MOA

[Dieterich]

At 09:37 PM 6/4/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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.

<<el snipporooonski>>

>	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)
>
>
>

Right and Well Honored Sir,

Although this thread seems to have been beaten to an inch of its life (heck,
its been knifed, shot, whipped, and bulldozered), I have to add just one
more thing.  

Now, this may simply be a regional difference from kingdom to kingdom but in
other places I have lived the whole "oath" issue is not even a factor.
Briefly put, Mastery-at-arms is taken by those whose personas did not
incorporate the idea of title of 'knight'.  Thus, Mongols(always),
Byzantines(most times), Japanese(sometimes), and Romans(usually), for
instance, are given an alternative to the western mold.  In their
perspective cultures, their 'mastery' would have been recognized... just not
with the same ceremony, rank, or address.  And I might add that the word for
their address in at least one of the above cultures translates to
'master'... the others are a potluck of 'captain', 'leader', and 'mighty' or
'strong'.

Take it as you will.


Dieterich