Print

Print


*******TACKLE*****HUGS*********************

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Edward de Kent <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Christian,
>
> In your effort to distinguish equestrian activities from cut-and-thrust
> and armored combat you neglected to mention mounted combat, which is
> virtually identical to armored combat in terms of weapons, armor, and
> rules, except that it is done while mounted on a horse.  The fact that two
> major equestrian activities are "martial art[s] where two combatants (or
> more, in melee) face off directly against one another" kind of throws a
> wrench into your argument.
>
> And that is to say nothing, of course, of the historical fact that one of
> the key distinguishing features of a knight was being a mounted combatant.
> For obvious reasons of practicality that was not made a requirement of the
> Chivalry, but if one is to propose creating additional branches of the
> Chivalry, then surely equestrians who attain the appropriate level of
> prowess in mounted combat and jousting would be at least as good a fit as a
> cut-and-thrust branch.
>
> Let me be clear: I'm not necessarily taking a position for or against the
> 'new branch' proposal in general, but it is difficult to argue that it
> makes more sense for cut-and-thrust than (combatant) equestrians.
>
> -Edward de Kent
> -- Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu. listserv.unl.edu
> lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com
> due to their DMARC policies.
>

--
Manage your subscription at  http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.