| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ratslayer
Arn Hold,
Artemisia
133 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2005 : 4:18:26 PM
|
Since this list has been so quiet I thought I would start a conversation on Squires taking on Man at Arms. How do most people feel about this? Just curious since it's been a thread on the Armour Archive.
Kelwin
The GOOFY way is the TRUE way! |
|
|
SirGregory
Loch Salann,
Artemisia
372 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2005 : 10:25:43 AM
|
OK, I will chime in.
Personally, as a Knight the way my household is run, *I* take new members into the household. Squires are certainly allowed to encourage others to participate but ultimately the fealty is between me and the man-at-arms or squires first, and then to the household as a group.
Admittedly, many squires that are somewhat close to becoming knights in their own right tend to make bonds outside of their current household, that quickly becomes a new fealty-based relationship as soon as that person is knighted.
My knight at one point encouraged pairing or outright paired up squires with man-at-arms as a training mechanism. I don't think it worked well frankly and caused more problems than it was worth.
There is another question which you didn't ask about non-affiliated fighters taking on Man-at-arms. Generally speaking I believe many knights look down on these relationships, mostly because it is seen as a purview of Peerages or of royalty. Although frankly I'm not sure how much water that holds.
As with most things, this would most likely devolve into a difference between the SCA's social structure vs. some prototypical meideval social structure.
EDIT- some spelling |
Edited by - SirGregory on 05/11/2005 10:30:32 AM |
 |
|
|
bart
Côte du Ciel,
Artemisia
433 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2005 : 2:58:13 PM
|
I have seen this done at rare intervals. The one that comes first to my mind, and which I believe is a very positive example, is a few years back when Master Jurgen took a talented young fighter as his man-at-arms.
In this instance, Jurgen had been a squire for quite a long time, and was the fighter that we all looked to for leadership in our shire. He along with Mistress Lynette ran a very active household, and although the relationship between Jurgen and his man-at-arms was primarily based on the martial arts, I think the fact that he belonged to a peerage, even though it was not the chiv, made this seem all the more natural.
The relationship worked well for them. Jurgen took very seriously his responsibility for training his man at arms, and saw to it that his 'charge' did the things needed to advance as a fighter.
For myself, if I were to become squired, I don't think it would work as well for me. As a squire, I would consider the role of 'student' as my primary responsibility. To take on a man at arms and be responsible for his or her education would seem unfair to my knight.
-bart |
|
|
|
Sean
Barony of Loch Salann,
235 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 07:21:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bart
As a squire, I would consider the role of 'student' as my primary responsibility. To take on a man at arms and be responsible for his or her education would seem unfair to my knight.
-bart
Bart just nailed it.
I was somewhat hesitant to say anything about this as it is kind of a touchy subject.
In this Kingdom the designation (Not Rank) of Man-at-arms is frequently used by the Chivalry to show a Teacher-Student relationship. The key part of this definition being the Teacher. I feel that it is somewhat presumptuous for somebody who has not been recognized by the Chivalry, as one of its members, to decide that they are qualified to teach.
Having said that, I also have to state that teaching is something that we look at when consider candidates for the Order. We have to see how well somebody teaches as an unbelted fighter before they are considered.
There are those unbelted fighters who, despite their best efforts, can't teach. They don't understand the technique well enough for themselves. They end up teaching poor technique. They have an over-inflated sense of accomplishment usually associated with a "Big Fish/Small Pond" complex. The problem comes when these fighters unilaterally decide that they are just as qualified to teach as are the Chivalry.
I have known for the longest time that the unbelted fighters in the Northern part of our Kingdom have used the term Man-at-arms to denote somebody who is in their service. It has been my experience that *Most* of those unbelted fighters do not presume themselves to be *Just* as qualified to teach. It has been explained to me that the use of the phrase is simply to show that this person is under their protection. Given the stigma that *I* associate with unbelted fighters using this designation, I largely view this as a poor choice of words.
In my opinion, anyone who has an AoA may take on a page, vassal, ward, or other such similar relationships which often include an oath of fealty. Essentially, this is the Lord-Vassal relationship. This is perfectly appropriate. However, the use of the term Man-at-arms invokes very specific images for me. And for all these stated reasons, in deferrence to the best intentions of people who I know mean no offense, it absolutely gives me the Heebee Jeebees when I hear an unbelted fighter say "This is my Man-at-arms".
Sean
Rex Gryphus
It's not easy for me to say because I'm a Knight.
I'm a Knight because it's easy for me to say. |
|
|
|
Lord Ely
Shire of Crystal Crags,
Artemisia
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 08:03:47 AM
|
So in your opinion your Majesty, would it seem out of place for a Squire to take on a page to pass along the teachings of his Knight and to basically show them the ropes of the SCA?
See the problem we have in our Shire is that recently we have had an influx of newbies that want to be "affiliated" with a person or group. Since I am the only one affiliated to a Knight, and the only one recieving any training, I am the natural choice for some of them. While I try to teach each one the basics, I am by no means as qualified as my Knight, and so I just try to pass along the teachings of my Knight. Unfortuantely I cannot satisfy all of them so some slip through the cracks. Having spoken to a few Knights and asking their opinion on this topic, I have refrained from using the "man-at-arms" title for the reasons stated by the previous posts.
Lord Ely
Squire to Qadi Dahoud
An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can still hold on to one blade of grass and not fall off the face of the earth. |
|
|
|
Sean
Barony of Loch Salann,
235 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 11:08:41 AM
|
The issue I have is with the term Man-at-arms. And I realize that it is strictly a matter of semantics.
A Page (usually boys) or Ward (usually girls) will often been under the instruction and protection of someone who is at least a Lord or Lady. In this case, IMHO, the AoA denotes a certain level of *Basic* understanding of our game. That person should be able, and is *Expected* to teach the newer members of our Society the basics. The Page/Ward term generally applies to the youth of our society.
There is an inherent identity crisis when dealing with older, newer members of our society. As you mentioned, people want to be affiliated with a group. It's a psycological question of belonging. And also, pride of ownership by the vassal. They have something that they can be proud to contribute to and make their own.
As adult members arrive on the SCA scene, they quickly look to find their identification within it. In the remote areas of our Kingdom, you do not have a lot of the Bling-Bling flashing around. People will seek that identity with the people that they know and like regardless of danglies.
As I mentioned, in *Most* cases a newer fighter will attach himself to a household for the sake of seeking that Identity. This usually involves some monikor to indicate that fighters place in the household. In Period, the general term for a run of the mill, garden variety, un-squired fighter person was Man-at-arms. In these, the Current Middle Ages, and this Kingdom in particular(but, not exclusively), that term is widely used to denote somebody who is in a specific training relationship with a member of the Chivalry.
The real hang up is this; If the Chivalry(some of them) have a hangup with the usage of that term, then what term do unbelted fighters use? Honestly, I have not yet found the answer to that. Largely because I have not had a real NEED to find another term. I will admit that my peerage and my experience have likely jaded me in this regard. I never had people serving under me before I became a Knight. The non-peers in my household don't generally find themselves in this position(with the exception of a Page/Ward) either. I understand how this situation comes up in the remote parts of our Kingdom. But, I can't really relate.
I don't remember the last time I told an unbelted fighter *NOT* to use the term. But, I still cringe when I hear that phrase.
Sean
Rex Gryphus
It's not easy for me to say because I'm a Knight.
I'm a Knight because it's easy for me to say. |
|
|
|
Eric von Wald
Loch Salann,
Artemisia
12 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 11:13:35 AM
|
I do not think it is a problem for a Squire or any fighter to help teach and train new fighters at fighter practice. I don't know if a "title" or "position" such as Page, man-at-arms, ect is needed to to this.
When I first came into the SCA in Caid, I was part of a small Shire. There were two experienced fighters and a lot of newbies. The two experienced fighters were not Knights or squires. (I would not be surprised to hear that they are now Knights.) They had a lot of experience both in fighting and in the SCA. I think they both had their AoA.
They taught us how to fight, both individualy and as a warband. They were great teachers and I still look up to them. We were all members of our Shire. We camped and went to events as as Shire. Neither of them had a title or great rank, but they were good teachers.
So, I think where ever you are, if there are no knights in your area, or anybody else to do the training and you have something to show them, you should be teaching them what your others taught you.
One aspect of the Society is we teach those around us. It doesn't matter if its arts or sciences or on the field. (We should all be teaching safety on the field)
Those who taught me back in Caid viewed it as a service to the Shire and the Kingdom. (More trained fighters meant more fighters at the war, ect)
I do not undertand the belief that some might have that you can only teach those who you have some kind Lord-Vassal relationship with or that you can only learn from somebody that has given you a poisition or title (page, man-at arms, ect). I was very excited to come to fighter practice here in Loch Salann. We are lucky to have so many knights coming to these practices. I am sure I will learn from all of them and the other fighters. All of them will teach me how to be a better fighter and a better man..and a better person too. |
|
|
|
Ratslayer
Arn Hold,
Artemisia
133 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 12:45:17 PM
|
I was a man at arms to a squire many many years ago. The relationship lasted for over a year before my squire became a Knight. Later on I became his squire. The reason I chose this route is because at the time there were very few Knights that I felt comfortable with and things just sort of clicked with Gareth. I don't think Gareth was being presumptous.
A couple of people have stated that you don't need a formal relationship for teaching. I agree, so why is it that Knights take on squires if one doesn't need the formal relationship?
I think that the more important part of the relationship is not the training of the fighting but the instruction on how to be a better member of the SCA and to gain knowledge on how to be a Knight. What does everyone else feel?
Kelwin
The GOOFY way is the TRUE way! |
|
|
|
Lord Ely
Shire of Crystal Crags,
Artemisia
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 1:44:35 PM
|
In my personal situation I have been appraoched by a young man that is extremely new to the SCA and is really on fire as to participation and what-not. I felt that since he has done a tremendous amount of research on the SCA and that he has asked me all the right questions regarding a service position such as a page or vassal, that I owe him my time. He asked to be my page and I basically told him I would consider it. Instead of being discouraged by my aloofness it only served to make him work harder. I eventually took him under my protection and train him as best as I can.
My feeling is that I will teach ANYONE who asks and will continue to do so as long as they are willing to learn and keep a positive attitude. But in the Page/Squire relationship I give much more insight to the inner workings of the SCA as well as the liitle tricks and nuances of fighting that not everybody gets. To me that is why one enters into a service relationship with a more advanced player in the society. Between me and my page there is no fealty no oath of any kind as of yet, and if he wants to move on so be it. If I want to end our relationship so be it. No hard feelings and everybody is happy. If at some point I advance then I will reevaluate our status and whether or not I want to take him on as a man-at-arms or eventually a squire.
Ely
An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can still hold on to one blade of grass and not fall off the face of the earth. |
|
|
|
Sean
Barony of Loch Salann,
235 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 1:49:49 PM
|
Unfortunately, I wasn't around when Gareth was a squire. I have seen squires take a Man-at-arms just prior to being Knighted. I had developed a student teacher relationship with Brion right before he got Knighted. My circumstance was quite different in that Brion was *Clearly* ready to be Knighted (and shortly thereafter was) when he started to work with me. I never was a Man-at-arms. I became a Squire shortly after Brion was Knighted. Timmur had a similar relationship with someone who is now his squire. He never had a Man-at-arms while he was a squire.
There are a handful of circumstances, where the Squire in question went on to become a Knight, then take that Man-at-arms as a squire. My issue is in the more often occasions where an unbelted fighter decides that he qualified to start taking students (different from teaching) when their skill level is no where near where it should be to be doing that.
Again, I don't see this as much as I once did. I think that most unbelted fighters use this term in the absence of a more agreeable terminology. Which is why I don't say much about it anymore. Yes, it still makes me cringe. But, I'm pretty good about distinguishing the contenders from the pretenders.
As to your other question: I can and do teach *Anybody* fighting. Some people (Belted or unbelted) get more than others do. Largely that is determined by their progress. But, I will make an attempt with anybody who desires my help.
I had trained with a vast majority of the Knights made since we became a Kingdom, prior to them being Knighted. Two of those were actually Squired to me. I have a formal student right now who will not be squired to me (Its part of an agreement that is strangely comfortable for all parties). I have an informal student/teacher role with a couple of other people who will not be my squires.
I can teach anybody to fight. But being a squire is about becoming a Knight. Not just fighting. Whether you are a Squire, Apprentice or Protoge, you have to find the person who is best capable of helping you become the kind of peer that you want to be. It's a very personal goal. One that takes a very peronal commitment between two parties who agree on the path that is best to accomplish that goal.
We have had several people becomes Knights without being a Squire. It works out Ok for some people. I think it's a harder path in a lot of cases. But some people need to take that path.
There is a thread under Philosophy of Chivalry title Miles and the Knight. I think that sums it up beautifully.
BTW, thanks for the thread Kelwin 
Sean
Rex Gryphus
It's not easy for me to say because I'm a Knight.
I'm a Knight because it's easy for me to say. |
|
|
|
Thomas Foxhall
Barony of 1000 eyes,
Artemisia
14 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:09:07 PM
|
Viewing this from the other side of the belt  than his grace, I have to agree very much with his perspective. I think a squire has a job, and a ton of responsibilities to his knight. Taking a man at arms means a couple of things in my mind. You now have responsibilities to someone other than your knight when you hit the field, and I won't mince words on this, you're telling everyone that you think you're qualified to train someone to pursue knighthood when you haven't obtained it yourself. That relationship has always seemed counter to the primary relationship of a squire to his knight.
As far as training, everybody has a responsibility to train each other. Getting a new guy into armor and safely out on the field is something you should just do. But don't formalize the relationship is my way of thinking. They should be looking at the members of the Chivalry and looking for one of them for a relationship of that nature. |
|
|
|
megen
Gryphon's Lair,
Artemisia
62 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:13:54 PM
|
Just to clearify..... are you saying that the only fighters out there that are good enough to teach are Knights or soon-to-be-Knights?
In my opinion, there are several un-belted fighters that are really good, and really good teachers. They have been fighting for many many years, but will probably never be Knighted. Should they not pass on their knowledge as well? What if they hold no commitment with a Knight? |
Edited by - megen on 05/12/2005 2:18:39 PM |
|
|
|
Thomas Foxhall
Barony of 1000 eyes,
Artemisia
14 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:29:41 PM
|
I stand by my statement:
As far as training, everybody has a responsibility to train each other.
I think experienced fighters especially should be in there training new fighters, and each other! I just don't think a squire/man-at-arms relationship is in the best interest of the Squire, the Man-at-arms, or the Knight.
|
|
|
|
Ratslayer
Arn Hold,
Artemisia
133 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:30:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by megen
Just to clearify..... are you saying that the only fighters out there that are good enough to teach are Knights or soon-to-be-Knights?
In my opinion, there are several un-belted fighters that are really good, and really good teachers. They have been fighting for many many years, but will probably never be Knighted. Should they not pass on their knowledge as well? What if they hold no commitment with a Knight?
I don't think that's what they are saying Megan. I think that they are saying that only the Knight would have the perspective of what it is to be a Knight in the SCA. As most people have stated, they feel it is everyone's responsibility to teach those who ask.
I think what it really comes down to is the reasoning as to why a squire would take on a man at arms. Is it to make them feel high and mighty over someone or is it because a relationship blooms between two people and one has more experiences then the other and acts as a mentor.
The GOOFY way is the TRUE way! |
|
|
|
Thomas Foxhall
Barony of 1000 eyes,
Artemisia
14 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:33:50 PM
|
| To add, I guess I feel there's a difference between training someone to fight and teaching someone to be a Knight. I personally, and this is just my opinion, feel the formal relationship of a Man-at-arms to a Squire or a Knight is about learning to be a knight, not about learning to fight. |
|
|
|
Lord Ely
Shire of Crystal Crags,
Artemisia
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 2:43:49 PM
|
Maybe as His majesty has stated it is just an issue of semantics/terminology. A squire/page relationship is acceptable (in principle and terminology) where as a squire/man-at-arms relationship is contradictary to the squires' service to the Knight and unacceptable (in principle and terminology)?
And to reiterate...as members of this society it is our charge, duty, responsibility to teach all those who wish to learn, and this means any topic.
I am learning about the requirements for siege engines because my page wants to know so I will learn right along with him.
Ely
An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can still hold on to one blade of grass and not fall off the face of the earth. |
|
|
|
Michael the Loud
Loch Salann,
Artemisia
69 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 3:07:02 PM
|
I think it's a harder path in a lot of cases.
Can you go into more detail on why do you think it's more difficult?
Michael |
|
|
|
Sean
Barony of Loch Salann,
235 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 3:25:08 PM
|
[quote
Can you go into more detail on why do you think it's more difficult?
Michael
[/quote]
Simply because it is easier to learn what you need to know from somebody who has been there. Going "Freelance" *Usually* (Not Always) means re-inventing the wheel.
You need to have a reason to push yourself to make the sacrifices necessary to become a Knight. It is very difficult to find that motivation on your own. It is much easier to have someone you trust pushing you.
Sean
Rex Gryphus
It's not easy for me to say because I'm a Knight.
I'm a Knight because it's easy for me to say. |
|
|
|
Vidar
Arrows Flight,
Artemisia
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 3:16:16 PM
|
With the people I was around in the East it was not uncommon for squires to take on a man-at-arms. I was one and it was a mostly a teaching arrangement with the understanding that I would fight with him in battles, pas, etc. I eventually squired to his knight. It seemed to work well for all involved. I guess you could call it "squire training". There was never a "I can train you as well as any knight" feel to it. It was that I was a new fighter and he thought he could help get me up to speed and become a decent fighter.
I think it comes down to finding people that you can work with and learn from. If it works does it matter what the people involved call it.
Vidar
|
|
|
|
Aaron di Paladin
Arnhold,
Artemisia
131 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2005 : 10:49:55 AM
|
I think that the more important part of the relationship is not the training of the fighting but the instruction on how to be a better member of the SCA and to gain knowledge on how to be a Knight.
************************************************
Great point Lady Ratslayer!! Also an area that I feel I am weak in myself, and looking for instruction in. I also think that this type of instruction is a balancing act between imparting the knowlege the peer has learned, and letting the student still have their own voice. This way we have peers who are unique, and not carbon copies of another peer. At the level I feel I'm at in this, there is no way I feel I could do an adaquete job teaching anybody. I feel I need to be far better at what I'm doing to do that. I do however point the newbie to someone who I feel can teach and answer their questions better than myself. This way they get the right knowlege, and not any of my bad habits.
inkslinger |
|
|
|
Eric von Wald
Loch Salann,
Artemisia
12 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2005 : 12:21:35 PM
|
I'm hearing that many of the non-knights that have taken men-at-arms have new members as those men-at-arms. I bit of advice I hear over and over is people should wait a year or so before joining a Household or becoming somebody's Squire/Man-at-arms/Apprentice/Protoge, ect. When asked, I pass along that advice, wait a year before joining into any formal relationship other then as a member of your barony/shire.
I do have a couple of questions I was wondering about. I not trying to fan any flames here, I really am just wondering.
When a knight takes both squires and men-at-arms, what's the difference between the two? Is the man-at-arms like a first step, and if they do well "move up" to being a squire?
Also, I understand that in some kingdoms Men-at-arms are given green belts, do we practice that here? (I would guess not, if we can't agree what is a man-at-arms) |
|
|
|
dAntioche
Barony of Arn Hold,
Artemisia
112 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2005 : 2:08:47 PM
|
quote:
When a knight takes both squires and men-at-arms, what's the difference between the two? Is the man-at-arms like a first step, and if they do well "move up" to being a squire?
My own personal, nonbinding-on-others take-- when I take someone on as a man-at-arms, the intention is to teach them to be a better fighter. A squire is someone whom I've agreed to help become a knight. There's a certain overlap, of course, but the goals and commitment levels can be quite different.
I also consider the man-at-arms relationship to be more informal, just an agreement with no oaths exchanged. A squireing requires, to my mind, a mutual bond of fealty. The one can develop into the other, as goals change over time.
DK Wickstrom, ska Morgan d'Antioche
DarkHeart Armoury- "...a tradition of Fine, Custom Armour
since last Tuesday."
www.darkheartarmoury.com
|
|
|
|
Sean
Barony of Loch Salann,
235 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2005 : 2:10:08 PM
|
The difference between a Man-at-arms and a Squire is a matter of the commitment made. I use the relationship of a Man-at-arms to make sure that someone fits within my household. And to make sure that this person is ready to do the work that I expect from a squire (bear in mind that this is the work they need to do for themselves. Not the service they do for me. That's different).
There are any number of reasons why the relationship may not work. It has nothing to do with the worth of either part of the relationship. I have a very hands-on training methodology. Me training style does not work for everybody. A prospective Squire needs to know what it's like to be under my instruction and in my service. If the relationship doesn't work, for whatever reason, it can be severed during the Man-at-arms period. No hard feelings. Everybody does what is in their best interest.
When someone becomes my squire, I plan for them to be my squire until they become a Knight. That may take a long time. It may not happen at all. But, I am commited to them for as long as they wish to continue working towards that goal.
Sean
Rex Gryphus
It's not easy for me to say because I'm a Knight.
I'm a Knight because it's easy for me to say. |
|
|
|
Sean
Barony of Loch Salann,
235 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2005 : 2:16:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vidar
With the people I was around in the East it was not uncommon for squires to take on a man-at-arms.
A wonderful example of Inter-Kingdom Anthropology 
The East Kingdom also allows squires to wear silver chains of fealty and prick spurs. That is something that would definitely raise some eyebrows in this Kingdom.
Sean
Rex Gryphus
It's not easy for me to say because I'm a Knight.
I'm a Knight because it's easy for me to say. |
|
|
|
Raven
Loch Salann,
262 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2005 : 2:22:02 PM
|
A Man at Arms in period was a soldier. In the SCA we tend to look at the Man at Arms as a position of responsibility and honor in most cases I’ve seen a Man at Arms is considered the first step to knighthood. It’s used as a trial period between a knight and a fighter to make sure the arrangement is going to work out between them if the relationship works and the expectations and commitment level are amiable to both the Knight and the Man at Arms the relationship can change and the Man at Arms becomes committed to the path of Chivalry and to the teachings of that Knight, the Knight in turn now has the responsibility to teach the squire and to “push” when needed to help the squire to reach their goals. Someone once told me that to be a Man at Arms is to be Squire and to be Squire is to be Knight he used this to impress on me the expectations of these positions but I think that it helps to illustrate the point that I think were driving at. Anyone can teach, I can relate the teachings that I have received from the various knights that I have worked with and fought, I can talk from my own experiences and try to help people get started in the SCA. I can not show them the path to knighthood and therefore I can not take someone as my Man at Arms.
I have people who have asked me to help them have a place to play in the SCA. I have agreed do whatever I can do to help them do what they want to do. The difference is that these are just my friends the are not bound to me in service or in fealty, in a Master/ Vassal relationship there are agreements and oaths that bind these agreements a Man at Arms swears an Oath of Service binding him to their Knight, a squire has a friendship an agreement and an Oath of Fealty to their Knight binding them to that contract. They are all different that are all the same, so why does this matter at all? It’s the spirit of the thing, helping people find the fun in the SCA is the job of each and every one of us but only a Knight can make a knight and the honor of being a man at arms is the trailhead of the path.
Raven MacLeod
Sergeant, Student, Vassal
Por Roi et Amore Artemisia Glorianna
If people knew how hard I worked to gain my mastery, it wouldnt seem so wonderful after all. --Michelangelo |
|
|
|
Lord Ely
Shire of Crystal Crags,
Artemisia
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 10:05:14 AM
|
I agree with Raven. I was (if only briefly) a man-at-arms to my Knight and I gave an oath of fealty to him at that time. I then was elevated to squire after completing a task given by my Knight. SO in essence my path to Knighthood has begun as a man-at-arms. And it was, to me, a necessary part of the steps. In my situation I knew, as did Dahoud, that I would be a good fit in his household and so the natural course was for me to join wih him to further my training and teachings. It was a bit strange to be a man-at-arms since we both knew I was way beyond that status, but in retrospect I needed humbling to be built back up and to be tested to see if I was worhty of being his squire. Now as his squire I recieve much more than fighting instruction, I also get advice on personal issues, strategies for battles, how to act in certain situations, etc. This may not be the case in other Knight/student arrangements, but in the Knight/squire relationship it is. And to me it is that type of teaching that defines the Knight/squire relationship. My swearing of fealty to him and his in return to me was to state my intentions and my desire to become a Knight and his to aid me in anyway he can along that path of Knighthood.
Ely
Squire to Qadi Dahoud
An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can still hold on to one blade of grass and not fall off the face of the earth. |
|
|
|
Ralph
Loch Salann,
Artemisia
331 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 02:24:51 AM
|
I am so going to get flamed for this....but here goes anyway.
I have a very unique view of the Man at Arms and Squire relationship. I don't view squires in the same way most do.
The role of squires, as I see it, are less like period squires and more like Bachelor knights.
One definition for a Bachelor knight was a young, new knight who sought honor, glory, to make a name for themselves and enter the Peerage (medieval peerage, not SCA usage). Much like our Squires on their pursuit to Knighthood.
Knights in the SCA are more like Bannerette Knights. That is, a Knight who has other knights in his service under an oath of fealty. William Marshal is an example of a Bannerette knight.
A Page in the SCA is what a squire was for *most* of the High Middle Ages.
A Man at Arms to me, is just that. A solider who has sworn an oath of military service to a Lord.
That being said, I don't mind if said Lord is my Squire or another unbelted fighter, so long as the arrangement has more to do with helping each other out and fighting together, rather than pursuing Knighthood.
Under this paradigm, one of my duties to my squires is to provide them with opportunities for glory and honor, and introduce them to the word of the Chivalry. I will train any one, but I'll go the extra mile for my squires, and try to construct opportunities for them. Along with that, I introduce a far more structured training regiment.
I know this concept is very unconventional, but it serves a few purposes.
1) I like the authenticity of it.
2) One of my roles as a knight to my squires is to aid their Self Efficacy. Asking a 30 year old man/woman to pack my stuff, clean my armor and what not, as a squire would, is (let's face it) a little humiliating for them. And that's not good for confidence building.
3) Asking my squires to consider themselves knights in their hearts and heads is an important step on the path to knighthood. This paradigm gives them permission to begin to recognize themselves as being knights. As my knight told me "If you want be knighted, be a knight. We recognize knights, we don't make them."
So, I don't see my squires as squires, but rather as noble warriors (Bachelors) who swear an oath of fealty to me. Men-at-arms swear an oath of a more limited nature.
Now my page, he packs my crap and sleeps at the foot of my bed, covered in fox skins.
Let's face it, there aren't enough foxes in the world to cover Vidar up!
---Sir Ralph
--------------------
"bigoz e draschiers!"
A French term of contempt for the Normans.
|
|
|
|
owenhowell
Gryphons Lair,
Artemisia
45 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:33:52 AM
|
Yeah, but you coulld find a bearskin for him, AND that would fit with his persona. A little frightening to wake up to, I suppose.
Owen |
|
|
|
Duke Alan
Barony of 1000 Eyes,
Artemisia
309 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 12:16:07 PM
|
Wanted to comment on this thread, which has kinda died out, at least for awhile.
For me, man at arms and squire are more than just about learning fighting. Though that is a big part of it, it's not the only part.
First of all, the most fun I've ever had in the SCA was being Brion (and Anna's) squire. Brion and I had a unique relationship and shared a vision of the "game" that went beyond just fighting.
As some of you may recall, Brion and Anna had an extensive household, and the material goods to go along with it. We didn't camp, we moved! In medieval terms, a Duke would have had a large group of retainers and the stuff to go with them, and that's what Brion and Anna had. As such, it took some serious team work to make the camp happen. For example, before personal tents went up, the big main tent went up. That was group responsibility (both for set-up and tear-down). Then you could do your own tent and goods. Most of us helped Brion and Anna with their personal tent as well.
I NEVER felt like a slave or like I was forced to help. I wanted to, because that was part of my personal vision of service to my knight and his lady. Medievally that's how it would have been done, and so for me to enjoy the game to the fullest, for my own personal goals, that's what I did.
I always assisted Brion in arming, and always assisted him in taking off his armour. Was he capable of doing it himself? Of course, but that is what a squire and man-at-arms does. I packed his armour away and if it needed tending to, I did that as well. After Brion was armed, then I'd get armed (if I hadn't done it prior to helping arm him.
When my knights lady went "carousing" I went with her. A lady, and most especially, my knights lady, is not to be unattended. Did Anna require that of me? Nope, but I felt it was part of my role. I did it because I wanted to and felt it was part of my role in the game that I choose to play. And we had some really wonderful times doing that.
Obviously, Brion was/is a great teacher and fighter. I learned all that I could from him on that side of our relationship. But I also learned the importance of service from him. No one serves the King more diligently than Brion. I tried to learn that as well.
I don't like my Kings and Queen's carrying stuff. That is for Duke, Counts, Knights, Squires, Men-at-Arms, etc. to do. By extension, I don't like my Kings and Queen's to go around unescorted. It's not medieval and in the SCA, I think it's not proper.
Service learned as a man-at-arms and squire teaches the to-be knight to serve the King and Queen. This is absolutely not a ding on anyone, but in my observation, we have lost some of this. That is a sad thing to me, because it is part of my vision of our game, and how I learned it was to be done.
All this is my personal perspective on this thread. Fighting is important, but service, learned as a man-at-arms and/or Squire is as important, and perhaps the concept of it is slightly more important.
Just my two cents worth.
Alan
|
|
|
|
Llywelyn
Sentinels Keep,
Artemisia
2 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2006 : 7:03:44 PM
|
Being new to the forum I've been reading the old discussions and thought I might chime in on this one. As a new Knight my memory of being a squire is still very fresh and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
My take on the subject goes like this.
1. Anyone in the SCA should help teach someone who is new or asks for instruction. Knowledge should not be hoarded.
2. Anyone can join a household if they are welcomed and it is a good fit.
3. I don't believe that you need to become a Man-at-Arms to join a household and learn. Nor do you need to be a Peer to have a household that protects and teaches.
4. I feel that a Man-at-Arms is someone who fights for or with someone who they have a Lord/vassel relationship with. For the most part, I feel this should be a stepping stone to becomming a squire, and since only a Kinght can take a squire, etc...
5. I believe that the Knight/squire relationship is about so much more than fighting. If you just want to learn to fight, you can go to practices where there are better fighters than yourself and learn from them.
These relationships are so very important, both on and off the field, and we should'nt think it's just about fighting. They can make the dream come alive or kill it. Just ask someone who's had a bad experiance. As I said earlier, I wouldn't trade my time as a squire for anything.
Llywelyn |
|
|
|
Maghnus
Draca Mor,
Artemisia
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 12:00:22 PM
|
As an unbelted fighter, let me give you my view. I come from a shire with 2-3 Squires, our closest Knight is in the next shire, though no one has heard from him for several years. As such our biggest instructors are the Squires. Do they have men-at-arms, no for individual reasons, i.e. one is a new Squire, the other is a long time Squire who plays main instructor and feels he has enoguh under his belt, the third, hardly shows up to any local events.
After reading the passages I have heard 2 different reasons for a Man-at-Arms:
1.)A Knight takes one on in order to see how well they might mesh with his style of training/ household. In some case's this is as far as it goes. This style is about starting a relationship and helping the fighter learn to train better.
2.)A Squire takes one on, usually because they are training together, fight together, and in most case's, have become friends. This I can see as being a problem if done to early. I heard several times that before a Squire becomes Knighted, his Knight would like to see how well he can teach his skills, this is one way to do it. Now understand, I'm saying that the Squire should wait for approval from his knight before doing so. Reasons, it's easier to see how well someone can train another if it is an individual, not a mass, plus the one on one can actually create a better training environment, thus the reason for the Knight-Squire relationship.
I agree that all people should teach, but you will only show someone something if you are watching, with no relationship to the person the only time you'll do that is when fighting them. Plus most wait for others to come up and ask for training in one aspect or another before giving advice. With a Man-at-Arms relationship, just like a Squire-Knight relationship, the indiviaual has said show me everything, help me become better. The biggest difference is the Squire-Knight relationship is more then just fighting. Its about becomeing a Knight and what it means to be a Knight. As such the use of Man-at-Arms can be very helpful for all involved, but probably needs pulled into, and made part of the structure, otherwise you have a 6-month old Squire being distracted when he should be concentrating on his relationship with his Knight.
And incase anyone is wondering, no I am not a Man-at-Arms, I am a Fighter.
Maghnus
(Edited For Format Issues) |
Edited by - Maghnus on 11/09/2006 12:12:46 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Squires and Man at Arms
