Ideal event

[Pug]

> Of course, a modern dictionary isn't necessarily the best source for a
> definition of a medieval word, much less a shorter dictionary and a
> word that has a long historical development.

You are of course right, but it's the only reference I have while at
work, and I'm able to cut and paste it since it's online.

> If we're going to quote dictionaries, I'll reply with the OED (1st
> ed).

Now that would be nice to have at home or online.

[...]

> - It was associated with the knightly virtues early.  (Then again,
>   priests were supposed to be good, too ...)

Good, yes, but I believe there are a different list of virtues to be
priestly than there are to be knightly. Of course having neither, I
couldn't tell you what they are.

> > This clearly shows that the SCA's usage of the word Knight is just fine
> When did simple knights ever outrank barons in the Middle Ages?
> Ansteorra is rather unusual in that territorial barons outrank
> knights.

Not knowing the actual order of precedence, I didn't know that Knights
outranked Barons in the SCA. Having only participated within Ansteorra,
that is the model of the SCA that I have to go by.

> It also appears from the above that the SCA model -- only the king can
> make a knight, there's no knight's fee, it's for merit or service
> irrespective of birth or profession -- is an Elizabethan anachronistic
> recreation.

I concede that our usage of knight is not 100%, but considering that we
are not able to completely recreate the Middle Ages I think that the way
we choose to try represent them is proper.

How many people were under a single Baron during the Middle Ages? How
many people are under a single King in the SCA? How far could a Baron
travel in a day during the Middle Ages? How far can a King travel in a
day in the SCA? I think that our Kings are very similar in coverage as
a Baron was in the Middle Ages. If the SCA had lots more people, while
keeping the Kingdoms the same size, that Barons would be knighting
people instead of Kings.

> I'll concede that "fighter" is more appropriate to the SCA usage
> ... but this may be an indication that we're doing something that's
> not period: did anyone other than knights (or in early days with their
> military retainers) ever enter tournaments?

How many non-knights actually had armor and weapons enough to enter a
tourney? These fighters are probably the sons of rich merchants, third
sons of Barons, etc. I wouldn't say for certain they were allowed to
enter tourneys though. The majority of fighters during the Middle Ages
probably didn't have much more than a weapon or two. (Wild ass
assumptions.)

> I'd like to see more on the subject, preferably by someone who has
> Duby's book on knighthood and similar works.

Sounds good to me!

Ciao,

-- 
Phelim Uhtred Gervas  | "I want to be called COTTONTIPS. There is something 
Barony of Bryn Gwlad  |  graceful about that lady. A young woman bursting with 
House Flaming Dog     |  vigor. She blinked at the sudden light. She writes
pug at arlut.utexas.edu  |  beautiful poems. When ever shall we meet again?"