I have been giving a great deal of thought to things over the past week or so since the dreaded topic of woman & fighting in re-enactment came up, and I have had some interesting insight as to why we have difficulties in seeing each others position on the matter (actually, I fully understand where Red Co. is coming from.) I think one of the problems we have is we haven't examined what our individual (company) goals are as living history groups.

I think the best way for us to understand each other is to think of our respective companies as telling a story about the 15th c., so perhaprs we can look at each other as books on different topics.

For instance, the Red Company is telling the story of day-to-day life in the 15th c., set against the backdrop of a Burgundian/Yorkist camp during the "Arrival" campaign of 1471. Anything that is not commonly found, or does not depict the 'norm' (under those particul;ar circumstances) is not to be depicted. To do otherwise would be to interfere with the story being told, and muddy the waters as to what was the norm.

La Maisiane on the other hand is to the best of my understanding portraying the mobile household of Antoinne, Grand Batard de Borgogne, as he travels about from Bruges and back. More specificaly, at present they represent the kitchen staff of a great household to the best of their ability.

What I am seeking to do with Wolfe Argent is to tell the story of the Burgundian Companies of the Ordinances, from their forming in the Summer of 1471, until their destruction in the snows at Nancy in January of 1477 - to breath some life, if you will, into the silk remenants of the pennons taken by the Swiss. I am trying to do this through the modest "Stage" of two lances - idealy three, a small microcosim of the army, to be sure, but I don't think an unreasonable one.

Ever since I began to research the State of Burgundy in the 15th c., my mind has been afire with the possibilities of what Burgundy was at the height of it's power, and what might have been if the events of the 1470's had played out differently. Burgundy was the crossroads of Europe, economocaly and culturaly, and was arguable the cradel of the Northern European Renaissance.

In the U.S. we are primarily presented with the history of Europe through English eyes, understandably so as we are primarily English speakers, but I think this gives a skewed view of the History of Europe to us all, and I see Burgundy as being the ideal point to introduce the history of Europe to ourselves and the public. The possibilites that might have been bring the depth of the story to light, if things had played out differently (which they could have but did not), we would have had a buffer state between France and the Empire (The Middle Kingdom) - instead of the 'Cockpit' of Europe, France as a secondary power, Belgium and the Netherlands as a first rate one, Burgundian colonies.... the whole course of history might well have been different - a possibility that is fanciful to us, but to a 15th c. person aware of the powers of Europe, a possibility that seemed likely to happen until the events of 1476.

I think the Ordinance Companies themselves are a good mirrior to the society from which they sprang from, as well as reflect the indomnitable personality of the ruler of the Burgundian state. Through the story of the Ordinance companies themselves, one can see the power and wealth of the Burgundian state, the diversities cultures that met at the crossroads of Europe, and the attempted revival of the achievements of the Romans and Greeks that Charles in particular strove for. One can also trace in the companies loss of morale olver the last year and a half of their existance the increasing signs of Charles growing emotional disturbance, culminating in his uncharacteristic act of kidnaping Jaquetta of Savoy - his last remaining Ally.

In regards to the particular topic mentioned before, it is fair game for our company - only in that it is a part of the story of the companies themselves - Charles expulsion of campfollowers from his army, and the consequent apparent phenomenon of some of those women taking on disguise in order to stay with the army (and their families). In that it is a part of the history of the companies, I think it appropriate to tell that story, albeit under controlled conditions.

That in conclusion, is the serious side of the goals of Wolfe Argent. On the less serious side, I personaly dearly wish to play at Medieval soldiers. Can any person who choses a portrayal of a combatant honestly deny that desire ? For me. being pointed and strapped into a decent facsimilie of a 15th c. harness, and eventually clambering onto horseback is the fulfilment of a lifelong dream (or a childish fantasy, if you prefer). On the serious side, from our play we may provide uiseful information on equestrian combat in the later Middle Ages - presuming we closely replecate the original equipment.

I think we need to keep in mind that a good deal of what we do is play, despite the seriousness of our various research. The mainstream of Historians will be dubious about the value of what we do, no matter how well we do it. Two traps for us to avoid in examining historical evidence are 1. anything we examine must be considered in the context of the society it came from - things and events are not created in a vaccume, and 2. we must consider evidence that may show a different picture of what we hold as immutable fact - either about events, or about the society itself (otherwise we would cling to unbathed people, the belief that educated people thought the earth was flat, and a whole plethora of misconceptions we know to be untrue by having examined evidence.)

Fin

Postscript - For Heavens sake Glenn and other trained historians reading this - please do not mistake me for a 'revisionist' historian. I believe historical research is a search for the Truth (warts and all) , and I despise those who butcher fact in order to forward current political agendas.

quote:

---

La Maisiane on the other hand is to the best of my understanding portraying the mobile household of Antoinne, Grand Batard de Borgogne, as he travels about from Bruges and back. More specificaly, at present they represent the kitchen staff of a great household to the best of their ability.

---

yep, that's pretty much it. But I think the differences among our groups arent so much the "story" as the "rules". Some groups go for entertainment of the masses. Some groups dont. We each choose where to put the bar and its not always in the same place.

For la maisnie, and as I understand it, the Red Co, we are going for the middle of that bell shaped curve. Its not enough to find one or two examples of a hat, of a job, of a name, of a recipe. You need to see enough examples to know that it is REPRESENTATIVE.

Sure, you may find a banana in the midden digs of London, but that doesnt mean that Joe Average Medieval Guy would have ever eaten one. Same idea goes for role portrayal...at least in our groups.

I fully recognise y'alls right to play any game you want. In fact, I applaud you. But my "rules" say that if it aint in at least three different non-allegorical paintings, by different artists of different schools I cant use that hat (no matter how much I like that Framm Air Filter on van der Weydens Magdalene ). If I find one recipe for clafouti, that doesnt mean I can use it in our camp. I need to find several recipes, in different cookbooks. How long are womens belts? Finding one picture of the belt going to the knees isnt enough. What jobs were associated with the kitchen of a great house? I cant just make them up, I need to be able to point to several historical documents of the specific time and period.

Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence for me to use and I dont find us hurting for info!

I agree in principle, Bob, that we need to keep reminding ourselves that we're all playing slightly different games, and so may occasionally be on different pages (liek with the woman fighter thing). But I really think its not so much the "story" (although that does play a part) as the ground rules we all set up for our own groups.

First off, we are not "entertaining the masses" - when we are employed as historical interpretors once a month, we are educators, and the topic never comes up - we are doing an arming demonstration, a demonstration of Talhoffers, or halberd drill. In the field we are a re-enactment group, not Renn - Faire entertainment. In fact we flatly refuse to 'do' Renn faires - at the Higgins fair, we did our normal Living History demonstration.

Secondly, what is this "women fighters" thing? I have stressed over and over again the role is not that of a woman fighter, but a disguised woman - not some sort of Amazon - the glimpse we have of these women is in a rather helpless role, fleeing in terror, and begging for mercy (real empowering, huh?).

As to where our bar is set, I think rather we are on the same level. We do not allow uncommon objects or items taken from allegorical paintings unsupported either. We don't allow modern shoes, modern eyeglasses, or any other shortcuts on the field - we do allow machine sewn clothing so long as the sewing is not visible.

I still maintain we are telling different stories - I think this is self evident.