Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


Please help our efforts with a donation. It's time to pay our annual server hosting bill. We've collected 2710.00 towards our goal of 2640 USD. View Goal Progress
Last 10 Donors: Neil Eddiford, Chad Arnow, Jean Thibodeau, Robert Morgan, Adam Rose, Jerry Otahal, Michael P. Smith, Mikko Kuusirati, Eric Bergeron, Daniel Staberg (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > The Statutes of Arms 1260 Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Christopher VaughnStrever




Location: San Antonio, TX
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 382

PostPosted: Wed 05 Aug, 2009 8:49 am    Post subject: The Statutes of Arms 1260         Reply with quote

I really liked this info and was wondering if this website was providing accurate info. it appears to be accurate.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html


The Statutes of Arms were concerned with checking the excesses of mass tournaments that often ended in the pillage, rape, and slaughter of local villagers and townspeople (See: NoŽl Denholm-Young, "The Tournament in the Thirteenth-Century," in Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, pp. 260-261, 264).

Here begin the Statutes of Arms.

At the request of the Earls and Barons and of the Chivalry of England, it is ordained and by our Lord the King commanded, that from henceforth none be so hardy, whether Earl, Baron, or other Knight, who shall go to the Tournament, to have more than three Esquires in Arms to serve him at the Tournament; and that every Esquire do bear a Cap of the Arms of his Lord, whom he shall serve that day, for Ensign.

And no Knight or Esquire serving at the Tournament, shall bear a sword pointed, or Dagger pointed, or Staff or Mace, but only a broad sword for tourneying. And all that bear Banners shall be armed with Mufflers and Cuishes, and Shoulder-Plates, and a Skull-cap, without more.

And if it happen that any Earl or Baron or other knight, do go against this statute, that such knight, by assent of all the Baronage, shall lose Horse and Harness, and abide in prison at the pleasure of our Lord Sir Edward the King's son, and Sir Edmund his brother, and the Earl of Gloucester, and the Earl of Lincoln. And the Esquire who shall be found offending against the statute here devised, in any point, shall lose Horse and Harness, and be imprisoned three years. And if any man shall cast a knight to the ground, except they who are armed for their Lord's service, the knight shall have his horse, and the offender shall be punished as the Esquires aforesaid.

And no son of a great lord, that is to say, of an Earl or Baron, shall have other armor than mufflers and cuishes, and Shoulder-Plates, and a skull-cap, without more; and shall not bear a dagger or sword pointed, nor mace, but only a broad sword. And if any be found who, in either of these points, shall offend against the statute, he shall lose his horse whereon he is mounted that day, and be imprisoned for one year.

And they who shall come to see the tournament, shall not be armed with any manner of armor, and shall bear no sword, or dagger, or staff, or mace, or stone, upon such forfeiture as in the case of Esquires aforesaid. And no groom or footman shall bear sword, or dagger, or staff, or stone; and if they be found offending, they shall be imprisoned for seven years.

And if any great lord or other keep a table, none shall bring there any Esquire but those who are wont to mess in their Lord's presence. And no King at Arms or Minstrels shall bear secret arms, nor any other besides their swords without points. And the Kings at Arms shall have their mantles without more, etc.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1260statute-arms.html

Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
View user's profile Send private message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Wed 05 Aug, 2009 9:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

After reading it I assume that the term, "broad sword" used here is to denote a blunted sword?

Curious,
Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tristan Gillies




Location: Queensland, Australia
Joined: 06 Jul 2009

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed 05 Aug, 2009 3:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Certainly conveys the point doesnt it, very thorough statement to keep everyone in line.

Its always the concept the past reflects the present and it rings very true with this piece of knowelege.

And we thought covering our asses for liabilities was just a modern concept.

And back then it was probably much the same as now, most are decent folk (rich or poor) who just want to get together for a good time and always a bunch of rotten apples that spoil the barrel
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > The Statutes of Arms 1260
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum