Posted On:8/07/2010 12:17pm
Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz
Whilst I guess this has been a semi serious discussion, why is in the investigations forum ?
Look at the top of this forum you know the part I quoted earlier?
The official forum for Bullshido. SERIOUS discussion on McDojos, questionable Martial Artists, and Martial Arts History only. Help us fight fraud in the Martial Arts by contributing well-thought-out threads and ideas on the subject.
Yes, people forget this is the Martial History forum as well.
Watch and Shoot !
Posted On:8/07/2010 12:18pm
Ok, I'll leave it here for the time being.
"To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".
Posted On:8/07/2010 12:20pm
Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz
Ok, I'll leave it here for the time being.
Okay, I know you missed this post now:
Originally Posted by It is Fake
This is now in MABS due to the interesting HISTORICAL DEBATE. Yes, all the rules apply as an investigative thread.
Infractions will be incoming after this post. If a post is missing that you can PROVE was topical I'll move it back.
Send it in a private message. I will give you an infraction if you cry "where has my important post gone" in the thread.
Martial Arts' Forms and Their True Porpoise - No BS MMA and Martial Arts
Posted On:8/07/2010 12:39pm
Yeah bin away for a few days.. trying to catch up
Posted On:8/08/2010 8:47am
I'm away from my library, and frankly my Dark Ages collection is light on primary sources right now. I've been reading surveys and monographs. My translated primary sources are pretty limited for the moment; some Beowulfs, and one saga -- the Heimskringsla. I find it helps to "read a map before visiting the country," if you catch my meaning.
However, the issue of warrior oaths and the Jomsvikings in particular are eating at me, so I've been researching online. I've used the following website to answer my own questions about some other topics. The responses seem reliable, and the author cites sources (some of which are in my own library). The question, in this case, comes from an SCA member -- not unlike the source for this thread. His question may cause some LOLs, but the answer is still tied to historical sources and relevant to the discussion.
In Service To The Crown:
Warriors' Oaths To The King
Dear Viking Answer Lady:
I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, and my king has offered me the honor of a knighthood within this organization. However, I have a Viking persona, and I have heard that Vikings didn't swear oaths of fealty, such as are required of knights in the SCA. I want to be true to my persona. How can I both accept the knighthood, and have my ceremony have a Viking flavor?(signed) A Warrior of the King
Like rulers elsewhere, the Viking age king or jarl had warriors in his service, serving in a similar role to the High Medieval knight. Modern scholars have noted that Germanic kings from antiquity through the Viking Age collected about them a group of such warriors, often referred to using the Latin term comitatus, which might be translated as "war-band."
In Old Norse, the term for the leader of such a war-band was drˇttin, while the term for the war-band itself was drˇtt. The members of the comitatus were called h˙skarlar, "house-carls", especially those found in King Knut's Danelaw forces as described in Ůinglii (Foote and Wilson, p. 100; Barfod, p. 717). Other terms used to describe members of a comitatus included O.N. drengr ("warrior member of a ship's crew") and O.N. ■egn ("mature man, seasoned warrior"). The conduct of the comitatus was termed drenskapr in Old Norse, meaning "the ideal of conduct for warriors, roughly equivalent to the ideal of chivalry" (Foote and WIlson, pp. 425-426).
If the leader of the comitatus was a powerful noble, such as a king or a jarl, the war-band might then be called a hir in Old Norse (Foote and Wilson, p. 101; Bagge). The hir had a special ceremony of reception for new members and held regular meetings, which functioned as a court of law for its members and as a council advising the king (Bagge). By the 12th and 13th centuries, there were three groups within the Norwegian hir: the hirmenn ("men of the hir"); the gestir ("guests"), who served as a royal police force; and the kirtisveinar, young men who served as pages (Bagge). From the hirmenn came the officers of the hir. The highest officer of the hir was the stallari (literally "marshall") who served as the king's champion and also as a sort of general of the comitatus forces. The second ranking officer in the hir was the merkismar (standard-bearer) (Bagge; Foote and Wilson, p. 103). Ranking after these officers were the lendir menn, the "landed men", equivalent to barons, and then finally the body of warriors who made up the bulk of the hir (Bagge). The relationship between the king and his hirmenn was based on a contract or reciprocal oath, and the king's hir was usually dissolved upon his death (Bagge).
It should be noted that the comitatus, drˇttin or hir was a fairly small, elite band. The Vikings did not maintain standing armies: when it was needful, a levy was called up of free men and farmers. The kings and jarls instead maintained only their small group of core troops between wars. Confusion on this topic is rampant, in large part due to chroniclers' tendency to wildly exaggerate the numbers of enemy armies and the tally of the dead (Evans, p. 27). The size of the comitatus is put into sharp perspective when one examines the law code of Ine of Wessex at 13.1, which states:
đeofas we hata o VII men;
from VII hlo o XXXV;
sian bi here.
A party of armed men numbering less than seven are thieves;
between seven and thirty-five are a band;
more than that is an army.
(Attenborough, p. 41; Evans, p. 27)Within the comitatus, the Germanic ruler's primary duty was to lead his warriors in battle. The literature records that the ideal ruler was the foremost warrior and best of the men in the war-band (Cherniss p. 39). This idea gave rise to descriptions such as Old English cyning-bald which means "very brave" but literally reads "royally brave, brave as a king" (Klaeber, glossary s.v. cyning-bald, p. 314). As Stephen Evans notes:
The major duty of a Germanic or Celtic lord was the conduct of warfare, in which he was expected to take an active part. The lord of a comitatus was expected not only to fight, but to fight with a great deal of martial prowess. At least during his younger years, a lord was expected to be one of the most formidable and valiant warriors of his warband.
(Evans, p. 50)This appears to have been true for Germanic kings and lords back into antiquity, since Tacitus reports in his Germania:
Cum ventum in aciem, turpe principi virtute vinci, turpe comitatui virtutem principis non adaequare. Iam vero infame in omnem vitam ac probrosum superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse. Illum defendere, tueri, sua quoque fortia facta gloriae eius adsignare praecipuum sacramentum est. Principes pro victoria pugnant, comites pro principe.
When they go into battle, it is a disgrace for the chief to be surpassed in valour, a disgrace for his followers not to equal the valour of the chief. And it is an infamy and a reproach for life to have survived the chief, and returned from the field. To defend, to protect him, to ascribe one's own brave deeds to his renown, is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory; his vassals fight for their chief.Aside from the bonds that form between comrades-in-arms, there were specific bonds in the form of oaths and reciprocal rights and responsibilities from ruler to warrior and from warrior to his lord, much like the formal Oath of Fealty used between the king and a knight during the medieval period. "The bond between a Germanic lord and his retainer, in a hierarchical society, places specific, clearly differentiated, though nevertheless similar, responsibilities and privileges upon social superior and inferior, leader and follower" (Cherniss, pp. 30-31). In Skßldskarpamßl 53 Snorri Sturluson says:
Konungar ok jarlar hafa til fylgar me sÚr ■ß menn, er hirmenn heita ok h˙skarlar, en lendir menn hafa ok sÚr handgengna menn, ■ß er Ý Danm÷rku ok Ý SvÝjˇ eru hirmenn kallair, en Ý Nˇregi h˙skarlar, ok sverja ■eir ■ˇ eia svß sem hirmenn konungum.
Kings and jarls have in their train men called hirmenn and h˙skarlar, but lendir menn also have men in their service who in Denmark and Sweden are known as hirmenn, but in Norway h˙skarlar, and yet they take oaths just as hirmenn do to kings.
(Prose Edda, p. 129)The first bond is that of the oath between king and his warriors. "All oaths are important in heroic society, but most important and most binding is the oath of loyalty to one's lord. This oath takes precedence over any oath which may conflict with it" (Cherniss, p. 63).
The importance of this relationship between warrior and lord cannot be overstated:
The most important relationship within a warband, and the one that was most instrumental in protecting and strengthening its social and cultural integrity, was the lord-retainer relationship. It is the internal social relationship that best explains the structure of the comitatus, and provides us with the social and cultural context in which Dark-Age warbands functioned. At least for the warrior aristocracy, by the period of Germanic migrations to Britain, the bonds established between a lord and his men had become more important than traditional kinship ties and in fact had usurped some of the duties associated with the older social system. The lord-retainer relationship was one that bound the warriors of a warband to their lord, a relationship whose fundamental and underlying roots lay in a bedrock of personal loyalty, and one whose operational framework is reflected in the series of obligations and duties which the lord and his men owed to one another
(Evans, p. 52).
The Teutonic peoples used an oath sworn on a sword hilt since antiquity, as the custom is attested to in the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus (Ellis-Davidson, Sword in A-S England, p. 185). Many early Germanic swords are known to have had special rings set into their pommels, and it is believed that these rings were used as oath-rings (Ellis-Davidson, Sword in A-S England, p. 75), similar to the sacred arm rings made of silver or gold which were kept in the temples of Thˇrr. These oath-rings were used to swear oaths upon, by having the oath-giver place his hand upon the ring while swearing (Ellis-Davidson, Gods and Myths, pp. 76-77). Later, as ring-swords went out of fashion, the oath was sworn directly upon the sword itself rather than upon a ring associated with the sword.
Early Norwegian law codes, including Hirskrß (ca. 1270) and Norges Game Love describe the oath sworn by a warrior to his ruler. These sources state that the hilt of a king's sword had to be presented to the man who entered his service, and that as the follower swore the oath of allegiance to his new lord he had to touch the hilt of the royal sword as it lay across the king's knee: this is reminiscent of the kings of the Lewis chess-men, which all bear their swords across their laps as symbols of their temporal authority, and in a position where it may quickly be used for oath-swearing. A 13th century law, which is itself known to be a revision of an earlier 12th century law code, states:
At the time when the king appoints hirmenn, no table shall stand before the king. The king shall have his sword upon his knee, the sword which he had for his crowning, and he shall turn it so the chape goes under his right arm, and the hilt is placed forward on his right knee. Then he shall move the buckle of the belt over the hilt, and grasp the hilt. so that his right arm is over everything. Then he who is to become a hirsmar shall fall on both knees before the king on the floor ... and shall put his right hand under the hilt, while he keeps his left arm down in front of him in the most comfortable position, and then he shall kiss the king's hand.
(Ellis-Davidson, Sword in A-S England, pp. 76-77).It is believed that the ritual used in this account was substantially the same during the Viking Age, two to three hundred years earlier, for there are similar accounts in Viking Age literature as well:
Oblato Wiggone perinde ac munere gratulatus, an sibi militare vellet, perquirit. Annuenti destrictum gladium offert. Ille cuspidem refutans capulum petit, hunc morem Rolvoni in porrigendo militibus ense exstitisse praefatus. Olim namque se regum clientelae daturi tacto gladii capulo obsequium polliceri solebant. Quo pacto Wiggo capulum complexus cuspidem per Hiarwarthum agit, ultionis compos, cuius Rolvoni ministerium pollicitus fuerat.
(Gesta Danorum 2.8.4)
Then Wigg came forth, and Hiartuar, as though he were congratulating him on the gift, asked him if he were willing to fight for him. Wigg assenting, he drew and proferred him a sword. But Wigg refused the point, and asked for the hilt, saying first that this had been Rolf's custom when he handed forth a sword to his soldiers. For in old time those who were about to put themselves in dependence on the king used to promise fealty by touching the hilt of the sword. And in this wise Wigg clasped the hilt, and then drove the point through Hiartuar; thus gaining the vengeance which he had promised Hrˇlfr to accomplish for him.
(Danish History, Book II)Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla tells how the Anglo-Saxon king Ăthelstan played a trick on Harald Fairhair of Norway. Ăthelstan sent a messenger to Harald:
Hann selur konungi sver gullb˙i me hj÷ltum og mealkafla og ÷ll umger var b˙in me gulli og silfri og sett dřrlegum gimsteinum. HÚlt sendimaurinn svershj÷ltunum til konungsins og mŠlti: "HÚr er sver er Aalsteinn konungur mŠlti a ■˙ skyldir vi taka." Tˇk konungur mealkaflann og ■egar mŠlti sendimaurinn: "N˙ tˇkstu svo sem vor konungur vildi og n˙ skaltu vera ■egn hans er ■˙ tˇkst vi sveri hans."
(Haraldar saga hßrfagra, ch. 40)
The emissary went up to the king, handing him a sword adorned with gold and silver and set with precious stones. The emissary offered the king the sword hilt and spoke these words, "Here is the sword which King Aethelstan asks you to receive from him." Then the king took hold of the hilt, whereupon the messenger said, "Now you seized the sword in the fashion our king desired you would, and now you shall be his leigeman since you seized hold of his sword."
(Heimskringla, "Haralds saga Harfagra" ch. 38, p. 92).Sveno in his Lex Castrensis records that the custom of Viking kings presenting swords to the men in his fealty persisted up until the time of King Knut (Ellis-Davidson, Sword in A-S England, p. 186).
A young man might also receive a sword from the lord whom he pledged himself to serve as a poet or warrior, thus Hallfred [Troublesome-skald] took a sword from King Olaf Tryggvason and Sigvat a sword from King Olaf the Holy. We know from one of Sigvat's own poems what this gift meant to him: "I received thy sword with pleasure, O Njord of battle, nor have I reviled it since, for it is my joy. This is a glorious way of life, O Tree of Gold, we have both done well. Thou didst get a loyal housecarle, and I a good leige lord."
(Ellis-Davidson, Sword in A-S England, pp. 212- 213).The actual oath that was sworn probably varied from person to person and from place to place. The oath binding a warrior to his lord was of supreme importance within the warrior's life: "All oaths are important in heroic society, but most important and most binding is the oath of loyalty to one's lord. This oath takes precedence over any oath which may conflict with it (Cherniss, p. 63).
The typical vow or oath began with a declaration of the lineage of the warrior.
"I will make known my ancestry to one and all: I came from a mighty family of Mercian stock; my grandfather was Ealhelm, a wise ealdorman..." (The Battle of Maldon)"I am Hygelac's kinsman and thane..." (E. Talbot Donaldson, trans. Beowulf. New York: Norton. 1966. p. 8).This condensed genealogy was then followed by a listing of the warrior's past heroic deeds, especially those which had some bearing upon the deeds he hoped to perform in the immediate future.
"I came from the fight where I had bound five, destroyed a family of giants, and at night in the waves slain water-monsters, suffered great pain, avenged an affliction of the Weather-Geats on those who had asked for trouble - ground enemies to bits." (Beowulf)This collection of past feats recalled the warrior's heroic exploits in order to project the heroic actions so described upon the future acts of the speaker: "the past is made present as it is brought to bear upon some future situation... the spirit of past deeds must be revived and renewed in future struggle" (Conquergood, pp. 27-29). This listing of deeds emphasized the speaker's heroic virtues (I fought... I avenged... I endured... I ventured...) -- never events that did not conform to the ideals of a warrior society (I hesitated... I weighed the alternatives... I surrendered...).
Heroic poetry gives a good idea of the actual promises made in the oaths that a warrior made to his lord or king. For instance, in the Old English poem, The Battle of Maldon, Earl Bryhtnoth's men have sworn:
not to forget the goods and wealth received from their lord (ll. 185-197)to always fight before their lord (i.e., in the van, ll. 15-16)to wrest glory from the foemen they face (l. 129)that they will not flee one foot-step from the battle (ll. 246-247, 275-276)to avenge their lord if he is slain or die trying (ll. 207-208, 216-224)to avenge their lord and fight themselves until slain (ll. 249-253, 288-294, 317-319)Saxo Grammaticus records the theme of vengeance owed by the warrior to his lord's slayer as well. After a young man named Wigg bestows King Hrˇlfr with his famous nickname, kraki, the king gifts the youth with a pair of arm-rings, and Wigg in turn makes an oath:
Nec Wiggoni rependendi beneficii cura defuit. Siquidem artissima voti nuncupatione pollicitus est, si Rolvonem ferro perire contingeret, ultionem se ab eius interfectoribus exacturum. (Gesta Danorum 2.6.12)
Nor was Wigg heedless to repay the kindness; for be promised, uttering a strict vow, that, if it befell Hrolfr to perish by the sword, he would himself take vengeance on his slayers (Danish History, Book II).The warrior entering a lord's service made an oath to fight for his lord, to support the lord in battle and protect him, and to avenge the lord if needed, dying if necessary while trying to exact vengeance. Some warriors may have vowed to die in battle if their lord died, taking as many of the foemen with them into death as possible to exact veneance for the ruler's death (Cherniss, pp. 50, 62).
Another duty of the members of the Germanic lord's war-band was serving as advisors and counsellors to their lord. While this duty may have fallen primarily to the veteran members of the comitatus based on their age and experience, still it was an important role:
Regardless of the precise constitutional underpinnings and authority of these advisors, it is clear that the chieftains and kings of this period did consult them, at least on matters in which they all had a vested interest; the initiation of hostilities, the course of a campaign, and other important matters pertaining to the kingdom
(Evans, p. 66).This advice also extended to the selection of new members of the war-band, as is seen in Beowulf, where King Hrothgar's warrior Wulfgar offers his lord advice on the newly-arrived war-band led by the redoubtable Beowulf, first suggesting that the king should hold audience with the Geatish warrior:
..... no u him wearne geteoh
inra gegncwida, glŠdman Hrogar!
..... give no refusal to him
in your answer, gracious Hrothgar!
(Beowulf ll. 366-367; Evans, p. 66).Then the Danish warrior assesses the worth of Beowulf and his men, advising his lord as to this assessment:
Hy on wiggetawum wyre ■incea
eorla geŠhtlan; huru se aldor deah,
se ■Šm heaorincum hider wisade.
In battle-gear, they seem worthy
of nobles' esteem; surely that chief is strong,
who led these battle-warriors here.
(Beowulf ll. 366-367; Evans, p. 66).In addition to the portion of the oath which specified what the warrior would do in his service to his lord, the sword-oath also was likely to contain a section defining penalties should the warrior fail to perform as he has sworn to do. Sigrun's curse from Helgakvia Hundingsbana II v. 32 suggests the type of language that may have been used in this portion of the oath:
BÝti-a ■Úr ■at sver
er ■˙ bregir
nema sjalfum ■Úr
syngvi of h÷fi.
May that sword pierce thee
which thou dost draw!
May it sing only
round thy own head.The effect of this type of penalty was that if the warrior should fail to uphold his oath sworn upon the king's sword then the the sword itself will turn against him in battle, and wrath of the gods will be brought upon him Davidson, Sword in A-S England, p. 210).
The warrior's oath would then be closed as formally as it was begun, acknowledging the audience as witnesses to the oath by mentioning that the warrior would have no need to fear the scorn or censure of his fellows:
"No thanes shall ever reproach me amongst the people with any desire to desert this troop and hurry home..." (Battle of Maldon)."No loyal warrior living at Sturmere need reproach me for returning home lordless in unworthy retreat..." (Battle of Maldon)."My liege lord Hygelac may be glad of me in his heart..." (Beowulf).An interesting parellel oath structure is preserved in the Russian Primary Chronicle, where the activities of concluding peace treaties between the 10th century pagan Scandinavian Rus and the Christian Byzantine Emperor are recorded:
The first treaty was negotiated in 907 between Oleg, Prince of Rus, with five delegates on one side, and the Emperors Leo VI and Alexander on the other. Probably it was concluded after an attack by the northerners on Constantinople, which was bought off by payment of a tribute:
Thus the Emperors Leo and Alexander made peace with Oleg, and after agreeing upon the tribute and mutually binding themselves by oath, they kissed the cross, and invited Oleg and his men to swear an oath likewise. According to the religion of the Russes, the latter swore by their weapons and by their god Perun, as well as by Volos, the god of cattle, and thus confirmed the treaty.The next treaty was made in 911 between Oleg, Prince of Rus, with 15 delegates, among them the five men of the previous treaty, and the Emperors Leo, Alexander and Constantine:
Our serenity, (...) deemed it proper to publish and confirm this amity not merely in words but also in writing and under a firm oath sworn upon our weapons according to our religion and our law. (...) to maintain as irrevocable and immutable henceforth and forever the amity thus proclaimed by our agreement with you Greeks and ratified by signature and oath.In 941, a kinsman of Oleg, Igor, Prince of Rus, attacked Constantinople. The Rus assault was halted by Greek fire, which terrified the pagan Rus, who supposed the Greeks had the lightnings at their command. The resulting treaty was concludied with fifty Rus emissaries and confirmed on oath:
The unbaptised Russes shall lay down their shields, their naked swords, their armlets, and their other weapons, and shall swear to all that is inscribed upon this parchment, to be faithfully observed forever by Igor and his boyars, and all the people from the land of Rus. If any of the princes or any Russian subject, whether Christian or non-Christian, violates the terms of this instrument, he shall merit death by his own weapons, and be accursed of God and of Perun because he violated this oath. So be it good that the Great Prince Igor shall rightly maintain these friendly relations that they may never be interrupted, as long as the sun shines and the world endures henceforth and forevermore.The last treaty reported by the Primary Chronicle was concluded by Sviatoslav, son of Igor, a definite pagan who had firmly rejected his mother's Christian faith. In 960, Sviatoslav attacked the Bulgars on the river Danube in an attempt to create a more convenient shipping-route to the Black Sea, since the river Dnieper with its falls and predatory Pechenegs was a difficult route for Rus trade. As with the earlier Rus assaults against Byzantine territories, Sviatoslav was forced to bow to the greater might of the Greek armies and conclude a treaty:
I, Svyatoslav (...) confirm by oath upon this covenant that I desire to preserve peace and perfect amity with each of the great emperors, (...) until the end of the world.(...) But if we fail in the observance of any of the aforesaid stipulations, (...) may we be accursed of the god in whom we believe, namely, of Perun and Volos, the god of flocks, and we become yellow as gold, and be slain with our own weapons. Regard as truth what we have now covenanted (...), as it is inscribed upon this parchment and sealed with our sealsAll four of the Rus oaths recorded in the Primary Chronicle follow familiar patterns seen in other Scandinavian oaths. Perun, god of weather, lightning and power, was worshipped by Slavs and Balts, but adopted by Rus as the local equivalent of the Scandinavian god Ůˇrr. "Volos, the god of flocks" was surely considered as the local equivalent of the Scandinavian's own god Freyr. These invocations are also seen in the Old Icelandic ┌lfljˇtĺs Law: A ring of two ounces or more [the stallahringr</SPAN>] should lie on the altar of every main temple. (...). Every man who needed to perform legal acts before the court must first swear an oath on this ring and mention two or more witnesses. ĹI name witnessesĺ he must say, Ĺthat I swear the oath on the ring, a lawful oath. So help me Freyr and Nj÷rr and the Almighty ßss [god, often identified as Ůˇrr, Ëinn, or Ullr]...ĺThe "laying down" of shields, weapons, and arm-rings by the Rus in the Primary Chronicle accounts may indicate the presence of a truce-area, since such areas were hallowed by the names of the gods Freyr and Nj÷rr elsewhere in Scandinavia, or it may reflect that, as in ┌lfljˇtĺs Law, the oath-swearers were actually swearing their own oaths upon these items, their weapons, which would turn against them should they fail the oath, and the sacred ring in the old pagan ritual of oath-giving.
One last common and interesting feature of the Rus oaths is the duration the oaths are sworn to run, "as long as the sun shines and the world endures henceforth and forevermore," which echoes the Trygamßl, or "Peace Guarantee Speech" found in the Old Icelandic lawbook Grßgßs as formula for settling disputes: But the one of you who tramples on treaties made or smites at sureties given, he shall be a wolf and be driven off as far and wide as ever men drive wolves off, Christians come to church, heathens hallow temples, fire flames, ground grows, son calls mother, mother bears son, men make fires, ship glides, shields flash, sun shines, snow drifts, Finn skis, fir tree grows, falcon flies a spring-long day with a fair wind beneath both wingsĺ, and so on...Once the warrior had sworn his oath to the king, the king in turn had to swear to his new retainer. As has already been mentioned, the most important role of the king in the war-band was as the foremost warrior, so it is possible that the king's side of the oath would include a promise to lead in battle.
After battle-prowess and leadership, the next most important virtue of the Germanic king or lord was generosity. The spoils of war which are captured in battle by the war-band belong entirely to the ruler. In turn, it is the duty of the lord to be open handed in the extreme with these riches. As the Old Norse proverb has it: Gj÷f sÚr Š til gjalda, "A gift always looks for a return" -- in return for service, the lord granted gifts, in return for gifts, the warrior granted service (Foote and Wilson, p. 424).
All of the treasures and favors which the retainers receive come directly from their lord, even though they have originally won these treasures in battle themselves. ... Generosity towards his retainers is, along with prowess in battle, the most important virtue which a lord can possess, and is the quality most often praised in Germanic heroic poetry" (Cherniss, p. 41).Therefore a second component in the oath sworn by the Viking king to his new warrior might be that the lord would reward his new liegeman generously, earning the epithets such as the Old English terms beag-gyfa or beaga brytta ("ring-giver"), gold-wine ("gold-friend, prince, king"), or hord-weard ("treasure-hoard warder") to the point that these terms became synonyms for "king, lord, prince, ruler." This motif occurs in Old Norse poetry as well, for example Ůjˇˇlfr Arnˇrsson calling King Haraldr, LÚt vingjafa veitir, varghollr ("The dispenser of gifts to friends, benificent to the wolf"), showing both the king's generosity to his followers and using generosity as well in a kenning showing him as a warrior, leaving corpses upon which the wolves will dine (Poole, p. 62) or calling him snjˇllum hrings, "giver of rings" (Poole, p. 63). Snorri Sturluson, in Skßldskarpamßl 53, states that:
...■eir menn, er hersar heita. Kenna mß ■ß sem konung ea jarl, svß at kalla ■ß gullbrjˇta ok aumildinga...
"...those men, who are called hersar (lords) can be referred to like a king or a jarl, by calling them gold-breakers and wealth-bountiful ones..."
(Prose Edda, p. 129).By being open-handed with gifts and riches given to the warrior the king fulfilled his side of the contract enacted by the fealty oath:
He beot ne aleh,
sinc Št symle.
[King Hrothgar] did not leave unfulfilled his oath:
rings he dealt out,
and treasure at the ale-feast.
(Beowulf ll. 80-81)The Germanic lord was also known as protector of his people. Many of the kennings for "lord" or "king" reflect this: for instance the Old English terms e■el-weard ("guardian of the native land"), eorla hleo ("protector of earls"), rices weard ("guardian of the kingdom"), folces hyrde ("folk-herd, guardian of the people"), rices hyrde ("kingdom-herd, guardian of the kingdom"). The lord protects his people directly, by his personal battle-prowess, and indirectly by forming advantageous alliances with other tribes, either by mutual exchange of gifts or intermarriage or by adopting a warrior of another tribe as a son:
The devotion of the lord to his followers, and the love of the followers for their lord, are at least partially the result of the role which the lord plays as protector of the people. The lord's first duty towards the comitatus is to protect his followers from whatever harm might befall them were he not present.
(Cherniss, p. 44-46)Finally, the ruler might cement the swearing by giving a gift to the new warrior, beginning the reciprocal relationship by his generosity. This gift might be a valuable arm-ring, embodying the oath within the circle of the ring, which has no beginning nor ending and which brought with it connotations of the sacred oath-ring of Thˇrr. Many times a king or lord would gift his new warrior with a sword, perhaps one captured in battle, or maybe even a famous sword with a lineage:
We know, however, that the gift of a sword from the king or leader to a warrior entering his service was considered to form a bond of mutual obligation and loyalty between them."
(Ellis-Davidson, Sword in A-S England, pp. 75-76)Warriors entering the war-band might also be given lands or a home: the Old Danish word for a member of the comitatus was hem■Šgi, literally "one who receives a home" (Foote and Wilson, p. 100).
Whatever gift was given by the lord to his new warrior, the gift served as a symbol of the warrior's obligation - the treasure which was gifted to the retainer by the lord demands eventual repayment by the retainer via martial service.
Warrior: "(Lineage) I am Ragnar, son of Ulfgar, grandson of the mighty Snorri of whom many are the songs and stories! (History) I have come from the fight where I alone slew five, furious in the fell play of wound wands! From Skaggerak to Skye my sword is known, and in Skane and among the Skrit-Finns they sing dirge-songs where I've slain their sons! (Future deeds) Greater deeds than these shall I gain, garnering fame like grains of gold! In this war-band shall my wound-wand strike hard against the steel of byrnies, so all hear them sing their sad, dire song, if the guardian of the folk grants me the gift I ask, accepting my oath ay!"
Lord: A mighty man in byrnie are you, of proven bravery, bold in battle. Into my war-band will you come, to serve as warrior and counsel wise words?
Lord: (Calls for sword, which is kept in the sheath, hilt on the knee pointed toward the arrior with the length of the blade running along his leg, and the point passing between the right arm and the body. The buckle of the sword belt should rest upon the hilt, and the lord should grasp the hilt so that his arm lays on top of the sword along its length.) Speak then your oath!
Warrior: (The warrior shall kneel before the king and shall put his right hand under the hilt) I, Ragnar, make this oath: that I shall be in the forefront of fierce battle, forging ahead with my lord and friend, coming to the war-call carrying my weapons; and when no battle causes the war-horn to blow, I shall not forget the ring-giver's generosity, but will offer wise counsel as I may. And though I had liefer lay down my life than see harm come to my lord, still should the poisoned point or aged edge strike him down, then I shall not flee a single footlength from the field, but rather shall advance into the enemy army, slaying as I might, to avenge the protector of the people. And by Freyr, and by Njordr, and the Almighty Ase, may this sword smite me upon which my hand rests, may my own edge twist and turn against me should I fail to keep this oath. (Leans forward and kisses the lord's hand or the sword hilt).
Lord: I have heard your oath, as have the holy Aesir. Hear you then my vow to you: with red gold shall I gift you, granting good gifts as you merit, round rings rolling from my hand to yours; among my earls shall you sit in the sumbel, with sweet mead strong filling your stoup; if to the lawcourt you are called, in legal tangles twisted and tied, then I and all of my earls and kin shall stand as oath-helpers if you should need this; and finally, my sword shall stand between you and your enemies, my strength and my war-band beside you boldly, for bare is brotherless back. May Ëinn Allfather, God of Oaths listen, may Freyr and Nj÷rr witness my words, let Frigga hold me faithful, may Saga keep this oath in memory, and may Thˇrr, Almighty God hallow this vow! (Lord stands and hands sword to assistant, who in its place gives him an arm-ring or necklace of heavy gold chain, or a sword or other worthy gift, which the Lord gives to his new warrior.)
Klaeber, Frederick, ed. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. 3rd ed. Lexington MA; D.C. Heath & Co., 1950.Saxo Grammaticus. The Danish History, Books I-IX. Online Medieval and Classical Library Release #28b. Oliver Elton, trans. (Norroena Society, New York, 1905). Douglas B. Killings, editor, April 1997. Accessed 5 October 2001.Saxo Grammaticus. Gesta Danorum. Latin version edited by Winkel Horn (1898) and J. Olrik (1908-12). Det Kongelige Bibliotek. Accessed 5 October 2001.Snorri Sturluson. "Haraldar saga hßrfagra" Heimskringla. Net˙tgßfan. August 1999.Accessed 5 October 2001.Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla: A History of the Kings of Norway. Lee Hollander, trans. 1964. reprint Austin: University of Texas Press. 1991.Snorri Sturluson. "Skßldskaparmßl". Snorra Edda Book 3. Jˇn J˙lÝus Filippusson, March 2000. Accessed 5 October 2001.Tacitus, P. Cornelius. Tacitus: Germania (in Latin). Internet Medieval Source Book. Paul Halsall. January 1996. Accessed 5 October 2001.Tacitus, P. Cornelius. Tacitus: Germania. Internet Medieval Source Book. Paul Halsall. January 1996. Accessed 5 October 2001."V÷lsungakvia in forna (Helgakvia Hundingsbana II)" Den eldre Edda (Codex Regius). Foreningen Forn Sed. Jˇn J˙lÝus Filippusson, ed. January 1998. Accessed 5 October 2001.Ward, C.L., trans. The Battle of Maldon. The Viking Answer Lady Website. October 2000. Text based on Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie, "The Battle of Maldon". The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems. Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records VI. New York. 1942.Zenkovsky, Serge A., ed. Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. New York: E.P. Dutton. 1974.Other References
Arent, A. Margaret. "The Heroic Pattern: Old Germanic Helmets, Beowulf, and Grettis Saga." Old Norse Literature and Mythology: A Symposium. ed. Edgar C. Polome. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1969. pp. 130-Attenborough, Frederick L. trans. The Laws of the Earliest English Kings. Cambridge: University Press. 1922.Byock, Jesse L. Feud in the Icelandic Saga. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1982.Byock, Jesse. Medieval Iceland: Society, Sagas and Power. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988.Cherniss, Michael D. Ingeld and Christ: Heroic Concepts and Values in Old English Christian Poetry. The Hague: Mouton. 1972.Conquergood, Dwight. "Boasting in Anglo-Saxon England: Performance and the Heroic Ethos." Literature in Performance 1(2):24-35.Ellis-Davidson, Hilda R. The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Archaeology and Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. 1962.Ellis-Davidson, Hilda R. Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1964.Ellis-Davidson, Hilda Roderick. The Viking Road to Byzantium. London: George Allen & Unwin. 1976.Evans, Stephen S. Lords of Battle: Image and Reality of the Comitatus in Dark-Age Britain. Woodbridge: Boydell. 1997.Foote, Peter G. and David M. Wilson. The Viking Achievement. London: Sidgewick & Jackson, 1970.Hooper, N. "The Housecarls in England in the Eleventh Century." Anglo-Norman Studies 7. Ed. R. Allen Brown. Woodbridge. 1985. pp. 161-76.Poole, R. G. Viking Poems on War and Peace: A Study in Skaldic Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1991.Pulsiano, Phillip et al., eds. Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 934. New York & London: Garland. 1993.
Bagge, Sverre. "Hir." p. 284.Barfod, J°rgen H. P. "Warfare." pp. 717-718.Lindkvist, Thomas. "Feudal Influences and Tendencies." pp. 187-188.Magoun, Francis P. "On the Old Germanic Altar or Oath-Ring." Acta Philologica Scandinavica 20 (1949).Renoir, Alan. "The Heroic Oath in Beowulf, the Chanson de Roland, and the Niebelungelied" in Studies in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur. ed. SB Greenfield (Eugene, Oregon 1963) pp. 237-266.Stein-Wilkeshuis, Martina. "Scandinavians Swearing Oaths in Tenth-Century Russia: Pagans and Christians." Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002). pp. 155-168.Williams, Mary Wilhelmine. Social Scandinavia in the Viking Age. 1920. New York: Kraus Reprint Co. 1971.Woolf, Rosemary. "The Ideal of Men Dying with their Lord in the Germania and in The Battle of Maldon." Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976), pp. 63-81.
Posted On:8/08/2010 10:35am
Interesting, though the point could be made that "chivalry" as such could only exist from the point in history where knights ("chevaliers") first made their appearance. DCS and Pilgrim have already contributed some excellent information regarding the point in history where "chivalry" became a concept. Just because there are people riding horses, dressed in armor, hitting people because their lord said so does not automatically mean they are chivalrous. Whilst the lord/vassal relationship is an essential part of any idea of chivalry, there is also the idea of limiting the violence associated with any warrior caste.
This idea of limits placed on violence really began with the Peace of God (c.995) which attempted to ban certain types of violent action (basically behaving like a bandit) on penalty of excommunication and exile. The later, and somewhat bizarre, Truce of God (c.1042) attempted to restrict violent activity to Mon-Wed. This "lowering of the bar" so to speak tends to indicate that such restrictions were not restraining a substantial portion of the nobility from acting like complete pricks.
Most of the romanticised notions regarding knighthood disappear once the understanding is achieved: these guys just wanted land. The endless violence, selfless sacrifice, the obession with repute, the importance placed on the lord/vassal relationship; it all makes sense when you realise that these guys wanted a grant of land from their lord. Without land(=wealth) a minor noble could rapidly find himself slipping back into the ranks of the commoners. For a noble who was not the eldest legit son, it was join the church or get to fighting.
We see behaviour that is not profitable, or in many cases even sane, by our modern standards and ascribe to it the romanticism of an intervening era. We overlook that, in the high middle ages, being loyal was profitable; participating in the Crusades/Reconquista was profitable; having an awesome rep was profitable. Cowardice/dishonesty/pacifism might help someone today, but to a young noble with no inheritance to look forward to, they were **** in his own nest.
Posted On:8/08/2010 2:20pm
And a worthwhile $.02 it is.
I'm cleaning up some old business. Pilgrim has advanced the notion that determining a beginning for chivalry is difficult, if not impossible. He suggested the Templar Rule as a possible starting point, asking if there were any instances prior to that. I advanced some possible "prototypes."
"Chivalry" was largely, though not exclusively, tied to the Lord/Vassal relationship. You raise an excellent point that the attempts to limit violence were also important. I don't disagree with that. But chivalry was an evolving concept that accumulated bits and pieces, including the game of Courtly Love. Which is why the ordinary modern concept of chivalry is so muddled.
Has entered Barovia...
Posted On:8/08/2010 3:45pm
What you are looking for is a general, supra-regional consensus of what chivalry was.
More than any actual types of prototypical chivalric behavior, the social reverence to chivalric personas would be the chief requirement for a definition of what chivalry was.
(Means, unless you are recognized as a knight, it's not important if you are or not.)
This social recognition we do not have before the 12th century.
I personally would start in the 13th, because by then, some of the more important chivalric medieval epics have been written/or are in the process of being translated from oral to written tradition:
The Song of WaltherThe Song of RolandThe Song of the NibelungsThe Song of Mio CidWolfram of Eschenbach's Parzival
Because there we have a fictional treatment of post-Roman warriors, and a measuring of their qualities, as well as earliest descriptions of chivalric figures.
- Parzival might be of interest, because his initial drive to wander the world is to become a knight.
So, we can assume that by the first quarter of the 1300s, the time during which Parzival is written down, there existed a recognizable consensus about the qualities of an ideal knight.
However, were those particular qualities influenced by religion, or by a non-religious warrior code? - Of course they were almost exclusively defined by Christian beliefs. ...And as such, the Parzival's ultimate goal is to become king of the Grail, an act that he finally only achieves by dropping his chivalric/warfare-centered skills.
So, in short, no warrior codes in medieval central and Western Europe, at least none about which cultural historians would be sure.
Posted On:8/08/2010 8:07pm
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
This social recognition we do not have before the 12th century.
I personally would start in the 13th, because by then, some of the more important chivalric medieval epics have been written/or are in the process of being translated from oral to written tradition
Two chansons de geste that are interesting to contrast are Roland and Aymeri de Narbonne. Set during the same period, but written centuries apart. By the time that Aymeri was written, the concepts of chivalry had been incorporated into the medieval mindset (in much the same way as we see the past through the prism of our own values and standards). The literature of the time is useful - not because they are historically accurate, they aren't - as a way of determining the attitudes and priorities of aristocrats of the period. Much in the same way that Bond films are useless if you want to know about the intelligence community, but valuable as an insight into the mindset of their intended audience.
The contrast between the attitudes towards women in the two epics also illustrates the rise of the concept of "courtly love" that Styygens mentioned.
Posted On:8/09/2010 11:39pm
Style: grappling, swordfighting
Wow. Fascinating. I am actually digging all this historical info. I will be incorporating a lot of it into a lecture that I give every so often on the history of armor and chivalry.
One of the most important parts of "chivalry" as I like to think of it is the part that says that might does not make right, it should serve right.
In other words, just because your black belt training has given you the power to conquer another country, beat up everyone who looks at you funny, or take the other kid's lunch money, doesn't mean you should do it, rather you should use your power to stop people from doing that sort of thing.
Any thoughts on this?
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info