It seems to me that many years ago, before 1980, I'd guess, I was told Duke Heinrich der Jaeger of Atenveldt won at least one of his Crowns with a 9' spear and was known to commonly win lists with 6' spear and shield. But I'm sure there were larger list fields in Atenveldt than in the East. Even now the current list field in Caid is 30 x 30. I got the impression that spear was his primary weapon. I haven't heard of him in years.
I would like to see any Knight have some prowess in at least one other form and basic competance in several others. I personally don't care which form that is. But also I feel that it is also reasonable for someone to be Knighted for prowess as a commander in battle, if that person has reasonable prowess in another form and decent competance in several others.
Overall I think on the average we set the bar a bit too high to gain any peerage, yet randomly we set a lower bar for some over others. It is often confusing to all. No peerage seems to be immune to the inconsistancy. As a Laurel, this is somewhat amusing as our order has to deal with how to adjust our standards for so many areas of art. It seems perfectly reasonable that a spear "God" could be Knighted. I fought with a friend on many occasions that was one of those. While he had great prowess in other forms as well, he didn't play the "chivalry" game and was never knighted. He got busy with a real career and moved on. I would have encouraged his elevation to the Chivalry had he been more than a stick jock. He could hit a quarter with a spear if someone threw it past him...
If a combattant can fight with others to achieve clearly noticable prowess in war or melee above others, and still stands out among others, why the heck not?
-Juliana
Knighthood for Spearman (SCA)? Pro's, Con's, thoughts.
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
-
Morgan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 18229
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Dallas, TX (Ansteorra)
- Contact:
Asbjorn, I'd say that if a melee is just a big tourney, that still a fighter who's a spear god but isn't all that hot with other weapons is still not a knight.
"The candidate must be considered the equal of his perspective peers with the basic weapons of tournament combat."
weaponS. Plural.
But if he's the equal of his peers with all weapons but his best weapon is a spear, that's should be fine, in that case.
Just my two cents.
------------------
"Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Morgan Buchanan
http://www.geocities.com/morgunnmac
"The candidate must be considered the equal of his perspective peers with the basic weapons of tournament combat."
weaponS. Plural.
But if he's the equal of his peers with all weapons but his best weapon is a spear, that's should be fine, in that case.
Just my two cents.
------------------
"Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Morgan Buchanan
http://www.geocities.com/morgunnmac
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
Since my original post and follow up comments, I have thought a lot about what has been said here and in private E-mail's and correspondence regarding spear use by knights.
A large number of people have told me that during all of the knightly period, including my favorite (full plate, 15th century), that I am mistaken about the distinction between knightly lances and spears. Enough people have pointed out to me that knights did use spears on foot and that these were no different then the regular spears used by infantry, that I wish to investigate this further.
While enough sources support my contention that the lance as used on horseback was often a specialized piece, both longer and differently shaped, weighted, balanced and vamplated that I still maintain the lance was often a different animal than a spear used for foot combat, it certainly appears that I was mistaken in that this was usually the case. At least in the 11th and 12th centuries if not much longer.
I never studied spears used on foot to any significant degree. A fault I plan to rectify shortly. I am extremely interested in any specific studies, books, period references that address the construction and use of spears by knights on foot. I am particularly interested in anything that speaks to spears that were used both on horseback and on foot as well as the construction of the typical knight's lance used on foot and what differences (if any) there were between the knight's lance and an infantryman's spear. If the spear used on foot by knights is indeed no different than the infantryman's, how often were these used on horseback in lieu of the horseman's lance that I tend to think of, especially in the later periods where plate becomes prevalent, in particular my cherished 15th century.
I would like to thank all of you that responded to this thread and for helping me to possibly correct errors in my understanding of the spear and its use in period.
A large number of people have told me that during all of the knightly period, including my favorite (full plate, 15th century), that I am mistaken about the distinction between knightly lances and spears. Enough people have pointed out to me that knights did use spears on foot and that these were no different then the regular spears used by infantry, that I wish to investigate this further.
While enough sources support my contention that the lance as used on horseback was often a specialized piece, both longer and differently shaped, weighted, balanced and vamplated that I still maintain the lance was often a different animal than a spear used for foot combat, it certainly appears that I was mistaken in that this was usually the case. At least in the 11th and 12th centuries if not much longer.
I never studied spears used on foot to any significant degree. A fault I plan to rectify shortly. I am extremely interested in any specific studies, books, period references that address the construction and use of spears by knights on foot. I am particularly interested in anything that speaks to spears that were used both on horseback and on foot as well as the construction of the typical knight's lance used on foot and what differences (if any) there were between the knight's lance and an infantryman's spear. If the spear used on foot by knights is indeed no different than the infantryman's, how often were these used on horseback in lieu of the horseman's lance that I tend to think of, especially in the later periods where plate becomes prevalent, in particular my cherished 15th century.
I would like to thank all of you that responded to this thread and for helping me to possibly correct errors in my understanding of the spear and its use in period.
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
-
bela of kaffa
- Contrarian
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Eastern kingdom, house Kaffa, barony of Bhakail, Philadelphia
- Contact:
well, my area of interest(not claiming expertise) is byzantine et al,but i don't think that's the info-source you're interested in...
iirc, there is documentation of at least one byzant emperor that carried a spear into battle...
then again, i'm at work, up to my tuchas with inventory issues, and no period sources in sight...
bela
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
<B>Since my original post and follow up comments, I have thought a lot about what has been said here and in private E-mail's and correspondence regarding spear use by knights.
A large number of people have told me that during all of the knightly period, including my favorite (full plate, 15th century), that I am mistaken about the distinction between knightly lances and spears. Enough people have pointed out to me that knights did use spears on foot and that these were no different then the regular spears used by infantry, that I wish to investigate this further.
While enough sources support my contention that the lance as used on horseback was often a specialized piece, both longer and differently shaped, weighted, balanced and vamplated that I still maintain the lance was often a different animal than a spear used for foot combat, it certainly appears that I was mistaken in that this was usually the case. At least in the 11th and 12th centuries if not much longer.
I never studied spears used on foot to any significant degree. A fault I plan to rectify shortly. I am extremely interested in any specific studies, books, period references that address the construction and use of spears by knights on foot. I am particularly interested in anything that speaks to spears that were used both on horseback and on foot as well as the construction of the typical knight's lance used on foot and what differences (if any) there were between the knight's lance and an infantryman's spear. If the spear used on foot by knights is indeed no different than the infantryman's, how often were these used on horseback in lieu of the horseman's lance that I tend to think of, especially in the later periods where plate becomes prevalent, in particular my cherished 15th century.
I would like to thank all of you that responded to this thread and for helping me to possibly correct errors in my understanding of the spear and its use in period.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
lord bela ot kaffa,
squire to Baron Sir Fum,
member of House Kaffa
resident of the Eastern Kingdom and Bhakail
iirc, there is documentation of at least one byzant emperor that carried a spear into battle...
then again, i'm at work, up to my tuchas with inventory issues, and no period sources in sight...
bela
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
<B>Since my original post and follow up comments, I have thought a lot about what has been said here and in private E-mail's and correspondence regarding spear use by knights.
A large number of people have told me that during all of the knightly period, including my favorite (full plate, 15th century), that I am mistaken about the distinction between knightly lances and spears. Enough people have pointed out to me that knights did use spears on foot and that these were no different then the regular spears used by infantry, that I wish to investigate this further.
While enough sources support my contention that the lance as used on horseback was often a specialized piece, both longer and differently shaped, weighted, balanced and vamplated that I still maintain the lance was often a different animal than a spear used for foot combat, it certainly appears that I was mistaken in that this was usually the case. At least in the 11th and 12th centuries if not much longer.
I never studied spears used on foot to any significant degree. A fault I plan to rectify shortly. I am extremely interested in any specific studies, books, period references that address the construction and use of spears by knights on foot. I am particularly interested in anything that speaks to spears that were used both on horseback and on foot as well as the construction of the typical knight's lance used on foot and what differences (if any) there were between the knight's lance and an infantryman's spear. If the spear used on foot by knights is indeed no different than the infantryman's, how often were these used on horseback in lieu of the horseman's lance that I tend to think of, especially in the later periods where plate becomes prevalent, in particular my cherished 15th century.
I would like to thank all of you that responded to this thread and for helping me to possibly correct errors in my understanding of the spear and its use in period.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
lord bela ot kaffa,
squire to Baron Sir Fum,
member of House Kaffa
resident of the Eastern Kingdom and Bhakail
-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Several of the Medieval treatises show spear use by nobles and men at arms on foot. This is backed up by chronicle evidence as well.
My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training.
Since we cannot yet find a manual on sword and shield, however, I can't see requiring it as a weapon style for proficiency to be knighted.
All in all, I believe the peerages are far too politicized and hard to get. We should just bestow a knighthood on everyone who obtains all their authorizations, and then form orders of knighthood that have specific foci or historical periods of interest and act independently of the crown to invite other members in.
My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training.
Since we cannot yet find a manual on sword and shield, however, I can't see requiring it as a weapon style for proficiency to be knighted.
All in all, I believe the peerages are far too politicized and hard to get. We should just bestow a knighthood on everyone who obtains all their authorizations, and then form orders of knighthood that have specific foci or historical periods of interest and act independently of the crown to invite other members in.
Bob wrote:
-----
Several of the Medieval treatises show spear use by nobles and men at arms on foot. This is backed up by chronicle evidence as well.
My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training.
-------
Are you talking of just the thrustin spear or poleaxe, halberd, etc?
-----
Since we cannot yet find a manual on sword and shield, however, I can't see requiring it as a weapon style for proficiency to be knighted.
-----
Why not? We know they used them and that they were seen at some time or another as the knightly weapons form. Why should we dissallow it because we don't know how they were used? Is your perspective that "proficiency" should be only in the proper use of the weapons as documented? That will be a tough row to hoe in the SCA. Elsewhere I like the idea though.
Or am I missing something?
-----
All in all, I believe the peerages are far too politicized and hard to get. We should just bestow a knighthood on everyone who obtains all their authorizations, and then form orders of knighthood that have specific foci or historical periods of interest and act independently of the crown to invite other members in.
-----
That would not work in kingdoms where there is only one authorization. Authorization does not denote proficiency (at least in the West). It only denote safety.
As for having separate groups knighing people independently of the Crown, I like it. More akin to the knightly Orders. The Orders would then have their own group renown that would be in part based on the caliber of person (on and off the field) they deem a knight. I would include some official charter from the Crown with some base level criteria though.
On second thought, that would just bring in a whole other host of political problems.
-Parlan
-----
Several of the Medieval treatises show spear use by nobles and men at arms on foot. This is backed up by chronicle evidence as well.
My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training.
-------
Are you talking of just the thrustin spear or poleaxe, halberd, etc?
-----
Since we cannot yet find a manual on sword and shield, however, I can't see requiring it as a weapon style for proficiency to be knighted.
-----
Why not? We know they used them and that they were seen at some time or another as the knightly weapons form. Why should we dissallow it because we don't know how they were used? Is your perspective that "proficiency" should be only in the proper use of the weapons as documented? That will be a tough row to hoe in the SCA. Elsewhere I like the idea though.
Or am I missing something?
-----
All in all, I believe the peerages are far too politicized and hard to get. We should just bestow a knighthood on everyone who obtains all their authorizations, and then form orders of knighthood that have specific foci or historical periods of interest and act independently of the crown to invite other members in.
-----
That would not work in kingdoms where there is only one authorization. Authorization does not denote proficiency (at least in the West). It only denote safety.
As for having separate groups knighing people independently of the Crown, I like it. More akin to the knightly Orders. The Orders would then have their own group renown that would be in part based on the caliber of person (on and off the field) they deem a knight. I would include some official charter from the Crown with some base level criteria though.
On second thought, that would just bring in a whole other host of political problems.
-Parlan
-
Rev. George
- Archive Member
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: athens. ga usa
- Contact:
Gotta disagree with you there Rev.
Knighthood for noncombattant service is a late period convention if even that.
Of course, in period the monarch did not always make the knight either.
Laurels are mastercraftsmen. Pelicans are top of the services (clerical order?, seneshaliate?, can't think of a clear period equivalent).
Knighthood for noncombattant service is a late period convention if even that.
Of course, in period the monarch did not always make the knight either.
Laurels are mastercraftsmen. Pelicans are top of the services (clerical order?, seneshaliate?, can't think of a clear period equivalent).
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
Bob/Conn/Lorenzo wrote-
"Several of the Medieval treatises show spear use by nobles and men at arms on foot."
Yup. It shows up in lots of places.
"This is backed up by chronicle evidence as well."
Tons.
"My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training."
It's true, and most SCA people who have learned to thrust with a glaive would already have a good foundation, but the test is in matched short spears!! It was the cornerstone of all armed conflict before the hangonnes started to actually work.
"Since we cannot yet find a manual on sword and shield, however, I can't see requiring it as a weapon style for proficiency to be knighted."
I don't agree, but I can see why you would say that.
-Vitus
[This message has been edited by Vitus (edited 11-30-2001).]
"Several of the Medieval treatises show spear use by nobles and men at arms on foot."
Yup. It shows up in lots of places.
"This is backed up by chronicle evidence as well."
Tons.
"My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training."
It's true, and most SCA people who have learned to thrust with a glaive would already have a good foundation, but the test is in matched short spears!! It was the cornerstone of all armed conflict before the hangonnes started to actually work.
"Since we cannot yet find a manual on sword and shield, however, I can't see requiring it as a weapon style for proficiency to be knighted."
I don't agree, but I can see why you would say that.
-Vitus
[This message has been edited by Vitus (edited 11-30-2001).]
Sir John Hawkwood had his outfit (The White Company) equipped with spears that for tactical purposes could be adjusted for length. Bolts through pipe? Threaded? I don't know, the reference didn't say.
Evolution of spear to lance? Think of it as the difference between a bolt action rifle and a sniper rifle. The (modern) sniper rifle is a specialized form of bolt action rifle, even if it is of the same caliber as the bolt action (308 Win, 300 Winmag). It may even be a larger, more specialized arm (50BMG). But originally there would have been very little difference.
Evolution of spear to lance? Think of it as the difference between a bolt action rifle and a sniper rifle. The (modern) sniper rifle is a specialized form of bolt action rifle, even if it is of the same caliber as the bolt action (308 Win, 300 Winmag). It may even be a larger, more specialized arm (50BMG). But originally there would have been very little difference.
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
Murdock - Why? If it is becuase it is an oral tradition, then toss out ALL commentary of what was done and why. We are ultimately going with what someone is reoporting as the truth. It is just someone wrote it down, or portrayed it in a painting, sculpture or the like. Can you say that none of this is subject to artistic licsense, or exaggeration?
And I never said the weapons were the 42" length we see in the SCA - just that he did use 2 swords.
And I never said the weapons were the 42" length we see in the SCA - just that he did use 2 swords.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<B>
1.All in all, I believe the peerages are far too politicized and hard to get.
2.We should just bestow a knighthood on everyone who obtains all their authorizations, and then form orders of knighthood that have specific foci or historical periods of interest and act independently of the crown to invite other members in.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. I think that you are probably right, at least about the politiciation.
2.How does this square with Maurice Keen's "Chivalry" in which he writes of the "greater" and "lesser" orders of chivalry?
<B>
1.All in all, I believe the peerages are far too politicized and hard to get.
2.We should just bestow a knighthood on everyone who obtains all their authorizations, and then form orders of knighthood that have specific foci or historical periods of interest and act independently of the crown to invite other members in.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. I think that you are probably right, at least about the politiciation.
2.How does this square with Maurice Keen's "Chivalry" in which he writes of the "greater" and "lesser" orders of chivalry?
Settle in boys & girls, this could get long. 
First, I think much of the preceeding discussion focuses on the use of a single weapon, rather than weapons use as part of an overall picture of excellence. Where I come from, (Meridies) most of us like to see a "well rounded fighter". I think this means prowess as a fighter with whatever weapons he chooses to use, and the more styles the better. I have never heard anyone in a knight's meeting say anything remotely like "we can't knight him, he fights with a (insert least favorite weapons style here)"
I would also caution against overemphasizing the idea that fighting skill gets you knighted. Weapons choice is a small part of fighting prowess, which is a small part of much more complicated equation. The discussion seems to have said little about Chivalry, Courtesy, Service and Honor. These are at least as important as prowess to me, and I think to most of the men (and one woman) I have the honor to call brother (and one sister).
Historically: I'm a 14th century kinda guy. During this period the "infantry spear" and the "knightly lance were very little different. The Lance would frequently have a vamplate, but was still basically a long stick with a metal point. According to Froissart, the French knights at the battle of Poitiers (1356) came unprepared to fight on foot, and many therefore "shortened" their lances in order to use them more effectively from the ground.
This seems to have happened frequently during the Hundred Years War.
Thanks for listening,
Stuart
First, I think much of the preceeding discussion focuses on the use of a single weapon, rather than weapons use as part of an overall picture of excellence. Where I come from, (Meridies) most of us like to see a "well rounded fighter". I think this means prowess as a fighter with whatever weapons he chooses to use, and the more styles the better. I have never heard anyone in a knight's meeting say anything remotely like "we can't knight him, he fights with a (insert least favorite weapons style here)"
I would also caution against overemphasizing the idea that fighting skill gets you knighted. Weapons choice is a small part of fighting prowess, which is a small part of much more complicated equation. The discussion seems to have said little about Chivalry, Courtesy, Service and Honor. These are at least as important as prowess to me, and I think to most of the men (and one woman) I have the honor to call brother (and one sister).
Historically: I'm a 14th century kinda guy. During this period the "infantry spear" and the "knightly lance were very little different. The Lance would frequently have a vamplate, but was still basically a long stick with a metal point. According to Froissart, the French knights at the battle of Poitiers (1356) came unprepared to fight on foot, and many therefore "shortened" their lances in order to use them more effectively from the ground.
This seems to have happened frequently during the Hundred Years War.
Thanks for listening,
Stuart
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For the early 16th c Landsknecht, we see woodcut after woodcut showing the officers carrying 5-7' spears. Many of the officers were Knights, even if they were in charge of footsoldiers.
I agree about the Peerages.
- Juliana, OL
My contention would be that if they *can't* fight with a spear they *shouldn't* be a knight. Short spear (5-7') was part and parcel of their training.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For the early 16th c Landsknecht, we see woodcut after woodcut showing the officers carrying 5-7' spears. Many of the officers were Knights, even if they were in charge of footsoldiers.
I agree about the Peerages.
- Juliana, OL
Parlan suggests that using a standard of authorization to denote "knighthood" would be inconsistent between kingdoms. In my Perfect Little World, though, this is not a problem, because I would like to see all fighters adopt an appropriately 'knightly' title after their -first- authorization, regardless of how many further official tests they may (or, as in the West, may not) pass. In essence, no one would ever be knighted again. Instead, we assume membership of the Second Estate and grant the title with the authorization, much as we grant the assumption of gentle birth through an attempt at medieval garb and simple attendance (although we could also adopt the dubbing of the accolade as how a newly authorized fighter is ceremonially recognized, though it would be something any authorizing marshal could do and would not remain the sole domain of the Crown).
If we adopted the above practice, we could then proceed to the next step Conn proposes -- allow -anyone- to create a knightly Order, complete with its own focus, standards of membership, and regalia. This should be completely unregulated, allowing the reputation of the company to wax or wane completely on the conduct, collective and individual, of its members without the additional burden of Royal Sanction. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the existing Order of Knighthood should be disbanded in favor of this other mechanism so as not to demonstrate -any- Royal favor whatsoever and establish a completely level playing field for every 'knight'.
Of course, its not like it would ever happen, but I can dream, can't I?
-cheval-
If we adopted the above practice, we could then proceed to the next step Conn proposes -- allow -anyone- to create a knightly Order, complete with its own focus, standards of membership, and regalia. This should be completely unregulated, allowing the reputation of the company to wax or wane completely on the conduct, collective and individual, of its members without the additional burden of Royal Sanction. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the existing Order of Knighthood should be disbanded in favor of this other mechanism so as not to demonstrate -any- Royal favor whatsoever and establish a completely level playing field for every 'knight'.
Of course, its not like it would ever happen, but I can dream, can't I?
-cheval-
-
Konrad
- Archive Member
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Boise, Idaho, USA
- Contact:
Sorry about arriving to the table late... I can speak about being knighted as a spearman because it happened to me. When my best friend and I started in the SCA we deceided early on that sword and shield fighting was for the birds, and we wanted to try something else. For the next three years we never touched a sword and fought exclusivly glaive and spear. We got pretty good and could take out most members of the chivalry in our Principality when equally armed. We had a bit more trouble fighting against a shieldman one-on-one but we had a few tricks that worked fairly well. After a while we deceided to try our luck with the other weapon styles in an attempt to broaden our fighting knowledge. We looked at this a trying to find out some things from 'the other side'. After getting a lot of instruction with the 'hated' sword and shield we eventually picked up enough tricks to be recognized as knights. Decker in Atenveldt, and Myself in Artemisia. We were good examples of people who really excelled at war fighting, but made the effort to demonstrate a good working knowledge of the other weapon styles. It is difficult to get knight knighted anywhere in the SCA without being able to show some degree of proficiency in a varitey of weapon forms. I even got lucky and won a crown fighting sword and shield, only because I put in a lot of training before hand. If you find yourself 'peaking-out' in a particular style try something else. Fight with a different hand, different form, or in a way that will provide you with a challenge to keep things interesting. I still love to fight spear, but I have also found that it's a lot of fun to crash into a shield wall fighting sword and shield. 
Konrad
Konig Artemisia
Konrad
Konig Artemisia
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
Bump.
1) Sir Mordreth was looking for this thread, so I moved it up.
2) Anyone come up with any resources to help me find out diff's if any spear vs. lance?
3) Quote "...ultimatly one mans katana is another mans bastard sword, since basicly its just a stick, there is not enough about it to realy seperate it from a bastard sword, so in an sca context its the personna that dictates the weapon, is that a madu, nope it my pilum."
No, I disagree. A katana does not cut with the back edge and is properly used with a very different set of techniques than those used with the bastard sword.
4) Mordreth and others pointed out in E-mails that one key difference (when there is a difference) between lances and spears may be in distinct head/tip designs. Lances on horseback at least tended to be puncture/thrust weapons only, spears sometimes had "leaf" blades with sharp edges that could conceivably be used on foot as a two handed weapon allowing for a degree of cutting, not just thrusting. Late period lance tips in particular (horseback) are pretty well designed for punching through armor with no though at all to having a cutting edge on them.
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-01-2002).]
1) Sir Mordreth was looking for this thread, so I moved it up.
2) Anyone come up with any resources to help me find out diff's if any spear vs. lance?
3) Quote "...ultimatly one mans katana is another mans bastard sword, since basicly its just a stick, there is not enough about it to realy seperate it from a bastard sword, so in an sca context its the personna that dictates the weapon, is that a madu, nope it my pilum."
No, I disagree. A katana does not cut with the back edge and is properly used with a very different set of techniques than those used with the bastard sword.
4) Mordreth and others pointed out in E-mails that one key difference (when there is a difference) between lances and spears may be in distinct head/tip designs. Lances on horseback at least tended to be puncture/thrust weapons only, spears sometimes had "leaf" blades with sharp edges that could conceivably be used on foot as a two handed weapon allowing for a degree of cutting, not just thrusting. Late period lance tips in particular (horseback) are pretty well designed for punching through armor with no though at all to having a cutting edge on them.
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-01-2002).]
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
I hate to pick nits, but the exerpts from Froissart that I posted in this thread strongly6 suggest that oftentimes there was no particular difference between a "lance" and a "spear". We can't make sweeping generalizations about these weapons- there was alot of crossover.
In the story of Sir John Assheton, he has his lance "in it's rest", but then takes the same weapon with him over the barriers to duel the French knights in front of the castle gate. I am sure that in the 14th and 15th centuries, knights and mounted men at arms would have wanted a weapon that was hybrid- that could serve well mounted and on foot. Froissart is the best source we have for details about knightly combat.
But nowhere in any chronicle, illustration or fectbuch have I seen a soldier or knight making a cutting motion with a broad-bladed spear. Common sense says that it would work, but it would be impossible to know for sure. Of course, didn't the Vikings have a "hewing spear"?
This is all very interesting....
In the story of Sir John Assheton, he has his lance "in it's rest", but then takes the same weapon with him over the barriers to duel the French knights in front of the castle gate. I am sure that in the 14th and 15th centuries, knights and mounted men at arms would have wanted a weapon that was hybrid- that could serve well mounted and on foot. Froissart is the best source we have for details about knightly combat.
But nowhere in any chronicle, illustration or fectbuch have I seen a soldier or knight making a cutting motion with a broad-bladed spear. Common sense says that it would work, but it would be impossible to know for sure. Of course, didn't the Vikings have a "hewing spear"?
This is all very interesting....
Richard:
I pretty much missed most of the discussion on this topic and really don't feel like reading 56 replies, so I'll just throw my 2 cents worth on your primary post.
I personally don't think that members should be knighted just because they are a hot stick -especially if it's just one form! I feel knights should be good with all styles(which 90% are not), can teach these styles to others(most won't even talk to the non-belted), understands melee combat and can give orders when needed(most have no clue), is chivilrous (which 90% are not) and does more then just fight(50% here as far as I know.)
If this spearman falls within the above, then I say HELL YES -knight him!
Hjalmr
Middle Kingdom
PS: Can't wait to see what you knights reply to this post with...
I pretty much missed most of the discussion on this topic and really don't feel like reading 56 replies, so I'll just throw my 2 cents worth on your primary post.
I personally don't think that members should be knighted just because they are a hot stick -especially if it's just one form! I feel knights should be good with all styles(which 90% are not), can teach these styles to others(most won't even talk to the non-belted), understands melee combat and can give orders when needed(most have no clue), is chivilrous (which 90% are not) and does more then just fight(50% here as far as I know.)
If this spearman falls within the above, then I say HELL YES -knight him!
Hjalmr
Middle Kingdom
PS: Can't wait to see what you knights reply to this post with...
Laurel=Peerlike Qualities + Selfless service
Master=Peerlike Qualities + Dedicated Knowledge of an Art/Science
Knight=Peerlike Qualities + Dedicated knowledge of the Art/Science of Combat
IMHO, Peerlike Qualities come first, formost, and mainly. Without those, a knight is just a stick jock, a master just a professional, and a laurel just a volunteer.
------------------
Lochlainn
Liberalism: "a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions...as they think fit...without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man"--Locke
Master=Peerlike Qualities + Dedicated Knowledge of an Art/Science
Knight=Peerlike Qualities + Dedicated knowledge of the Art/Science of Combat
IMHO, Peerlike Qualities come first, formost, and mainly. Without those, a knight is just a stick jock, a master just a professional, and a laurel just a volunteer.
------------------
Lochlainn
Liberalism: "a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions...as they think fit...without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man"--Locke
-
Harold the Bear
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Portland, ME, USA
- Contact:
My thoughts on the matter are as such,
First off i believe a spearman should have equal chance to become a knight. I seen some awesome spearmen in melee and single combat. From personal experiance i was effectivly defeated by a spearman in very close quarters combat. I salute people who can pick up a weapon that can only poke you to death and have high spirits going into battle. I also think that a spearman has all sorts of martial arts tricks up their sleeves as well(also from personal experiance.) But back to Knighthood for spearmen. People who wield a spear can be just as honorable, and chivalrous on the field as any other if not more so and i believe that a spearman if his heart is in the right place can be a Knight.
------------------
"We are but shadows and dust",
Harold der Bär von Sachsen
[This message has been edited by Harold the Bear (edited 01-02-2002).]
First off i believe a spearman should have equal chance to become a knight. I seen some awesome spearmen in melee and single combat. From personal experiance i was effectivly defeated by a spearman in very close quarters combat. I salute people who can pick up a weapon that can only poke you to death and have high spirits going into battle. I also think that a spearman has all sorts of martial arts tricks up their sleeves as well(also from personal experiance.) But back to Knighthood for spearmen. People who wield a spear can be just as honorable, and chivalrous on the field as any other if not more so and i believe that a spearman if his heart is in the right place can be a Knight.
------------------
"We are but shadows and dust",
Harold der Bär von Sachsen
[This message has been edited by Harold the Bear (edited 01-02-2002).]
I too am from the East and have had the great oportunity (My wounderful spelling again) to fight next to one heck of a spearman. Now this dude runs around jumps up front, chasing other dudes down and waxin them. He has recently been knighted (2 pensics ago). You must understand that in melee he dosnt stand around, in fact the house he is in is a fast moving killing machine. And I have seen some wicked feets, times I thought he was a gonner and then three S$s dudes were dead, and he was all by himself and a spear. That being said, in a tourney he fights s$s. Anyhow, I dont think the guy would go into a tourney field (thinkin of our Eastern sizes) with a spear. As far as a spear being a knightly weap, read Fousier (Damn Sp again) The fight were the one knight pierces the others leg was with a spear. And in Japan, the Yari is a very reveered wep. The sword gets its real reverance after 16 with the Tok Shogunate. Any how I have not made any sence and shall there fore say By
Jay/Hanjo
Jay/Hanjo
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
Hanjo speaks of the death of Sir John Chandos- yet another incident in Froissart where lance combat on foot went down.
----------
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/chandos2.htm
----------
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/chandos2.htm
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>I hate to pick nits, but the exerpts from Froissart that I posted in this thread strongly6 suggest that oftentimes there was no particular difference between a "lance" and a "spear". We can't make sweeping generalizations about these weapons- there was alot of crossover.
> Hi Vitus, I was actually not ignoring your posts. I appreciated them. I was simply looking for more information, specific examples, detailed descriptions fo the weapons and their usage. I want to gather as much information as I can in order to understand the topic better.
"In the story of Sir John Assheton, he has his lance "in it's rest", but then takes the same weapon with him over the barriers to duel the French knights in front of the castle gate. I am sure that in the 14th and 15th centuries, knights and mounted men at arms would have wanted a weapon that was hybrid- that could serve well mounted and on foot."
>Once again, this is exactly the type of thing I am interested in.
"Froissart is the best source we have for details about knightly combat."
>Well, yes, for that period and for the areas he was familiar with. Quite good stuff. At the same time, Froissart hardly covers the entire knightly period I am interested in, starting with early chivalry say 1000 AD and through my favorite period for armour the 15th century. And the SCA goes right up to 1600 (1650 if you ignore the pre-17th century admonition). I would hardly call Froissart the be all and end all of what knights did throughout this very broad period or in all of Western Europe. Although if I had to pick a single source to base something on, I'd probably agree with you that Froissart is the best one we have.
"But nowhere in any chronicle, illustration or fectbuch have I seen a soldier or knight making a cutting motion with a broad-bladed spear. Common sense says that it would work, but it would be impossible to know for sure. Of course, didn't the Vikings have a "hewing spear"?
This is all very interesting.... </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"
Yes, when Mordreth brought up this idea to me I found it fascinating too. One of the things I always assumed was that lance tips, at least late ones from my treasured 15th century were thrust/puncture only weapons that would work on horse or even on foot against some armour (at least the chinks/gaps/joints/lighter plate armour, maille) of opposing knights but also work on lightly or unarmoured opponents. The idea that the leaf bladed tips which I had always associate with spears, not lances (at least later lances for piercing armour from horseback), could be used for cutting or possibly against opponents with certain types of armour is very interesting to me. Maybe even if they were not used for cutting, maybe the idea was that they either a) Did not get used for punching through plate or b) Regardless of what armour they were used against, a broad blade would possibly do more damage than a thin or edgeless tip?
Once again, I am simply looking for more information, more examples, technical descriptions of the weapons, any differences. Maybe some lances were hybrid types for use on foot and horseback and some were dedicated to being one or the other only. I simply want to learn more.
-Richard
<B>I hate to pick nits, but the exerpts from Froissart that I posted in this thread strongly6 suggest that oftentimes there was no particular difference between a "lance" and a "spear". We can't make sweeping generalizations about these weapons- there was alot of crossover.
> Hi Vitus, I was actually not ignoring your posts. I appreciated them. I was simply looking for more information, specific examples, detailed descriptions fo the weapons and their usage. I want to gather as much information as I can in order to understand the topic better.
"In the story of Sir John Assheton, he has his lance "in it's rest", but then takes the same weapon with him over the barriers to duel the French knights in front of the castle gate. I am sure that in the 14th and 15th centuries, knights and mounted men at arms would have wanted a weapon that was hybrid- that could serve well mounted and on foot."
>Once again, this is exactly the type of thing I am interested in.
"Froissart is the best source we have for details about knightly combat."
>Well, yes, for that period and for the areas he was familiar with. Quite good stuff. At the same time, Froissart hardly covers the entire knightly period I am interested in, starting with early chivalry say 1000 AD and through my favorite period for armour the 15th century. And the SCA goes right up to 1600 (1650 if you ignore the pre-17th century admonition). I would hardly call Froissart the be all and end all of what knights did throughout this very broad period or in all of Western Europe. Although if I had to pick a single source to base something on, I'd probably agree with you that Froissart is the best one we have.
"But nowhere in any chronicle, illustration or fectbuch have I seen a soldier or knight making a cutting motion with a broad-bladed spear. Common sense says that it would work, but it would be impossible to know for sure. Of course, didn't the Vikings have a "hewing spear"?
This is all very interesting.... </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"
Yes, when Mordreth brought up this idea to me I found it fascinating too. One of the things I always assumed was that lance tips, at least late ones from my treasured 15th century were thrust/puncture only weapons that would work on horse or even on foot against some armour (at least the chinks/gaps/joints/lighter plate armour, maille) of opposing knights but also work on lightly or unarmoured opponents. The idea that the leaf bladed tips which I had always associate with spears, not lances (at least later lances for piercing armour from horseback), could be used for cutting or possibly against opponents with certain types of armour is very interesting to me. Maybe even if they were not used for cutting, maybe the idea was that they either a) Did not get used for punching through plate or b) Regardless of what armour they were used against, a broad blade would possibly do more damage than a thin or edgeless tip?
Once again, I am simply looking for more information, more examples, technical descriptions of the weapons, any differences. Maybe some lances were hybrid types for use on foot and horseback and some were dedicated to being one or the other only. I simply want to learn more.
-Richard
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
Well, Richard- you got me there. Froissart covers a pretty small time period. How about De Joinville? This is from the early 12th century.
-------
In the meantime. I and my knights had decided to go and attack some Turks who were loading their baggage in their camp on our left, so we fell upon them. As we were pursuing them them though the camp I caught sight of a Saracen on the point of mounting his horse; one of his knights was holding the bridle. At the moment he has both his hands on the saddle to pull himself up, I gave him a thrust with my lance just under the arm pit and struck him dead. On seeing this, his knight left his lord and the horse, and thrusting his own lance at me as I passed, caught me between the shoulders, pinning me down to the neck of my horse in such a way that I could not draw the sword at my belt. I therefore had to draw the sword attached to my horse. When he saw me with my sword drawn he withdrew his lance and left me.
When I and my knights came out of the Saracen's camp we found what we had reckoned to be about six thousand Turks, who had left their tents and retreated into the fields. As soon as they saw us they came charging toward us, and killed Hughes de Trichatel, Lord of Conflans, who was with me bearing a banner. I and my knights spurred on or horses and went to the rescue of Raoul de Wanou, another of my company, whom they had struck to the ground.
As I was coming back, the Turks thrust at me with their lances. Under the weight of their attack my horse was brought to it's knees, and I went flying forward over it's ears. I got up soon as ever I could, with my shield at my neck and sword in hand. One of my knights, named Erard de Siverey- may God grant him grace- came to me and advised our drawing back towards a ruined house where we could wait for the king, who was on his way. As we were going there, some on foot and some on horseback, a great body of Turks came rushing at us, bearing me to the ground and riding over my body, so that my shield went flying over my neck.
As soon as they had passed, Erard de Siverey came back to me and took me with him to the walls of the tumbled-down house. Here we were joined by Hughes d'Ecot, Frederic de Loupey and Renaud de Menoncourt. While we were there the Turks attacked us from all sides. Some of them got into the house and pricked us with their lances from above. My knights asked me to hold on to their horses bridles, which I did, for fear the beasts should run away. They then put up a vigorous defense against the Turks, for which, I may say, they were afterwards highly praised by all men of good standing in the army, both those who witnessed their bravery and those who heard of it later.
During this incident, Hughes d'Ecot received three wounds in the face from lances, and so did Raoul de Wanou, while Frederic de Loupey had a lance-thrust between his shoulders, which made so large a wound that the blood poured from his body as if from the bung hole of a barrel. A blow from one of the enemy swords had landed in the middle of Erard de Siverey's face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips. At that moment the thought of Saint James came into my mind, and I prayed to him: 'Good Saint James, come to my help, and save us in our great need'.
Just as I had uttered this prayer Erard de Siverey said to me: 'My lord, if you think that neither I nor any of my heirs will incur reproach for it, I will go and fetch you help from the Comte d'Anjou, whom I see in the fields over there.' I said to him: 'My dear man, it seems to me that you would win great honor for yourself if you went for help to save our lives; your own, by the way, is also in great danger.' (I spoke truly, for he later died of his wound.) He consulted all of the knights who were there, and they all gave him the same advice that I had given him. After hearing what they had said, he asked me to let go of his horse, which I was holding by the bridle; so I let him take it.
He went over to the Comte d'Anjou and begged him to come to the rescue of me and my people. A person of some importance who was with the count tried to dissuade him, but he said he would do as my knight had asked. So he turned his horse's head to come to our help, and a number of his sergeants set spurs to their horses as well. As soon as the Saracens saw them coming, they turned to leave us. Pierre dAuberive, who was riding in front of the sergeants with his sword clenched in his fist, saw them leaving and charged right into the midst of the Saracens who were holding Raoul de Wanou, and rescued him, sorely wounded.
As I stood there on foot with my knights, wounded as I have told you, King Louis came up at the head of his battalions, with a great sound of shouting, trumpets and kettledrums. He halted with his troops on a raised causeway. Never have I seen a finer or a more handsome knight! He seemed to tower head and shoulders above all his people; on his head was a gilded helmet, and a sword of German steel was in his hand.
The moment he stopped, those good knights in his division whom I have already named to you, together with other valiant knights of his, flung themselves right at the Turks. It was, I can assure you, a truly noble passage of arms, for no one there drew either bow or crossbow; it was a battle of maces against swords between the Turks and our people, with both sides inextricably tangled.
One of my squires, who had fled away with my banner, but had rejoined me, brought up one of my Flemish horses, on which I mounted and rode to take up my place beside the king. While we were there together, the worthy knight Jean de Valery came up to the king and said he advised him to bear to the right towards the river, so as to have the support of the Duc de Bourgogne, and also to give his Majesty's sergeants a chance of something to drink, for by now the day had grown very hot.
The king ordered his sergeants to go and fetch the good knights of his council who were round about, indicating each of them by name. The sergeants went and summoned them from the thick of the fight, where the struggle between the Turks and our people was most intense. They came to the king, who asked them what they advised. They replied that they considered Jean de Valery's advice very sound. So the king ordered his standard bearers to move with the great flag of saint Denis to the right towards the river. As the royal army began to move there was once again a great sound of trumpets, kettledrums and Saracen horns.
---------------
Again, lances used on foot and horse. I can't help but think that some shorter spears were made for foot use only. I have seen broadleaf heads on late-period lances as well. I think a few are at the Met....
-V
-------
In the meantime. I and my knights had decided to go and attack some Turks who were loading their baggage in their camp on our left, so we fell upon them. As we were pursuing them them though the camp I caught sight of a Saracen on the point of mounting his horse; one of his knights was holding the bridle. At the moment he has both his hands on the saddle to pull himself up, I gave him a thrust with my lance just under the arm pit and struck him dead. On seeing this, his knight left his lord and the horse, and thrusting his own lance at me as I passed, caught me between the shoulders, pinning me down to the neck of my horse in such a way that I could not draw the sword at my belt. I therefore had to draw the sword attached to my horse. When he saw me with my sword drawn he withdrew his lance and left me.
When I and my knights came out of the Saracen's camp we found what we had reckoned to be about six thousand Turks, who had left their tents and retreated into the fields. As soon as they saw us they came charging toward us, and killed Hughes de Trichatel, Lord of Conflans, who was with me bearing a banner. I and my knights spurred on or horses and went to the rescue of Raoul de Wanou, another of my company, whom they had struck to the ground.
As I was coming back, the Turks thrust at me with their lances. Under the weight of their attack my horse was brought to it's knees, and I went flying forward over it's ears. I got up soon as ever I could, with my shield at my neck and sword in hand. One of my knights, named Erard de Siverey- may God grant him grace- came to me and advised our drawing back towards a ruined house where we could wait for the king, who was on his way. As we were going there, some on foot and some on horseback, a great body of Turks came rushing at us, bearing me to the ground and riding over my body, so that my shield went flying over my neck.
As soon as they had passed, Erard de Siverey came back to me and took me with him to the walls of the tumbled-down house. Here we were joined by Hughes d'Ecot, Frederic de Loupey and Renaud de Menoncourt. While we were there the Turks attacked us from all sides. Some of them got into the house and pricked us with their lances from above. My knights asked me to hold on to their horses bridles, which I did, for fear the beasts should run away. They then put up a vigorous defense against the Turks, for which, I may say, they were afterwards highly praised by all men of good standing in the army, both those who witnessed their bravery and those who heard of it later.
During this incident, Hughes d'Ecot received three wounds in the face from lances, and so did Raoul de Wanou, while Frederic de Loupey had a lance-thrust between his shoulders, which made so large a wound that the blood poured from his body as if from the bung hole of a barrel. A blow from one of the enemy swords had landed in the middle of Erard de Siverey's face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips. At that moment the thought of Saint James came into my mind, and I prayed to him: 'Good Saint James, come to my help, and save us in our great need'.
Just as I had uttered this prayer Erard de Siverey said to me: 'My lord, if you think that neither I nor any of my heirs will incur reproach for it, I will go and fetch you help from the Comte d'Anjou, whom I see in the fields over there.' I said to him: 'My dear man, it seems to me that you would win great honor for yourself if you went for help to save our lives; your own, by the way, is also in great danger.' (I spoke truly, for he later died of his wound.) He consulted all of the knights who were there, and they all gave him the same advice that I had given him. After hearing what they had said, he asked me to let go of his horse, which I was holding by the bridle; so I let him take it.
He went over to the Comte d'Anjou and begged him to come to the rescue of me and my people. A person of some importance who was with the count tried to dissuade him, but he said he would do as my knight had asked. So he turned his horse's head to come to our help, and a number of his sergeants set spurs to their horses as well. As soon as the Saracens saw them coming, they turned to leave us. Pierre dAuberive, who was riding in front of the sergeants with his sword clenched in his fist, saw them leaving and charged right into the midst of the Saracens who were holding Raoul de Wanou, and rescued him, sorely wounded.
As I stood there on foot with my knights, wounded as I have told you, King Louis came up at the head of his battalions, with a great sound of shouting, trumpets and kettledrums. He halted with his troops on a raised causeway. Never have I seen a finer or a more handsome knight! He seemed to tower head and shoulders above all his people; on his head was a gilded helmet, and a sword of German steel was in his hand.
The moment he stopped, those good knights in his division whom I have already named to you, together with other valiant knights of his, flung themselves right at the Turks. It was, I can assure you, a truly noble passage of arms, for no one there drew either bow or crossbow; it was a battle of maces against swords between the Turks and our people, with both sides inextricably tangled.
One of my squires, who had fled away with my banner, but had rejoined me, brought up one of my Flemish horses, on which I mounted and rode to take up my place beside the king. While we were there together, the worthy knight Jean de Valery came up to the king and said he advised him to bear to the right towards the river, so as to have the support of the Duc de Bourgogne, and also to give his Majesty's sergeants a chance of something to drink, for by now the day had grown very hot.
The king ordered his sergeants to go and fetch the good knights of his council who were round about, indicating each of them by name. The sergeants went and summoned them from the thick of the fight, where the struggle between the Turks and our people was most intense. They came to the king, who asked them what they advised. They replied that they considered Jean de Valery's advice very sound. So the king ordered his standard bearers to move with the great flag of saint Denis to the right towards the river. As the royal army began to move there was once again a great sound of trumpets, kettledrums and Saracen horns.
---------------
Again, lances used on foot and horse. I can't help but think that some shorter spears were made for foot use only. I have seen broadleaf heads on late-period lances as well. I think a few are at the Met....
-V
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
-
Ringlancer
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2460
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Reisterstown (Baltimore Burb), MD USA
Heck, I know someone in the East who SHOULD be knighted, and his hottest weapon is spear. He is no slouch with pollaxe or greatsword either. He's been in the SCA for quite a long time, has done great service on many levels, has peerlike qualities (he's actually a laurel, for his knowledge for period tournaments). He crafts wonderful weapons for rattan combat, has exemplary appearance on the field and has motivated, through deed and writings scores of others including myself to better my appearance, knowledge and ability on the field.
I truly think that Master Galleron should be knighted. He is every bit a Knight and a brilliant example of prowess, chivalry and all qualities a knight should have.
But that's just my view.
I truly think that Master Galleron should be knighted. He is every bit a Knight and a brilliant example of prowess, chivalry and all qualities a knight should have.
But that's just my view.
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
Hjalmr - What part of the Midrealm you from? While I know a few Knights that are as you describe in *part* - 1 weapon wonders, don't participate in A&S, etc..., I know very few who are all the bad thnigs you describe - Certainly not 90% as you describe.
Ringlancer - You feel he is deserving, Let the Crown know! Anyone can reccomend anybody for any award. The Chivalry don't really VOTE new candidates in - they advise the Crown, who makes the decision.
I fell a Knight might not have to "kick butt" in every weapon style, but should have more than the average skill. The should at the very least be able to teach someone enough about a style to get the person authorized.
If a man is an awe inspiring spearman, and is more than competitive with another style, AND is at least average (preferably better) in the others, then there you go.
Ringlancer - You feel he is deserving, Let the Crown know! Anyone can reccomend anybody for any award. The Chivalry don't really VOTE new candidates in - they advise the Crown, who makes the decision.
I fell a Knight might not have to "kick butt" in every weapon style, but should have more than the average skill. The should at the very least be able to teach someone enough about a style to get the person authorized.
If a man is an awe inspiring spearman, and is more than competitive with another style, AND is at least average (preferably better) in the others, then there you go.