[Christopher VaughnStrever]

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: Noël 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

[Steven H]

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

Curious,
Steven

[Tristan Gillies]

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