Would the SCA be just another local craft club?
Sheridan
I believe that heavy weapons combat, the SCA's competitive fighting system, is the one thing that defines and more importantly binds the SCA.
No other club in the world has a competitive fighting system as comprehensive as ours that draws such large numbers of participants.
The vast numbers of "fighters" and the ease at which an individual can begin competing is testimony to the success of the SCA system.
Without fighting what would we be?
Sheridan
Caid
william thomas powers
Please use DejaNews to find the answer to this question its been
extensively debated within the last year here.
A lot of people believe that the SCA would be more fun if
the fighting was not the *central* activity.
Ever been in event planning and have a site turned down
because there wasn't room to have a spinning circle or
that they wouldn't allow a forge on the grounds? Ever
seen one turned down because there wasn't room for fighting?
*MOST* people in the SCA are *NOT* fighters. Many fighters
believe that the SCA revolves around what they do, not
realizing how much else is out there.
I don't know anyone who would want to end SCA fighting;
but a lot of us would like to feel that everything else
wasn't stepchildren to it.
Thomas
Monaleek
On the other side: Without the Arts and Sciences there would be no equipment
with which to fight.
Genevieve McCullum de Caen
Michael Schilder
Helen of Greyfells
TGress1062
>Q: What would the SCA be without heavy weapons combat?
>
>I believe that heavy weapons combat, the SCA's competitive fighting system, is
the one thing that defines and more importantly binds the SCA.<
I will grant you that the "competitive fighting system" is somewhat unique to
our Society.
>No other club in the world has a competitive fighting system as comprehensive
as ours that draws such large numbers of participants.<
Again granted. AFIK, most other competitive fighting orgainzations are pretty
much limited to one type / style. (e.g. fencing, kendo, katate, boxing)
>The vast numbers of "fighters" and the ease at which an individual can begin
competing is testimony to the success of the SCA system.<
Once again, granted. It is easy (perhaps a bit *TOO* easy) to authorize to
fight. I don't know if this is a positive testimony or not. I've seen folks in
tourneys / battles who should still be in training. This has been somewhat
allivieated by the rule requiring two authorizign marshalls from two different
local groups, but shoddy auths still slip thru on occasion.
>Without fighting what would we be?<
Hmm, lessee...
As I've said in other posts, I do American Civil War reenactment as well as the
SCA. We engage in battles there, but it is far from competitive.
There are groups that enjoy Regency Period dancing and they have no competitive
combat base at all.
While the heavy armored combat is certainly the most visible (and audible)
aspect of the SCA, it is hardly the SOLE aspect. As has been observed by
others, the majority of SCAdians are not armored fighters. Judging from
Pennsic, I'd say between 2/3 to 3/4 of our members are not fighters.
At the same time I'd have to guess that most SCAdians *do* engage in some form
of art / science.
The SCA certainly revolves around the heavy armored combat. That is how we pick
our kings, and is the theme for many of our larger events. But fighting is not
the be-all-and-end-all of our Society.
In service
Morgan of Caer Graeme
(bard, fighter, archer, scout, leatherworker, brewer, general rabble-rouser,
and dang near anything else that takes my fancy)
Chris Louviere
Sheridan wrote:
> Q: What would the SCA be without heavy weapons combat?
Such a simple question with such complex answers. The SCA would not be
the same. And recruiting in most areas would be non-existant. Every
commuintiy I have lived in has had a spinning circle...or a wood working
shop. These things can be found mundanely rather easily. All of the
arts & sciencies can be done by yourself. This fullfilment can come at
home. I have sad it before in my local populace meetings, so I will say
it here....A&S is not a team sport. The only social A&S I have ever
seen is my grandmother and her friends making quilts....but I think she
wanted an excuse to visit.
How many pure A&S events are out there? Not many. Even Kingdom A&S has
a fighting list of somesort.
Yeah, you are right about the forge space. I have planned events around
requirements such as those. But, the beauty of SCA fighting means it
can happen anywhere ( within saftely parameters).
Very few people take notice of an A&S project you are working on at the
park.....but people from 500 meters away see two idiots swinging sticks
at each other.
Without SCA fighting there would be no SCA. See the word "Society"
takes us back to the answer. You must have people coming together to
have a Society. Without a strong draw as the fighting, that would not
happen.
As for the idea that my armour is an A&S project....at the risk of
offending all of the 100% pure A&S people around....getting dressed in
the morning is a Science. The idea that everything I do should be
reported as A&S just proves to me that you are a group without a
purpose. Everytime I paint my shield I am not conducting A&S. Now,
when I build my lute for A&S entry I am...but I did that by myself...not
with a team of builders. I have been told I am supposed to alert my A&S
minister every time I do anything remotely attuned to A&S. That just
proves that you are searching for a place in the SCA because there is no
overt need for your social place.
Now...don't get me wrong. The SCA is a better place because of its
diversity....but fighting is what hold the SCA society together.
Iain mac Grioghair
Forest Baker
fundamentally formed around and staying together because of SCA fighting
as it is today, then there is no chance that SCA fighting will ever be
allowed to evolve. Because the SCA is successful as a large and growing
global organization and SCA fighting in its current form is seen as
being responsible for that, there would be no inclination to change
anything about SCA fighting.
If there would be an opportunity to improve on another area of SCA Art
and Science, the risk to the SCA would not be very great should that
area of interest change as a result of efforts to take it further toward
authenticity. If dancing, on the other hand, was seen as the reason SCA
members join and stay in the Society, then dancing as it is practiced
today would become sacred. This is like Canon Law and the Church.
Change those Roman Catholic rules very much and everyone might just lose
their faith and stop showing up on Sunday. Then where would the priests
be? Fine mess, that's where.
So it is impossible, therefore, to imagine any attempt at improvement
in SCA fighting. SCA has come too far. It is too successful to risk
any such change. If SCA has become fearful in this regard, then, it is
indeed a static organization whose membership will continue to grow but
where it has too much to lose to attempt improving its fighting system.
Do you all think I have this right? Because I wanted to work on the
problem that SCA fighting is actually not very Period representative of
anything anyone actually ever did before the 1960's (although it is fun
to watch). But I have met with nothing short of hostility in this
regard in spite of the fact that many of you seem to agree with me. If
this is true, then SCA itself is SCA fighting indeed and any other form
of combat must be suppressed. To challenge SCA combat to change is to
challenge SCA? I guess I see...Thanks.
Huntington
Sheridan wrote:
Q: What would the SCA be without heavy weapons combat?
Iain mac Grioghair wrote:
A: The SCA would not be the same. And recruiting in most areas would be
non-existant. People from 500 meters away see two idiots swinging
sticks
at each other. Without SCA fighting there would be no SCA. You must
have people coming together to have a Society. Without a strong draw as
the fighting, that would not happen. The SCA is a better place because
of its
diversity....but fighting is what holds the SCA society together.
--
Forest Baker fba...@mce.com
Maggie Forest
<id...@structurex.net> wrote:
>> Q: What would the SCA be without heavy weapons combat?
>the same. And recruiting in most areas would be non-existant. Every
>commuintiy I have lived in has had a spinning circle...or a wood working
>shop. These things can be found mundanely rather easily. All of the
>arts & sciencies can be done by yourself. This fullfilment can come at
>home. I have sad it before in my local populace meetings, so I will say
>it here....A&S is not a team sport. The only social A&S I have ever
>seen is my grandmother and her friends making quilts....but I think she
>wanted an excuse to visit.
How very strange! I guess this is another cultural difference?
When our shire started up, we had very little organised fighting for
several years. There was already lots of steel groups doing that
stuff, see, and it took our few fighters a while to get themselves
organised and confident enough. But we were unique in that we did have
garb, dance and arts, and a structure that encouraged a certain type
of behaviour.
Oddly enough, we survived very well on populace meetings, garb nights,
singing, music, dance practices, and monthly A&S workshops; and
they're still going strong now that the fighters have started up. It's
much more fun doing A&S together, and it's easier if you're not a very
experienced sewer, for example, if there's someone who helps you with
the job at hand.
/mmy
Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee,
and just as hard to sleep after - Anne Morrow Lindbergh
william thomas powers
WRONG; I've recruited many people at a demo with a forge that had no
wish to be involved fighting. My wife is a spinster and can give
a similar testimonial.
>Every
>commuintiy I have lived in has had a spinning circle...or a wood working
>shop. These things can be found mundanely rather easily.
WRONG; we both have run into people who have been looking for a smithing
or spinning group for years. My wife drives 90 miles each way to teach
spinning to a group that's desperate to learn.
> All of the
>arts & sciencies can be done by yourself.
WRONG, the simplest example is dancing many of which require at least 1
partner and some quite a few!
> This fullfilment can come at
>home. I have sad it before in my local populace meetings, so I will say
>it here....A&S is not a team sport. The only social A&S I have ever
>seen is my grandmother and her friends making quilts....but I think she
>wanted an excuse to visit.
So the 2 sheep to shaws held at Pennsic and the building of the iron furnace
and smelting of ore, the glass blowing, ship building, dye ins, are not
social? you really need to get out more.
>How many pure A&S events are out there? Not many. Even Kingdom A&S has
>a fighting list of somesort.
And one of the problems is that many people do not bring their A&S on the road
some don't realize that events are great places to work/share some crafts.
Some are reluctant to make the effort to bring stuff only to find out that
they are told no *after* they get there---no boring afternoons waiting for the
tourney to end if you are wood or bone carving---and doing stuff
at the events is the *BEST* way to meet other people with the same interest.
I brought a forge to an event this year and had a fellow track me down
accoss the entire site after he heard the hammer on the anvil---and he
was in a wheelchair!
Have you ever though that the reason many people don't bring A&S projects
to events is that they are discouraged? You need to foster a climate of
*encouraging* the A&S at events and I *don't* mean contests!
>Yeah, you are right about the forge space. I have planned events around
>requirements such as those. But, the beauty of SCA fighting means it
>can happen anywhere ( within saftely parameters).
Roping off a 20' square in the parking lot would allow a forge and that's
less space than fighting eats up just for armour bags usually. Desiginating
a pleasent corner for fiberarts, not too noisy, windy, or dusty can usually
be accomplished too. I finished off the post&beam frame for my Pennsic
tent at an event using the edge markers of the parking lot to support them.
A lot of kids came to watch and I let them use the done ones for seesaws.
>Very few people take notice of an A&S project you are working on at the
>park.....but people from 500 meters away see two idiots swinging sticks
>at each other.
WRONG, though I admit that some crafts have greater distance draws than
others. We did a demo at a museum once in early March with a windchill
in the teens. I had people stay out watching the forge till they turned
blue, stumbled into the museum where the fighting was going on and return
to the forge in 5 minutes to repeat it all over again. Two people hewing
a timber, a spinster, a dyer, people cooking over an open fire---you may
find the fighting area lightly watched!
>Without SCA fighting there would be no SCA. See the word "Society"
>takes us back to the answer. You must have people coming together to
>have a Society. Without a strong draw as the fighting, that would not
>happen.
WRONG why do you cling to fighting so tightly! I don't know any A&S
folk who want to ban fighting. I do know of other "societies" that
exist very well without it. There are *strong draws* to the SCA that
don't include Rattan or Duct Tape---otherwise why would I still be here
20+ years and never in armour!
>As for the idea that my armour is an A&S project....at the risk of
>offending all of the 100% pure A&S people around....getting dressed in
>the morning is a Science. The idea that everything I do should be
>reported as A&S just proves to me that you are a group without a
>purpose. Everytime I paint my shield I am not conducting A&S. Now,
>when I build my lute for A&S entry I am...but I did that by myself...not
>with a team of builders. I have been told I am supposed to alert my A&S
>minister every time I do anything remotely attuned to A&S. That just
>proves that you are searching for a place in the SCA because there is no
>overt need for your social place.
Perhaps it would be better if building your armour was an A&S project.
When I joined all the fighters wanted to be a knight in shining armour.
We built matal armour in our garage with a saber saw a drill a couple
of hammers a stump and a file. Now I meet so many fighters who say that
plastic armour is mandatory to win and that winning is the object and that
the SCA Fighting is its own sport. Perhaps it should be...
I would say that anything you do that helps you learn more about the medieval
period can be construed as A&S. Should we say that fighting is "searching
for a place in the SCA because there is no overt need for your social place"
because the marshallate has reporting duties also? Perhaps they don't
need to ask since they are required to attend much of what happens with
fighting. As you mentioned much of the A&S has been done solo, alone and
lacking the sharing of ideas, techniques and encouragement that fighters
receive as a social activity. Do you remember the Middle Kingdom's Armourers'
Guild? Very social, very SCA!
>Now...don't get me wrong. The SCA is a better place because of its
>diversity....but fighting is what hold the SCA society together.
Well the *fighter's* certainly think so; but consider what the SCA would be
like as a fighting only society---no feasts, dances, bardic circles; just
a group of people meeting to fight at regular intervals. What holds
us together is our *SOCIETY* and anything that strengthens it strengthens
us. Would *encouraging* the A&S harm the fighting aspect of the SCA?
The growth of the tourneying groups would seem to indicate no as they have
internalized some of the A&S bringing back what many of us joined to see--
the pagentry of the middle ages and renaissance and not just a group of
folks fighting a double elim "tourney".
>Iain mac Grioghair
wilelm the smith known in Ansteorra and Calontir as thomas the beggar
and wilelm in the middle and meridies *ALWAYS* more interested in steel
than rattan
Thank-You milord Iain for such a wonderful springboard to loft my feelings
into the Aether!
William C. Fisher
contrary are purely delusional
In Service,
Lord Haarek Stormraven, Esquire, OLM, CAH, BBB
william thomas powers wrote:
> >Q: What would the SCA be without heavy weapons combat?
> >
> >I believe that heavy weapons combat, the SCA's competitive fighting
> >system, is the one thing that defines and more importantly binds the
> >SCA.
> >
> >No other club in the world has a competitive fighting system as
> >comprehensive as ours that draws such large numbers of participants.
> >
> >The vast numbers of "fighters" and the ease at which an individual can
> >begin competing is testimony to the success of the SCA system.
> >
> >Without fighting what would we be?
> >
> >Sheridan
>
> Please use DejaNews to find the answer to this question its been
> extensively debated within the last year here.
>
Zebee Johnstone
William C. Fisher <william...@eli.net> wrote:
>Fighting is the spoke of the wheel of our Society. Any claims to the
>contrary are purely delusional
A wheel with one spoke collapses.
Silfren
william thomas powers
>contrary are purely delusional
>Lord Haarek Stormraven, Esquire, OLM, CAH, BBB
So the other 3+ spokes are A&S and anyone who thinks else
has only one oar in the water! Is this what you are
trying to say?
Please look into period wheel construction; it may
shore up your argument.
wilelm the smith
EternalSalmissra
>like as a fighting only society---no feasts, dances, bardic circles; just
>a group of people meeting to fight at regular intervals.
And for all of you out there that are thinking it...what of the lovely dancers
and the drummers that you hear late into the night at war? I cannot imagine a
camping event without at least _some_ drumming. It lulls me to sleep or it
helps me awake, depending on the drummers. And I don't think most of them are
fighters. :o) Don't get me wrong, I know some are...from both dancers and
drummers...but I would suspect very few.
Anyone got some stats on it?
Golda ferch Deiniol
(name and device in submission)
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring the bell and run...He hates that!
Ted Eisenstein
>seen is my grandmother and her friends making quilts....but I think she
>wanted an excuse to visit.
and making shire pavillions, and shade flies, and painting dags in the
kingdom's award badges, and armoring, and cooking, and sewing, and
singing, is not A&S then, nor is it a "team sport".
Would the SCA be different if there were no fighting? Yes. Would
the SCA be different if there were no A&S? Yes. --- But the SCA
without fighting could get along, but the SCA without the
arts and sciences would die a quick death.
Alban
Richard Tucker
>
> Would the SCA be different if there were no fighting? Yes. Would
> the SCA be different if there were no A&S? Yes. --- But the SCA
> without fighting could get along, but the SCA without the
> arts and sciences would die a quick death.
>
> Alban
As evidenced by Ansteorra's population decline. The FUBs ran off the
crafts people, no more equipment, population declines. Participation
(at least in the north) is down severely. Pop meetings are now little
more than the FUB officers. No one is making armor. Everyone wants
Excalibur, for the price of the Amazing Ginzu. I guess they got tired
of sweating for nothing.
Cynthia Virtue
> but the SCA without the
> > arts and sciences would die a quick death.
>
> crafts people, no more equipment, population declines.
What's a FUB?
--
Cynthia du Pre Argent
On Halloween, the Great Pumpkin rises up out of the pumpkin patch, and
flies around the world, bringing presents to girls and boys. -- Linus
Lady PDC
present a slightly different "take" on the whole idea.
The real hub of the SCA wheel is re-creation. When looked at in that way then
all of the spokes interconnect through that hub and each spoke is necessary to
allow the wheel to turn.
Fighting without the other spokes - well the A&S portion of the re-creation has
to do with the weapons, the armor, even the clothing worn, the service portion
of the re-creation produces the place to fight, the marshals to fight in
safety, and the first aid to keep the fighters healthy. So fighting without
the other spokes would be reduced to two naked people wrestling in the mud.
Might be interesting but certainly would not be what we all think of when SCA
fighting comes to mind.
A&S without the other spokes - as mentioned earlier much of A&S is a solitary
sort of thing so could certainly survive without the others. However, is
"survival" really the point? When viewed within the re-creation context, A&S
is the home life of the population. While a home life could certainly occur
within period without fighters, almost invariably those who formed pacifist
societies and "didn't study war no more" were soon noticed by those who did
study war. These more powerful neighbors soon said something along the lines of
"Hey, they do good work, let's capture them and make them do that good work for
us". Fighting and Service provide the protection and the pagentry that allow
A&S to exist and give artisans subjects to glorify in artistry. Without
fighting and service A&S would be boring chores or slavery.
Service without the other spokes - again this spoke could certainly exist in
some form without the other two. We see today many social clubs which meet just
to socialize. Our service spoke provides the framework in which to do the
fighting and the A&S. It provides the places to meet and much of the pagentry
we have come to expect. It provides some measure of order and safety to our
activities. But service without the other two spokes would be nothing more
than bylaws and social/political power plays. While there might be some who
would enjoy these things, I doubt that most of us would stay in the SCA for
that alone.
Some one mentioned recruiting, when you look at the whole picture recruiting
also requires all three spokes based around the re-creation hub. People may be
attracted by the sight of fighters, but they wouldn't be able to see the
fighters without the service spoke setting up a place to fight and they
wouldn't be nearly so interested if the fighters weren't garbed and outfitted
in medieval style. Nor would they feel comfortable coming to observe if there
weren't already people standing about watching and cheering.
Our SCA requires all forms of participation, fighting, A&S, and service to be
the activity which we all enjoy so well. The loss of even one of those
activities would make us a much less interesting group and might well make us
non-existant.
Constance de Larose
Jay Rudin
> As evidenced by Ansteorra's population decline. The FUBs ran off the
> crafts people, no more equipment, population declines. Participation
> (at least in the north) is down severely. Pop meetings are now little
> more than the FUB officers. No one is making armor. Everyone wants
> Excalibur, for the price of the Amazing Ginzu. I guess they got tired
> of sweating for nothing.
I have no clue what he's talking about. For the record:
1. Ansteorra's population is bigger than it's ever been.
2. Ansteorra just had its largest kingdom event last summer.
3. The *only* major drop in Ansteorra's official population came after the
BoD nonsense of 1994.
4. There are more arts-oriented events than ever.
5. There are more Ansteorran artists now than ever. We've had to turn
down halls because they weren't big enough for the *baronial* artisan
event.
6. At the last kingdom A&S, the king, queen, prince and princess *all* had
a display set up.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Jay Rudin
> A lot of people believe that the SCA would be more fun if
> the fighting was not the *central* activity.
Fighting isn't the central activity. It's just the central activity at
tournaments.
> Ever been in event planning and have a site turned down
> because there wasn't room to have a spinning circle or
> that they wouldn't allow a forge on the grounds?
Of course. Haven't you? The local baronial artisan event is at its fifth
hall, having succesively outgrown four others. This event was started ten
years ago, and has grown tremendously.
Finding a site big enough to hold Kingdom A&S or King's College has become
very difficult. The last King's College wound up with two sets of classes
set up in a hallway, because it just outgrew all available space.
No site for a tourney has been turned down because of space for the arts,
but proposed sites for arts events get shot down for that all the time.
> Ever
> seen one turned down because there wasn't room for fighting?
I've had to fight on some cramped fields because a tourney was added to an
event that didn't have room for it.
> *MOST* people in the SCA are *NOT* fighters. Many fighters
> believe that the SCA revolves around what they do, not
> realizing how much else is out there.
There are a few such people, but I don't think it's a majority view, or
anything close.
> I don't know anyone who would want to end SCA fighting;
> but a lot of us would like to feel that everything else
> wasn't stepchildren to it.
Then I recommend that you focus more on events that aren't tourneys.
They're out there. (Or if they aren't, then I recommend that you offer to
organize one.)
Ted Eisenstein
>crafts people, no more equipment, population declines. Participation
>(at least in the north) is down severely. Pop meetings are now little
>more than the FUB officers. No one is making armor. Everyone wants
>Excalibur, for the price of the Amazing Ginzu. I guess they got tired
>of sweating for nothing.
What's a "FUB"?
Alban
Cumhail
that YOU would like doesn't mean that they're not evolving. SCA
fighting (and the Society in general) evolves every year. Certainly
neither are what they were when I joined 17 years ago, even tho the
concept of the tourny being the hub of most events hasn't changed. The
fighting itself has evolved, as have the arts, sciences, and social
infrastructure of the SCA (i.e the increase in family units).
Cumhail
> Sheridan wrote:
>
> Q: What would the SCA be without heavy weapons combat?
>
> Iain mac Grioghair wrote:
>
> A: The SCA would not be the same. And recruiting in most areas would be
> non-existant. People from 500 meters away see two idiots swinging
> sticks
> at each other. Without SCA fighting there would be no SCA. You must
> have people coming together to have a Society. Without a strong draw as
> the fighting, that would not happen. The SCA is a better place because
> of its
Cumhail
>
> --- But the SCA
> arts and sciences would die a quick death.
I disagree with this most wholeheartedly. If there were no "SCA" around
the psuedo-medieval stickfighting, I would still be show up to wear
armour and fight with sticks, as would many, many others. Ever been to
a kingdom A&S with less than 20 projects, but with a tourny of over 50
fighters? I have, more than once. More people show up at our fighter
practices than our sewing circle, or dance practice. This has been the
case in over 95% of the goups that I have belonged to, in 7 Laurel
Kingdoms.
Fighting is certainly not more important than other aspects of the
Society, but it does have a more solid core following than any (yes ANY)
of the others, overall. From first hand experience, I believe this to
be a fact.
Cumhail
Cumhail
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
> Fighting isn't the central activity. It's just the central activity at
> tournaments.
>
<snip>
True. What percentage of Society events are tournements, however?
Well over half, I would hazzard. I've only lived in one kingdom
(Atlantia, the azure jewel of the Laurel Kingdoms) that had a
requirement for non-fighting events. The attendance of two such were
required for participation in the Crown List, so even they were
predicated to (perhaps a small, perhaps large) degree upon fighting.
I agree that we should never underplay the importance of the gentle
arts. They are the shining spires and rich tapestries of our castle.
The foundation of that castle, however, (at least in my opinion) is the
heavy weapons tourny. I'm not saying this because I want it to be so -
I believe it to be true.
Cumhail
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
causedForest Baker <fba...@mce.com> to write:
(snip)
> So it is impossible, therefore, to imagine any attempt at improvement
>in SCA fighting. SCA has come too far. It is too successful to risk
>any such change. If SCA has become fearful in this regard, then, it is
>indeed a static organization whose membership will continue to grow but
>where it has too much to lose to attempt improving its fighting system.
All right, you've piqued my curiosity. What sort of
changes/improvements do*you* think SCA fighting needs?
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
Marian
Cumhail wrote:
> More people show up at our fighter
> practices than our sewing circle, or dance practice. This has been the
> case in over 95% of the goups that I have belonged to, in 7 Laurel
> Kingdoms.
The one and only time I have gotten a chance to go to a local SCA meeting
was a fighter practice. Being star-eyed new-type person who hasn't seen
much fighting after a bit I went over and watched the fighting. Very
cool. Then I went back to the room where 80% of the people were sewing or
doing other crafts. 5 or 10 fighters, at least 25 people doing crafts.
Afterwards, most people went out to eat and it was social stuff + food as
opposed to social stuff + sewing.
-M
Bronwynmgn
writes:
>More people show up at our fighter
>practices than our sewing circle, or dance practice. This has been the
>case in over 95% of the goups that I have belonged to, in 7 Laurel
>Kingdoms.
Whereas in my local group, we have only 4 authorized fighters, one of whom is
on indefinite layoff due to a back injury. We have not had a single fighter
practice in the shire for over 5 years. The vast majority of our activity
consists of fencing, archery, and various forms of A&S, and the A&S part is the
most consistently active. There are nearby groups which do have regular
fighter practice, so that we can refer interested folks to someone, but very
few of the newbies who have contacted us recently have had much interest in
fighting, either - and many of them have come in already planning or in the
process of researching authentic names and garb, with a high level of interest
in A&S in general. So in my local area, heavy weapons combat is very much a
secondary activity, and we frequently have more fencers, archers, and those
interested in A&S at our events.
And I have to admit that my knee-jerk reaction tot the orginal poster's
statement that fighting was the most important activity in the SCA, and the one
it couldn't survive without (yes, I know I'm paraphrasing and likely
exaggerating, but this is my recollection of what the post said), was something
along the lines of "How dare he denigrate and belittle all of the work that
gets done in the arts and sciences just because he likes to fight? Any idiot
can put on armor and swing a stick. It's the ones who are doing the research
and the A&S that are teaching us all (and not just SCAdians) more about the
middle ages, which is what the group is supposed to be about." If it was just
about swinging rattan, I wouldn't have stayed more than a few events.
Brangwayna Morgan
Dennis O'Connor
> Fighting is certainly not more important than other aspects of the
> Society,
Well, not for you maybe ... my point being that
what's most important in the SCA differs according
to who you ask. Which is how it should be.
The SCA is an inclusive organization, after all,
and that means it includes people with different
ideas of what's important. (Which is prob'ly one
of the reasons SCA politics can be so ... ugly. )
This what-if game of what-would-the-sca-be-if-?
is futile. Lacking a "sliding" machine with
really good targetting, we'll never know what the
SCA would be like without armored combat.
I see other agendas being pursued.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Malachias Invictus
Cumhail <dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:381DBD...@mindspring.com...
> Jay Rudin wrote:
>
> >
> > Fighting isn't the central activity. It's just the central activity at
> > tournaments.
> >
> <snip>
>
> True. What percentage of Society events are tournements, however?
> Cumhail
This questions got me thinking, so I looked at my Page (West Kingdom
newsletter) and got the following results for September-November 1999:
Tournaments/Wars: 14, including Ducal Prize (which has many types of
tournaments, the majority of which are not fighting), and GWW (not in our
Kingdom). For those who wish additional detail, there were 7 tourneys and 7
wars.
Other: 12, 7 of which were feasts.
If we were to take out GWW for being out of Kingdom, and decide that Ducal
should be in a sort of "both" category, we have an even split.
I also grabbed two random Pages from my "SCA stuff" box. Here are the
results therefrom:
March-June 1997:
Tournaments/Wars: 19, 13 tournaments, 6 wars.
Other: 16, including 3 feasts.
February-May 1998:
Tournaments/Wars: 15, 10 tournaments, 5 wars, including GWW, Estrella, and
West-Caid.
Other: 12, including 3 feasts.
Note that many of the tournaments were local and included feasts.
Do with this information what you will. . .
Herr Malachias von Morgenstern, Kapitän der Galatea
Syndic of the Loyal Guild of Saint Erasmus - We put the "Sea" in SCA!
Shire of Danegeld Tor/Principality of Cynagua/Kingdom of the West
capt_malachias <AT> juno.com
Cumhail
>
> Cumhail <dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> > Fighting is certainly not more important than other aspects of the
> > Society,
>
> Well, not for you maybe ...
That's it in a nutshell. Actually, to ME, fighting is the most
important aspect of the SCA. Without heavy fighting, I'd certainly have
wandered off to more interesting pursuits long ago. Looking at the
"Big Picture", fighting lured me into the SCA, and it kept me here long
enough to realize that I also enjoy other bits of the Society.
my point being that
> what's most important in the SCA differs according
> to who you ask. Which is how it should be.
> The SCA is an inclusive organization, after all,
> and that means it includes people with different
> ideas of what's important. (Which is prob'ly one
> of the reasons SCA politics can be so ... ugly. )
>
> This what-if game of what-would-the-sca-be-if-?
> is futile. Lacking a "sliding" machine with
> really good targetting, we'll never know what the
> SCA would be like without armored combat.
>
> I see other agendas being pursued.
> --
Dennis, I've never seen you try to put the kibosh on an arguementative
thread before! Are you defecting to the shiny/happy camp? Say it ain't
so!!
As for "other agendas", I mentioned earlier in the year that I
suspected the existance of a faction that wanted to downplay the role of
heavy fighting in the SCA, and was bombarded with responses that were
suitably vitriolic as to all but confirm my suspicions. Then I was told
to go play on alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters.
How wonderfully medieval it would be to play out political intrigue of
such import to the SCA! I can hardly wait.
Cumhail
Cumhail
This begs the question: How many of the "Other" category had
organized fighting?
Cumhail
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Malachias Invictus wrote:
: > Cumhail <dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: > news:381DBD...@mindspring.com...
: > > Jay Rudin wrote:
: > > > Fighting isn't the central activity. It's just the central activity at
: > > > tournaments.
: > This questions got me thinking, so I looked at my Page (West Kingdom
: > newsletter) and got the following results for September-November 1999:
<snip specifics>
: This begs the question: How many of the "Other" category had
: organized fighting?
It also begs the question of what proportion of the person-activities
(parallel to man-hours) at events _labelled_ "war" or "tournament" are
entirely non-martial. But as a general rule of thumb for announcements in
the West newsletter, any event that has _any_ organized fighting will be
named with a label that indicates that fact.
Tangwystyl
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Cumhail
>>
> It also begs the question of what proportion of the person-activities
> (parallel to man-hours) at events _labelled_ "war" or "tournament" are
> entirely non-martial. But as a general rule of thumb for announcements in
> the West newsletter, any event that has _any_ organized fighting will be
> named with a label that indicates that fact.
Also valid points. Let me riposte with the question: How would the
figures compare to those for the same kingdom during a season not filled
with harvest or yule feasts, and traditionally family-intensive mundane
holidays?
We can also compare with kingdoms in warmer climbs, such as Atlantia,
who has a 12 to 7 (fight to non fight) ratio for oct/nov and Trimaris
which has no non fighting events listed for those same months (as far as
I've been able to find - I've been wrong before).
Again, I'm not trying to say that the SCA revolves around heavy
fighting - just that the majority of SCA events involves heavy fighting.
Cumhail
william thomas powers
>fighting - just that the majority of SCA events involves heavy fighting.
I'm not trying to say that the SCA revolves around travelling in cars -
just that the majority of SCA events involves travelling in cars.
your point?
The majority of SCA members do not do heavy fighting so I guess the majority
of events also involve other things even if they are *not* listed on the
announcements...
Shoot it wouldn't bother me if *EVERY* SCA event had a tourney; but
shouldn't non-tourney elements get equal consideration when planning
and hosting events. Perhaps then an artificial construct due to how
we currently publicize things would change...
Thomas
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
: >>
: > It also begs the question of what proportion of the person-activities
: > (parallel to man-hours) at events _labelled_ "war" or "tournament" are
: > entirely non-martial. But as a general rule of thumb for announcements in
: > the West newsletter, any event that has _any_ organized fighting will be
: > named with a label that indicates that fact.
: Also valid points. Let me riposte with the question: How would the
: figures compare to those for the same kingdom during a season not filled
: with harvest or yule feasts, and traditionally family-intensive mundane
: holidays?
I did a similar tally to the one Malachias did in the context of a similar
discussion on our kingdom list earlier this year (summer, I believe, but I
don't recall specifically when). The results were quite similar:
approximately equal numbers of events that -- from the newsletter
description -- either clearly had combat as an organizing focus or clearly
did _not_ have combat as an organizing focus, with a significantly smaller
third group that clearly had combat as a planned part of the event but not
as the organizing _focus_ of the event. You have to remember that seasonal
considerations are a bit less active in the central West: we _do_ tend to
have a short no-camping season in mid-winter, but it pretty much only
covers December and January and "no camping" doesn't always correspond to
"no fighting".
: Again, I'm not trying to say that the SCA revolves around heavy
: fighting - just that the majority of SCA events involves heavy fighting.
And the majority of SCA events -- heck, I'd expand that to say _all_ SCA
events (with the exception, if you count them, of fighter practices) --
involve lots of activities that aren't heavy fighting.
Cumhail
>
>
> I'm not trying to say that the SCA revolves around travelling in cars -
> just that the majority of SCA events involves travelling in cars.
>
> your point?
>
> The majority of SCA members do not do heavy fighting so I guess the majority
> of events also involve other things even if they are *not* listed on the
> announcements...
>
> Shoot it wouldn't bother me if *EVERY* SCA event had a tourney; but
> shouldn't non-tourney elements get equal consideration when planning
> and hosting events. Perhaps then an artificial construct due to how
> we currently publicize things would change...
>
Point? I stated in an earlier post, that most SCA events involve heavy
fighting. That's all I said and/or infered. It's true. I know this
from 17 years of first hand experience in 7 kingdoms.
Not once have I stated (or infered) that fighting is the most
important part of the SCA. Quite the contrary, actually. I have said,
and it's true, that fighting is the most important part of the SCA to
ME, but never pretended to speak for other than myself. Never have I
even alluded to the concept that any peaceful aspect of our Society
should suffer in any way to promote heavy fighting.
Find me facts that show any kingdom in the known world has more events
without fighting and with fighting, and I'll retract my statement (as it
will have proven wrong). I won't, however, hold my breath until that
happens. It's funny that such a flat statement of (what I believe to
be) fact should prompt people to take it upon themselves to school me as
to the relative unimportance of heavy fighting, when I my initial
statement dealt not with it's importance, but with it's prevalence.
As to the difference between the SCA REVOLVING around and activity
vice INVOLVING an activity, Thomas, I don't think I really need to
explain my meaning do I? It's no secret that you would much rather see
forging than fighting at events - personal opinion is a fine thing. I
respect your's, even when I don't agree with it. My statement of fact
should have no bearing upon anyone's agenda at all tho.
Back to my point. More SCA events have fighting than do not. Just so
no one reads anything into this, I'm not saying that fighting is the
most important aspect of the SCA. Nor am I saying it is not. I'm just
saying: The majority of SCA events involve fighting.
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
<snip>
>
> And the majority of SCA events -- heck, I'd expand that to say _all_ SCA
> events (with the exception, if you count them, of fighter practices) --
> involve lots of activities that aren't heavy fighting.
>
With all respect due to a Lady of such scholarship and personal merit:
No duh. Give me a break here. All I did was ask "What percentage of
SCA events are tournies"? Admittedly, the question implied that I
believe the majority of SCA events to be tournies of one sort or
another. I do believe this, based upon first hand experience, and after
some research I still believe it. For the sake of all you sophisters
getting ready to pounce, for the sake of this arguement, I consider a
tourny to be "organized, heavy fighting". I never once attempted to
downplay the importance of any non-fighting pastimes. Ever.
Cumhail
Dennis O'Connor
Cumhail <dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> Dennis, I've never seen you try to put the kibosh on an arguementative
> thread before! Are you defecting to the shiny/happy camp? Say it ain't
> so!!
I have had a quite annoying head cold for the past few days.
I offer this as an explanation, but not an excuse, for my
recent sub-par USENET performance.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
"Does this mean I'm only a shiny/happy person when I'm sick?"
Jay Rudin
> If there were no "SCA" around
> the psuedo-medieval stickfighting, I would still be show up to wear
> armour and fight with sticks, as would many, many others.
If there were no more A&S, *what* armor would you be wearing?
Jay Rudin
> Not once have I stated (or infered) that fighting is the most
> important part of the SCA. Quite the contrary, actually. I have said,
> and it's true, that fighting is the most important part of the SCA to
> ME, but never pretended to speak for other than myself.
...
> It's funny that such a flat statement of (what I believe to
> be) fact should prompt people to take it upon themselves to school me as
> to the relative unimportance of heavy fighting, when I my initial
> statement dealt not with it's importance, but with it's prevalence.
> Just so
> no one reads anything into this, I'm not saying that fighting is the
> most important aspect of the SCA.
Cumhail, I'm having trouble reconciling this with your previous statement:
> The foundation of that castle, however, (at least in my opinion) is the
> heavy weapons tourny. I'm not saying this because I want it to be so -
> I believe it to be true.
>
I suspect that until you can reconcile what appears to be two different
viewpoints, you will continue to have trouble communicating your ideas.
Malachias Invictus
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > Cumhail <dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> > > Fighting is certainly not more important than other aspects of the
> > > Society,
> >
> > Well, not for you maybe ...
>
> That's it in a nutshell. Actually, to ME, fighting is the most
> important aspect of the SCA. Without heavy fighting, I'd certainly have
> wandered off to more interesting pursuits long ago. Looking at the
> "Big Picture", fighting lured me into the SCA, and it kept me here long
> enough to realize that I also enjoy other bits of the Society.
That is funny. For me, parties, neat clothing, drinking, beautiful women,
and atmosphere are what kept me around until I found the other bits (A&S,
heraldry, nautical goodies, etc.). I really enjoy the fact that many
different types of people can all find their niche in the Society (and, of
course, argue about which area of interest is the most important).
Herr Malachias von Morgenstern, Kapitän der Galatea
Syndic of the Loyal Guild of Saint Erasmus - We put the "Sea" in SCA!
Shire of Danegeld Tor/Principality of Cynagua/Kingdom of the West
capt_malachias <AT> juno.com
> Cumhail
Malachias Invictus
> > > Jay Rudin wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fighting isn't the central activity. It's just the central activity
at
> > > > tournaments.
> > > >
> > >
> > > True. What percentage of Society events are tournements, however?
> >
> >
> > This questions got me thinking, so I looked at my Page (West Kingdom
> > newsletter) and got the following results for September-November 1999:
> >
> > tournaments, the majority of which are not fighting), and GWW (not in
our
> > Kingdom). For those who wish additional detail, there were 7 tourneys
and 7
> > wars.
> >
> > Other: 12, 7 of which were feasts.
> >
> > If we were to take out GWW for being out of Kingdom, and decide that
Ducal
> > should be in a sort of "both" category, we have an even split.
> >
> > I also grabbed two random Pages from my "SCA stuff" box. Here are the
> > results therefrom:
> >
> > March-June 1997:
> >
> > Tournaments/Wars: 19, 13 tournaments, 6 wars.
> >
> > Other: 16, including 3 feasts.
> >
> > February-May 1998:
> >
> > Tournaments/Wars: 15, 10 tournaments, 5 wars, including GWW, Estrella,
and
> > West-Caid.
> >
> > Other: 12, including 3 feasts.
> >
> > Note that many of the tournaments were local and included feasts.
> >
> > Do with this information what you will. . .
>
> organized fighting?
Excellent question. As far as I can discern:
September-November 1999: 1, but note also that I included a "feast with
fighting" event in the tournament section.
March-June 1997: 2, but note also that I included 3 "feast with fighting"
events in the tournament section.
February-May 1998: 2, but note also that I included 2 "feast with fighting"
events in the tournament section.
> Cumhail
Malachias Invictus
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:7vnbm7$rjv$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> : Again, I'm not trying to say that the SCA revolves around heavy
> : fighting - just that the majority of SCA events involves heavy fighting.
>
> And the majority of SCA events -- heck, I'd expand that to say _all_ SCA
> events (with the exception, if you count them, of fighter practices) --
> involve lots of activities that aren't heavy fighting.
Even the majority of fighter practices that I have attended in the West
involved activities that aren't heavy fighting (dancing, rapier combat,
weaving, needlework, and period games come to mind).
> Tangwystyl
Lady PDC
>No duh. Give me a break here. All I did was ask "What percentage of
>SCA events are tournies"? Admittedly, the question implied that I
>believe the majority of SCA events to be tournies of one sort or
>another. I do believe this, based upon first hand experience, and after
>some research I still believe it. For the sake of all you sophisters
>getting ready to pounce, for the sake of this arguement, I consider a
>tourny to be "organized, heavy fighting". I never once attempted to
>downplay the importance of any non-fighting pastimes. Ever.
>
>Cumhail
>
I think that your question stirred up some interesting conversation and
contemplation and I thank you for that.
But I guess some one has to ask the obvious question so I will do so.
So why did you ask the question? Simple curiousity?
Constance de Larose
lad...@aol.com
Debbie Snyder
"Never say a thing's impossible, chances are you'll rue it
Because some fool who doesn't know, will come along
and do it"
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: > And the majority of SCA events -- heck, I'd expand that to say _all_ SCA
: > events (with the exception, if you count them, of fighter practices) --
: > involve lots of activities that aren't heavy fighting.
: >
: With all respect due to a Lady of such scholarship and personal merit:
: No duh. Give me a break here. All I did was ask "What percentage of
: SCA events are tournies"? Admittedly, the question implied that I
: believe the majority of SCA events to be tournies of one sort or
: another.
But your further clarification asking how many events in Malachias'
"other" category (i.e., events not _labelled_ as "war" or "tournament")
suggested that you were working towards a analysis of "any event with
organized fighting" as "tournament". This sort of "one drop" analysis
would severely skew the interpretation of "the majority of SCA events" as
tournaments, as opposed to the majority of SCA events as events that
happen to have some organized fighting, in some proportion, among some
unknown number and proportion of other activities. I don't believe that
it's reasonable to label and count any event with "one drop" of organized
fighting as a "tournament". The addition that you objected to above was
pointing out the reduction ad absurdum from the other side: that if one
were to apply the "one drop" rule to non-fighting activities, then pretty
much _no_ SCA events count as "tournaments". It was your attempt to expand
the definition of "tournament" to events that did not so label themselves
that led me to stand the analysis on its head.
: I do believe this, based upon first hand experience, and after
: some research I still believe it. For the sake of all you sophisters
: getting ready to pounce, for the sake of this arguement, I consider a
: tourny to be "organized, heavy fighting". I never once attempted to
: downplay the importance of any non-fighting pastimes. Ever.
But are you classifying _only_ the organized heavy fighting itself as a
tournament or are you classifying the entire event at which organized
heavy fighting occurs to be a tournament solely on that basis? If someone
holds a heavy fighting list as part of a wedding celebration, does that
make the celebration as a whole a "tournament" as opposed to a "wedding"?
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
causedCumhail <dr_b...@mindspring.com> to write:
>hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>
>> It also begs the question of what proportion of the person-activities
>> (parallel to man-hours) at events _labelled_ "war" or "tournament" are
>> entirely non-martial. But as a general rule of thumb for announcements in
>> the West newsletter, any event that has _any_ organized fighting will be
>> named with a label that indicates that fact.
>
> Also valid points. Let me riposte with the question: How would the
>figures compare to those for the same kingdom during a season not filled
>with harvest or yule feasts, and traditionally family-intensive mundane
>holidays?
>
> We can also compare with kingdoms in warmer climbs, such as Atlantia,
>who has a 12 to 7 (fight to non fight) ratio for oct/nov and Trimaris
>which has no non fighting events listed for those same months (as far as
>I've been able to find - I've been wrong before).
>
> Again, I'm not trying to say that the SCA revolves around heavy
>fighting - just that the majority of SCA events involves heavy fighting.
If by "involves" you mean "includes" you're probably right. if you
mean it as "heavy fighting is the primary focus of the event" then I
would have to disagree with you.
Pennsic War is the SCA's largest event, approximately 10,000 people,
but you'll only find 2000 of them on the field. Even if you include
the folks watching the fighting, I doubt you'd get anywhere close to
50% of the attendees "involved" in the fighting.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
Cumhail
>
> > >
> I suspect that until you can reconcile what appears to be two different
> viewpoints, you will continue to have trouble communicating your ideas.
>
The confusion being the difference between heavy fighting being "the
foundation of the SCA" and yet not the MOST important part? Let me
continue with my castle analogy:
A castle is made of many parts. A foundation of course, and walls and
roofs (why did I want to write "rooves"?), a well, bowers, murder holes,
ect. Could a castle exist without a foundation? Maybe a small one,
with dirt floor. Does a grand castle of the finest sort need a
foundation? Indubitably. Is the foundation the most important part of
the castle? Hardly. Without walls, it's really no castle at all, no
matter how well laid the foundation. Without a roof, the castle is
proof against neither rain, nor diseased goat carcasses flung in anger.
Without tapestries, the castle is cold and drab. The foundation is,
then, not the most IMPORTANT part, but certainly a vitally important
one.
Okay...now, to try and establish heavy fighting as a vital component
of the SCA. There was heavy fighting (of a sort) at the "first tourny"
in the backyard in Berkley about a bazillion years ago. Heavy fighting
is the basis for our psuedo-fuedal political system. Some people want
this to change, but until it does, them's the berries.
Now, this next bit requires some effort. I invite you to peruse the
online event calendars of the various kingdoms. Count on your fingers,
count on your toes, count on your friend's toes, if they're cute. More
SCA events have organized fighting than do not. Even in these cold,
holiday months, this is so. These events also have a myriad other
necessary and/or enjoyable activities going on, which are the walls,
roof, tapestries and jakes of that castle we were talking about.
There's also a bunch of crap goin on at every event that's no part of
this metaforical castle at all, but we choose to put up with any way.
The fact that MOST of these events have organized fighting, however,
proves to me that heavy fighting is a vital part of the SCA.
I propose that heavy fighting is necessary for the existance of the
SCA _AS WE KNOW IT_. But, y'know what? So is armouring, and sewing,
and cooking, and brewing, and forging, and so are those people who seem
to be always washing dishes and setting up folding chairs, and those
lonely few picking up trash and standing site inspection on Sunday
morning. All of these are parts of our castle, and we would be
diminished by the loss of any of it/them.
Thanks for the nudge, Master Robin - I hope I've accomplished what you
proposed. One would think that someone who talked as much as I would
get better at it eventually. :)
Cumhail
Cumhail
Master Robin stated that "Fighting isn't the central activity.
It's just the central activity at tournaments.", in a conversation I
believe, dealing with the cental activity at most SCA events. Being,
myself, a zealous proponant of heavy fighting within the SCA, and ever
anxious to defend its importance to our little culture, I sought to
opine that tournaments, being the most common sort of event, made
fighting the central activity at the majority of events. This was taken
by some to mean that I thought fighting to be the most important
activity at events, which fomented confusion and debate. I don't, by
this written above, mean to imply that Robin is an _opponant_ of
fighting, as we know this is certainly not the case - merely more well
rounded than myself. I hope this answers your question.
Cumhail
p.s. confindentially, I just like to argue. I never fail to learn
something by it.
Cumhail
Mistress, my mind treads paths that my tongue (and fingers) cannot well
follow. I hope that my response to Robin has cleared up my meanings for
all. Realizing that even successfully explaining my stand doesn't
demand agreement, I'd still like to bend my knee to you who wrote the
paragraph below - I had to read it three times before I fully understood
it, if in fact, I do. <G>
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
>
> If by "involves" you mean "includes" you're probably right. if you
> mean it as "heavy fighting is the primary focus of the event" then I
> would have to disagree with you.
>
I don't think that "involves" implies primary focus, however, I do
know that fighting IS the primary focus for some, at events who's
intended focus might be something else. Of course, this also applies to
those who's primary focus is feasting, dancing, merchanting, or merely
displaying their groovy new garb at events who's intended focus is
fighting. I've gone to kingdom A&S for the sole reason of fighting, and
I've gone to Pennsic just to shop (please don't let that last bit get
around).
Cumhail
Bredin Zierd
> Cumhail wrote:
>
> > If there were no "SCA" around
> > the psuedo-medieval stickfighting, I would still be show up to wear
> > armour and fight with sticks, as would many, many others.
>
> If there were no more A&S, *what* armor would you be wearing?
Sticking armoury in A&S, and than saying what you said creates a false image
that brewing of tablet weaving (for example) is necessary for fighting.
--
Nunc lusum imus novum ludum
Lord Zierd, Cynic of the Inner Circle
william thomas powers
>> > the psuedo-medieval stickfighting, I would still be show up to wear
>> > armour and fight with sticks, as would many, many others.
>>
>> If there were no more A&S, *what* armor would you be wearing?
>
>Sticking armoury in A&S, and than saying what you said creates a false image
>that brewing of tablet weaving (for example) is necessary for fighting.
Alas I must agree; but for a different reason---much of SCA armouring has
nothing to do with A&S as it has little to do with research and re-creation
of period based pieces. SCA fighting, unfortunately, could continue along its
current path with no A&S component.
This is not to say that there isn't many armourers and armours that epitomize
the A&S goals; just that fighting is not dependent on them.
Thomas
Jay Rudin
> Jay Rudin found it necessary to say:
> > Cumhail wrote:
> >
> > > If there were no "SCA" around
> > > the psuedo-medieval stickfighting, I would still be show up to wear
> > > armour and fight with sticks, as would many, many others.
> >
> > If there were no more A&S, *what* armor would you be wearing?
>
> Sticking armoury in A&S, and than saying what you said creates a false image
> that brewing of tablet weaving (for example) is necessary for fighting.
I'm sorry, but that is untrue by both modern and medieval logic. I made no
statement about brewing or tablet weaving. Armor is a subset of A&S. If there
were no A&S, then there would be no armor. Therefore he wouldn't have any.
That logic chain is valid, and does not imply anything about other subsets of
A&S.
Bredin Zierd
What I meant was the implication was there. To most people A&S means sewing,
brewing, singing etc. They just dont naturally associate armoury with A&S,
attaching it instead to 'combat'.
I certainly wasnt disputing your logic.
So, I take it that when someone makes armour out of plastic they are 'guilty' of
doing A&S?
Ted Eisenstein
>Or, more likely, the two are inseparable and the original arguments
were a waste
>of time.
No, the "whole A&S thing" owes its existence to itself; armoring is
simply
one among a whole slew of things. Even at the First Event, I warrant
there were
people interested in just garb and sewing, and others interested in
armoring.
The two are separable: one could care less about how period one's armor
is,
or how good it looks (how many hockey knee pads and Army boots have you
seen lately, eh? <grin>) as long as it meets the marshalls' minimum
safety
standards. One can be an A&S person and not care a whit about ever going
within a mile of a listfield.
I'd said
> Yup. Not doing it in a period fashion, but yes, it is A&S. It's no
better or worse
> than making garb with fake fur or polyester, or using inks and
machine-made
> paper for calligraphy and illumination. . .
The reply was
>Sound reasonable to me, the next logical extension is that
making/repairing
>rattan weapons is A&S... as is the making of chainmail bikinis and
other dodgy
>items of aparel... (Let me know when the logical steps reach an
illogical
>conclusion)
I've never heard that repairing _anything_ was considered an A&S
category.
I've never seen anyone get an award for excellence in making rattan
weapons.
There are a large number of people who make very, very good period
armory,
using period methods, in a period style - so good that some of them now
work
at museums that have medieval amor departments. (I _think_ I'm right at
this;
supporting/contrary iformation is always welcome, of course.)
But rattan? A long piece of bamboo, covered in duct tape and padded
with
foam rubber? It may look vaguely like a period weapon, but I wouldn't
consider
it a legitimate (note: _legitimate_) A&S category. And I've never seen
good
research support for the periodness of chainmail bikines, either.
There is a difference between armor and chainmail apparel: armor was
done in period,
chainmail bikinis weren't. That's why I'd class armor as a good A&S
category, and
chainmail bikinis as merely modern eye candy.
Alban
Bear and or Gypsy
cent.civilian reenactors to SCA people. (New clothes, new tent, etc.) Part
of the attraction for him is that in our area there aren't many
blacksmiths(tons of knifemakers and armorers, but no plain smiths), and he
might just be able to sell some things he makes, but the main thing for both
of us is that the "round" of events we had been doing were populated by old
men interested in discussing memorable drinking bouts from twenty years ago,
and individuals of barely passing authenticity who were, to put it
charitably, from the shallow end of the gene pool. :-) I wanted a group that
was more mixed in age, more likely to be intelligent, and allowing for more
variability in interests. We've seen that in the SCA.
Is he a fighter, or am I? No, and we won't be. But I like to wander over and
watch sometimes. I like to learn by doing, and I can do that here at my own
pace and in my own fields of interest. No one laughs at me here for wanting
to eat authentic food or wear stays instead of modern underwear to truly
understand women of that era. It's a nice change.
There's room for everyone.
In Her Light,
Gypsy
Ted Eisenstein
>brewing, singing etc. They just dont naturally associate armoury with A&S,
>attaching it instead to 'combat'.
the_using_ of armour with combat. And, in fact, Calontir has given out several
Laurels for armouring - which definitely places it firmly in the A&S area.
>So, I take it that when someone makes armour out of plastic they are 'guilty' of
>doing A&S?
Yup. Not doing it in a period fashion, but yes, it is A&S. It's no better or worse
than making garb with fake fur or polyester, or using inks and machine-made
paper for calligraphy and illumination. . .
(And what's wrong with doing A&S that you'd call it "guilty", anyway?)
Alban
Bredin Zierd
> >What I meant was the implication was there. To most people A&S means sewing,
> >brewing, singing etc. They just dont naturally associate armoury with A&S,
> >attaching it instead to 'combat'.
> Nearly everyone I know associates the making of armour as being in A&S, and
> the_using_ of armour with combat. And, in fact, Calontir has given out several
> Laurels for armouring - which definitely places it firmly in the A&S area.
So basaically the whole A&S thing owes its existence to the fighters...
Or, more likely, the two are inseparable and the original arguments were a waste
of time.
> >So, I take it that when someone makes armour out of plastic they are 'guilty' of
> >doing A&S?
> Yup. Not doing it in a period fashion, but yes, it is A&S. It's no better or worse
> than making garb with fake fur or polyester, or using inks and machine-made
> paper for calligraphy and illumination. . .
Sound reasonable to me, the next logical extension is that making/repairing
rattan weapons is A&S... as is the making of chainmail bikinis and other dodgy
items of aparel... (Let me know when the logical steps reach an illogical
conclusion)
> (And what's wrong with doing A&S that you'd call it "guilty", anyway?)
Guilty as in 'it was you wot done it'. Aint nothing wrong with A&S, Ive been
guilty of it myself on occasion.
Cumhail
> >
> So basaically the whole A&S thing owes its existence to the fighters...
> Or, more likely, the two are inseparable and the original arguments were a waste
> of time.
>
Dude...you're being purposefully obtuse here, I think.
Cumhail
Jay Rudin
followed the post that Jack. ... uh, I mean, that Cumhail wrote:
> >> > If there were no "SCA" around
> >> > the psuedo-medieval stickfighting, I would still be show up to wear
> >> > armour and fight with sticks, as would many, many others.
> >>
> >> If there were no more A&S, *what* armor would you be wearing?
> >
> >Sticking armoury in A&S, and than saying what you said creates a false image
> >that brewing of tablet weaving (for example) is necessary for fighting.
>
> Alas I must agree; but for a different reason---much of SCA armouring has
> nothing to do with A&S as it has little to do with research and re-creation
> of period based pieces. SCA fighting, unfortunately, could continue along its
> current path with no A&S component.
No, it could not.
It could continue along its current path with no A&S component that is focussed on
research and re-creation of period based pieces. However, as the average tourney
shows, it can also continue along its current path with no fighting component that
is focussed on research and re-creation of period based fighting styles.
The minimum level of A&S required for our fighting is a generic, modern,
slap-together bit of armory and costuming. The minimum level of fighting skill
required for our fighting is a generic, modern, slap-together bit of
authorization-level fighting skill.
Which gets back to the point -- basic A&S is necessary for fighting to happen.
Basic fighting is not necessary for A&S to happen. Most events have fighting.
*All* events have A&S.
There is simply no logical basis for proclaiming fighting to be the foundation of
the SCA. (A quick glance at Corpora could lead one top believe that an attempt at
pre-17th century costume is the foundation, and this fallacy is just as valid as
any other.)
Fighting is the foundation for fighters. Calligraphy is the foundation for
calligraphers. Costuming is the foundation for costumers. We each have our own
foundations, and the sum of all of them is a stronger foundation than any one
could be.
There's not a unique foundation, but if there were, it would be celebrating Diana
Paxton's M.A. degree.
Jay Rudin
> So basaically the whole A&S thing owes its existence to the fighters...
No. The SCA's initial interest in armor does, however. That still makes no statement
about other arts.
> Sound reasonable to me, the next logical extension is that making/repairing
> rattan weapons is A&S... as is the making of chainmail bikinis and other dodgy
> items of aparel... (Let me know when the logical steps reach an illogical
> conclusion)
A. Yes, poorly-done, modern-style arts are arts, just as poorly-done, modern-style
fighting is fighting. Why is this hard to understand?
B. Some day I want to have a rattan weapon A&S competition. You must lay the rattan
weapon down alongside the real weapon it's supposed to be simulating, and it will be
judged on the basis of weight, balance, looks, and handling characteristics.
Bredin Zierd
> Bredin Zierd wrote:
> > >
> > So basaically the whole A&S thing owes its existence to the fighters...
> > of time.
> >
>
> Dude...you're being purposefully obtuse here, I think.
Yep.
I could (should) have said that fighting was a subset of A&S, but that has
fallen on deaf ears in the past. This way at least got some response.
Bredin Zierd
> >So basaically the whole A&S thing owes its existence to the fighters...
>
> >Or, more likely, the two are inseparable and the original arguments
> were a waste
> >of time.
I'll admit to deliberatly reversing cause and effect. A&S exists to put a label
on everything that isnt fighting or organising, so of course it owes its
existence, not to itself but to everything that it isnt.
> The two are separable: one could care less about how period one's armor
> is,
Of course they are separable, this is proven by the people who have separated
them by creating A&S and stating 'fighting is not A&S'.
> how many hockey knee pads and Army boots have you
> seen lately, eh?
None, but (ice) hockey equipment is harder to find than a good armourer over
here.
> One can be an A&S person and not care a whit about ever going
> within a mile of a listfield.
Yet fighters are berated for being uninterested in what happens off it.
> I've never heard that repairing _anything_ was considered an A&S
> category.
I said making/repairing not just reparing. Surely part of an armourers trade is
repair? Same applies to garbmakers (and others) in my book.
> I've never seen anyone get an award for excellence in making rattan
> weapons.
Same reason as noone gets awards for sucessfully breathing. No one thinks about
it much because its so common and fairly simple to achieve.
> There are a large number of people who make very, very good period
> armory,
> using period methods, in a period style - so good that some of them now
> work
> at museums that have medieval amor departments. (I _think_ I'm right at
> this;
> supporting/contrary iformation is always welcome, of course.)
> But rattan? A long piece of bamboo, covered in duct tape and padded
> with
> foam rubber? It may look vaguely like a period weapon, but I wouldn't
> consider
> it a legitimate (note: _legitimate_) A&S category. And I've never seen
> good
> research support for the periodness of chainmail bikines, either.
> There is a difference between armor and chainmail apparel: armor was
> done in period,
> chainmail bikinis weren't. That's why I'd class armor as a good A&S
> category, and
> chainmail bikinis as merely modern eye candy.
Now we get to the crux of your argument- "Thats not period". Neither are lots of
things we give awards for, hell peerages are given to people who excel in
distinctly non period activities.
--
Nunc lusum imus novum ludum
Lord Zierd, Cynic of the Inner Circle
Purveyor of chainmail bikinis, on request.
Bredin Zierd
> B. Some day I want to have a rattan weapon A&S competition. You must lay the rattan
> weapon down alongside the real weapon it's supposed to be simulating, and it will be
> judged on the basis of weight, balance, looks, and handling characteristics.
Now this sounds interesting. WOuld you publish the weight, balance point etc of
the weapon being compared with? or let the makers work it out from scratch?
I would assume the latter, just cos I dont see any reason to make it easy..
Jay Rudin
> Jay Rudin found it necessary to say:
> > B. Some day I want to have a rattan weapon A&S competition. You must lay the rattan
> > weapon down alongside the real weapon it's supposed to be simulating, and it will be
> > judged on the basis of weight, balance, looks, and handling characteristics.
>
> Now this sounds interesting. WOuld you publish the weight, balance point etc of
> the weapon being compared with? or let the makers work it out from scratch?
> I would assume the latter, just cos I dont see any reason to make it easy..
I wouldn't provide the makers with a weapon. I assume that anyone interested in this kind
of competition already has a real sword that he is trying to duplicate. It is the
entrant's responsibility to provide the real weapon and the rattan simulation.
Hasoferet
It seems to me that providing the original weapon gives a more consistent
standard to the competition. Also, frankly, I would like to see something like
that done froma good original, not whatever people happen to have hanging up on
the wall.
How about using one original, and making it an on-the-spot competition at the
three-day event? Show up, spend as much time as you want fondling and hefting,
and then go to work with your rattan and your duct tape? Check back for
copmparison?
Just a thought.
Raquel B.
Jay Rudin
> It seems to me that providing the original weapon gives a more consistent
> standard to the competition. Also, frankly, I would like to see something like
> that done froma good original, not whatever people happen to have hanging up on
> the wall.
Frankly, I believe that anybody who would have any interest in entering such a
competition would probably have reall weapons, not mere wall-hangers, on their
walls.
> How about using one original, and making it an on-the-spot competition at the
> three-day event? Show up, spend as much time as you want fondling and hefting,
> and then go to work with your rattan and your duct tape? Check back for
> copmparison?
If the goal is to have a consistent standard to improve the measurement of
rattan-weapon-making skills, that would be an better way to do it. But since my
goal is to encourage people to make and use more accurate fighting weapons, I want
them to make the style of weapon *they* favor, rather than the style *I* favor.
However, you make a good point. If I ever hold such a contest, I will try to
provide two or three of my own weapons for those who don't have a good model
readily available.
Eric Darrington
powers) wrote:
>wish to be involved fighting. My wife is a spinster and can give
^^^ ^^^^^^
Look, use of a period term creating a modern dichotomy! Anachronism
in action!
With a *grin* I go back to lurking ...
Erich aka I love words.