From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Football vs. tournaments
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 20:24:54 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!

I wrote:

> Modern football is an entertainment for the masses; I know no evidence that
> the medieval tournament as practiced in France, England, and the Lowlands,
> attracted any audience from outside the nobility.

Bertram answered:

> I find this assertion hard to believe -- ONLY the nobles watched?

Remember that the original tournaments were not set up for spectators.
Bands of knights and men-at-arms wandered about a district making mayhem,
very little different from warfare.  Anyone not involved was probably well
advised to get the hell out of the way.  As interest in the tournament grew
among the nobility, its form changed to accomodate spectators: for example,
the development of the joust.  But, as I said earlier, I know no evidence
that tournaments became a popular entertainment outside the nobility in
northwestern Europe.  There were certainly spectators, but the pictures in
my books shows noble (or at least wealthy) spectators.

In other parts of Europe, there is evidence that the tournament became a
popular activity.  In late-period Germany and Renaissance Italy,
particularly, we know of tournaments held among wealthy burgers and
townsfolk.  The development of rules restricting tournament participation
to the nobility is evidence of interest further down the social scale
(though it is still not clear whether this was a sporting interest or simpy
social climbing).  In Italy, some of these civic tournaments eventually
transformed into public spectacles, but I don't recall whether that
development happened in period.  However, it is important to keep in mind
that the tournament was always a rich man's game.  One might venture an
analogy to polo or yachting: a sport popular among the upper classes that
never gained much following among the general public.

> What about my cherished illusions of peasant lads peeking through
> knotholes in fences blazoning the knights' shields to each other...

Remember as well that the cult of celebrity is generally a modern
phenomenon.

> Seriously -- if Pennsic is supposed to be a Grand Tourney -- did
> they really have _thousands_ of nobles show up for period tourneys?
> What about all the assorted servants and retainers -- didn't they
> attend? 

That's one good reason not to think of Pennsic as a grand tourney.  I think
it is more accurate to think of Pennsic as a large fair or celebration at
which tournaments take place.  That is a model for which there is a great
deal of evidence: tournaments were frequently held to mark important state
occasions.  (And please note that while there may be thousands of people at
Pennsic, most of them never bother to watch the fighting!)

>  Help me out here folks -- these tournaments must have been MAGNETS for 
> people for miles around.  How did they keep the non-noble folk out?

You may be right, Bertram, but without evidence to back up your
speculation, you may also be projecting your 20th century romanticism into
an age where it doesn't belong.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca