeg et al -
Mark Kurlansky - Cod etc

"Jehan, you had the right of it the first time. "

I didn't realise it was a case of absolutes.

[jester]

What an amusing thread diversion. I study history because it interests me and I talk about history with people because I learn new things. If academia doesn't value my research I really couldn't care less.

I'm not actively discussing inaccuracies in The White Company because I've got "Medieval Mercenaries" "Chaucer's Knight: Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary" and "Mercenary Companies and the Decline of Siena" from ILL and I am pounding through them with every free moment I can find while desperately scribbling notes (I'm replacing material I seem to have lost). I'm not going to try and squeeze another book into this mix. But I will note that the name of the book is somewhat misleading. The White Company was a group of Englishmen and Germans led originally by Stertz and then later by Hawkwood. Stertz took the Germans and Hungarians in the group and joined up with another German to form the Company of the Star. So far as I know, no group calling itself the White Company was involved in the Battle of Najera. For that matter, the custom in France and Spain was, apparently, to refer to companies by their leader and/or predominant nationality. Fanciful names for companies seems to have been an Italian thing.

[Mord]

Historical research my foot. Everyone with a history degree knows full well and good that anything done outside an ivory tower might as well not be done at all, as far as academia is concerned. We here are doing less than preaching to the choir, we're preaching to OURSELVES.
If our goal is to educate the outside -which it had better be or we're wasting our time here on the internet, away from the university- then we must appeal to the outside. That means a palatable product in a palatable medium that serves your purpose by promoting your message while leaving the consumer asking for more. How many things serve that purpose?


Think about your goals, ladies and gentlemen, and how to go about pursuing them.
We as a group cannot serve academia, they will not allow us to do so without degrees, research positions and publications. Some of us who have degrees (or are pursuing them) can do this indivdually, but as a group we are dismissed.
We cannot serve the general public without appealing to them in terms they are willing to accept and digest.


If we are attempting to do neither of these things -if we're simply and solely in it for ourselves and our own personal enjoyment and enrichment- then this is nothing but intelecutal masturbation. If you or I think we have a better technique than the others, who cares? We wouldn't be doing anything with that technique, so what we do and how we do it is ultimately of no concern to anyone but ourselves.

Jehan, you had the right of it the first time.

Hmmmm.

As someone whose thinking recieved significant training in so-called ivory tower of the academy, I have the oddest feeling I'm being baited.

Of course the prudent thing to do would be simply let Destichado's post stand as is, but I was never one to refuse a debate or the opportunity to stick my foot in securely in my mouth (not to worry, folks, I keep a dentist on retainer just for such situations!).

I have a degree in history, Destichado, and I will tell you that the pursuit of historical studies needs intelligence, talent, and most importantly, desire. Intelligence in a specific pursuit can be learned. Talent in a specific pursuit can be found. Desire, however, for specific pursuit should come from within yourself. As one of my historical mentors once told me, "Look, Steve, you will always study this sh*4--it's part of you. It can be a disease at times, but your need to know will never really go away." You may call my desire to study medieval history a neurosis if you like, but I think denying my passion is denying myself.

"If our goal is to educate the outside..." These words of yours, Destichado, have a couple of problems. First, since when was your goal mine? I don't make it my business to tell you what you ought to be doing unless you ask me. Second, and more importantly, if someone wishes to educate the public, wouldn't it be wise for that person to know as much as possible about what he/she is teaching. The idea that history or any subject needs to be diluted for public consumption underestimates the intelligence of the public.

"We as a group cannot serve academia..." Since when was academia's purpose ours? And since when was our purpose academia's. Strangely enough many an academic medievalist I worked with and talked to welcome the interest. That some of that interest is ignorant and biased (and so irksome) is a situation that can be fixed.

"...if we're simply and solely in it for ourselves and our own personal enjoyment and enrichment..." Tell me, Destichado, since when was personal enrichment, enlighten, and enjoyment a bad thing? In fact, my personal pursuit of enrichment and enlightenment (which I enjoy--go figure), has helped me immensely do my job--which, as the core of it, is serving the public. It's ironic that you can not have community without individuals; we are all not cardboard cut outs. I contribute to my community and it, in turn, supports me.

Thanks for your time,

Mord.

[Jehan de Pelham]

I for one don't do it for the crowd. Well, I do, but it's because I have a streak of exhibitionism.

I do these things for me, and I don't think it bad that I do.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

[Destichado]

Sir Mord, I have no idea who you are or what your education is. I also have signifigant ivory tower training -I'm working on my Masters and I fully intend to have a PhD by the time I'm through- so it would be illogical for me to attack anyone in academia for being who and what they are.


That said, there has long been a trend towards this "more scholarly than thou" idiocy here on the Archive and on other "academic" mainstream sites. That's usefull if we're submitting articles to the AHR or EHQ or some journal or another, but we're not. You or I might, other individuals might, but The Archive does not. The Archive -and any other similar site- is geared to service the general public, from the mildly interested to the history buff, and to provide an arena for these people to enjoy their hobby. Servicing the public, personal enjoyment.

Summarily dismissing useful and digestable sources because they are "not good enough" serves no purpose!
IF you are interested in helping others along and raising the general knowledge of medieval history, this is contrary to your interests. Discard them *after* they cease to serve that purpose, not before. To further that interest, debate instead when it is appropriate to use a source, when to stop using it, when it ceases to be useful.
IF you are interested in personal enjoyment, and your goal is to further your own understanding, then what difference does it make what anyone else does? Your opinion that a source is or is not good enough is then relevant only to yourself and your own circumstance!



There is NOTHING wrong with being a hobbiest and pursuing history for its own sake -I never said there was, and we would not be here if we did not have that interest. There is nothing superior about being interested in raising awareness in others.
It is the decisions we make about what is acceptable, what is good and what is insufficient in the pursuit of either of those ends that are conflicting. Therefor, PAY ATTENTION to the goals that are being pursued -not only your own, whatever those may be- and respond accordingly.

[earnest carruthers]

"Summarily dismissing useful and digestable sources because they are "not good enough" serves no purpose!"

Hold on, summarily? no, questioning the value of it from the perspective of that of someone who is not the originator of the question, Jean. Jean has a viewpoint on it, his views on how the White Company is useful to him are his own, however that does not disentitle people to question that from their perspective, because as we have found out what works for him does not work for everyone else and vice versa.

"IF you are interested in helping others along and raising the general knowledge of medieval history, this is contrary to your interests."

It is also contrary to ones interests if one believes the notion not to work for them. It cuts both ways, which is why these fora are useful so that it can be discussed.

[Benalishlancer]

Destichado, if you don't mind me asking, where are you working on your masters at?

[Mord]

Destichado, if you don't mind me asking, where are you working on your masters at?

More importantly, what are you working on?

Sigh. Yup, hook, line, and sinker again.

Destichado, here's some more grist for your mill. My education:

BA in Literature from Ithaca College, 1985.
MA in Medieval History from SUNY at Binghamton, 1989.
MLS in Library Science from SUNY at Albany, 1991.

An incompetant knowledge of Latin. A slight knowledge of German. A smattering of Old English.

Also, I spent part of the summer of 1990 at the Sutton Hoo dig, where I learn boatloads about archaeology. Last May I gave a paper the Kalamazoo Medieval Conference (entitled "Petersen's Type H-I Sword: A Gazetter of Sources"). I am currently begining to revise this paper, and continuing to work on a bibliography about early medieval arms and armor.

First, please realize that some of the folks who read and post regularly on these forums are very knowledgeable about the subject of their interest. Contradict them at your peril.

Second, I did not begin the serious study of the Middle Ages, chivalry, and 14th Century (which, honestly, isn't my area) by reading Arthur Conan-Doyle's "The White Company" or "Sir Nigel." My serious study of the middle ages was literary, with the reading of "Beowulf," "The Song of Roland," "Njal's Saga," "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," "Yvain, knight of the Lion," and "The Divine Comedy."

My introduction to chivalry was "The Song of Roland" "Sir Gawain," and "Yvain, knight of the Lion."

My introduction and my foundation to the 14th Century was K.B. McFarlane's essay, "Bastard Feudalism."

I did not read the 19th Century neo-chivalric romances until many years later. "Ivanhoe" "The White Company" and "Sir Nigel" were not introductions to me: they seemed, at best, interpretations of chivalry, but not the real thing. Thus when asked where would you begin, I do not recommend 19th Century novels, but 12 Century romances. There are plenty of reasonable translations of these old stories of chivalry available for the general reader and the beginning student.

Why don't you simply do the same?

Mord.

[Russ Mitchell]

Besides which, anybody who wants to make a serious contribution to academia can do so easily: all he has to do is read, form judgments, and write, while agreeing to conform to certain standards. Learning the languages is also usually critical.

Duke Conn's not giving lectures at the medieval conference in Kalamazoo because he's generally accepted as a historian. He's giving them because everybody can see that he got off his ass and performed brilliant research in a discipline that few on the tenure track really have time to touch. There is *serious* room for independent scholars in the field... and in some respects, with latin education in the toilet at the university levels as people realize that a history degree makes you largely unemployable, the field needs amateurs who are able to go outside the lines and engage in odd corners of research without risking their tenure.

If **anybody** in the SCA wants training on how to speak the language of the discipline -- footnotes, etcetera -- or has an idea for an article, I would be more than happy to help. Otherwise, so long as everybody's having a good time... who cares about academia? One does not need to consult an English department to have a group reading and critical discussion of Hamlet...

(Has never read a neo-chivalric work.)

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Those who think the tone of the Doyle books is 19th century hogwash are bemused.


http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/his ... SUETON.HTM

You think Froissart invented this story out of whole cloth? I mean the bones of the story- what was done and undertaken by the man in question. This happened. It was a ridiculous gesture of chivalric values. History is full of these stories. Such actions were at the core of the knightly life- the life of full-time combatants.

[Mord]

Those who think the tone of the Doyle books is 19th century hogwash are bemused.


http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/his ... SUETON.HTM

You think Froissart invented this story out of whole cloth? I mean the bones of the story- what was done and undertaken by the man in question. This happened. It was a ridiculous gesture of chivalric values. History is full of these stories. Such actions were at the core of the knightly life- the life of full-time combatants.

Is there another comtemporary source, separate from Froissart, that tells the story?

Mord.

[Alcyoneus]

There are as many approaches as there are people, and goals. In the end, each of us finds, and uses what we personally find valuable.

Some find The White Company, others prefer The Laundry Lists of Metternich. We may spend a lot of time preaching to the choir here, but it is a choir in which everyone can choose to sing a different song, or sing with a small group that wants to sing the same song.

[Jehan de Pelham]

It's not an either/or discussion. It's not either The White Company or The Laundry Lists of Metternich. It--for me, this is my advice--is a mere matter of sequencing, going from the broad, and even not scholastically useful, which serves as a jumping off point for other studies.

I ain't diggin' the scholar-based dislike for the use of a bit of entertainment as a beginning point for studies. I think that it shows academic rigor to shoot down such an approach and I laud their loyalty to their profession, but ultimately it indicates a mindset which holds the strenuous search for information to be a more important thing than entertainment and uplift. This mindset is an absolute requirement for their profession, but it is not so needed in a re-enactment setting, where we must balance the work against the pleasure.

I for my part believe that there is a place for both, but that joy is a requirement. Furthermore, if I act according to the basic precepts of behavior as portrayed by Doyle's characters Sir Nigel Loring, and Alleyne Edricson, his squire, I do not stray far from typical 14th century chivalric behavior as written in Charney, and Froissart, and Le Bel, and Lull.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

[RandallMoffett]

grimstone bar,

I came across what is likely the original source of the 'Washingtin Irving' tale you were refering. It looks to perhaps be legit. In, The History of the Kings Works ed. Allen Brown, H. Colvin, and A. Taylor, london 1963, 3 volumes the story is in vol II the Chroniclers Bernadez. This knight, Sir Edward Wydeville brought 300 men on foot to the siege of Loja in Granada 1486, and it said they were quite the force to be dealt with. I am trying to find the original source by Bernadez as I think it is in spanish and I can read that one. Worth looking into I figured. I had never heard the story before but seems plausible as Englsish troops were all over. Hope you find ht read interesting, you may have already read it though but figured I'd post it anyhow,
RPM

[RandallMoffett]

Grimstone,

sorry I am notall here today. The direct source is Andrez Bernaldez andcan be found in The Memorias del reinado de los Reyes Catolicos, ed M Gomez Moreno Madrid 1962.
Sorry am doing lots of reading in and am getting to the point
I cannot read the screen well, nor think prperly. Perhaps I will go get some sleep but if you can read spanish here is a place to find it...
RPM

[Mord]

It's not an either/or discussion. It's not either The White Company or The Laundry Lists of Metternich. It--for me, this is my advice--is a mere matter of sequencing, going from the broad, and even not scholastically useful, which serves as a jumping off point for other studies.

I ain't diggin' the scholar-based dislike for the use of a bit of entertainment as a beginning point for studies. I think that it shows academic rigor to shoot down such an approach and I laud their loyalty to their profession, but ultimately it indicates a mindset which holds the strenuous search for information to be a more important thing than entertainment and uplift. This mindset is an absolute requirement for their profession, but it is not so needed in a re-enactment setting, where we must balance the work against the pleasure.

I for my part believe that there is a place for both, but that joy is a requirement. Furthermore, if I act according to the basic precepts of behavior as portrayed by Doyle's characters Sir Nigel Loring, and Alleyne Edricson, his squire, I do not stray far from typical 14th century chivalric behavior as written in Charney, and Froissart, and Le Bel, and Lull.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

Jehan,

As I've stated, I am sorry if I've annoyed you.

I do understand your point of view, and if this were more of a face to face meeting (than a screen to screen) meeting, I would probably buy you a beer or a cup of coffee and we could debate to our hearts content.

But a couple of things: I enjoy debate, and, I know this is a stunning revelation, but I often taken the dissenting opinion. Doing so is a good exercise for my mind, but I have never ment to offend.

Another activiity I enjoy, far more than debate, is what you call the strenuous search for information. I like to dig and then put all of that into a usable form.

Finally, is Conan-Doyle's books entertaining. Yes, and folks should read them. But I also find medieval texts entertaining, in fact, much more so than the 19th or 20th century literary works. While what I find entertaining, may seem to be a personal bias, I do not see some of the works I've often listed on this forum as sources of information, but also as sources of entertainment.

Mord.

[Jehan de Pelham]

Sir Knight, we are just contenders. We like the jostle and scrum of defending viewpoints and theses. There's no need to worry about me, and I thank you for your considerate reply. I for my part am sorry if I have exasperated you.

I too find the medieval texts fascinating, but it took time for me to develop the taste for them. Now, I can pore through the Register of John of Gaunt in middle french and pull out a detail here, and a detail there, where at first I wouldn't have even thought of it. This did not happen overnight.

When I began this discussion, I did not intend for it to become a debate about whether such an approach as reading a work of fiction from the 19th century was a valid way to start learning about the 14th century. What I wanted to know was, what in the text itself do people who are annoyed with it know to be inaccurate or not reflective of the historical record. I wanted to know these things so that I could recommend the book as a fun introduction while at the same time warning the reader about falsehoods and mis-steps in the text. The text itself was only meant to be an attention getter, a way to get a reader to say "This whole deeds of arms and knight errantry and the culture of chivalry thing is pretty wild! I wonder why the situation was like that?" Then, they could go and seek out texts with more factual teeth. I hold that an examination of the chivalric texts and chronicles supports the notion that some men at arms acted just like Sir Nigel Loring. And many others aspired to but did not do so well.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

[jester]

Since I just finished re-reading it for the purpose of taking lots of notes, I will point out that Terry Jones ("Chaucer's Knight: Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary") makes a real case for a disconnect between the reality of chivalric behavior and the ideal of chivalric behavior. Chaucer is able to satirize the state of chivalry by painting the knight in the language of chivalry but referring to reality.

"The White Company" is very interesting and, to me, reminiscent of Kipling. The behavior of Sir Nigel, the gentleman, is contrasted with the behavior of the White Company who have been looting and pillaging. Sir Nigel steps in and disciplines them, turning their energies to productive use. In this is the very Victorian (and perhaps Medieval) viewpoint that rough men must be led by gentlemen. I say that this might be a medieval viewpoint because the worth of birth was something we find frequently in Medieval literature.

Does "The White Company" accurately reflect, even in spirit, the reality of the time depicted or does it, perhaps, more accurately reflect the longings of the time?

Darn you Jehan. Now I have to go pick up the book again. I don't have time for this.