Errors in The White Company

[Jehan de Pelham]

I have often cited The White Company as a book to read for understanding the 14th century martial culture.

However, the book is claimed to be prone to error. I'd like to examine those errors from the standpoint of providing some caveats to people reading it. I'll start:

1. Historical Events Relating to The Battle of Najera: The sequencing of events close to and in the battle itself are changed to place The White Company in a prominent role. There are plenty of references, even websites, to provide more accurate information.

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

[earnest carruthers]

Out of interest why use a work of fiction as a starting point, I realise that atmosphere etc is important, but as you highlight such works become reference items.

You mentioned WC on the other thread about 14th C books didn't you?

I read a few of the Dorothy Dunnet - Niccolo books, as far as I could tell she created a great 15th C atmosphere touched on a few real things but concentrated on the story. Yet I would be loth to recommend that as anything but historical fun.

We already have the great Washington Irving to thank for probably the most perpetual myth, that of the performance of English archers in Grenada. The amount of times I have heard or read otherwise well informed reenactors quote chapter and verse from this story is beyond count.

That is not to say automatically that a work of historical fiction has to be crap, but imagine using the Sharpe books as a source of research for Peninsula war activities.

[RandallMoffett]

grimstone bar,

Washington Irving and longbows? What? I have never heard this story do tell.
Be catious with historical accounts even at that. If you have a pair it is fun to look at the differences between them.
RPM

[earnest carruthers]

In about 1830 or so he 'compiled' the history of Spain, in one part it is the final battle of the reconquista and he describes english archers at Grenada, apparently transcribed from a priest, the priest never existed, the archers did but no description other than Irving's exists. His account is one of the worst 'legends' in reenactment as his colourful and very atmospheric description woudl seem to suit most perceptions of how the sturdy English archer performed.

I will dig up the piece, ah here it be, use with caution.

""The worthy Padre Fray Antonio Agapida describes the stranger knight and his followers with his accustomed accuracy and minuteness. 'This cavalier,' he observes, 'was from the island of England, and brought with him a train of his vassals; men who had been hardened in certain civil wars which had raged in their country. They were a comely race of men, but too fair and fresh for warriors; not having the sunburnt martial hue of our old Castilian soldiery. They were huge feeders also, and deep carousers; and could not accommodate themselves to the sober diet of our troops, but must fain eat and drink after the manner of their own country. They were often noisy and unruly, also, in their wassail, and their quarter of the camp was prone to be a scene of loud revel and sudden brawl. They were withal of great pride; yet it was not like our inflammable Spanish pride: they stood not much upon the pundonor and high punctilio, and rarely drew the stiletto in their disputes; but their pride was silent and contumelious. Though from a remote and somewhat barbarous island, they yet believed themselves the most perfect men upon earth; and magnified their chieftain, the Lord Scales, beyond the greatest of our grandees. With all this, it must be said of them, that they were marvellous good men in the field, dexterous archers, and powerful with the battle-axe. In their great pride and self-will, they always sought to press in the advance, and take part of danger, trying to outvie our Spanish chivalry. They did not rush forward fiercely, or make a brilliant onset, like the Moorish and Spanish troops, but they went into the fight deliberately, and persisted obstinately, and were slow to find out when they were beaten. Withal, they were much esteemed, yet little liked, by our soldiery, who considered them staunch companions in the field, yet coveted but little fellowship with them in the camp. Their commander, the Lord Scales, was an accomplished cavalier, of gracious and noble presence, and fair speech. It was a marvel to see so much courtesy in a knight brought up so far from our Castilian court. He was much honored by the King and Queen, and found great favor with the fair dames about the court, who, indeed, are rather prone to be pleased with foreign cavaliers. He went always in a costly state, attended by pages and esquires, and accompanied by noble young cavaliers of his country, who had enrolled themselves under his banner, to learn the gentle exercise of arms. In all pageants and festivals, the eyes of the populace were attracted by the singular bearing and rich array of the English Earl and his train, who prided themselves in always appearing in the garb and manner of their own country; and were indeed something very magnificent, delectable, and strange to behold.'"


I have seen variations on a theme of the English archer etc etc.

I actually got this from an archery history web site, in order to reinforce the point I guess.

[Mord]

What makes everyone think "The White Company" is about the 14th Century? The work is a historical novel written at the turn of the 19th century by Arthur Conan-Doyle. This pre-World War I time was when the British Empire was at its peak and when Imperialism was considered a good idea. Has it occured to anyone that this book is really about British Imperialism and uses the mask of history, complete with an interpretation of pseudo-chivalry, to make its point?

Mord.

[Cet]

And R. E. Howards' Conan stories, being written in the mid 1930's, are clearly tracts against the rise of Facism in Europe.

Anybody gonna answer the question?

[Mord]

And R. E. Howards' Conan stories, being written in the mid 1930's, are clearly tracts against the rise of Facism in Europe.

Anybody gonna answer the question?

Makes ya wonder about the "Arnold" Conan movies, doesn't it?

I haven't read all the Conan stories, to be honest. But then again, I've read a lot of the "Kane" stories, if for no other reason a college-roommate had all of them and I was bored beyond belief in Alfred, NY.

Don't get me wrong--Conan-Doyle's "Nigel" books are an interpretation of chivalry--which I consider a psuedo-chivalry. Perhaps neo-chivalry is a better expression, but the thing about "Nigel" is that too many want this to be "the Middle Ages as it should have been."

I believe many have a chunk of this wishing in our minds. My own is from "The Hobbit" when Thorin says good-bye to Bilbo Baggins. However I also understand the wish of these statements. That the Nigel books written before WWI, and the Hobbit written after the War, shows something of a different point of view and different use of the age we call medieval.

Mord.

[earnest carruthers]

Conan Doyle, Kipling, all bastion writers of the British Empire.

To be honest people should be reading Mallory, a medieval romantic writer, who even if fantasy is contemporaneous to the late middle ages.

[Jehan de Pelham]

Oh, never mind.

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

[Strongbow]

What makes everyone think "The White Company" is about the 14th Century? The work is a historical novel written at the turn of the 19th century by Arthur Conan-Doyle. This pre-World War I time was when the British Empire was at its peak and when Imperialism was considered a good idea. Has it occured to anyone that this book is really about British Imperialism and uses the mask of history, complete with an interpretation of pseudo-chivalry, to make its point?

Mord.

Of course Mord. However, I think the romanticized portrait in The White Company DOES have some relevence. If you can read Charny and read The White COmpany and not recognize Charny's ideal in Sir Nigel, then you're getting something out of both that I'm not.

Also, Doyle recognized some of the harsh realities of the era. He specific references to "Knolles Mitres." The desperation of the French peasantry. The less than ideal support of Pedro the Cruel.

But is it filled with romantic nonsense? Sure. The lusty, but golden-hearted Aylward. The Little-john-like Hordle John. The too-good-to-be true Alleyne.

But I still think it a good romanticized view of the 14th century. And certainly appropriate in an SCA context where such flavour perhaps matters more than in an LH type presentation.... though I think it's useful in that context as well.

[Kel Rekuta]

Oh, never mind.

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

I'll second that.

[Mord]

What makes everyone think "The White Company" is about the 14th Century? The work is a historical novel written at the turn of the 19th century by Arthur Conan-Doyle. This pre-World War I time was when the British Empire was at its peak and when Imperialism was considered a good idea. Has it occured to anyone that this book is really about British Imperialism and uses the mask of history, complete with an interpretation of pseudo-chivalry, to make its point?

Mord.

Of course Mord. However, I think the romanticized portrait in The White Company DOES have some relevence. If you can read Charny and read The White COmpany and not recognize Charny's ideal in Sir Nigel, then you're getting something out of both that I'm not.

Also, Doyle recognized some of the harsh realities of the era. He specific references to "Knolles Mitres." The desperation of the French peasantry. The less than ideal support of Pedro the Cruel.

But is it filled with romantic nonsense? Sure. The lusty, but golden-hearted Aylward. The Little-john-like Hordle John. The too-good-to-be true Alleyne.

But I still think it a good romanticized view of the 14th century. And certainly appropriate in an SCA context where such flavour perhaps matters more than in an LH type presentation.... though I think it's useful in that context as well.

Strongbow,

As a historian with a literary background, you can probably guess that I take a historical point of view on literature.

There are, in my experience, two basic methods of literary analysis. The first is based upon the reader's reaction to the work. The second is based upon discerning the author's intent. I tend towards the second method when I read. Romanticism in Conan-Doyle? Sure, but what's the purpose of the romanticism? Certianly a romantic element helped make the books popular and so, well, profitable.

Mord.

[Jehan de Pelham]

If not for the rolled eyes, I would have left well enough alone and allowed the passive-aggressive attacks on this useful work of Doyle's to stand for themselves.

Well, there isn't much information here to say against Doyle, really.

Some intimations that the politics of his lifetime and country somehow invalidate his research and writing. An off topic discussion of how some people have given too much credence to Irving's fictional account of English archers at Grenada. A good peice of advice to be careful even with the historical accounts, which when two can be found of the same event often disagree on major points! Cet saw what was going on and asked whether we were going to beat around the bush or get to it. Then after that, more discussion about how Doyle's views are colored because they came before the mind-crushing ordeal of World War I, and an invitation to read a different author, whose writing is more rooted in complete fabrication than Doyle's could even be claimed to be.

Finally, Strongbow weighs in, good yeoman that he is, with the relevant points about The White Company. Literature can be about exemplars--and these exemplars can still be useful in understanding what a people want to be, even if they fall short. Is The Iliad not useful for understanding Greek ideals merely because it depicts divine intervention and superhuman feats? No. It illumines the ideals, the goals and desires and hopes of a people for its heroes. Moreover, The White Company gives the nod to the hardness of the times, and is therefore at once an ideal and realistic portrait--ideal in the character of the protagonists, realistic in the accounts of the degraded state of the French Jacquerie and countryside.

People who really believe that the characters in The White Company are too good to be true have lost sight of the fact that such people really exist. However, our social constructs do not encourage their existence. We are steeped in self-negation, and revel in the anti-hero, the character who displays our failings rather than our hopes. So instead of the gruff but goodhearted Samkin Aylward, we have Tony Soprano.

I see this same mindset in those who believe that Doyle's writing is romantic dross. How, I ask you, can anyone who is a student of the 14th century, reconcile the descent of Europe into the abyss of plague and madness, and at the same time the flowering of martial hero worship and a fervent desire for chivalric deeds? Those who strove and suffered through the hell on earth that happened from 1350 onwards were romantics themselves, believing against belief that their actions had relevance in a world turned upside down.

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

[Mord]

Jehan,

You find the ideals of the White Company and Sir Nigel attractive and useful. Strongbow sees the Romanticism in the books. I see the author using history to validate Imperialism.

That doesn't mean any of these opinions are wrong or right. It's just an opinion, and what a boring world it would be if all just agreed with you.

As much as history likes to revel in the cruelty, barbarism and violence of the past, documenting the blood and guts of our ancestors only isn't really the historian's goal. Finding what our ancestors consider good, bad, or indifferent is the goal. Conan-Doyle thought that Imperialism brought out the inner nobility of his fellow citizens. I disagree.

Mord.

[Tailoress]

I find this discussion useful as a form of comparative literature with historical interpretation thrown in for spice. Nothing wrong with that. No need for folks to get annoyed about it either. It's what comparative lit discussions are all about -- how one set of writing off-sets, analyzes, or otherwise contradicts or challenges another set of writing.

Whether or not to apply fiction to one's physical manifestation of a living history impression, however, is probably an argument that is going to have to remain firmly in "potayto-potahto" land. Some folks are comfortable with it, others clearly aren't. I personally won't use fiction that was written outside of the time I'm interested in portraying for any of my own impressions, but I would certainly use it to keep my mind engaged on a cold wintry night before bedtime.

-Tasha

[Jehan de Pelham]

Oh, okay. I understand now, Sir Knight. I have stripped the message away from its context and the messenger and am just using it as a means to provide a framework for understanding some aspects of 14th century martial culture. You have not, because you choose to retain your intellectual framework and understanding in this matter.

To show you that I am capable of analyzing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's purposes, however, I offer the following:

Conan Doyle believed in the destiny of his country--or probably more properly, he understood how the fabric of his country's destiny was fraying. He believed in The White Man's Burden and understood that if boys were to grow into men who could bear the cost of empire, they had to be steeped in stories of bold deeds from the beginning. The parents of such boys, by reading these tales to them at bedtime, when the mind is apt for programming, would be complicit in the indoctrination of their children to become tools of empire--the adventurers who could be sent to the remote posts of the empire to administrate even its most far flung concerns.

Therefore, depending on your viewpoint, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is either a far-seeing patriot who understood the requirements of what his country had become, or he is the worst kind of propagandist, programming children to become servants of a corrupt system of ill-gotten gain.

I for my part am perfectly willing to use Doyle's writings to program a legion of 14th century robots, willing to engage in deeds of arms, emprises, and bickerings to advance the honor of their lady. Even if a person were simply to attempt to emulate Sir Nigel, or Alleyne Edricson, their own personalities would impose themselves and as a result the whole spectrum of possibilities would result, from ill-mannered louts, to rough men of battle, to honest strivers, to naive exemplars.

Tasha's point is a strong one, however, and it lies on a good road that has firm footing: If you want to program your mind with intelligence that will build a good construct from which to execute a portrayal set in a specific time, it doesn't help to feed it with information not from that time.

And yeah, I am annoyed, I guess, but it has more to do with the chronic sleep deprivation than anything else... I am going to go call my wife and then get to sleep early for a change.

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

[Tibbie Croser]

Jehan, perhaps you'd have more success with this topic on the Chivalry forum?

I think the Historical Research forum view tends to be that (i) any literature from outside the period in question should not be used to understand said period; (ii) historical fiction can't be more than entertainment, at best; and (iii) there is no substitute for primary sources, although scholars' interpretations of primary sources can be helpful.

I welcome any corrections of my perceptions.

[Strongbow]

Finding what our ancestors consider good, bad, or indifferent is the goal. Conan-Doyle thought that Imperialism brought out the inner nobility of his fellow citizens. I disagree.

Mord.

I'm not sure that's Doyle's ultimate position. There's lots in the book to suggest otherwise. I do think there is a bit "Rah! The Empire!" but it's tempered in a way that, say, Kipling never does.

But my point is that I think the CHRACTERS' view of violence in the book, is not too disimilar from what is seen in Lull or Charney. There is certainly some Victorian influence, but Doyle is more careful than many of his contemporaries... at least in my opinion. Like Walter Scott, I think his opinion of English imperialism is complicated by his identity as a Scot.

[Cet]

Still no answer to the actual question of the post. I am amussed and dismayed simultaneously.

[Tailoress]

Still no answer to the actual question of the post. I am amussed and dismayed simultaneously.

Cet, bear with me: what is the actual question? Jehan's first post doesn't have a question in it... Are you referring to another one?

And, I know the expression you wear on your face when you make statements like the one above. I can see you in my mind's eye!

-Tasha

[Mord]

Oh, okay. I understand now, Sir Knight. I have stripped the message away from its context and the messenger and am just using it as a means to provide a framework for understanding some aspects of 14th century martial culture. You have not, because you choose to retain your intellectual framework and understanding in this matter.

To show you that I am capable of analyzing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's purposes, however, I offer the following:

Conan Doyle believed in the destiny of his country--or probably more properly, he understood how the fabric of his country's destiny was fraying. He believed in The White Man's Burden and understood that if boys were to grow into men who could bear the cost of empire, they had to be steeped in stories of bold deeds from the beginning. The parents of such boys, by reading these tales to them at bedtime, when the mind is apt for programming, would be complicit in the indoctrination of their children to become tools of empire--the adventurers who could be sent to the remote posts of the empire to administrate even its most far flung concerns.

Therefore, depending on your viewpoint, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is either a far-seeing patriot who understood the requirements of what his country had become, or he is the worst kind of propagandist, programming children to become servants of a corrupt system of ill-gotten gain.

I for my part am perfectly willing to use Doyle's writings to program a legion of 14th century robots, willing to engage in deeds of arms, emprises, and bickerings to advance the honor of their lady. Even if a person were simply to attempt to emulate Sir Nigel, or Alleyne Edricson, their own personalities would impose themselves and as a result the whole spectrum of possibilities would result, from ill-mannered louts, to rough men of battle, to honest strivers, to naive exemplars.

Tasha's point is a strong one, however, and it lies on a good road that has firm footing: If you want to program your mind with intelligence that will build a good construct from which to execute a portrayal set in a specific time, it doesn't help to feed it with information not from that time.

And yeah, I am annoyed, I guess, but it has more to do with the chronic sleep deprivation than anything else... I am going to go call my wife and then get to sleep early for a change.

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

Jehan,

I'm sorry I annoyed you, and no, I don't think your interpretation of the Nigel books are invalid. As I've stated, in my experience with literary analysis, there are 2 methods. The basis of the first involves the reaction of the reader--is this not the basis of your ideas? The basis of the second involves the intent of author--this is the basis of my ideas.

However, a more complicated analysis would see the presentation of martial culture as a matter of expressing a wish. For me "The Hobbit" expresses a wish that has attracted me to the SCA. For you, it seems to be "The White Company." Fair enough, but realize the place of a wish. I do not desire to strip away what you see in the book, but rather realize what the book represents to you.

Btw, having done a little searching, apparently the Black Prince wrote a letter to his wife Joan about the Battle of Najera, at last according to the "English Historical Review." I'll put up a fuller citation later.

Mord.

[Mord]

There is a brief discussion of a letter by the Black Prince to his wife, Joan, about the Battle of Najera in "The English Historical Review" for July, 1926. The letter was apparently found in the Public Record Office, London.

Mord.

[Cet]

I'm taking John's post as asking for an examination of historical errors contained within the text of The White Company. I think either errors pertaining to specific events/personages or errors in the characterization of belief's mores, weltanschung, whathaveyou... would fall under Johns' intent.

Comments which niether show a direct link directly to Doyels' text nor contrast the material form the text to historical material ought to result in a failing grade. Literary criticism or the use that historians might have for works of fiction are, while interesting, not germain to the qurestion.

Mord, we should discus the Intentionalist Fallacy someday.

Yes Tasha, I'm smirking

[Tailoress]

Well, I get a big ole' fat F 'cause I don't know crap about the book!

But thank you for clarifying what the question is. I'm curious to hear more from those who have read the book and can point out some of its innaccuracies. Maybe it'll inspire me to go read the book too.

-Tasha

[Cet]

I may have clarified it or I may have muddied the waters. Hopefully John will let us know

I''ve read it. I think it has relavance but I think Godfather I and II and the Sopranos provide a better model for the attitudes of 14th century nobelmen.

[Josh W]

As far as historical errors in the book, IIRC, doesn't Doyle use the phrase "brigandine of mail" several times?

I mean, I'm sure his information on armour that he had access to bore the usual enthusiastic but inaccurate taint we expect from Victorian-era scholarship, so one can't really hold him in blame, but it can make for somewhat jarring reading...

[Vitus von Atzinger]

The tone of character that Doyle attributes to Sir Nigel is all that matters.

[Josh W]

The tone of character that Doyle attributes to Sir Nigel is all that matters.

...to you and all the other Chivalry cultists, maybe.

For me it's not so simple. I'd prefer more of a 'total immersion' feel to my historical fiction. And that requires good research, correct use of terminology, no perpetuations of common myths about the period, no errors in order of events portrayed, absolutely nothing out of place.

Make no mistake, I adore The White Company, but I also recognize that it is a lamentably dated work.

[Mord]

:)

I'm taking John's post as asking for an examination of historical errors contained within the text of The White Company. I think either errors pertaining to specific events/personages or errors in the characterization of belief's mores, weltanschung, whathaveyou... would fall under Johns' intent.

Comments which niether show a direct link directly to Doyels' text nor contrast the material form the text to historical material ought to result in a failing grade. Literary criticism or the use that historians might have for works of fiction are, while interesting, not germain to the qurestion.

Mord, we should discus the Intentionalist Fallacy someday.

Yes Tasha, I'm smirking

Ok, who's buying the beer?

Mord.

[Strongbow]

As I've stated, in my experience with literary analysis, there are 2 methods. The basis of the first involves the reaction of the reader--is this not the basis of your ideas? The basis of the second involves the intent of author--this is the basis of my ideas.



Mord.

Hi Sir Mord,

I know literary criticism isn't your specialty, but you might want to check out some of the more modern literary ciritcal theories. In particular, New Historicism, would be useful to you as a historian.

Here's a link to one of the main texts on this method:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226279359/sr=8-2/qid=1139958266/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2598245-0945760?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Terribly useful in my view.

[Jehan de Pelham]

Hey everyone, I realize that I didn't explain the intent very well when I started. I was trying to be brief and missed the target. Yes, the intent is to examine the work, and to identify errors in the text so that people who are recommended the work can be advised as to what they should be watchful for.

Brigandine of mail...yeah. Since I knew something about armor, this is what I recognized it as: mail over a jakk.

Sir Mord, you didn't annoy me. I was already sleep deprived and my dorked up initial post led to the discussion going off skiddywhumpus. Mea culpa.

Josh has it right. We have to build an overarching understanding based on reality; the cult of chivalry approach is one aspect of the whole. I'm just not sure anyone has written an account of the mid to late 14th century that is both engaging in the manner that The White Company is, and meets his stringent though completely reasonable requirements.

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

[earnest carruthers]

"and am just using it as a means to provide a framework for understanding some aspects of 14th century martial culture."

Based on what? a nineteenth century perspective? so how do you know that it is accurate or not?

Apart from it being a work of fiction, which immediately means it is likely to take liberties with all kinds of things merely to effect the response in the reader means that as a source for 'flavour' it is surely flawed, moreover when written completely out of the time frame it is supposed to be set in.

I don't have a problem with 'historical' fiction, have enjoyed it, but whatever feelings of atmosphere I get are merely subjective fantasies of how I imagine the time to be like, how can I possibly make a judgement that a given story has a true reflection on life and attitudes some 600 odd years ago?

Hence my example of Irving, not so far removed as you might like to think, Irving supposedly wrote history, but it was 'flavour' filled to suit his readership and his own agenda, nothing wrong in that of its own right, but it, like Doyle and others gets held up as actual eyewitness fact because of the atmosphere they create, they then get transposed, by a lot of reenactors in particular as examples of 'how it should be'.

Debating what is wrong in a work of fiction is futile IMHO, because fiction is what it is, fiction. So what he describes a 'brigandine of mail' or says chainmail etc quite pointless as he is writing for a victorian readership whose language sensibilities are somewhat different to those in the late 14th C and early 21st. Not only that but he would be forever writing a plethora of alternative descriptions for items. Hose, hosen, chausses (?), kirtle, doublet, pourpoint etc etc.

The Sharpe series could be examined in much the same way, full of atmosphere and flavour, but basically made up using a known context and some known participants.

Froissart got stuff wrong or not quite right and he was supposedly writing chronicles, but he is at least contemporaneous to the period in question, at least his subjectivity is of the time, ditto the rest.

[Jehan de Pelham]

JdP: "and am just using it as a means to provide a framework for understanding some aspects of 14th century martial culture."

GB: "Based on what? a nineteenth century perspective? so how do you know that it is accurate or not?"

Based on the fact that I still like it and consider it worthy after reading Painter's French Chivalry, Muhlberger's Deeds of Arms, Charney's Book of Chivalry, Tirant lo Blanc, Kaueper's Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe, Tuchman's A Distant Mirror- The Calamitous 14th Century, Froissart's Chronique, Fowler's Medieval Mercenaries, Hewitt's The Organization of War Under Edward III, and some other general historical surveys and Close Rolls. As a matter of fact, the more I read, the more worthy I find it.

I am not holding The White Company up as a book that teaches "Capital T" truths, but as a book which invokes interest and which provides mental imagery which enables tackling more scholarly works.

I feel it necessary to bring up that this began when someone brought up the question: "What books should I read in order to increase my knowledge of the 14th century?" By reading The White Company, he will have some imagery--false or not--about the arraying of troops (no, I do not believe that individual archers rasslin' raw boned Saxons in wayside pubs was the regular method), the terrible justice imposed on criminals and masterless men, the strange and different hold that religion had on the minds of common--and not so common--men, movement of troops from the ports in England, sea voyaging across the channel, the threat of piracy, the scourged countryside of France, and deeds of arms. The imagery, in my opinion, rings true enough that it has utility. I say this from reading at least a couple of books relating to the era contemporaneous with The White Company. Because the imagery sparks the imagination and generates interest, the reader might advance more confidently into more scholarly works and find out for themselves what they choose to believe the truth is.

What would be the alternative, paying $85 for Fowler's Medieval Mercenaries and reading it sink or swim? Hacking through The Organization of War Under Edward III? This latter book was made infinitely easier to understand by sequencing the reading correctly from simple books like The White Company through Froissart to Deeds of Arms and so forth.

There is a sequence to matters--to study in particular--which proves most successful, in my opinion, and I hold that students should move from the general and most tasty, to the drier and more rigorous, so that they are not "put off their feed" before they learn something.

The White Company, in my opinion, offers an opportunity for the reader to obtain one writer's survey of what his research of the materials available to him at the time led him to believe the time to be like.

It is a starting point, not an end. If the claim was that it is an end, I would most definitely join in in disagreeing, as it is incomplete and too general. But as a start it works very well and even if someone were to take the chivalric attitudes espoused within and mimic them, without reading further, they would not be too far off the mark, from what I read in the historical record.

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

[Tibbie Croser]

Jehan, you make your point well. I myself love historical fiction and find it the best way to get a taste of a period about which I know little to nothing. If I get hooked, I'll be more likely to start looking for popular biographies and histories for that period, and then maybe some of the scholarly works. However, I am just a dabbler, a history buff, not a historian.

However, there's probably a difference in essential views between you and a hardcore living historian. You're trying to encourage people who want to live 14th-century chivalry in the SCA framework. They don't necessarily need to become independent scholars. In the reenactment community, I suppose, people are expected to learn how to become amateur historians and researchers. They focus on a particular time and place. Historical fiction is likely to be seen as an unproductive use of study time.

[earnest carruthers]

"Historical fiction is likely to be seen as an unproductive use of study time."

no reading is a waste of time.

But at the day's end it is fantasy, well researched or written or whatever, enjoyable as is. It can only be a subjective feeling and not representative of anything but the reader's emotional response to it. Hence my reticence in relating it to times gone by. They stand alone as good (or bad) reads in their own right. Terry Pratchett could easily be read as a medievalist, his morality tales, his atmosphere in a pseudo medieval mythical place, drawn upon much research and craft, but I wouldn't see him being held up as a source other than for atmosphere.

But having said all that and considering previous posts, as it happens I got into this lark through reading fantasy novels and playing D & D - great, made me want to shoot arrows and use a sword. But I had to unlearn a whole lot to make the leap from fantasy to history.

I would hazard that for many people in our hobby that was a first step, rather than an interest in history. I hated history at school, started to really enjoy it a long time afterwards.

I guess I am too cynical to take historical fiction at anything more than face value, that doesn't mean I do not like it, eg I found White Company so boring I had to stop, Dorothy Dunnet I read the first three Niccolo books back to back when they were introduced to me.

But if a certain book gives one a personal thrill and sharpens their interest for more info then great, a personal choice after all.