So in Dark Albion, you have to be a knight to carry a sword (in town, city, or civilized areas).
In my current game, the Scotsman carries a claymore (great sword). He's a barbarian outside of the social norms, of course, but... how would he be treated, traveling in the company of a Cleric, carrying his claymore on his back?
You might find this video useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H36aXSdSIS4
I did a little bit of research on this for my Dragon Warriors campaign, as I was trying to do the whole medieval-authentic thing with that one. The right answer is probably that we don't really know, and it varied widely across time and place, but here's my basic sense of it.
First off, you have to qualify what you mean by a "civilized area". The local rules in a big city would be very different versus a small town, vs. a village, or just out in the countryside. In cities, they would have had specific restrictions (seemingly by blade length), and the ability to enforce them. In smaller towns or villages, they may or may not have had those kind of rules, but in either case there's a real question about whether there's anyone around to enforce them. There's no regular police in the middle ages, after all. I could see a local lord imposing restrictions on what weapons are carried in his domain, but unless you happen to bump into the local reeve or the lord himself, there's probably no one enforcing that rule.
A good general distinction which I think works for RPGs is whether the PC is "armed for war". One trend you might notice in the sources is that going around armored is more frowned on than going about armed. That poses a specific problem for D&D-derived games, because wearing armor is pretty much what makes a fighter a fighter in D&D, and players will push endlessly to try and wear their armor as often as possible. But you also see a general trend of sidearms (swords and daggers) being permitted where main battle weapons (poleaxes, halberds, crossbows, muskets etc) are not.
Specific to your Scotsman and his claymore: (the sword pedant in me has to point out that the use of "claymore" to refer to a greatsword is controversial, and a lot of people say the term more properly refers to the basket-hilted Scottish swords of the early modern period). I think it'd be fair to say that in a city, he'd only be able to carry it to and from whatever inn he was staying on the way in and out of the city. Out in the countryside, carrying it is probably legal. Purely socially, I would say that if he is carrying it on his back, where it would not be quick to draw and might be treated more as luggage, it might raise just some eyebrows. But like luggage, he would be expected to leave it with his other things if he was staying in a town or a castle. If he was transporting it (as greatswords often were) by just carrying it in hand, that's more likely to cause concern and/or suspicion.
As an analogy, maybe think of it as the difference between being out in the woods and running into someone with a rifle in a travel case on their back, versus running into someone with a loaded rifle in hand.
EDIT: that wasn't a great analogy. Here's a better one: I've carried a folding knife for most of my life. I stopped a couple of years ago, because my job requires me to regularly go into government buildings, but I still don't bat an eye when I notice someone carrying one, even if it's obviously a tactical/fighting knife. Some years ago I was at a strip mall in a very safe neighborhood in northern Virginia, and saw a guy walking around with a massive bowie knife strapped to his hip. I remember my first thought was "what a dickhead", and my second thought was "I'm going to keep an eye on that dude, because someone who feels the need to flaunt how heavily armed they are probably doesn't have the best social skills". As far as I know, carrying that knife is totally legal in Virginia, but he stuck out like a sore thumb because the weapon was inappropriate to the context.
You could look up the account of the preacher George Wishart and his claymore carrying bodyguard John Knox. That's from the early modern era and the religious conflicts surrounding the Scottish Reformation, but you can adapt the core of it back to a medieval period of Scottish instability. For example, in the twelfth century there was the long running dispute (not necessarily violent) between Thurstan, archbishop of York and John, Bishop of Glasgow concerning Thurstan's demand that John submit to the jurisdiction of the see of York. Bishop John, as the appointee of the Scottish king, refused submission to Thurstan, despite the displeasure of the Papacy. You could spice up that type of political conflict and, in that context, a two handed sword wielding body guard a la Knox in the sixteenth century might not be out of place.
Watching that video now!
Really appreciate the help guys. Been a DM since 1980, but this is my first stab at really running a "historical" type game - at least for the medieval period. :)
I was just wondering what the extent of these laws really was just the other day. I know sumptuary laws are a thing Dark Albion as well being late Medieval (but wouldn't be in a game set in say the High Middle Ages in most parts of Europe so your richly garbed lower class adventure would perhaps be safe in S&C's Outremer).
Quote from: Brigman on December 17, 2023, 07:33:34 PM
Watching that video now!
Really appreciate the help guys. Been a DM since 1980, but this is my first stab at really running a "historical" type game - at least for the medieval period. :)
No worries. As you may have guessed, this is a subject near and dear to my heart. Going around heavily armed in what is ostensibly a peaceful situation is seriously antisocial behavior in pretty much any culture (not to mention being impractical), and the fact the PCs are never punished for doing it is one of my biggest verisimilitude bugbears with most RPG settings.
Players tend to be
extremely attached to their equipment, and you can't blame them. In a lot of RPGs, equipment defines a character to an equal or even greater degree than things like stats and level. They also tend to get resentful very quickly when the GM tries to get them to take it off. What happens a lot of the time is the DM just plays the world so that everyone goes around in full battle gear, to keep things even. It works, but you end up sacrificing the the authenticity of the setting.
A lot of this comes down to picking your battles, I think. If you want to go hard on the simulation, you could not just impose social penalties on your Scotsman for wearing his greatsword on his back, you could also make it take a full round to draw it and penalize all his running, stealth, and climbing for the awkwardness of going around with a 6-foot iron bar hanging off of him. But that'd probably be going too far.
One thing I didn't do for Dragon Warriors, but I would suggest would be appropriate for Lion and Dragon, would be to impose a standard penalty to reaction checks for any PC who is "armed for war" (that is: wearing any armor more than heavy clothing or carrying any weapon other than a dagger, arming sword, longsword, staff, buckler or hunting bow), when meeting any NPC not in an area of active conflict. If you just want something to keep the setting faithful, I'd suggest a -1; if you want to really incentivize more realistic play from your characters, then a -2.
One thing I did in Dragon Warriors, more for practicality reasons but it works to get people to diversify their equipment as well, is restrict what weapons can be used from horseback. In my game, pikes, halberds, poleaxes and longbows could not be used from horseback, and I really should have included greatswords and greataxes in that list. I also put a penalty on using other kinds of bows and longswords from horseback, and ruled that you couldn't reload while the horse was moving.
EDIT: A couple of other youtube channels that are worth a browse if you want more on the "life in medieval times" front:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rp3nve9CJk
https://www.youtube.com/@ModernKnight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdguh1D-fOk
Would the social stigma for carrying weapons exist in a world where a dragon, chimera, or hippogriff could swoop in from the sky at any moment?
I'd say on the road it would be fine and expected. Bandits are dangerous, announcing you are well armed, and ready to use those weapons, is prudent.
In town? Carry it wrapped. Walking around with it on your back is equivalent to the brainlets that wear their AR-15 to McDonalds (and I say this as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment,) except you don't have a constitution protecting you.
Would you get hassled by the Watch/Militia? It would depend on where you were, but at the least you'd make people nervous, and not in the cool-scary-lone-wolf way.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 17, 2023, 09:17:08 PM
Would the social stigma for carrying weapons exist in a world where a dragon, chimera, or hippogriff could swoop in from the sky at any moment?
Excellent question. But if you're going to ask it, you might as well ask a bunch of other questions. Just how frequent are these attacks? If they're as frequent as the random encounter tables in some games suggest, then yeah, it might be justified to travel in full combat gear. But then what else changes? How much of the population is kept permanently under arms to deal with these threats? Do small villages still exist, or does everyone have to be kept sheltered inside the castle walls? Does the entire agricultural system change, because it's now unsafe to have farmers out working in the fields? You can do the setting that way, but you're rapidly moving away from anything that nearly replicates medieval Europe.
I haven't looked at the Dark Albion book in a long time, but my memory is it's not that. The monsters exist on the distant fringes and wild areas of the country, and a hippogriff attack on, say, the roads outside of London would be an exceedingly rare thing.
Anyway, my point was specific to PCs going around more heavily armed than the situation calls for. No one's going to argue that you wouldn't get into battlefield gear when going into a known troll cave. I don't think it'd be odd for people to go heavily armed in a setting like Dark Sun. Throughout history there have been plenty of times when it was accepted that people would travel armed, including in medieval England. But there's generally an upper limit on what people consider reasonable. So yeah, carry a sword and buckler or have a crossbow amongst your belongings, probably no one cares. Go around in full armor with a battleaxe or a loaded arbalest in your hand, and people are likely to assume you're looking to start trouble rather than avoid it.
If you take the idea that Gygax's intention for D&D's implied setting was a medieval equivalent of the Wild West, then things change. That's one of the few times in recorded history where we know that going armed with the best weapons available was widely accepted (and even that's historically controversial when it comes to towns and cities), but in my experience that's not how most people run the game. The idea that you could walk around in full arms & armor in a place like Waterdeep is absurd. Even if you imagine a fantasy-medieval equivalent of a frontier town, I expect that sitting in the local tavern in your plate armor is going to at least draw some suspicious looks.
This is often forgotten in later D&D - In The Keep on the Borderlands, the players are required to put their weapons away when they enter the Keep, so Gygax fully recognised that you don't just stroll around peaceful habitations armed to the teeth.
Quote from: Brigman on December 17, 2023, 04:15:17 PM
In my current game, the Scotsman carries a claymore (great sword). He's a barbarian outside of the social norms, of course, but... how would he be treated, traveling in the company of a Cleric, carrying his claymore on his back?
Probably with suspicion. He's a barbarian. He's carrying a weapon of war around. The weapon in question is one that is beyond his social station. The fact that it's on his back might help a bit, since a sword of that size in that position will look more like "transporting the weapon" rather than "ready to use the weapon." But he'd still be drawing the wrong kind of attention, in my opinion.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 18, 2023, 12:16:34 AM
... there's generally an upper limit on what people consider reasonable. So yeah, carry a sword and buckler or have a crossbow amongst your belongings, probably no one cares. Go around in full armor with a battleaxe or a loaded arbalest in your hand, and people are likely to assume you're looking to start trouble rather than avoid it.
^This^
In the medieval era nearly everyone carried a knife of some kind. So carrying an edged hand weapon on top of that is not too outrageous.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 18, 2023, 12:16:34 AM
... but in my experience that's not how most people run the game. The idea that you could walk around in full arms & armor in a place like Waterdeep is absurd. Even if you imagine a fantasy-medieval equivalent of a frontier town, I expect that sitting in the local tavern in your plate armor is going to at least draw some suspicious looks.
I wonder to what degree that is driven by the fact that D&D uses an AC system?
In skill based systems where there is a Defensive Roll, and armor is Damage Reduction, losing your heavy armor is not the end of the world when you are walking around town.
But in AC based systems, where your armor is a very big factor in not only how often you take damage, but the game presumes certain types of armor, for certain classes, in any combat - players are naturally much more reluctant to cast it aside for any reason.
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 18, 2023, 09:41:55 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 18, 2023, 12:16:34 AM
... but in my experience that's not how most people run the game. The idea that you could walk around in full arms & armor in a place like Waterdeep is absurd. Even if you imagine a fantasy-medieval equivalent of a frontier town, I expect that sitting in the local tavern in your plate armor is going to at least draw some suspicious looks.
I wonder to what degree that is driven by the fact that D&D uses an AC system?
In skill based systems where there is a Defensive Roll, and armor is Damage Reduction, losing your heavy armor is not the end of the world when you are walking around town.
But in AC based systems, where your armor is a very big factor in not only how often you take damage, but the game presumes certain types of armor, for certain classes, in any combat - players are naturally much more reluctant to cast it aside for any reason.
Oh that's definitely a big contributing factor. Running Dragon Warriors, which has a separate defensive stat, I got noticeably less pushback on PCs not always wearing full armor. Another thing that I think helped was ruling that each tier of armor contains the lower tiers within it. So, my Knight could choose to leave off his plate, but still throw on his gambeson and mail shirt if he had to get dressed in a hurry.
So much potential to make PCs feel vulnerable and force them to fight unarmed or to grapple. Sounds like something they'll remember even if it goes bad. Disarming the populace (especially foreign mercs and adventurers) gives the local thieves guild a chance.
Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2023, 08:00:39 AM
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.
It depends. Is open casting of magic spells tolerated? If so, why?
I consider the question of open weapons and magic in each of my settlements and it varies widely depending on the circumstances. Some towns are like the wild west and you can do anything as long as you can handle the consequences. Other towns are civilized and anything more than a personal knife will get you arrested by a watch, who by the way are only armed with clubs. A nobleman might wear a sword as a symbol of his status or for ceremonial purposes. Casting a spell in public could get you arrested, shunned, or burned at the stake.
In practice, this makes the players more cautious and thoughtful in how they go about adventuring in town. It also lowers the stakes for any fights they might get into. I think these limits are good and fun because they encourage players to explore other solutions to problems instead of just killing them.
Quote from: WERDNA on December 17, 2023, 08:39:41 PM
I was just wondering what the extent of these laws really was just the other day. I know sumptuary laws are a thing Dark Albion as well being late Medieval (but wouldn't be in a game set in say the High Middle Ages in most parts of Europe so your richly garbed lower class adventure would perhaps be safe in S&C's Outremer).
In almost all European cities and large towns (and obviously keeps/castles) there was arms control. You couldn't walk through the streets armed, EXCEPT if you were a noble, where in many countries they had the right to carry a sword.
In the countryside there wasn't a precise rule, but anyone (especially a stranger) seen walking around in armor and armed would be assumed to be potentially dangerous, and perhaps either an invader or a brigand. Again, excepting nobles and knights.
This was all largely measures to keep the commoners (be they peasants or city-dwellers) disarmed.
Quote from: WERDNA on December 17, 2023, 08:39:41 PM
I was just wondering what the extent of these laws really was just the other day. I know sumptuary laws are a thing Dark Albion as well being late Medieval (but wouldn't be in a game set in say the High Middle Ages in most parts of Europe so your richly garbed lower class adventure would perhaps be safe in S&C's Outremer).
Correct, to a certain degree. There were still a few such laws, but way less anytime before 1350
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 17, 2023, 09:17:08 PM
Would the social stigma for carrying weapons exist in a world where a dragon, chimera, or hippogriff could swoop in from the sky at any moment?
People in the middle ages believed in Dragons, Chimera and hippogriffs (or similar flying monsters), and yet had these rules. Mainly because they knew that while these monsters exist, they don't just fly around the capital; they are found in isolated sinister places of wilderlan, outside the protective structure of civilization and christendom, where chaos and evil are stronger.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 19, 2023, 04:32:38 PM
Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2023, 08:00:39 AM
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.
It depends. Is open casting of magic spells tolerated? If so, why?
I would consider openly casting a spell equivalent to openly
drawing a sword -- not simply carrying one. A magic-user still has his or her arsenal ready to hand.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 19, 2023, 04:32:38 PM
Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2023, 08:00:39 AM
Sure, making PCs remove their armor and stow their weapons might (or might not, I'm no expert) make realistic medieval sense. For me the most important consideration is that, in the context of the game, such a social rule hampers fighters specifically.
It depends. Is open casting of magic spells tolerated? If so, why?
In the medieval world, magic was mostly not something that could be cast openly on the street. First off, for literal reasons: most magic was ritual magic, often requiring complicated (often costly) ingredients. There were a few spells that could be done with very little effort by very talented magicians, as well as things like the activation of talismans etc, but most of these would work in a way that most people wouldn't even realize it's happening.
Secondly, because if someone did what appeared like a magical ritual in the middle of a typical area of a medieval city, or a village of peasants, and didn't have some kind of incredible fame and good reputation, there's a very good chance that he'd be attacked. The Poors are a superstitious lot, and they'll put up with it from the local wise woman (until they don't!), but certainly not from some swishy toff in Cambridge robes.
Remember, the most famous "good wizard" in English history after Merlin himself, John Dee, had his library (at the time the largest library in England) burned to the ground by an angry mob, of his own neighbors.
So generally speaking, even entirely good and noble wizards in the real middle ages would have taken great care to be discrete in the practice of their rituals.
To say nothing of the fact that some forms of magic were outright illegal (like many of the practices of Alchemy - unless you got a license; or curses, or anything to do with the dead), or illegal in certain applications (doing any kind of magic to a royal without their express permission, trying to cast the astrological horoscope of the King when you're not the court Astrologer, etc).
The only class that gets away with doing their thang in the open in a city would be a Cleric/holy-man. The privilege of having impeccable morality and the visible full support of God himself.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 19, 2023, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 18, 2023, 09:41:55 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 18, 2023, 12:16:34 AM
... but in my experience that's not how most people run the game. The idea that you could walk around in full arms & armor in a place like Waterdeep is absurd. Even if you imagine a fantasy-medieval equivalent of a frontier town, I expect that sitting in the local tavern in your plate armor is going to at least draw some suspicious looks.
I wonder to what degree that is driven by the fact that D&D uses an AC system?
In skill based systems where there is a Defensive Roll, and armor is Damage Reduction, losing your heavy armor is not the end of the world when you are walking around town.
But in AC based systems, where your armor is a very big factor in not only how often you take damage, but the game presumes certain types of armor, for certain classes, in any combat - players are naturally much more reluctant to cast it aside for any reason.
Oh that's definitely a big contributing factor. Running Dragon Warriors, which has a separate defensive stat, I got noticeably less pushback on PCs not always wearing full armor. Another thing that I think helped was ruling that each tier of armor contains the lower tiers within it. So, my Knight could choose to leave off his plate, but still throw on his gambeson and mail shirt if he had to get dressed in a hurry.
Probably why the d20 Conan RPG had parry and evasion separated out as defenses, with armor being Damage reduction.
Not very 'Conan' to walk around in plate armor all the time...
d20 Conan by mongoose had some really good ideas, seems no one has really picked up on them though.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 17, 2023, 08:45:29 PM
... If you want to go hard on the simulation, you could not just impose social penalties on your Scotsman for wearing his greatsword on his back, you could also make it take a full round to draw it and penalize all his running, stealth, and climbing for the awkwardness of going around with a 6-foot iron bar hanging off of him.
There was a period in Japan where large swords were in fashion. Samurai who could afford it would hire a servant to follow them around everywhere carrying their great sword, so they could actually draw it in a timely fashion. Or they could carry it on their back themselves, but that was both slower to draw, and marked them out as not as wealthy.
Which could be a partial solution to the social aspect as well. A guy in silks, with another guy following him around doing nothing but holding his claymore for him, will be seen as higher status and more trustworthy with a weapon of war than the same guy in trailworn clothes carrying his own sword.
Quote from: Brigman on December 17, 2023, 04:15:17 PM
So in Dark Albion, you have to be a knight to carry a sword (in town, city, or civilized areas).
In my current game, the Scotsman carries a claymore (great sword). He's a barbarian outside of the social norms, of course, but... how would he be treated, traveling in the company of a Cleric, carrying his claymore on his back?
I think Pundit and others have made really good points regarding this, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm assuming this is for the game you mentioned in another part of the forum, the one where you were running Keep on the Borderlands in Dark Albion.
How I'd rule it is like this: if he can get the Cleric to vouch for him as a sort of lackey, I could see it as a good means to excuse the transportation of a sword. Sort of like he's allowed to carry it wrapped in a blanket on his back, but not have it ready to go, if that makes sense. That way he's not opening displaying it. Otherwise, if anyone knows he's armed with such a weapon they might become paranoid.
Something I know was quite common back then was suspicion of outsiders, especially since he's a Scotsman in this case. So if anything were to happen, say someone gets attacked at night in the Keep, he might be at the top of the potential suspects.
I ran a game where something similar happened: the cleric vouched for this peasant in the party that carried an axe for a weapon. Whenever he'd get questioned, the cleric would explain the guy was his personal bodyguard he pressed into service. It helped that the peasant in question was roleplayed as very devout.
In general, in a setting where only a knight can carry a sword, any heavily armed and obviously capable warrior is going to be treated as a knight until proven otherwise. It's not like in feudal Japan there was some central database of who was samurai bushi, or someone was going to try to arrest a freelance in the medieval HRE. If they send the guard, and he defeats them in physical combat, that pretty much proves he is, de facto, a knight, as that would make him an armed freeman capable of defending his own honor. Those kind of laws are probably less relevant than whether a given character is viewed as an enemy or invader, in which case they will face not only the law but other knights.
However, for obvious reasons, you are not usually allowed to carry heavy weapons into a tavern. Brawls would be settled with fists, tankards, or at the worst, daggers and rapiers (depending on era).
So if I'm getting this correct, the goal is to be either not breaking the carry laws, or to look like a knight or a noble in arms/armor? Kinda weird in that you'd presumably not want to be armed or armored unless it was heavily or fancily, but I can sort of dig it. Also, were knights and nobles rare and well-known enough during this time period that folks could somehow try to verify you?
Quote from: pawsplay on December 24, 2023, 01:08:14 AM
In general, in a setting where only a knight can carry a sword, any heavily armed and obviously capable warrior is going to be treated as a knight until proven otherwise. It's not like in feudal Japan there was some central database of who was samurai bushi, or someone was going to try to arrest a freelance in the medieval HRE. If they send the guard, and he defeats them in physical combat, that pretty much proves he is, de facto, a knight, as that would make him an armed freeman capable of defending his own honor. Those kind of laws are probably less relevant than whether a given character is viewed as an enemy or invader, in which case they will face not only the law but other knights.
However, for obvious reasons, you are not usually allowed to carry heavy weapons into a tavern. Brawls would be settled with fists, tankards, or at the worst, daggers and rapiers (depending on era).
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).
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.
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.
This would be like today a British soldier in full kit walking around Hamburg. The German police aren't going to care about his status as a soldier, he's not authorized to walk around down town with a light machine gun. A visiting knight under orders from his liege or invited is going to travel in an acceptable way. Unless there was a specific reason for it otherwise, the knight would were street clothes. Being a knight had privileges but that didn't extend to being fully armed and armored outside your own realm.
It was extremely rare for armor to just be worn day in and day out and having it on meant you were engaged in a purpose. Usually armor was carried as luggage when traveling. A side arm was worn while traveling frequently, even by commoners. (Lots of caveats here, usually a weapon befitting status.) When you reached a castle or a city, you would announce yourself and state your reason for visiting. Usually at this time the local custom for handling weapons was employed. (Sometimes it was tying up the weapon, sometimes it was surrendered for storage.)
Throughout the Middle Ages, there was a wide variety of laws and customs based on the time and the location but an armed and armored man was always seen as someone ready to do violence. This was always a provocation against the locals unless you could justify yourself.
Quote from: BadApple on December 24, 2023, 09:43:36 AM
This would be like today a British soldier in full kit walking around Hamburg. The German police aren't going to care about his status as a soldier, he's not authorized to walk around down town with a light machine gun. A visiting knight under orders from his liege or invited is going to travel in an acceptable way. Unless there was a specific reason for it otherwise, the knight would were street clothes. Being a knight had privileges but that didn't extend to being fully armed and armored outside your own realm.
It was extremely rare for armor to just be worn day in and day out and having it on meant you were engaged in a purpose. Usually armor was carried as luggage when traveling. A side arm was worn while traveling frequently, even by commoners. (Lots of caveats here, usually a weapon befitting status.) When you reached a castle or a city, you would announce yourself and state your reason for visiting. Usually at this time the local custom for handling weapons was employed. (Sometimes it was tying up the weapon, sometimes it was surrendered for storage.)
Throughout the Middle Ages, there was a wide variety of laws and customs based on the time and the location but an armed and armored man was always seen as someone ready to do violence. This was always a provocation against the locals unless you could justify yourself.
This reminds me a lot of the way they thought about the same subject in Cyberpunk 2020. Showing up in town armed and armored, it was like you were anticipating trouble and others would definitely be weary of you, if not bar you access to certain places. Plus knowing how guards and town watch worked in those days, you'd probably be constantly harassed or just straight out asked to remove your arms.
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.