Quote from: Ruprecht on December 24, 2023, 09:14:19 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 24, 2023, 04:01:50 AM
There weren't registries, in much of the European middle ages, its true. But that didn't mean that whoever carried a sword was a knight. To be a knight you'd need to be sworn to a lord, or to a knightly religious order, or be the son of a knight.
It's definitely true that if someone went to North Bummingham-by-the-Hills far from civilized areas and had armor and a sword and a horse and called himself a knight, he'd likely be treated like one for all intents and purposes. So this happened in the wilderlands in places like the north and wales, and in the debateable lands. Mainly, in other words, places that were mostly lawless.

What bout other kingdoms. How would the Franks or Holy Roman Empire, or Eastern Empire deal with a Brit from North Bummingham-by-the-Hills claiming to be a knight? I would think there would be assumptions based on the ability to afford a horse and servants.

The whole move Knights Tale is sort of based on that but I have no idea how they could actually know one way or another.

Depends on the period. But generally there are several ways to know: by the late middle ages you'd have experts on heraldry and records that would be able to likely confirm someone's identity. Before that you had letters of introduction.

Keep in mind, "tourism" wasn't a thing in these days. If you went to a foreign country on a journey, which was always difficult and dangerous, you'd have had some big purpose. If you're really a knight, that purpose was almost certainly one of the following: To go to war, to get sanctuary as a refugee from having fought the wrong side of a war back home, as a diplomat of your king or lord (papers of introduction), on a pilgrimage or heading on crusade (letters of introduction probably from a bishop!), or you're looking to offer your services to a foreign ruler because you haven't done well in your own homeland.
You wouldn't have gone to engage in trade because knights don't do that.

Finally, in all periods (but again, in more elaborate ways as time goes by) there was one other important feature about knighthood and aristocracy: etiquette. It was hard to impersonate a knight or lord unless they're already from that class, because there's all sorts of little things you are taught about how to speak and act and what to do, that the poors and commons wouldn't do and wouldn't know. It's still that way to this day. Now, not all etiquette translates from one nation to another but enough of it does that unless they're from somewhere really barbaric you would be able to tell the difference between a commoner and a knight. In Lion & Dragon, to fake this someone who wasn't from the knightly class would need to have the Court skill (or Disguise, if a thief) to be able to fake his way through.

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 24, 2023, 04:01:50 AM
There weren't registries, in much of the European middle ages, its true. But that didn't mean that whoever carried a sword was a knight. To be a knight you'd need to be sworn to a lord, or to a knightly religious order, or be the son of a knight.
It's definitely true that if someone went to North Bummingham-by-the-Hills far from civilized areas and had armor and a sword and a horse and called himself a knight, he'd likely be treated like one for all intents and purposes. So this happened in the wilderlands in places like the north and wales, and in the debateable lands. Mainly, in other words, places that were mostly lawless. But if you tried to pull that shit in Bristol or Coventry, you'd pretty much be fucked. Unless you could prove you were a knight sworn to a Lord, and even then there'd be the question of what the hell makes you think you can go around fighting people in a free chartered city. Unless the city, town or village BELONGS to your lord, you still wouldn't be allowed to go around armed and armored, much less get into swordfights. By the late middle ages, if your knighthood wasn't proven, or was proven false, you'd be guilty of petit treason, and violation of the sumptuary laws (as well as assault or murder if you had fought someone).

Very often, carrying around dangerous weapons and being dangerous was a prerequisite for getting sworn to that noble. You might start as a footman, but you could very well be a mercenary or some kind of wealthy clansman. Almost every major historical war was an opportunity for someone to enter the gentry, or at least the middle class.

If you're talking about vikings and such, arms control was under the purview of the local king or chief. Carrying a sword and mail could mark you as a dangerous foreigner, but it could also land you a job, or start negotiations of some kind. Even as Europe began developing elaborate feudal systems,  much of the Scandanavian world was still run by systems of freemen, with much smaller numbers of thralls and slaves.

Random facts from memory:

The word "brigand" descends from a word meaning just foot soldier or light infantry. But discharged soldiers and mercenaries were such a risk of banditry that it came to mean bandit. "Yeah it's a sword, I'm a warrior!" wouldn't have been automatically reassuring.

Knights and soldiers traveling wouldn't always wear their best armor at all times even when they weren't in civilization. It was uncomfortable, chafing, hot in the summer. They might wear only a gambeson, or a knight might have a lighter coat of scales to wear instead of plate. In either case they'd likely wear their surcoat over it, showing their allegiance and that they weren't just brigands.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that a guy with sword, horse and armor could pass as a knight at certain times and places. But this would take more than just carrying a big-ass sword on your back. Not just arms and armor, but clothing appropriate to the station, two or more horses if you could afford it (one real warhorse plus a riding horse to keep it fresh for when it was needed), plus a squire, servant or serjeant for retinue, or you'd be mistaken for just a serjeant* yourself.

*The origin of our word sergeant. Originally it meant a non-knight but professional mounted soldier. But they were used to boss less well trained foot infantry enough it made the leap to a non-com rank at some point.

I'm not saying something different. I'm saying someone with the right and equipment looks like an unemployed knight, not a random ruffian. During times of war, the visuals and the social distinctions become blurrier. During times of imperial power and heightened wealth and status, the distinctions become more formal and... deadly.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 29, 2023, 06:54:48 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 24, 2023, 04:01:50 AM
There weren't registries, in much of the European middle ages, its true. But that didn't mean that whoever carried a sword was a knight. To be a knight you'd need to be sworn to a lord, or to a knightly religious order, or be the son of a knight.
It's definitely true that if someone went to North Bummingham-by-the-Hills far from civilized areas and had armor and a sword and a horse and called himself a knight, he'd likely be treated like one for all intents and purposes. So this happened in the wilderlands in places like the north and wales, and in the debateable lands. Mainly, in other words, places that were mostly lawless. But if you tried to pull that shit in Bristol or Coventry, you'd pretty much be fucked. Unless you could prove you were a knight sworn to a Lord, and even then there'd be the question of what the hell makes you think you can go around fighting people in a free chartered city. Unless the city, town or village BELONGS to your lord, you still wouldn't be allowed to go around armed and armored, much less get into swordfights. By the late middle ages, if your knighthood wasn't proven, or was proven false, you'd be guilty of petit treason, and violation of the sumptuary laws (as well as assault or murder if you had fought someone).

Very often, carrying around dangerous weapons and being dangerous was a prerequisite for getting sworn to that noble. You might start as a footman, but you could very well be a mercenary or some kind of wealthy clansman. Almost every major historical war was an opportunity for someone to enter the gentry, or at least the middle class.

If you're talking about vikings and such, arms control was under the purview of the local king or chief. Carrying a sword and mail could mark you as a dangerous foreigner, but it could also land you a job, or start negotiations of some kind. Even as Europe began developing elaborate feudal systems,  much of the Scandanavian world was still run by systems of freemen, with much smaller numbers of thralls and slaves.

That's true, but it's mostly true till around the late 11th century. But yes, even later on, the jump from yeoman to knightly class (though still uncommon) was much more viable as a social climb than most others.