Post by Sir Lucius MacLeod on Dec 13, 2008 3:51:25 GMT -6
Deeds of Arms & Chivalry
THE AGE OF CHIVALRY IS NEVER PAST,
SO LONG AS THERE IS A WRONG LEFT UNREDRESSED ON EARTH..
THE AGE OF CHIVALRY IS NEVER PAST,
SO LONG AS THERE IS A WRONG LEFT UNREDRESSED ON EARTH..
The men who took part in the life of arms were partakers in one of the most honourable occupations available to a Christian. The constituted an "order". Their deeds, deeds of arms, were honourable deeds, the manifestation of an honourable spirit. By no means was this view widely acceptable in the later Middle Ages, but there were some that still held to the customs. Such deeds were very important, especially to those whose way of life was the right practice of war.
I. DEEDS AND FEATS OF ARMS
Such include encompassed acts and encounters that comtemporaries did not classify as war and and pre-arraged encounters. Formal deeds, that is, occasions where martial competition was arraged in advance, and in which the level of violence was defined and limited by agreement, were exemplars of how war, or perhaps arms, should be practice. In these deeds it was not only the violence that was limited, but the type of participants as well. Formal deeds of arms provided an arena where "good men at arms" alone were permitted to fight in accordance with the law of arms, that is, the customs and uses that regulated relations between men such as themselves, even when they were sworn enemies. It was not uncommon for in times of peace or if a battle was called off, for a knight who saw no battle to challenge an enemy to an honourable joust of at least three strikes in order to maintain honour and uphold the ideals. Battle and war were not the only means of integrity for a knight.[/b] Individual combat with the use of blunted spears on horseback.
Below are Sir Geoffroi de Charny's 3 Categories of life of arms in an honourable persuit:
&. TOURNAMENTS: Group combat with blunted weapons on horseback.
&. WAR: A means to defend honour of self, others, lords, and lands with sharpened weapons.[/size][/ul]
Thus, we can easily compare the concept of "deeds of arms" to that of "chivalry".
This concept did not only apply to noble knights. The code of chivalry and expectations also applied to all "good men at arms", meaning any soldier that was a veteran and served their lords well with deeds of renown skill and expertises. In short, they were defined as a competent, fully equipped warrior of standing.
By "fully equipped", we include but not limited to:
&. BODY ARMOUR
&. LANCE
&. SWORD
&. DAGGER[/size][/ul]The formal deed of war can be seen in three aspects:
2. It established not only the legitimacy of the contenders, not also the legitimacy of the community that observed and judged (a division of the wider audience).
3. It did so within certain limits that reduced the risk to individuals and to the social order.[/size][/ul]It was a show where all sorts of identities were assumed, confirmed, and displayed.[/blockquote]
II. LAW OF ARMS
The term law of arms included the definition of a just war, military discipline, and techniques of warfar. It was the expectations of many lords that were considered in the least bit civil, and became an implied conduct of warfare for many, many years. It was not absolutely impossible for lesser warriors such as archers to climb into the higher ranks, but as a rule they neither originated nor ended up as members of the nobility. Real warfare, or real 'men-at-arms' should be, or once had been a matter between men at arms. The law of arms regulated an ever-present part of social life, one tht was legitimate and indeed respectable, since it promoted justiced and humbled the proud.[/b]
It was enforced by military commanders in matters such as:
&. HERALDRY
&. PROPER CONDUCT OF JOUSTING MATCHES[/size][/ul]
This "law of arms" guideline became a charter and privilege for "real" and "good" men at arms, but it denied certain rights to others that could not claim such a status. Civilians, for example, could not claim ransom for a knight or man at arms. The civilian was expected to turn the man over to the military or civil authorities.
The law of arms assumed that their subjects were noble, and not necessarily of just noble birth. Partaking in arms at a certain level of professionalism was, in fact, a claim to nobility for oneself, their descendents, and all men at arms might claim a certain amount of equality with others.
For many men at arms, there is a certain custom that everyone--even the King--is held responsible for honouring: brother-in-arms. Those who are bound by this custom must acknowledge that any soldier held as noble can claim a right to the "brother-in-arms" custom. A brother-in-arms would be a soldier who served in battle--even if fighting for the enemy--and after much consulting of heralds, the soldier in question would recieve the benefit of such a custom, especially regarding ransom rights.
A brother-in-arms could not put his brother to death--or even abandon him to death--for any reason.[/size][/ul]
This demonstrates that the law of arms, as applied in the field, upheld, justified, and supported the man-at-arms' way of life and assumed that men-at-arms had significant common interests even if they were enemies.
III. WAR
There existed in the later Middle Ages, an ideal of the place of war and the conflict in society, where deeds of arms, and the law of arms came together and constituted a noble way of life. War, that was properly exercised, was a necessary part of the social order, the upholding, by force, of justice. The aim of war is to wrest peace, tranquility, and reasonableness form him who refuses to acknowledge his wrongdoing.
War, was neither an activity pursued mainly by men at arms, nor did it consist primarily of deeds of arms, nor did the law of arms or any other form of law adequately regulate it.
To begin with men at arms, few of those who frequented war camps were either noble or men at arms. Half or more of the combatants of every army and every company were archers or other lightly armed men. In addition each force was surrounded by a penumbra of valets and pillars, who were even more lightly armed and were sometimes nothing but very young servants. The various non-nobles not only made up the bulk of any military presence, but also were its most destructive element, and a few of their deeds qualified as “deeds of arms” in sense of direct conflict between men of similar status and preparation. Rather, they were concerned with the confiscation and destruction of food and other property, in an effort to feed one’s own army and deny resources to the other side. Such were the military actions that must have had the greatest effect on society as a whole, though plunder for gain and the murder, rape, and ransom of non-combatants were commonplace and ruined many lives. Noble commanders and men at arms certainly participated in and encouraged such brutalities, but more often than not the victims of such acts of war suffered direct harm at the hands of people hardly much different from themselves. Thus war bore a decidedly ignoble face, and appeared to be neither the preserve of the qualified nobility nor the sum of “deeds of arms.”
As a working set of rules, actually applied by commanders in the field with the advice of experienced warrior, the law of arms was not primarily meant to regulate the impact of war on non-combatants or even non-noble combatants; a professional code of knightly soldiers with no points of reference outside that noble group. Its practices and precedents were meant to regulate the risks and secure the profits of war for those nobles, especially their rights to collect ransoms from captives and take plunder. Those outside the group did, however, have expectations of the conduct of war, and these expectations were often also designated as the “law of war.”
War, to many, came from God, and it denounced the abuses of war—especially attacks on the poor and the defenseless—but also showed that just war could only be waged under the authorities of monarchs and other holders of public authority, and by their paid and disciplined soldiers. This was the most important aspect of the law of arms, the only cure for misery. If the lords were not willing or able to use force for the greater good, they had no true title to lordship or chivalry—the latter being a way of life based on the legitimate practice of arms.
Such martial competition was war idealized, the practice of which demonstrated the nobility of those who took part, in a way that the real, messy, interminable conflicts did not. Influential individuals and groups desperately needed this image of ideal war to re-assert the nobility of war and their own claim, through their monopoly of legitimate war, to social predominance.
More to come...[/font]
