[Ansteorra] Spurs (was:Squire belts (was: Sable Thistle...etc.)

[Dennis Grace]

Salut cozyns,

Lyonel ici.

Sieur Jean Paul has already cited Du Charney on the white belt origin, so I 
won't repeat that. I will add to that point, in all fairness to the 
discussion, the white belt was only worn as part of the ceremony and was 
undoubtedly cloth or woven.

I'm sorry but the "chain is a symbol of fealty" argument doesn't wash. At 
least, not from an historical perspective. The SCA established the chain as 
a protected badge of knighthood and associated it with fealty, and I believe 
the idea was loosely based on the chains of esses worn by member of the 
Order of the Golden Fleece. I'm willing to entertain your argument of the 
chain symbolism if you can show me a period example of a non-knight wearing 
a chain expressly as a symbol of fealty. (Granted, I could be forgetting a 
reference to the chain-as-fealty-symbol from period knighting ceremonies. If 
so, I apologize for that elision, but the argument still works).

As for the discussion of spurs:

>The spurs were nothing more, historically, than a tool used to ride a 
>horse.
>The SCA made the association because normally only knights had the money to
>afford a riding horse. However, many nobles as well had horses, and many
>equestrians today have horses and corresponding horseshoes too, even though
>they are not knights; and so the spurs were not indicative of a knight
>either.

Um, yes and no.

The SCA made the association because Du Charney, Lull, and other period 
sources include strapping on spurs (in some cases specifically spurs of 
golden metal) as part of the knighting ceremony. What the SCA did was 
specifically associate *the wearing of spurs* on an ongoing basis with 
knighthood. The association makes sense in more reasons than just the "only 
knights could afford..."
point. Knighthood in the Middle Ages is so closely tied with horsemanship 
that in every European language but  English (ironically), the word for 
knight means "horseman" (cavalier, chevalier, cavalher, caballero, ritter, 
ridari, und so weiter). For any interested word geeks out  there, "knight" 
is derived from the Anglo-Saxon "cniht" which originally just means "young 
man" but eventually came to mean "warrior."

Frankly, I've never had any objection to anyone wearing spurs. It seems 
pretentious if you're not a rider or a knight, but much of what we do in the 
SCA is pretentious. My apologies to Corwin and Anton, but the squires in 
training spurs always struck me as a bit too precious (YMMV).

So, in all, you can argue that SCA symbols of knighthood are all inventions 
that would not have been valid in the Middle Ages. In most ages and 
locations, you could not tell a knight on sight. Sure, someone in armor, 
armed and bearing arms, was probably a knight. But you never knew for sure. 
Many mercenaries became knights by pretense. No one ever admitted to having 
knighted Robert Knolles or John Hawkwood, but they both styled themselves as 
knights.

Ultimately, though, what argument are you trying to make? Are you saying 
that anyone in the SCA can wear a gold chain, spurs, and a white belt? Yes, 
that's true. I think the reception of such choices at events would make this 
an uncomfortable choice, though. Are you saying that it makes sense from a 
period standpoint to wear these accoutrements? Well, in one of three cases 
(spurs), I agree. I don't think you can find many period examples of white 
belts and gold chains, though.

lo vostre por vos servir
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
_________________________________
Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
		--AElfric of York




>From: "Faelan Caimbeul" <faelancaimbeul at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." 
><ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
>To: "'Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,  Inc.'" <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
>Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Spurs (was:Squire belts (was: Sable 
>Thistle...etc.)
>Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:40:34 -0500
>
>I once had a Knight explain all this to me thusly:
>
>The chain is a symbol of fealty and service, nothing more. By that
>definition, anyone who sears fealty to their Lord, Baron or King would be
>entitled to wear it (yes, I came from one of THOSE kingdoms).
>
>The spurs were nothing more, historically, than a tool used to ride a 
>horse.
>The SCA made the association because normally only knights had the money to
>afford a riding horse. However, many nobles as well had horses, and many
>equestrians today have horses and corresponding horseshoes too, even though
>they are not knights; and so the spurs were not indicative of a knight
>either.
>
>The white belt is a purely SCA thing. It's in law and the only official
>symbol of knighthood. In period, a white belt simply meant you had a white
>belt, hopefully matching your ensemble (but more than likely not).
>
>Therefore, the only true indication of a knight is his heart. How he 
>carries
>himself, how he treats others, how he pursues art and culture, protects the
>weak, leads and generally makes a good effort to be the best person, the
>best warrior, he can be. This means that we can find many a "knight" who 
>has
>never had a white belt, spurs or a chain, and should; and several who do
>have this things and shouldn't.
>
>Faelan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org