home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim)
- Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
- Path: sparky!uunet!seas.smu.edu!utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!ocitor!FredGate
- Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
- Subject: Re: Homage, Fealty, and Tommyrot
- Message-ID: <721848838.F00001@ocitor.fidonet>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 08:39:30
- Lines: 28
-
- Arval wrote:
- JM> My thanks for Hossein for the discussion of fealty and homage. I would
- JM> like to reply to your analysis:
-
- JM> > There is no extant medieval example... of a person receiving any of the
- JM> > orders of knightood which Arval cited who was not already a knight...
-
- JM> This is incorrect. I recommend to your attention Boulton's "The
- JM> Knights of Crown", which is the most thorough and scholarly discussion
- JM> of medieval orders of knighthood. He notes several examples of orders
- JM> which accepted non-knights into their membership. In some cases,
- JM> companionship included a knighthood; in others it did not. Some of
- JM> the orders even had ladies as companions.
-
- Dammit, Arval, you're worse than an Atenveldt LOI. *What* orders? *Name*
- them and discuss how they support your position, don't just say "notes
- several examples".
-
- Not all "knightly orders" were "orders of knighthood" - as, indeed, is the
- case today. The concept of such orders was closely modelled after that of
- the religious orders of the day (and the earliest, such as the Templars
- and Hospitallars, were just that - religious orders incidentally
- consisting of fighters) and typically including "serjeants" and
- "chaplains" as well as "knights".
-
- Tadhg, Obelisk
-
- * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
-