By Deirdre O’Siodhachain
“Charny asks: Because I do not know what kind of people are called preux, I ask what they should necessarily have done before they bear this name so that when they’ve done this they are able to have such an honorable name. For I believe that he who does more is worth more. But I ask what they should necessarily do at the minimum.” – Geoffroi de Charny, Question on War #17 (Muhlberger, p.90)
The Questions of the Joust, Tournament, and War were written by Geoffroi de Charny (~1300-September 19, 1356, died in the Battle of Poitiers). The exact date of the Questions’ composition is unknown. The Questions are closely associated with the founding in 1351 of the first of the great French orders of Chivalry: Our Lady of the Noble House – or Company of the Star as it is usually called after its device. Like other princes of the era, King Jean II of France (aka Jean le Bon, or John the Good) wanted to have an instrument to strengthen the power and prestige of the monarchy by linking himself with the mythos of the chivalric romances combined with the ideals of service as expressed by the monastic orders of knighthood.
If King Jean wanted instructional material for the knights of his new order, it is no surprise he would turn to Charny. Charny was known not only as a premiere chevalier and loyal servant of the French kings, but he was also an established author on the subject of chivalry.
The writings of Charny are a guide to his generation’s culture of chivalry. Unlike many other authors of chivalric instructional material, he often focused on the practical aspects of being a man-at-arms. Nowhere is this more evident than in his Questions. Charny’s injunction to men-at-arms to do more – so they would be worth more – is usually interpreted as aspiring to be of high repute and good character both on the field and at court. This I believe is correct as far as it goes. However, I think there is an additional facet that is glossed over.
This is the economics of being successful in arms through engaging in jousts, tournaments, and war, and in understanding the financial risks of the profession. To become wealthy through one’s martial prowess raised one’s social standing.
However, every time a man-at-arms engaged in a martial encounter, in addition to bodily harm and challenges to his hardihood, he was subject to losing his horse, his armor, and/or his freedom. This would mean a loss of reputation and wealth – his own and/or his patron’s.
Participation in joust, tournaments, and war was hazardous and expensive. The possible rewards had to be sufficient to justify taking the field.
Charny poses 20 questions about the joust and 21 about the tournament. There are more than 90 about war (93 questions with certain attribution to Charny, one a marginal addition probably not his). That makes 135 in all.
The breakdown of the questions – joust, tournament, and war – is in line with the proximity to civilization. In short, the more genteel the pastime, the more control there is over the situation and thus it needs less exploration. Jousts are formal one-on-one encounters and tournaments have announced parameters for engagement that make them less hazardous, while the conditions of war are unpredictable and highly changeable.
Charny organized his Questions into three categories. For a modern student, I would put them into a different context:
- Risks/rewards: tangible gains/losses (horses, booty, ransoms) and compensation for personal service (fees, land, rank).
- Technical knowledge: social niceties (rank and privilege) and terminology (properly naming martial activity and qualities).
- Character: subjective considerations of what is morally and socially preferable as pertains to the conduct of a man-at-arms.
Taken together, these are a sort of formula for success in a chivalric career. The Questions are meant to teach about right thought, speech, and action that will minimize personal conflicts and raise the social and economic prospects of a man of the military class.
Out of 135 questions, 91 or 67% pertain to some sort of economic stake at risk. Out of these:
- 36 are specifically related to a horse, horses, or the value of horse(s), or 40% of 91, or 27% of 135;
- 28 involve the taking of prisoners for ransom, or 31% of 91, or 21% of 135;
- 15 refer to the taking of booty (aka gains, “other goods”, etc.)[1], or 15% of 91, or 11% of 135;
- 6 involve payment of fees and/or lands on varying contractual terms, or 7% of 91, or 4% of 135;
- 5 ask about personal liability in a conflict (consequences of personal commitments), or 5% of 91, or 4% of 135;
- 1 question involves winning a tournament prize.
Out of the 135 questions, 13 ask for some sort of definition or technical explanation, or 10% of 135.
Out of the 135 questions, 31 discuss a matter of honor or reproach, or 23% of 135.
The point being that the life of a man at arms was fundamentally concerned with the economics of the profession.
- Losses in the joust or tournament could mean you were unable to compete in future contests due to lack of equipment.
- Heavy debts could be incurred to pay compensation to other competitors/combatants/captains or to ransom oneself. Depending on rank and connections, this could beggar oneself and one’s family.
- Even if you could afford to make good losses, things like horses and armor could not necessarily be quickly or easily replaced.
- Poor performance in martial contests could mean loss of patronage or membership in a confraternity. Winnings in war were highly uncertain and easily lost again should one’s luck change.
- A reputation as reliable was an invaluable asset that could outweigh short-term losses. It could lead to advances that were not available to men of less reputed worth.
How is it possible to add an economic component to an SCA tournament?
The idea of a “ransom” tournament has been used before. What I have in mind is more of a “banking” tournament with assets added and subtracted based on performance, but also on access to wealthy patrons based on rank and/or the ability to be gifted or borrow assets.
The idea is to distribute tokens for the types of assets that are most at risk in a martial encounter – horses, armor, and ransom money. These tokens represent existing wealth and will be recorded by a proposed Banque de Charny.
Prior to the tournament, the tokens will be presented to fighters and persons of rank who might wish to sponsor a fighter – unbelted fighters, squires, non-royal peers (Knights, Masters of Defense, Laurels, Pelicans), court barons, territorial barons, royal peers, and sitting royalty. Tokens would be allocated based on rank (see table below) and may only be claimed once at the individual’s highest allocation.
Tournament participants would then take the field knowing what they had to risk on the outcome of each fight.
It would be allowable for fighters and/or sponsors to form a confraternity and pool their resources but members must share in wins and losses as agreed by their contract. The confraternity must be registered with the Banque de Charny and the sources of its assets will be transferred to the confraternity account. Similarly, if a treaty is made between entities (households and/or local groups), the alliance should be registered with the Banque as well.
Tokens not otherwise spoken for may be privately traded, gifted, lent, or staked in a bet. The Banque may advance tokens but will charge usurious interest.
After the initial allocation is made, any redistribution should be reported to the Banque. For example, an unbelted fighter goes to a friendly non-fighting Court Baron and borrows his/her/their 3 tokens. The loan should be reported to the Banque with the expectation of repayment and any terms for the loan. If this is an outright gift, the Court Baron loses those tokens on the books.
Tokens are interchangeable unless the encounter is specifically defined as for a particular token. For example, any one-on-one challenge could require a horse and/or armor token. A melee encounter could specifically be to take prisoners and collect ransoms.
The allocation table isn’t intended to represent a realistic scale of wealth, but rather to illustrate that social rank was usually associated with greater economic resources.
As the tournament progresses, fighters pass tokens back and forth according to the outcome of the encounters. It would be allowable to appoint someone to hold the fighter’s tokens. Wins and losses need not be reported to the bank until the fighting is complete.
After the tournament, the bank will compile an accounting of each fighter’s performance. The tournament sponsor may make the usual sort of determination of winners and martial performance. However, the bank will be able to determine the net profit/loss of each fighter who is independent and for confraternities and alliances. It is entirely possible that the winner in terms of prowess will not be the winner in terms of profit.
Doubtless there are many details that need refinement, but I think the basic idea is sound.
References
Broughton, B. B. (1986). Dictionary of medieval knighthood and chivalry. New York: Greenwood.
Kaeuper, R., & Kennedy, E. (1996). The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi de Charny. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Muhlberger, S. (2014). Charny’s Men-at-Arms: Questions concerning the joust, tournaments, and war. Wheaton, IL: Freelance Academy Press.
[1] basically, money or things of value