I heard somebody this weekend state that "only knights and above are allowed to wear swords".
Where did this myth get started?
It may be part of some costume guidelines to help clearly delineate the classes, but it's out there being stated as fact.
Where did this myth get started?
It may be part of some costume guidelines to help clearly delineate the classes, but it's out there being stated as fact.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:12 PMwell there was the fact that the military stop issuing swords to conscript soldiers because instead of using them for their intended purpose the conscripts would use them to chop up fire wood and so on.
As for only knights and above HA HA HA HA, yeah somebody needs to do a fact check. Now if we're talking rapiers, the ferarri of it's day then you certainly wouldn't see joe farmer with one. Now if it was a short sword or hand and a half absoultely would joe farmer posiibly have one, Would he be wearing it day to day? No but he would pull it out on special occasions. More later perhaps, but for now I have customers and work first tribe later.
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:21 PMMaybe they took it up from the "History" section of this website: www.realarmorofgod.com/mediev...fo.html
It clearly states: "Medieval law only allowed knights and higher social classes to own swords." Blame the #$%^& Internets™, spreading lies and damned lies since 1991. -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:26 PMif it's on the internets it's got to be right!!! LOL!! -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:29 PMWonder if it's a medieval SCA thing that found its way to faire. -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Mon, May 19, 2008 - 6:42 AMI can chime in on this one. It's not an SCA thing as far as I'm aware. Many folks in the rapier community especially wear their dress swords at all times. It's basically a part of their costuming. And not every one of them is a Noble or Peer, or even has a Grant Level Award.
The heavy fighters are starting to get into some (in my opinion) ridiculously snotty traditions like only Squires are allowed to wear a silver chain. On another tribe I particpate in, one gentle had been verbally accosted by a Knight for wearing a plain silver chain. And unless they've changed Corpora, that's not a "copywrited" bit of garb.
I'm seeing a lot of really ridiculous "rules" coming out of different Kingdoms. How and why they get started... who knows, but some of this stuff is driving off folks who might otherwise stay and play. It's really rather one of my personal pet-peeves, and one I spent my time as a Landed Baroness trying to stamp out in our group, only to have it pounded down everyone's collective throats by the following regime. *grrrrrr*
-
-
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 5:05 PM"Maybe they took it up from the "History" section of this website: www.realarmorofgod.com/mediev...fo.html"
Not that I don't trust that website's research, but they list a katzbalger as a scottish sword. So ummmm no I certainly wouldn't trust them.
A really good refferance on sword history is Alfred Hutton's "Sword and the Centuries." It's by no means the end all refferance, but it's a really good history and it's a good quick read. Though swords and weapon history is my forte, I'm sure Pax, Maurice, or Steve L. would have some really good information on this topic as well as would be able to suggest some other really good books on the subject.
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 6:36 PM"Medieval law" eh? Really? Where? When? The middle ages was a long time and no civil law was consistent throughout Europe. Oh and ahem, the Renaissance isn't the middle ages in any case.
I think in some places--like the Germanies-- it was illegal; for a peasant (using the term exactly) to own a sword. As a result, peasant "swords" developed. There is genre art from German artists that show them, so it's not like you have to take anyone's word for it. More to the point, though, a sword is expensive. The poor man may still have the one great grandad brought home from Agincourt, but he's probably not a swordsman.
But specificaly I do know this. In Montague's Book of Orders and Rules, under Yeoman Waiters, his lordship declares: "I will that when they attend upon me in the streets at London or at my table there, they be always in their liveries ***with handsome swords or rapiers by their sides*** [and] in the country at all solemn feasts as Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, great meetings, and such other times as I shall specially appoint." Yeoman waiters, not knights or even gentlemen.
Myth Busted. -
-
Sorry but...
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 8:52 PMYeoman, I believe, are still considered to be military, not waiters as the modern meaning is determined.
"The historical duties of the Yeoman Warders or 'Waiters were to guard the prisoners and attend the gates, hence the name "Waiters", which was in use in earlier time. The daily duty roster is still called 'The Wait'. The popular term "Beefeater" should not be applied to the Yeoman Warders of the Tower. It means what it says and, according to the dictionary, is not entirely complimentary. It certainly does not imply attendance at the King's table and the back formation of a non-existent French word "Buffetier" is an absurdity."
from : www.camelotintl.com/tower_si...ders.html
These are not seen as poor men or farming types. If a sword was kept in the family from the crusades, it was valuable and if it wasn't hidden from view (for protection) was probably sold to buy goods that a farmer would need.
-
-
Re: Sorry but...
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 8:53 PMthe internet knoooowsssss aaaalllllllll... ; }
-
Re: Sorry but...
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 8:19 AMThese were the yeoman waiters in a private home, the Viscount Montague's home, in fact, in 1595. That is, waiting yeomen like waiting gentlemen. Household staff. If I'd meant the Yeoman Warders of the Tower, I'd have said so. Yeoman is a social class, not a job title. -
-
Re: Sorry but...
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 10:16 AMMore to the point, they're not knights in any case.
Myth re-busted. -
-
Re: Sorry but...
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 11:01 AMReinforcing what Gail wrote below (and others), I think there's a bit of back-constructing going on. In other words, changing history to suit the needs of the Faire in the present, and then that becoming the "fact."
Recalling back to the olden days (the 70s), I do remember that very few gentlemen at Court had swords, and, if they did, they were always "peace-tied" (probably a Fairism). And monitored.
There was lots of nutsy behavior in those days (people seemed to get higher, drunker, etc.) and official Faire security were FIERCE mothers (think hiring the Hell's Angels for Altamont and you'll get the vibe). The actors were afraid of security. They would kick your ass, no questions asked. And get away with it. One guy named Sterling in particular....
So nobody, but nobody, just got to waltz around with a sword, if you were staff.
We'd drag them around for the Progress (which I hated), and a few folks had rapiers (not period, I'm sure), but swords and sword bearing was a really big deal.
There were also the armed Celts under Ian (Mouse's step dad) at the time. Talk about crazy mothers. And armed. One of the Letchworth boys has posted about a dust-up between Springhorn's clan and the Celts which almost turned seriously bloody. It was exciting, yes, but a bit dangerous. People didn't know when the acting stopped and the inter-Faire tensions began. And there were a lot tensions in those days. Lik a big, unhappy family in which mom and dad were splitting up (Phyllis and Ron) and being audited at the same time. Not all happy & glad.
All a very long-winded way of saying that necessity (perceived) motivated rewriting history to suit a security threat. And it stuck.
Good for Diddle in trying to find the truth of it.
Old Noel -
-
Re: Sorry but...
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 11:06 AMAs a blessedl short addendum, remember, too, that when history was being rewritten regarding swords, we were still swooning under "peace, love, & understanding, baby." Anything violent was looked down on (we'd just finished the Vietnam war), and people wanted to get away from things military. Think happy happies with garlands.
So swords were a necessary evil, not a requirement, even if carrying them would have been more authentic. It just destroyed the "mood" which was lovely dovey, not armed and anal.
-
-
well anyway
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 9:16 PMI never said the myth was not busted...just that Yeomen, as I was given to belive by this article and other resources, had more than waiting to their job title and their class. The term Samurai also referrred to a social class and it was also a job title. -
-
Re: well anyway
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 11:58 AM"Yeomen, as I was given to belive by this article and other resources, had more than waiting to their job title and their class."
"Yeoman" actually refers to terms of land rental in our time, although the earliest usage of the term seems to mean a particular kind of household servant.. The yeomanry in Elizabethan England were the class one thin line away fromt he gentry, and many of them crossed over (and vice versa, many gentry declined into yeomanry). A yeoman still couldn't own land - you had to have gentle blood for that - but a yeoman could pass his rental rights - and rates - to his heirs. They weren't servants for the most part at this time; they were well-to-do country farmers with servants and labourers of their own, on chatting terms with the local esquire and such.
The yeomanry were also the commoners who'd done most for the Crown in sundry wars, and it is in this context that the Yeomen of the Guard were formed. (Likewise the Yeomen Warders of the Tower.)
"Samurai" is only a job title in America. It's an obsolete social class (as of the mid-19th century), and in that sense it is rather like 'yeoman'.
'Samurai' means simply "one who serves", and the people we think of as samurai (in the 'job description' sense) are usually referred to in Japan as 'bushi' or 'hanshi' - men of war or men of the han (clan). -
-
Re: well anyway
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 2:20 PMI was just pointing out some similarities that I saw but I think it's best to "shoot the horse" and move on. ; } -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: well anyway
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 2:32 PMThats what they said in Agincourt too.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: well anyway
Fri, May 16, 2008 - 3:21 PMThe label is history snobs. Citing and -correctly- interpreting information is part of the snobbery. Wrong interpretations continue to exist in the search engines long after the posters have moved on to other topics, so a correction should and must be posted when necessary. -
-
Re: well anyway
Sat, May 17, 2008 - 1:50 PMExcept when one feels compelled to correct the parties that are not executing nor are responsible for the Myth that is being discussed.
As I said, since Gereg decided to point his discussion at me...we have never ordained this specific rule of thumb regarding class and swords at NCRF. We do try to keep the amount of weapons down because there are, as I said a lot of young men with no training and questionable motivation that want to wear a sword...just because.
As I said, and will say again, to you Gereg, there are people like yourself, who are trained and skilled that we allow to wear a sword because we feel confident in their ability, knowledge and motivation, regardless of their class.
I have personally had to stop several young men before during faire hours that whipped out live steel and starting going at it in the food court for the fun of it. One of them threw the sword upon my approaching them and ran off. My point..safety. I doubt anyone on this Tribe is the target of our concern. I stand behind our priority for safety and responsibility first. I am happy to look at all members of Entertainment on an individual basis regardless of their class and examine whether it makes theatrical or historical sense for them to be armed with a sword and then they can prove their training and responsibilty level to me.
Molly -
-
Re: well anyway
Sat, May 17, 2008 - 2:35 PMI do beg your pardon, Molly. I was misinformed. I had enough fellows of middle and lower classes at NCRF tell me that they'd been told men of their class couldn't wear swords, that apparently I inferred a larger policy in error. My apologies.
But please don't cast me in the role of some guy who's suggesting that every idiot be allowed to carry a blade - after all, what I suggested from the start was a set of guidelines to establish who was authorised to wear what. I suspect you have no idea just how strongly I agree with you on the safety concern. But after all, I'm in the same boat as Steve Fick. Every time some fool scares someone with a blade, we lose potential students.
My sole hope was for a station-based set of costuming policies, attuned to the costume guidelines, highlighting the chain of being in much the way that cars do today.
Sorry, I'm repeating myself. It's just that you seem to have taken my point so far amiss that I wanted to be more clear. -
-
Re: well anyway
Sat, May 17, 2008 - 2:53 PMGereg:
While I am in total agreement with you. Except for one
item. I do not see this as a "costuming" matter. I hope you
are not suggesting that Ms Frieda is qualified to determine
"who can and who can't"...even by "station", It wouldn't be
my first choice. However, if you are suggesting that
such should be refered to yourself or others who are
qualified to "judge" who should/shouldn't wear a
live steel piece, that might be a better route.
Absolutely, yes, SAFETY, is critical. Which is why "live steel
demonstrations or gigs" have always had the "hidden circle"
to prevent accidental injury to audience. There is a second
thing to be aware of, though. As Molly rightly pointed out, there
ARE those who are stupid enough to "play" and can potentially
hurt someone. Be it "audience" or other actor/participant.
Again, if I am misreading you, Mr G, then I apologize. I do stand
by my observation: The determination should not be placed,
in this instance, placed in the hands of someone who is not really
qualified to judge.
If I am not mistaken [and being the Dinosaur I am, I could very well
be] there IS a "piece tie" rule in place, yes? I have noted that at some
of the smaller Faires, this is checked at the gate and by security,
when possible. They keep a close eye on it. That, too, I have noted
is a "Faire Myth"...wether it is or not, it's a good thing!
Dinosaur, knowing of Live Steel Situations, in HER time -
-
Re: well anyway
Sat, May 17, 2008 - 3:37 PMGail, I really dont think its necessary for you to continue to self-depreciate yourself as you do, the peace-tie rule continues to be in effect.
Out of curiousity, how often does it happen when someone who doesn't know what he's doing draws live steel, participant or visitor?
I've honestly only been aware of one or two instances in the four years I've done faire, but both were relatively safe - just amusing. -
-
Re: well anyway
Sat, May 17, 2008 - 4:01 PMSorry Anton. Just some folks have been
kind of "testy" about us older participants,
who haven't done faire in YEARS now,
and somehow always manage to say,
" when I was doing faire..."
I agree that Peace Tying is a good thing.
The only reason I mention it, is earlier,
it had been included in the list of "Faire Myths"
It is very interesting that these things
[live steel incidents] have become increasingly
few. I know of one time, when there were no
less than 5 in one day! Three were participants
None resulted in injury...!
But, you must remember, dear: I did faire
for nearly 20 years. And it was way before
the "Peace Tie". I don't know how we ever
managed to avoid serious incidents.
Smiling Dinosaur -
-
Re: well anyway
Sat, May 17, 2008 - 7:03 PMThis ain't about policy. It's about history and how falsehoods spread as fact. We call those "fairisms". Sometimes theatrical decisions become fact in the minds of participants who don't know better and are often disseminated by workshop leaders and directors who ought to know better.
If we're talking about any specific show's costuming and weapons standards, the topic's gone far wide of my intent.
-
-
Re: well anyway
Sun, May 18, 2008 - 12:50 PMAt my local small faires, we used to have this one costumed guy show up and start teaching "sword" fighting with shinai to whoever was standing around, mostly customers. No perimeter ropes, no guards, and most definitely no permission from the faire boards to do this. We had to shut him down and send him packing at every small faire event. One faire, I think they called the police on him (their building was next to faire site), which while he wasn't arrested (I don't think), was the last time I saw him do this.
As to drawing live steel... I saw it happen at the last small faire I just attended. Pulled out a dagger by a newbie actor to faire, handed over to a veteran, who then threw the dagger at another actor (tho not maliciously, nor in a way that harmed that actor). All involved were reprimanded, the situation explained to the faire promoter, and was dealt with following the proper protocols. It will not happen again by those involved, but it does happen still.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:57 PMMy guess is costume guidelines to make the classes different and you know how hard it is to teach a guy not only to walk with a sword without tripping, poking a kids eye out or smacking people with it. But I am going at this from the Big Faire perspective. Don't know beyond my sandbox how it got out there. -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 5:02 PMA knight receives GILDED spurs as part of his kit. To "earn one's spurs" is to achieve knighthood. -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 5:15 PMSpurs, unlike a sword, imply a saddle horse.
My ranch-raised mama used to say, spurs are kind of inconvenient if you're just walking around wearing them. Get caught on things. No wonder riding boots are anachronistic for courtly dances. -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 5:34 PM
My favorite English example of how "gentlemanly" duels were involves spurs. Paraphrasing here but, seems two guys went out into a field to settle their differences and fighter A points out to fighter B that the ground here is rather uneven and so that he does not trip or get caught up, he should remove his spurs. Fighter B thanks fighter A, kneels down and bends over to remove his spurs when suddenly Fighter A draws his rapier and shoves it through Fighter B's shoulder who reels backwards and receives another thrust to the chest he continues to crawl and get stabbed until he falls into a ditch. Fighter A leaves him for dead and heads back to town unbeknowst to him Fighter B's horse also goes back to town where some of the town folks see it and wonder what happened to Fighter B they go out searching for and find him in the ditch where with his dying breath he tells them what happens.
Fighter A is subsequently arrested and charged with murder.
So much for all that pre-supposed ideas of a "chivalrous code of conduct" during a fight. LOL -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 5:49 PMWere either Fighter A or Fighter B knights?
I've located a number of half-assed sources that parrot the "No Swords" line, but no sources are cited. Have anything on that Pax? -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 6:02 PM
I'll check the book when I get home which I should have been a half hour ago!!! bye!! -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 7:03 PMI'm just guessing here...
Can't speak for other faires and I haven't used that as a rule of thumb at Northern either.........But, I'm guessing it may have been ordained by costume departments at certain faires to keep the slew of new, overly enthusiastic primarily young men that don't have much if any training or historical knowledge that want to come to faire and wear a sword because it's cool..........Dude.
I've seen this...many times. Obviously, it is rampant as some smaller faires without the stricter guidelines. There are plenty of vendors that sell cheap replicas and any Tom, Dick or Fairie can buy one and go off on their personal quest to be a bonified bad ass highlander-ninja-warrior-dragonslaying privateer-savior to all womenkind.......
By the time someone goes through enough training and studying to be a member of court, they have usually earned enough respect for the weapon and how to wear it carefully in a crowd and can generally be trusted to wear one at faire. ...I'm just guessing, but I suspect it may have started somewhere along those lines.
Obviously all faires have performance groups that specialize in swordplay and most of them do not bear the title of Knight, but once again, they are properly trained and can be trusted.
We generally tell people in our middle class and peasant groups that they wouldn't be weilding a sword around a friendly Market Faire so it doesn't make sense for them anyway. (Yes, I know there are some exceptions for certain characters) but I think the general rule is to keep the numbers down of too many swords swinging in the streets.
Just a guess,
Molly
-
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 8:45 PMNo problem with judicious fudging, but it's best not to allow the fudge to become fact in the minds of the participants, who then run around spouting incorrect information to the patrons.
There were different kinds of boots. In Leicester's household accounts he receives 19 pairs of boots and shoes. There are "Spanyshe Boutes", "Boeskins" (buskins), "Boneventer Boutes". Some shoes are indicated as "doblesoled" (double soled). No info on the soles or heels of the boots.
I seriously doubt anyone would have danced in boots, though I manage it pretty gracefully.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 9:15 PMI assume that at some point between the early renaissance and our time, especially with the infantry revolution of the late 14th century, swords became alot more commonplace.
I was under the impression that swords would be just too expensive to create for every average farmer to have something that we now call a "sword". The dussack in Germany is just a long knife, after all.
Swords were issued to some conscripted farmers/infantrymen (although most were armed with the ethereal longbow), but they paid for it, in part, by heavy taxes during wartime. Hunting swords, as they were known to the aristocracy, were examples of large knives also used by the poorer classes to deal with game and such.
In the Lowlands, the swords (cleadhem morr) were larger, but they were still a symbol of rich landowners, right?
In the end, the question is actually "what constitutes a sword"? There is a very fine line between a short sword and a long knife/dirk/dagger.
Its usually around 25/26 inches, but its not really a hard and fast rule, an example was the cinquedea, a wide italian short sword.
My question is, if swords can be worn by civilians in england, when did they become more prevalent than they were during high chivalry era? Could it be that some swords, like the english backswords or short swords/long knives, were prevalent because they were more accepted due to their length and cheaper to make? There was that instance when ER1 declared that noone was allowed into london if their sword was longer than a specific size (like spanish rapiers that were much longer than regular). If that is so, then would peasants or poorer classes have war swords - simple hilt, single-handed swords and bastard/hand-and-a-half swords that they would be issued during war time and carry them around as a badge of honor or something?
This has been my grasp of the concept, prove me wrong. -
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 9:18 PMonce again its muck to do about nothing -
-
-
Re: Fairism myth
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 10:20 PM<that should be much>
I liked it the first way!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
