MOA

[Greg Rose]

I mean no offense, but I think someone should point out that Mastery of
Arms has no historical basis in the real Middle Ages.  It is purely a
creation of the SCA.  In the SCA it grew out the distaste of some modern
people to taking oaths -- in some cases a religious objection, in many
other cases a variety of other reasons.  The problem is complicated by
the notion of "fealty" in the SCA, which also has little historical basis.
Looking at the central tendency of medieval political economy in Western
Europe, knights and other retainers (particularly those who received either
a holding or the proceeds of a holding in land) entered into the
relationship of _commendatio_ with the lord from whom they held, usually
in a public ceremony.  The usual elements of that ceremony involved the
supplicant kneeling before the lord, his hands between those of the lord,
and enunciating a statement that he was the "man" of the lord and pledging
specific services; this was followed by the lord enunciating an acceptance
of the supplicant as his man and a statement of the reciprocal benefits
which the supplicant would receive for his commendation.  This was, in turn,
followed by a solemn oath on relics by the supplicant, calling on God and
the saints whose relics were present to witness the truth of his pledge to
provide services. This latter ceremony was called a _iuramentum_ (oath) or
more commonly a _iuramentum fidelitatis_ (oath of fidelity).  It is from
_fidelitas_ that the word fealty comes.
	I know of no case where formal knighthood existed in the Middle Ages
where the commendatio/iuramentum fidelitatis pattern was not followed.  Those
who bore arms but were not commended men (either as knights or as men at
arms) were usually called _latrones_ (bandits), not Masters of Arms, by 
authentic medieval documents.
	This pattern was usually followed even with respect to mercenary
forces until quite late, i.e., post-1300, when scutage had almost completely
divorced military service from knighthood in most of West Europe.
	It is for these reasons that I have difficulty understanding the
existence of kingdoms in the SCA which have such hostility to the MSCA.
After all, it is something the SCA itself made up.  If the SCA actually
recreated the social and military structure of the early and high middle
ages (i.e., if barons outranked knights, if laurels and pelicans didn't
exist but were rewarded with baronial or higher rank, if commendatio and
iuramentum fidelitatis replaced "fealty"), then they might have grounds for
objecting.
	I suppose I should shut up now before I start retailing current
scholarly opinion on the origins of knighthood: the Peace of God movement
and Bernard of Clairvaux created it to civilize and Christianize a 
protection racket being run in France by armed thugs... :-)

Hossein Ali Qomi
Gregory Rose
(who does medieval political economy for a mundane living)