We're at an event, there's a fight, 2 guys hit each other with swords, one guy falls down, the other one walks away.

What do we tell the public about what just happened? Is there clearly a "Good guy" and a "Bad guy"?

As Yorkists, we think the Lancastrians are bad guys, but in the Lancastrian camp the situation is reversed. In truth, neither are bad or good! How can we make this clear to the public?

I don't know if this is a problem in the UK, but I sure got lots of questions about it at our last event. Many of the school groups wanted to know if our event would be like an ACW reenactment, with lots of "dead people" on the ground, writhing in mock agony. This was fairly easy, I told them we were waiting for the battle, so what they would be seeing was practice, not an actual battle so noone would die.

What is more difficult is describing a soldier or knight to the general public. Movies (and in the US) RenFaires turn anyone in armour into the Terminator's brother - nothing more than a killing machine. Seems to me that for every knight who is an aggressor, there has to be another knight who is a defender. That means on any given day, one knight can be a good guy AND a bad guy.

How do we handle this? Does what we do really glorify war and killing? I know that when I talk to the public, I try to stress that war is ugly, people die and we should avoid it at all costs. Armour isn't just "cool", it's there to keep the knight alive. Ballock knives aren't just pretty, they are an extremely efficient instrument of killing.

Some days I feel like I'm promoting and glorifying war and killing, and I am *NOT* comfortable with that.

How does everyone else handle this?

At the Higgins we have a venue where we can address this, but can't "show" it yet (i.e.-two guys attempting to kill each other). Bob has the opportunity to explain to people what the modern perception of a knight is and what the role of the knight was in medieval history.

Other problems that come up, are how to go about explaining very complex political situations to grade school children and people who have only a passing interest in history and how they relate to why these two guys or armies are trying to kill each other.

Man this gets tough. I just don't want to sound like a Marine Corps recruiter, you know? Talking about all the wonderful things the Marines can do for you and glossing over the getting killed part.

You owe me a map.

AM owes me cookbook stuff.

Dave owes me the edit on the "Colours" article.

Jeff is about 6 prototypes behind and has driven poor Bob to the verge of tears.

Let's clear these up before we undertake anything else, shall we? The public has been muddled this long, they'll just have to muddle for a few more months.

It's been bothering me for some time and I think it's good to talk about it though, even if we have to wait to put something down on paper.

We run into this problem when we try to explain a differing value system to a modern audience. The approach I think would be to try to explain the man at arms viewpoint. The alleged raison d'etre of the nobility was to fight. Theoretically they fought because of obligation to their lord, to protect his property and people. They were specificaly not held responsible for any deaths caused in a "righteous" war, and the moral burden of wether a war was righteous or not was placed on the lords shoulders - it was their duty to obey. The various nasty atrocities an army would commit on a civilian population was the moral responsibility of the commiter of the action.

We get into trouble when we try to place our value system on a preceeding culture. Very unprofessional historicaly, but increasingly common in our "PC" society. In reality people fought for a variety of reasons as we do now. They would fight for renown, greed, ambition, as well as for higher principles. It was just socially acceptable for them to do so - even expected of them.

Anyway, I know exactly what you mean Bob, and when I'm on the field I don't have a problem- I'm there because my husband is there and he's just doing the job he's being paid to do. Same for all the guys, they are doing the job that they're being paid to do. let the lord's sort it out, it's their war, their problem.

I guess the problem comes up when I think about when I'm just me and I think about what I do for a hobby. I've told Jeff that if I had a choice I'd love to do everyday domestic stuff and forget the war part, but then how do we explain living in tents? Medieval people didn't "go camping" for recreation, and there's no medieval sites to inhabit in the US, so inhabiting a village (like Cosmeston) is right out.

I didn't let it bother me until this past event where several people asked me very pointed questions about what we were doing and it shifted my focus a bit. Maybe / probably I'm just being overly sensitive. I'm the most pro-actively anti-military person I know in the real world, and these folks questions turned the spotlight around for a minute and made me say "what in the harry am I doing here???".

I abhor the idea of killing as entertainment, and actively oppose movies and shows that depict killing and violence for entertainment's sake. Jousting shows that end with one knight killing the other make me crazy, and I've been known to jump up boo at the top of my lungs while everyone around me looks at me like I'm a madwoman. I've also been known to shout that the "victor" was an unchivalous lowlife. I try to stay away from those shows because I know it embarrasses Jeff.

I guess keeping the killing in context is about the best I can do. Jeff says violence is a part of human nature and I need to just deal with it. I'd rather think better of the human race, but history bares an ugly record on that count.

Self doubt, the stuff my life is made of.

I had my boys (students) outside yesterday since the girls were at a girl to women conf. we loaded up the crossbows and praticed shooting ballons and such. i brought out some "armor piercing" bolts i had made and an old breastplate. one of the boys offered to wear it while another would shoot. i soon canx. that idea but put the breastplate down on the range and had one of my smaller students shoot at it. at 40 feet, it went through the plate like it was butter .the boys got real serious then and wanted to know if the person inside armor would be hurt- how could this be possible since this was armor? I think they had a learning moment about medieval life as they figured out if that a student could do that to a breastplate- what would a "real" person do that has been trained to use the crossbow. Also, armor lost it's luster as they figured it was heavy to lug around "but you still get killed!?" as they put it. the idea of invincibilty vanished- but it was better than having nothing to protect you.

I explained the aspect of military service then and now, as a job that usually hurts people and breaks things( on either side).

I re-read your original post. As to the question of how to explain the knight as more than a terminator in armour - it would be best done through the lips of the knight himself. Rather than try to explain in modern terms, let the knight put it in his terms, and try to make them aware of the other aspects of a gentlemans life.

Explain in the first person how the knight feels about chivalry, and the contrast between his value systems of chivalric seeking of renown with the Christian value systems taught him from infancy - the quality of mercy, etc, and show how the two were eventually blended in part by stressing what was admired in a knight - loyalty, selfless service to his Lord, if he is high minded, possibly the protection of the third estate and defending those who cannot defend themselves (I always think of Earl Simons "We fight for Christ's poor..."), and to protect the Church. This would require some preperation on the knights part to be able to discuss the topic and answer questions with fluidity.

War is one of the ultimate expressions of the evil Mankind is capable of. It is as ugly as it gets, yet good people throughout History trapped by circumstance in the horror of war have time and again risen above the uglyness, and have exercised some of the most profound positive actions in the midst of that horror - the expression of self sacrifice, courage, mercy, kindness to ones fellow humans - even ones enemies, in the most difficult of circumstances.

So long as Mankind has free will, some people will use their free will to commit horrible acts - start wars, murder, rape, ect - it is an inseperable part of the human condition. Good men will use their free will to combat such evil, and will rise to combat it as a moral imperative even in the most difficult of circumstances. It is impossible to accuratly portray the Middle ages divorced from the aspect of war, or indeed, any age in History.

That is, as Jeff points out "the way we are" - to paraphrase. The example of the good people against the background of horrific circumstance should be uplifting, and show more clearly than in day-to-day existance the contrast between "good and bad", or decency and selfishness. I always have looked at adversity as a crucible for refining souls - but then I am a religious romantic.

I sincerely hope this helps some.

Before I begin, let me clarify that I am not anti-military at all. I support the military, I support it's personel, and I feel that it exists for a very good purpose. The military is around because not everyone in the world is good, and when bad people threaten the lives and freedoms of those who cannot defend themselves, the military is there to protect them. That doesn't mean that I love war, or killing, but I know that in a world where humans have been given the free will to do whatever pleases them, there is going to be bad people who will use violence to their own ends, and without the military, there would be little protection for those who cannot fight. I suppose what it comes down to is that I am anti-politician, the real evil that guides military forces to bad deeds for their own selfish ends.

I feel that this is probably the same way that war has been viewed through out time. Military men did not necessarily join the military because they liked to hurt and kill (though I am sure that there were some who did), but because they were doing what they had to do to protect and provide for their family. No soldier wants to go to war. No soldier wants to lay their lives on the line to die for a cause they may not understand, but they do it because they have to. If a soldier didn't go to war, then how would he earn his wage to support his family? What if the lord who owned his land kicked him away, or worse, had him imprisoned because he refused to fight? A soldier didn't just up and decide "I'm going to war today cause I have nothing better to do", a soldier went to war because the nobility, the politicians of the medieval world, told them to.

That's why I like to portray an average man at arms, a non-noble soldier. I do my duty because I have a family to support and a home to protect. I may not agree with what the nobles war over, but that really isn't my concern at the time.

Of course, after re-reading my post, I realize it doesn't really answer the question...how do we deal with death? Well, perhaps it would be best, if during your reenactment and encampment, you don't make things all enjoyable, all glorious. Have the footsoldier complain of his aching feet, of drudging through cold weather and rain just so he can wait for a painful death at the hands of a stranger. Have the captain contemplate the horrors of sending his men, men who are loyal and trusting of him, off to their deaths for a cause that he doesn't even understand, let alone truly support. Have the camp followers, the wives of the soldiers, bemoan their fears that their husbands, their loves, may never again return from the field of bloody battle. Have the soldiers talk remorsefully about their friend, who, shot with an arrow at their last battle, bled to death slowly and painfully with no one able to help them.

When you make an encampment where everyone is smiles and everything is cheerful, then in a way, yes, you are glorifying war. I'm not saying that everyone has to be dour or remorse at all times. People at war can still laugh and sing, it often keeps the horror and crushing depression of the conflict at bay just enough to keep the insanity away. But if you include a reminder in your portrayal now and then of the horror of war, it will give a feeling of balance to the entire scenario. Perhaps while the soldiers sit by the fire, drinking ale, laughing, reminiscing, they will sadly recall a friend who's place by the fire is empty, or perhaps they tell their tale of sorrow as they mull their own wishes for home.

I am reminded of a quote that I read recently, though I am not sure who originally said it..."It is a good thing war is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it."

When you do not display the terrible things of war, it is easy to become fond of it. This is something we must all remember in our portrayals.

Woeg

The problem with 1st person interpretation is that to be authentic it must not take on any modern values or any hindsight ... this can be confusing to the public. The majority of the public will not understand (and quite understandably can't understand) such a stance as it is so alien to them. They know that Richard III lost at Bosworth ... as a Londoner serving at Barnet I don't even know that Richard will be King ... all I know about is the battle as I saw it (which wasn't much)and that when I got back to London there had been fighting in the streets and that now I've got to head towards the West Country.

It's tricky though ... you somethimes have to break their own illusions of history as they 'know' it. For example ACW and Slavery ... there is more than one way to paint the North's attitude and it isn't quite so pleasant.

These gaps need to be filled in by someone who does have that knowledge but can also ask pertinent questions ... like who did you go with? why? what happened to them?

quote:

---

You owe me a map.

---

Not any more I don't.

http://www.plantagenet.org/gwen/burgundy.jpg

This is kinda big so access it through your browser first then download it to your computer. I didn't want to blow up your email box.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie & Christine:
The public likes to think that we live in a morally superior time, but there are easy and frightening comparisons to be made between the graves at Towton and those still being unearthed from the recent conflicts in the Balkans.
Jamie

---

Perhaps more than you realise.