|
|
|
|
It
would be impossible to re-enact any medieval society without the concept of
nobility. The idea is simple: "Nobles" are inherently
"better" than non-nobles. As such, they are "owed" a certain
amount of respect, deference, and even fear; after all, they are armed, are the
Law, and are successfully oppressing everyone else! In the American
Medievalist's Association there are 3 classes of people, exactly as in the 13th
Century. At the bottom are serfs, peasants, and bondsmen. Since they do all the
dirty work, it was never anticipated that very many members would opt to belong
to this class. If a member wished to experience what it was really like to
belong to this class, then we will do our best to make it authentic. The only
upward mobility for members of this class was via the clergy (and practically
speaking, they would be lucky to make Abbot/Abbess or Prior/Prioress) where they
would/could learn a few rudiments of education, and thus be very slightly more
useful to their "betters", or via armed service. The latter
opportunity occurred only during shortages of fighters, serious military
threats, etc., when peasants could be "levied" (i.e., drafted) as
fighters. Armed with a pike, lumber axe, scythe, etc, (or less!), almost no
armor, on foot (no horse), and poorly trained, their chances in combat were not
good. Still, some survived, and if they impressed their Lord, they might be
retained as men-at-arms. With more training and better equipment, they could
even become "serjantz". More probably, these survivors were eventually
hung as outlaws and criminals.
Next above the serfs, etc. were the freemen who were lucky enough to be born in
either non-feudal areas or in "Freetown’s"(a free town/city had no
overlord). In the 13th Century this class was starting to become more numerous
as the economy picked up and towns & cities prospered. Since towns (without
overlords) were in competition with the feudal nobility for control of the
wealth, those nobles thought of freemen as uppity non-nobles and therefore
little better than peasants. There is this huge gulf in everyone's mind between
nobility and commonality that is hard to comprehend in today's more egalitarian
mindset. Anyway, towns and cities were only free because they had their own
armies, usually called "companies", "guardsmen", or some
such name. Some cities drafted all males 18-40, others were strictly volunteer,
some had units supplied by wealthy individuals, some hired serjantz or even
mercenaries. However these fighters were raised, cities and towns usually had
enough surplus money to train and equip them. There was also enough surplus
population to
rapidly replace any losses. When employed by feudal lords, these troops were
usually all lumped together as serjantz and seen as a valuable fighting resource
as opposed to the view of levees as war-fodder. The surplus money also attracted
un-enfiefed knights (knights bachelors) who frequently worked in or for town
garrisons. Except for very wealthy individuals, the townspeople were basically
antithetical to the nobility surrounding them.
The
very wealthy could aspire to Court and Royal Patronage, even estates,
knighthoods, titles of nobility, but this was unlikely. The nobles disdained
them and hence would intrigue against them at Court, which restricted their
further upward mobility. At
the top of the social pyramid is, of course, the nobility. Most nobles were born
into the petite nobility (lesser lords) and elevated from there based on
ability, luck, and who they knew. The rest were more nobly born and advanced
from there. For our purposes in the American Medievalist’s Association, you
would start your character as a lesser (born) noble, and advance from there. The
first elevation is into Knighthood, which is by no means guaranteed by birth,
although the opportunity is. Many of the nobility never became knights; instead,
they went into the clergy (and then guess who got all the promotions in there)
or into university (to become administrators, etc.) or into professions (such as
Law or Medicine) or even into management of family businesses. As to the order
of knighthood itself, it is the intention of the American Medievalist's
Association to approximate 13th Century ideals of knighthood as closely as
possible. Therefore the first thing to remember is that, at that time,
knighthood was less honorific and more fictional than now. The knights were the
actual "fulfillers" of feudal obligations. Their function was similar
to that of the police today, as armed enforcers of society's decisions. Please
note that the overlap of rules is not very complete, because knights were
functionally called upon to fight each other. Only knights and above had
"honor", which meant that they would/could "honor their
word"(etc.). Hence they were the only ones that a lord could trust to
fulfill the other end of a feudal obligation. Let's say that a Baron makes 2
Knights his vassals: what does this really mean? First, the Baron
"loans" or "permits" them the use of enough of his property
for them to derive a living from it. This was usually land and serfs, but could
also include timber, fishing, mining, or milling "rights" or specific
rents, fees, tolls, etc. that are now paid to the vassals. In return, the
vassals pledge to answer their lord's summons, ready, willing, and able to fight
under him for a certain number of days (usually 10 - 40). Because his knights
have "honor", the Baron knows that they will appear when he summons
them. Someone who is not a knight, say, a wealthy peasant or an armed serjant,
or a hired man-at-arms does not have "honor", and therefore cannot be
counted on to appear. If you substitute "training and inclination"
for
"honor", then the whole argument makes more sense, at least to the
modern mind. Just to refresh your memory as to why all this is important to our
hypothetical Baron, the usual penalty for "breach of contract" was
loss of the enfiefment. Our Baron probably holds the land he "lent" to
his vassals from his own overlord, and thus the lower knight's not answering the
summons could, in turn, cost the Baron his position because now he is under the
agreed upon strength that he pledged to his overlord. Reliability becomes
all-important when the effects extend up the social ladder. A peasants (as
vassal) could not be reasonably expected to risk his life voluntarily while
bound in servitude, and if he was armed, he would probably be uppity and hard to
control. Since a serjant served for pay (gasp! -horrors!), what would become of
his service if the other side offered more money?
Above
knights were barons, who, for purposes of definition, could be called a holder
of a self-sufficient, land unit or Barony. Another way to view a baron is that
he is a sort of wholesaler of fiefs. That way, the higher-ups didn't have to
deal with all those individual vassals. The word ~baron' is probably related to
'bannerette' or 'baronet' which referred to a knight who answered his summons
leading a small squad of knights who rallied to his banner. In turn, barons (end
some knights) owed service to higher lords variously called earls, counts,
dukes, etc. Basically these are lords of large territories or regions owned by a
family that then supplied the counts, dukes, etc. Sometimes these regional
overlords held the land from the king, but not always. Note that feudal
societies are most stable when the king is weaker or equal to the larger lords
in power. If the king (or any other lord) gets too powerful, then he proceeds to
absorb or eliminate the other great lords. This leads to less balances of power,
which is the same as less stability. A
duchy is distinguished from a county in that the duchy is/was a proto-kingdom
that was held back by unfavorable historical and geo-political factors that
favored a nearby kingdom. Under different circumstances, the duchy would be the
kingdom, and vice-versa. For example, if historical factors were different,
there might be a 'Kingdom of Burgundy' and a duchy of Paris' instead of a
Kingdom of France and Duchy of Burgundy. Or, they could both have become
kingdoms. Duchies are thus quasi-independent. Counties are more closely related
to the kingdom of which they are a part, end are totally dependant. Although
most of the above is probably already familiar, we reviewed it for the specific
reason that the American Medievalist's Association intends to re-enact 13th
Century Societies as closely as possible. Therefore the association will
eventually have characters that will claim to be barons, dukes, kings, etc. Our
Reality Clause says that the character must really have what he/she claims to
have. Thus, a Baron must have a Barony, or more
succinctly,
what a Baron who did have a Barony would (typically) have. It was the
Associations' intention to avoid the situation which occurs elsewhere, where a
"Duke" might be less powerful, or more meagerly equipped than a
"Baron", or even worse, where such titles are merely
"honorific" and have no relation to any wealth or power, (but,
unfortunately, do relate to an amount of B.S.!). Also, the Founders wanted the
American Medievalist's Association to actually have a large amount of goods
& scenery, to be "actual". The only way to accomplish this was to
make actual "Wealth" necessary to social rank. Social
ranks within the American Medievalist’s Association are thus arranged as
follows: Men-at-Arms:
Non-nobles and characters/~from non-feudal societies like, for example, Ireland.
They must be equivalent to actual men-at-arms, i.e., they must be equipped with
a spear or other weapons (not a sword), a shield, a helmet or other head
protection, and some simple body armor such as a quilted shirt, leather scales,
ring armor. They don't need to actually own their armor so long as they do
service for it and there as actual armor for each man-no 'sharing'. They are
equivalent to 1/2 a serjant or 1/4 knight. Serjantz:
Non-nobles, probably townspeople, who own a pole-weapon, a sword, a shield,
helm, and metal body armor such as chainmail or metal scale. The association
would allow a wealthy sponsor to equip men as serjantz, instead of as
men-at-arms, in which case he could own their armor and they do service for it,
but there would be little point in the extra expense. Serjantz are equivalent to
2 men-at-arms or 1/2 a knight in value. Knights:
the lowest order of actual working nobility. They must possess (own) a chainmail
or metal scale hauberk, curved or flat shield, sword, dagger, full metal helm,
and one additional hand weapon. In addition, knights must have a valuation of at
least $3,000 (club value) in misc. goods, including arms and armor. They must be
ready, willing, and physically able to fight at the command of their overlord.
Practically speaking, this means that they must drag all this extra
paraphernalia along with them to events. Worthy gentles become knights by
receiving the 'accolade' or’ drubbing~ from an existing knight. Only a knight
can make another knight. If you claim to be a knight and are not, it is called
"miposturage" and was viewed as a very serious affront to the dignity
of all knights. This was viewed as more serious than falsely claiming to be a
police officer today, or posing as a medical doctor and performing brain
surgery. Impostures were dealt with severely, usually by hanging on the spot! As
a courtesy, you should address a knight as "Sir "; if this seems awkward, remember that they have worked hard
to become knights and deserve at least some small
token
of respect. Since knighthood is strictly a re-enactment activity, it is not
answerable to, but the member is accountable to his fellow knights. As all
knightly or chivalric matters are under the control of the College of Knights,
they can convene a "Court of Chivalry", which can "try" a
miscreant knight, decide a mistake was made in knighting him (or that he 'went
bad') and un-knight him. Hopefully this will never arise since in the 13th Cent.
The only practical ways to be un-knighted were breaking your feudal oath, as in
not showing up for battle, or showing up on the wrong side, and then refusing to
right this situation (by fine, scutage, etc.); or by vicious, unreasonable &
repeated attacks on other nobles or the clergy (who were, of coarse, scions of
the nobility- it was more or less fair game to prey on the peasants and
townspeople); or serious crimes against the crown (such as killing the king's
relatives, especially if he was fond of them); or outfight social
unacceptability, such as devil-worshipping, insanity, etc. The point is that it
was really difficult to lose your knighthood. One thing to remember is that the
"chivalric code" became loftier and more and more unattainable as the
centuries (and chivalry) passed by.
Back in the old 13th, the standards were more practical and more
variable. Knights would always address each other politely, spare each other
whenever possible, and act at all times as if they are members of a privileged
class-, which they are. Knights must develop a blazon (coat of arms) and should
know how to ride a horse. At this time, owning a horse is not required since,
authentically, they were always getting killed anyway. In addition, Knights
cannot be counted more than once as vassals toward fulfilling the requirements
of higher levels of nobility. Barons
rate above knights: Originally, some wanted a 10:1 social scale, while other
wanted l: l, or 2:1. Finally they compromised on 3:1. Thus, a baron must be
equivalent to a knight, and must have 3 knights as vassals. As a courtesy, or
dispensation, it was agreed to at least one knight + 2 "knight
equivalents" as vassals. To be clear, a Baron must have under him as
vassals: 3
knights or 1 Knight and any other combination at a ratio of:
It goes without saying, that the fewer knights & the more armed riff-raft or
hired mercenaries, the less reputable the baron. At 3:1, a baron should be worth
about $9,000 (club value), but we are at a loss to describe what this would look
like, especially as we keep finding cheaper and less expensive prices for many
goods. I suppose if you required a horse... In practice, the most difficult part
of becoming a baron seems to be in getting 3 knights to swear fealty to you.
Since you must obviously, in reality, outclass them to get them to agree, we
recommend that, at least initially, the personal valuation of a baron should be
at least that of a knight, and that the rest of the valuation should consist of
the valuation of his vassals. A Baron must own a Pavilion, a Signet Ring of his
or her own Blazon, a Great Chair and a Banner or Standard representing the
Barony, which should be different from their personal blazon
Above
a baron is a count. Let us, for now, say that a count has the personal worth and
vassals of a Baron and then some, and has at least one actual baron sworn to him
and the equivalent of another Baron as vassals. A” baron equivalent"
would be obviously 4 knights (or their sub-equivalents in serjantz and
men-at-arms) His total valuation should be 9 times that of a knight, and 3
-times that of a Baron. As with a baron, he can count the value of his vassals
toward his Countship.
Slightly
higher than a count is a duke. We are defining a duke as having the personal
worth and vassals of a baron and at least 2 actual barons and one "baron
equivalent" as other vassals. His personal valuation is the same as that of
a count, i.e., 9 times that of a knight, 3 times that of a baron and he can
count the value of his vassals toward his
own.
At
this time we would like to repeat that the sole intention in defining the above
social ranks and positions was not to limit members, or prevent characters from
achieving these ranks, but to really have Barons, Counts, Dukes, and a King who
were worthy of the respect of the rest of us. No positions of nobility in the
American Medievalist Association are purely honorary. Each rank is required to
really maintain a complete compliment of actual characters (based on current
members) that is required for that rank. Please note, that by decision of the
college of Knights, a members' character cannot "double-swear" to two
different overlords at the same time. Historically, such ranks were virtually
impossible to attain if you were a lesser noble, sort of like getting elected
president of the United States. Very difficult, but someone has to achieve the
office. |
Send mail to sirjohnofny@aol.com with questions or
comments about this web site.
|
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif){kind=small}
