Sunday, March 6, 2011

The real (?) Ulrich von Liechtenstein


From the eminent Dr. Beachcombing:

Ulrich von Liechtenstein (obit 1278) was a standard [??? -- SM] thirteenth-century knight. He had castles (three of them). He fought – above all, in Eastern Germany. And he also dressed up as a woman and rode from Maestre (Venice) up to Vienna.

Yes, yes, Beachcombing stopped too when he first read this many years ago. But now he no longer even notices. This is what comes of spending half your life in the Middle Ages…

The root of Ulrich’s unlikely transvestism was courtly love. In his poetical ‘autobiography’ – a word Beachcombing will return to – Ulrich describes how he decided to undertake his quest as an act of homage to one lady, but also, by extension to all women. Indeed, his autobiographical work – ich comes up frequently – is entitled Frauendienst (Lady Service).
As Ulrich rode through the hinterland of hellish medieval Europe – spending half your life in the Middle Ages also makes Beachcombing all too honest about what kind of world theirs was – he challenged the knights he met to jousts and gave gifts to ladies.

By the end of his little jaunt Queen Venus (i.e. Ulrich in drag) had broken 307 spears, donated 271 rings and unhorsed four knights. Included among his honoured opponents was a knight dressed as a monk that Beachcombing will let go without any comments. But also interestingly another knight dressed as a woman. How Beachcombing would have liked to have seen that joust.
 Should have found a way to get Ulrich into the course...

Thursday, January 27, 2011

The appeal of jousting, and the danger

From The Independent:

A man died during a jousting re-enactment because of failures to ensure a correct helmet was worn and failures to ensure his shield was appropriately assembled, a coroner ruled today.
Paul Anthony Allen died after a splinter went through the eye hole of his helmet, penetrating his eye and then brain, as the event was being filmed for Channel 4's Time Team programme.
The 54-year-old, of Chishill Road, Heyden, Cambridgeshire, died on September 20, 2007 at University Hospital Coventry and Warwick.
He had been involved in the re-enactment at Rockingham Castle in Corby, Northamptonshire, seven days earlier.
After an inquest at Kettering Magistrates' Court, Northamptonshire Coroner Anne Pember gave a narrative verdict, saying there had been several failures resulting in the accident.
Mr Allen, who had never jousted before despite practising with a lance and shield, was hit by a splinter from a balsa wood tip designed to break on impact with the opponent's shield for safety, the inquest heard.
It broke off, as it was supposed to, but a piece of wood flew up through the eye-slit of his helmet, hitting his eye socket.
The accident happened during a warm-up run for a sequence to have been used in a special edition of the archaeological programme, hosted by former Blackadder star Tony Robinson.
Mr Allen was airlifted to hospital with the splinter of balsa wood still in his eye and his eye hanging from its socket, the inquest heard.
He had an operation to remove the splinter, which penetrated 5in (13cm) into his head, but his condition did not improve and he died on September 20.
The cause of death was given as cardio-respiratory failure and a severe penetrating brain injury, the inquest heard.
Today, Northamptonshire Coroner Anne Pember said failures led to Mr Allen's death.
She said: "There were failures a) to engage a rider with a proven track record of lance-breaking jousting, b) to ensure the correct helmet or helm for jousting was used and c) to ensure that the shield had been appropriately assembled for jousting purposes."
She passed her condolences to Mr Allen's family but added: "I know Mr Allen was doing what he absolutely loved when he met his untimely death."
Her comments were echoed by Mr Allen's wife, Sharon McCann, who said after the inquest that her husband had died doing something he loved.
"If he could have written his script this would have been his chosen end," she said.
"I believe that those involved were acting in good faith.
"With hindsight there may be lessons to be learned which, I hope, will prevent anything similar happening again."
The inquest heard that both Miss McCann and Mr Allen had both been involved in historical re-enactment for around 14 years.
About 10 years before the accident, Mr Allen had given up his job teaching English, drama and history to concentrate on re-enactment, Miss McCann said.
But she added that, as far as she knew, he had never done a performance joust before.
The inquest heard that Mr Allen was due to receive the blow with a lance wielded by fellow rider Adam Plant, from Old Ellerby in Hull, and was not due to strike a blow himself.
But in a report read to the court, jousting expert Mike Loades said Mr Allen had an unsuitable helmet for jousting, and was holding his shield wrong.
He said the helmet, called a Great Helm, was suitable only for carnival jousting, as its eye holes were too big and the top part of it, above the eyes, protruded more than the part below the eyes - when it should have been the other way round.
His report also found that Mr Allen was holding his shield in the way it should have been held for infantry, rather than cavalry.
He said: "The key to jousting is the correct body equipment.
"If the armour is right, then any other mistakes will be relatively harmless."
Mr Loades said jousting had an extremely good safety record and that record should not be compromised by this incident.
He said to describe it as "random or freak" would be wrong, adding: "This is not the case.
"The circumstances and equipment deficiencies of this occasion are clearly explicable and avoidable."
Alan Larsen, freelance event consultant, agreed with Mr Loades, adding: "It is crucial that only very experienced jousters are used in situations, whether it is public performance or a joust."
The court heard that John Naylor helped to source re-enacters and equipment for the shoot as per a "wish list" from producer Brendan Hughes, who was working for Videotext Communications to make the special edition on Edward III's Round Table.
Two other men, Robin Martin and Dominic Sewell, were initially planned to be the riders but could not make it on a weekday.
Mr Naylor said he was then due to be one of the riders, but on the day agreed let Mr Allen ride as a "favour to a friend".
He said: "I originally was going to ride. Paul was a very determined man, it was one of his ambitions to ride as a knight.
"He loved the camera, he loved to be centre of attention.
"On this particular day I had already spent a large portion of the morning doing readings and pieces to camera.
"Paul wanted to have a bite of the cherry so it was a favour to a friend.
"He said 'Can I do the ride?'. I said 'As far as I'm concerned, you're as good as me. If you want it, it's yours'."
He said: "As far as I was concerned, Paul actually had more experience of receiving blows with a shield than Dominic Sewell and Rob Martin.
"Paul was never in the frame to be a jousting knight, he was there to be a man taking a blow with a shield."
The inquest heard that neither Mr Allen nor Mr Plant had actually jousted against someone else, though both were competent horsemen and had practised on targets.
Mr Naylor said he had made it clear to Mr Hughes that Mr Allen had not done breaking-lance jousting before, but Mr Hughes said he had no idea or indication that either Mr Allen or Mr Plant had not done it before.
He also said he was not aware of specific requirements for certain helmets or shields and left that to Mr Naylor.
He said: "I was hiring John as the expert who would look after all aspects of it from a combination of historical accuracy and from the provision of equipment because that was what seemed to me to be what they did as a professional unit."
A Channel 4 spokesman said: "We have been deeply saddened by this tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with Mr Allen's family.
"His family requested we include scenes of the jousting session in the finished programme. We were happy to do so and mark it as a memorial to his work.
"We are sure that the evidence presented at the inquest will be of interest and value to organisers and participants in the re-enactment community.
"We take issues of health and safety extremely seriously for all our programmes."

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Suggestions for research papers

Research Paper Topics:

Between the NU library, the Web, and my personal collection there are many primary sources in translation available that might make good research topics. There are also a number of historiographical topics for those who want to explore the current scholarly debates on chivalry and related topics.

Here is a partial list of possibilities.

Sources or Writers

1. St. Inglevert
2. Unconquered Knight
3. Song of Roland
4. Combat of the Thirty against Thirty
5. Chretien de Troyes Knight of the Cart
6. Duarte
7. Christine de Pisan
8. Bouvet
9. Castiglione
10. Gawain and the Green Knight
11. Chivalry and the early modern duel
12. Rene’s Book of the Tournament, Book of Love
13. Livonian Rhyme Chronicle (and Baltic Crusades)
14. Ramon Llull
15. Froissart and his audience
16. Walter Scott
17. Tirant lo Blanc
18. Knight of the Tower and Menagier de Paris
19. The Cid
20. Orlando Furioso

Historiographical Debates

21. Chivalry and courtliness
22. William Marshal
23. Feudalism and chivalry
24. Terry Jones and Chaucer’s Knight

Other Topics

25. Beowulf and chivalry
26. Elizabethan chivalry
27. Tournaments, jousting and a career at arms
28. Knights and government in England
29. Chivalry and Crusade

Topics requiring French

30. Le Tournoi de Chauvency
31. The Book of the Good Duke
32. Boucicaut

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Charny on retreating and surrendering -- for January 11, 2011

An excerpt from a book I am working on:
One of the burning questions that Charny felt obliged to address springs from King John's agenda in creating the Order of the Star in the first place. One of the chief goals the King was attempting to accomplish through the order was to revive the formerly sterling quality of French chivalry which had after many centuries fallen grievously, with "some of the members of this order unaccustomed to arms and deprived of exercises, or for some other cause unknown to us, […] immoderately plung[ing] themselves into the idleness and vanity of the age, to the contempt of honor, alas, and of their own good renown."  The order was meant to encourage and validate deeds of arms, and deeds of arms of war rather than deeds of arms of peace.

The need to shore up the French reputation for valor is indicated by the oath that John Le Bel says the members took, "that they would never flee in battle farther than four arpents (in their opinion) but would die or surrender."[1]   Crecy, the great defeat of Philip VI's time, had thrown a pall of cowardice over the standing of the French military class.   There are strong indications in the questions on war that this came down to a simple understanding that too many men-at-arms were too willing to run away from danger instead of fighting their hardest.
Scenarios involving retreating or surrendering or both appear in a conservative estimate in eleven of Charny's questions on war.   It is clear from several of them that anything resembling running away might be interpreted as blameworthy.  Question W30 says :
There is a battle …in which many men-at-arms of the defeated party depart and go away.  Some consider that these have gone on their honor without being defeated; and many others consider that those who have gone are defeated.  How can this be?
Judgments vary, but elsewhere we see that if the judgment was adverse, if one was thought to have been "fleeing" to one's "dishonor," it was so serious that some might think it would wipe out a lifetime of renown (W39).   What distinguished dishonorable flight from the "safe and honorable withdrawal" which Charny thought all good men-at-arms needed to learn to execute?[2]  Of course we have no correct answer to this, just indications about how serious the dilemma was. For instance, in W31 we have a story that shows what problems arise when good military practice and the perception that one is fleeing conflict:
A captain of men-at-arms rides out in the field and orders some of his scouts to see the situation of his enemies who are in the field; and there are a sufficient number of these scouts.   And at the approach of their enemies one party of their enemies pursues them faster than they can go; and the scouts retreat from their enemies and are able to retreat without loss.   So there are some of the scouts who turn back and meet their enemies, and perform arms like good people should; and others retreat to their captain and make their report.   Which of these are to be more valued and praised:  those who went back to their lord or those who are captured?
The scouts who turn back and fight are doing something good and praiseworthy; yet Charny thought that the scouts who returned were also doing something valuable, and were obedient to their captain to boot.  Perhaps Charny anticipated a reflexive endorsement of warriors who "perform arms like good people should."  This is consistent with scenarios discussed in W7 and W8, where what might seem sensible course of action is contrasted with conventional belligerent courage.  In the first we see a captain, the principal leader of one side in a hypothetical war, who
is defeated but remains on the field so long that he sees and understands that he is unable to recover his fortunes or the day; and the battle has been very well fought.   Which is the better thing for him to do:  remain and take his chances, or leave so that he can recoup?    And if he leaves, should he thereby lose his honor?
We may think that it hardly makes sense that the captain should sacrifice his rights and his person after one serious defeat; and we've seen that Charny did not reject the possibility of honorable retreat.[3]  Then we remember that King John refused to leave the field at Poitiers in 1356, even though he understood that the day was lost. This gives the scenario in question W7 a real piquancy. Question W7 also prepares us for the dilemma of the bodyguards in the next question who seriously contemplate abandoning their lord to return to fight in a lost battle.  There are good reasons for them to remain with the captain, yet they hesitate:
Which is the better thing to do:  lead their master to safety, and in that case, either go with him, or send him outside of the melee alone, and tell him to save himself if he is able?  There is a great risk that he will not be able to save himself; and by returning into the battle they take the risk of death or capture.   Since they have agreed to be men in his retinue, will they be blamed if they go with him?  Which is better, to go or to stay?
Neither avoiding the presumed shame of abandoning their employer, their "master," nor the danger of returning to a hopeless situation are unquestionably preferable to the criticism they might attract for leaving the field. Even if we guess that Charny might have a clear preference himself, he expected debate. This is confirmed by other scenarios, which show that there was an entire terminology of warfare, which was meant among other things to clarify what was honorable behavior.   One of the questions I would most like answered, were that possible, is W37: 
Since I have heard it said that one is able to leave and retreat (retraire) from a battle from the defeated side (la part desconfite), if he has acted in seven ways without being killed or taken, without being reproached.   How can this be and what are the seven ways?
It would certainly be very illuminating to have Charny's list of seven mitigating circumstances, and his comments on them, given that he was twice captured and must have twice surrendered himself, even though he did not consider this something that could be done lightly (W79).  Unless Charny is disingenuously preparing to present a list of his own as something he heard from others, the list of seven implies serious discussion, perhaps long debate, that unfortunately never found the pen to write it down.  
There was also debate about defeat, and when it took place, as seen in the curious questions W28 and W29: 
There is a battle between two captains in which one party is defeated and many of the party are dead, concerning whom some say that some of those who are dead are not dead but defeated; and many other say of those who are dead that they are dead and defeated.   How can this be?
There is a battle as above in which there are many captured, concerning whom some say that although they are captured, they do not regard them as defeated; and there are many others who consider them to be captured or and defeated.   How can this be?
I interpret these questions to mean that the idea of being defeated, desconfit, was so unwelcome that even the dead would reject it. We can easily imagine that being called "defeated" stung, but that may underestimate the force of the word.  Desconfit could mean defeated in some neutral sense, as we find in some passages of the Book of Chivalry, but it could mean much more.   One relevant but general sense means "destroyed, broken, ruined, reduced to nothingness." There is an old and more specific military sense in which desconfit means "routed," a concept of both moral and practical significance for horsemen.   Given the existence of different meanings for this loaded adjective, there would be room for disagreement about who could be called desconfit and how bad that label might be. (Cf. W30) Was it a state worse than death? Certainly the perception that one had run away in a fearful or undisciplined manner, would seem to open a man-at-arms to this accusation of deepest dishonor.


[1] Bolton 181
[2] Kaeuper and Kennedy page 133
[3] Kaeuper and Kennedy page 133