Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Equipment of Polish Knights at Tannenberg and SCA Heavy armored combat

  1. #21

    Default Re: Equipment of Polish Knights at Tannenberg and SCA Heavy armored combat

    It is utter ignorance to say that there were no knights in Poland. First of all, you need to separate the idea of knightly or chivalric culture/conduct from the function of knighthood (i.e. heavily-armed, usually mounted noble warrior caste, members of which were usually granted fiefs in exchange for military service, though not always).

    Chivalric culture -- and this includes the oral and written poetry of the time -- was widespread throughout Latin Christian Europe. And Poland was firmly part of the Latin Christian culture of the Middle Ages. Yes, chivalry originated in Francia. Does that mean there were no knights in England? How about Scotland? Or Spain? Or even eastern Germany, which was never part of Charlemagne's empire? Of course not, because it spread throughout the Latin Christian cultural space. This space was not homogenous, but it was coherent in that it shared many of the same broad characteristics, notably fidelity to the Roman Church (and the many things that came along with it, like Latin as a language of learning and the religious orders). Further, there was considerable variation within regions which we would think of as definitely a part of the 'Feudal Western Europe'; this includes everything from liturgy, to landholding customs, and indeed 'knighthood'. Even if we take 'France' -- in many ways the archetype of feudal Europe -- the northern and eastern regions like Ile de France or Champagne would differ notably from the southern, like Toulouse, Aquitaine, and Languedoc. So Poland being different from its neighbours is not an argument for its separation from the broader Latin Christendom, because the latter was far from homogenous.

    As for the practical function of Polish knighthood, there would doubtless be regional peculiarities, but no more so than in any other region in Latin Christendom. In essence, the practical characteristics are all broadly the same: heavily armed nobles, fighting on horseback, and usually in exchange for fiefs (or as direct retainers).

    Now, most importantly, Edelfred seems to be confusing chivalric culture with the practical reality of knighthood. Yes, the knightly 'class' did subscribe to chivalric culture and its ideals. However, there were always cases of knights not living up to this ideal, and this is by no means unique to Poland. So to say that the Polish ambush in Galich was 'unknightly' is to misunderstand the realities of European knighthood and chivalry as a whole.

    The fact is that Polish knights were as much 'knights' as their German, French, English, Spanish, or any other Latin Christian counterparts.
    Last edited by ivan_the_terrible; February 28, 2013 at 07:19 PM.

  2. #22
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Equipment of Polish Knights at Tannenberg and SCA Heavy armored combat

    Quote Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible View Post
    ...
    Now, most importantly, Edelfred seems to be confusing chivalric culture with the practical reality of knighthood. Yes, the knightly 'class' did subscribe to chivalric culture and its ideals. However, there were always cases of knights not living up to this ideal, and this is by no means unique to Poland. So to say that the Polish ambush in Galich was 'unknightly' is to misunderstand the realities of European knighthood and chivalry as a whole....
    I quite agree. European knighthood is essential a social order founded on inequity and no doubt was violently enforced to the detriment of the lower classes. There's a great deal of doublethink in the silly chivalric romances, and whimsy of Kings like Edward III founding the Order of the Garter while ruling with expediency, cruelty and an iron hand.

    I would note there were substantial regional variations in the practic of Knighthood. I belive British knighthood was closer to the idea of royal service (IIRC there were only a couple of hereditary Knighthoods, in Ireland), whereas Ritters and Chavaliers had more of a sense of heritable social dignity.

    The actual institution however with its shared ethos was centred in the West, and I wonder if there's a Polish expert here who can throw light on whetther Poland had a class of specifically designated horseback warriors with the various trrappings such as specific code of honour (with military courtly and religious components) , ceremonies and praxis ("dubbing" with the sword, use of belt and spurs, tourneys), organisation (knightly orders, colleges of heralds and Kings of Arms), social role (meting justice) and so on.

    Did Polish noble warriors in general adopt this institution in the Medieval period? Its one thing for them to have (in common with Japan and various Islamic cultures) a warrior class with associated ethos, but that doesn't make them knights. Aquila has pointed out some example of Poles who were Knights in the accepted Western European definition, did all Polish noble warriors practice the same forms, or were these fellows politely dabbling in foreign institutions?

    My uniformed position is that the people of Poland adhered to their own strong tradition of political and military organistaion, while open-mindedly accepting some beliefs from others. Is knighthood one of these things?
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  3. #23

    Default Re: Equipment of Polish Knights at Tannenberg and SCA Heavy armored combat

    Polish knight, Wierzbięta from Branice (this one on knees), circa 1425: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ranic_1425.JPG
    Polish knight, Dobiesław from Oleśnica (this one on knees), circa 1431: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/sienno41.jpg/

  4. #24

    Default Re: Equipment of Polish Knights at Tannenberg and SCA Heavy armored combat

    The silesian nobility of the 14th century was a mix between German, Polish and Bohemian ethnicities and cultures. Parts of my family are also from that cultural melting point, but i doubt that many silesian nobles would have fought at Tannenberg, because Silesia was since 1335 bohemian and since 1348 part of the HRE. Further had the Silesian Dukes, the german line of the piasts, a very bad opinion of the new line of kings in Poland. Many knight families back them came originally from Saxony (Lausitz) and still fought in the German tradition, which can be recoqnized when the Hussite-Wars started ten years later.

    So most likely their were no Silesians at Tannenberg. Or mention the sources otherwise? I would be surprised but i am also not expert on the paticuallary sources.
    Last edited by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus; March 24, 2013 at 10:26 AM.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  5. #25
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Equipment of Polish Knights at Tannenberg and SCA Heavy armored combat

    Quote Originally Posted by justicar5 View Post
    NO, NO, NO!

    Get that out right now! That's 17th century hussar armor, it's got nothing to do whatsoever with early 15th century European armor styles used by men-at-arms everywhere. If you have no clue of what you're talking about, please don't post.

    What the men-at-arms would have used? Any generic late 14th/early 15th century harness should do, and there's a dizzying array of variations there. Go and look that stuff up on google and find what you like best - there's too much of it to cover in one post.



    As for chivalry and whatnot, saying that Europr had some sort of strongly codified caste systrm of organizing armies is simply incorrect. Yes, there was the class of "milites", or knights, but it was merely a title, for the most part. One's equipment and rank was defined by more than just having a title bestowed on them. The worth of their property defined one's obligations in most of the full levy systems, while one's position in the feudal ladder, or court, influenced one's rank. It was far from "commoners are cannon fodder, knights are heavy cavalry, nobles are commanders". By this time especially, it was common for most cavalrymen to come from the lower gentry or even commoners, and commanders to be of knightly or lower rank, due to the extensive use of mercenaries. Rank was defined by one's de facto influence and renown more than any sort of chivalric code.
    Last edited by Blatta Optima Maxima; March 27, 2013 at 12:43 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •