I have run across a couple of people who are fanatics about weapons being peace bound when you enter a town. I have never run across any reference to this in history and I am pretty sure it’s a modern day renaissance fair creation. Does anyone have any insight on this?

Hi

You're right, it's " a modern day renaissance fair creation ". Nothing like this exist in medieval time. This custom exist in japan but in edo's period (17th century) for samurais...
More traditionnaly, when a samurai was seat, if his katana was put on left side, he has an martial attitude, and if his katana was put on right side, he has a pacific attitude...
But this custom don't exist in medieval europe...

When a knight doesn't want to be aggressive, he doesn't wear his weapon (sword)... like in the court or in social situation.

When a knight enter a town, people have no reason to have fear...

check the duello period (renaissance, esp. Spain, France, England). I've seen a couple references to peace ties, but only for duelling era.

It is probably a case of mistaken identity of the sword knot, ie, someone thought that the knot was to hinder drawing of the weapon while in real life it was to keep the weapon.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=d328b61e54fe6a8f104642df8879a643& t=90662

I think there is a popular misconception concerning the amount of weapons and the raising of armies historically that people then try and project on a game. Whenever I run into someone who talks about peace bound weapons their fanatical about it and if a character hasnt done so every town guard, citizen, visitor is all over that character like they have nothing else to do. People generally have always been able to arm themselves, its the skill to employ those weapons that gets them into trouble.


For some reason I just find it ridiculous, foolish, and when ever i have met a gamemaster who used it he did so in a petty and overbearing way with the Earp brothers waiting to drag what would have been a simple stop in town into a major event. Everytime.

I have never encountered the notion in any pre-modern source.

Warriors leaving their swords with a door warden or the like perhaps, but never tying them into the scabbard.

For the most part if a warrior was not looking for trouble he either did not wear his sword/armour/etc, it does get cumbersome and inconvenient, or he didn't draw his sword.

Wearing knives was probably at least as common in Arthur's day as it is in my rural hometown. During hunting season it seems that every adult male has a knife on his belt and a (loaded often as not) gun in the rack in his pickup. When it is not hunting season knives are still very common, they are an incredibly useful tool to have. Very seldom do knives or guns cause a problem. When they do most often there would have been a problem any way as the individuals concerned were looking for trouble.

Bearing arms was a warrior's duty as well as his right. People would have expected a knight to be wearing a sword. Far from being upset by it, they probably would have been comforted. Much the same as we are generally not bothered by soldiers and police officers wearing side arms. It is part of their duty and job as "keepers of the peace, enforcers of the law" etc.

Now a serf running through town with a sword would be different matter. But that is because the serf would be stepping outside his place in the social order, not because of the sword per se.

Consider that in Mallory, Arthur pulls the Sword from the Stone and carries the (presumably) bare blade to Kay. The fuss comes when the sword is recognized, not when Arthur runs up with a bare sword.

I have an Osprey book on the army of Burgundy. There is a comment in it that states that in Burgundy within the "city limits":

(1) everyone could carry a knife (small dagger for cutting bread).
(2) you could only carry weapons if you were traveling outside the city or planning to travel outside the city.
(3) Travelers had to deposit their weapons with their inkeepers for safe keeping.

I don't know whether this applied to nobles or not.

Sorry to be a late comer. This may be a reference to a specific date/year where Burgundy feared a surprise attack from its erstwhile allies the English or one of the free companies in its employ. I very much doubt that this was common practice before the 1600's.

Rob

Sorry to be a late comer. This may be a reference to a specific date/year where Burgundy feared a surprise attack from its erstwhile allies the English or one of the free companies in its employ. I very much doubt that this was common practice before the 1600's.

Rob


Mid to late 1400's I think (that's the period the book covers). Don't forget that the people in power didn't necessarily want the lower classes having access to weapons. The French tried training longbowmen for a while in the late 1300's I think. It became quite popular for a short period, afterwhich the nobility decided it was a bad idea to have an armed populace and shut down the practice.

The Jaquerie (the French peasant revolt) took place during the summer of 1358, but I don't think that's why they gave up the long bow. The Jaquerie began when dissatisfied craftsmen seized mauls form the public armory. Now you might think this supports your assertion, but remember Joan of Arc won her early victories through the aid of well armed town militia.

Now we're talking about peasants here, not knights. By this point in time "the belt of knighthood" is an important symbol of social status. Just to be clear here, the belt of knighthood is a sword belt. Thus knights are armed as a matter of social convention.

Rob

The Jaquerie (the French peasant revolt) took place during the summer of 1358, but I don't think that's why they gave up the long bow. The Jaquerie began when dissatisfied craftsmen seized mauls form the public armory. Now you might think this supports your assertion, but remember Joan of Arc won her early victories through the aid of well armed town militia.
Rob


I think the French knights were afraid of the longbow because it was so effective. They didn't want all the rural peasants armed with them. I think the longbow stuff was more aimed at rural peasants. Similarly in parts of Germany, peasants often couldn't own much in the way of arms beyond a large knife.

Town militias are another matter because towns develop a collective identity and often had military obligations to the king or higher lords. I'll try to find the reference re the longbow in France. I don't think it actually had to do with the Jaquerie. It was later, I think.

Notice that the statute from Burgundy was not about owning weapons but carrying weapons. You could carry them outside of the city or town boundaries with no problem. You couldn't carry them openly within the town for public order type issues. That you had to deposit them with the landlord suggests that it was OK to own them. I did mention access to weapons in a previous post...try to ignore that to some extent...In England there were laws requiring the owning of different weapons based on income (Azzises of Arms of Henry II in 1181).

Many Italian cities had similar laws (Venice for example) leading to the development of large daggers like the cinqueda, because you could carry a dagger, but not a sword. Similarly, lots of Americans own guns, but we generally don't think you should walk around with one on a day to day basis.


NT

I can only come to one conclusion for myself : I will never use peace bound weapons in any Pendragon game simply because I have never read one single peace of ARTHURIAN literature that ever made mention of it. It is urealistic that a knight, Not warrior, but a KNIGHT would be made to give up his weapon, and I dont think anyone would care if it was bound. If theres gonna be a scrap, then im sure that the weapons arent all THAT hard to Unbind. I mean, if u really wanna kill someone, u would find a way to get that sword unbound. I imagine that in reality the peace bound weapon was simply a political tool for declaring alligience to the ruling nobility or for showing non-compliance to the ruling class. Kind of stating that you might be down for rebellion if the rulers push it. SO AFTER FURTHER REVIEW i GUESS WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT THE AREA IN QUESTION WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CIVIL UNREST TO WARRANT THE PRACTICE OF PEACE BINDING WEAPONS. Most of the examples that people here have been sharing of peace bound weapons seem to be continental. ( italy i see the most ) but Arthurian britian seems really strong with a really strong ruler. AND TO ME AT LEAST SEEMS MORE UNLIKELY TO NEDED SUCH A LAW. just my take on the whole thing! :)

I can only come to one conclusion for myself : I will never use peace bound weapons in any Pendragon game simply because I have never read one single peace of ARTHURIAN literature that ever made mention of it.


I'd agree that it does not fit with the ambiance of Pendragon. Hell, they ride around in full armor all the time too...not particularly realistic either.

NT

Your knights ride around in full armor all the time? Jeez. Don't they get fatigued?

You make your knights take ten minutes to get into gear every time they come across a damsel that needs a-rescuing or a knight who needs to be jousted into the dirt? Even Mallory assumed that the knights went around fully armed when out a-questing.

Sure they did... i just fudge a bit and say that the knight trains in armor and has all his life( after all it is his ONE job: to be a warrior) so I dont think it would be too bad. Cumbersome and bulky? yes... Fatiguing? no. actually chainmail is more fatiguing than plate mail as well. It sits with most of the weight suspended on ur sholders. Plate is better made to more evenly distribute the weight, so being TOTALY realistic, later in the campaign armor might fatigue u less!!!!! wacky!!!! :-\

I'm sure the armour discussion has come up before on one of the Pendragon discussion sites. Seem to recall Greg reflecting on the film Excalibur and suggesting that their wearing armour was symbolic of their adhering to knightly principles. This was followed by a compare and contrast of Uther's 'rape' of Igraine in full armour (unrealistic methinks! ;) ) and Lancelot's nude rolling about in the woods with Guinevere, something I'd never spotted before.

wow! thats new to me. I thiught everyone had their lovin served up in a suit of full plate armour!!!!!!!!!!!! ???