<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B> I always try to remember this quote by Richard Kaeuper-
"We can, likewise, only regret that no medieval writer went from one castle,
tourney field, court, siege camp, battle line or raiding party to another,
observing and interviewing knights of all particular social claims to record
their commonplace attitudes and beliefs; with such evidence we could easily
differentiate their attitudes in varying degrees from the ideal statements
and reform tracts which we possess in abundance.
-V</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He didn't read Froissart?
If you don't want to be chivalrous and knightly, don't fight
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
Vitus "Whenever anybody starts in about "barbarian" behavior, I think of Sidonius Apollinarius' biographical sketch of Theodoric II- King of the Visigoths..."
You should know me better than that by now Vitus
I meant morons that wear garb or armour innappropriate to what the SCA requirement are, who don't follow the spirit of the rules and requirements of the SCA and/or those who don't meet the requirements that they act in a chivalrous or knightly manner.I meant those whose behavior a proper Western European Knight would consider Barbaric.
Hopefully those visitors to our courts, from other cultures, whom the SCA chooses to knight would also treat those that choose to act in a barbaric fashion as unnacceptable and not want them on the same field or in the order of chivalry. If not, we might as well start knighting any jerk who demonstrates prowess with a weapon, regardless of his behavior, attitude, rules compliance and ability to function usefully within his kingdom.
My intended usage of the term Barbarian was sarcastic, but targets the misbehaving medieval smurfs as much as it does to the misbehaving bunny fur barbarians. I certainly did not mean to refer to specific period barbarians such as the Visigoths, although I doubt we'd be knighting many Visigoths now that you bring it up. I doubt they would be interested in acting in a chivalrous and knightly manner as part or the Western European court where such behavior could be demonstrated, they would be busy trying to take over those courts and impose their own customs, which probably would not fit well into our conception of chivalry. Although I will admit there might be Visigoths who would meet the requirement, that wasn't really my point or what I was trying to say.
I was dealing with what one is required to do in order to participate in combat under the current rules of the list of the SCA and how those rules and requirements are sorely abused or ignored outright.
From this point on, substitute "Jerk Who Does Not Play/Dress/Fight/Behave/Act/Speak/ Within The Rules, Guidelines And Spirit Of The SCA" for "barbarian" if that makes you happier. I find it too wordy
I do intend to address some of the other interesting points and comments made to date by others, I have simply been extremely busy for the last week. I look forward to dealing with them soon. Thank you all!
-Richard
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 12-27-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 12-27-2001).]
You should know me better than that by now Vitus
I meant morons that wear garb or armour innappropriate to what the SCA requirement are, who don't follow the spirit of the rules and requirements of the SCA and/or those who don't meet the requirements that they act in a chivalrous or knightly manner.I meant those whose behavior a proper Western European Knight would consider Barbaric.
Hopefully those visitors to our courts, from other cultures, whom the SCA chooses to knight would also treat those that choose to act in a barbaric fashion as unnacceptable and not want them on the same field or in the order of chivalry. If not, we might as well start knighting any jerk who demonstrates prowess with a weapon, regardless of his behavior, attitude, rules compliance and ability to function usefully within his kingdom.
My intended usage of the term Barbarian was sarcastic, but targets the misbehaving medieval smurfs as much as it does to the misbehaving bunny fur barbarians. I certainly did not mean to refer to specific period barbarians such as the Visigoths, although I doubt we'd be knighting many Visigoths now that you bring it up. I doubt they would be interested in acting in a chivalrous and knightly manner as part or the Western European court where such behavior could be demonstrated, they would be busy trying to take over those courts and impose their own customs, which probably would not fit well into our conception of chivalry. Although I will admit there might be Visigoths who would meet the requirement, that wasn't really my point or what I was trying to say.
I was dealing with what one is required to do in order to participate in combat under the current rules of the list of the SCA and how those rules and requirements are sorely abused or ignored outright.
From this point on, substitute "Jerk Who Does Not Play/Dress/Fight/Behave/Act/Speak/ Within The Rules, Guidelines And Spirit Of The SCA" for "barbarian" if that makes you happier. I find it too wordy
I do intend to address some of the other interesting points and comments made to date by others, I have simply been extremely busy for the last week. I look forward to dealing with them soon. Thank you all!
-Richard
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 12-27-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 12-27-2001).]
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
-
Lodhur
- Archive Member
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: al-Barran, Outlands, Scadia
- Contact:
I was, until recently, in a _household_ of people who defended their actions in just such a manner. & the whole household really was structured like some outsider's account of some 'barbaric' steppes tribe.
The fact is that there was a very _definite_ code of honor - not necessarily chivalry in the classic sense, but certainly the progenitor of it.
The only objection I would have is the definition of scadian war as a REALLY BIG behourd tourney. As I have said before, I think that model no longer fits most wars. That doesn't mean we should discard all semblance of honor in our wars. But the definition of all scadian combat as 'Chivalric' is often misused to permit the unnatural, unhistoricly based wars that we do have. Rules like 'no DFB', 'no archery', 'no fencing', etc. are reasoned from the overly idealistic view of 'Chivalric Tournament Combat'. A view which is really pretty far from the historic reality.
My 6th century goth persona certainly has a sense of honor. As does Owen's legionairre. There is a knightly class, or what would later be called such. I do not aspire to knighthood in the SCA, but have a very strong sense of personal honor to uphold. In fact, Scadia is one of the few social arenas in which I give a rat's hairy a$$ about honor, with all it entails. Which is why I no longer found my household acceptable.
& Owen: Correct me if I'm entirely off base, but there were many feodorati who's authorities set themselves up as 'Rex'. If you were stationed there as a limitanei (for some reason) under Ducal command, that Duces would likely also be 'Rex', at least in the later Empire. You might then be oathsworn to that ruler as a representative of the emperor. All the more likely scenario for a roman in a western european court.
The fact is that there was a very _definite_ code of honor - not necessarily chivalry in the classic sense, but certainly the progenitor of it.
The only objection I would have is the definition of scadian war as a REALLY BIG behourd tourney. As I have said before, I think that model no longer fits most wars. That doesn't mean we should discard all semblance of honor in our wars. But the definition of all scadian combat as 'Chivalric' is often misused to permit the unnatural, unhistoricly based wars that we do have. Rules like 'no DFB', 'no archery', 'no fencing', etc. are reasoned from the overly idealistic view of 'Chivalric Tournament Combat'. A view which is really pretty far from the historic reality.
My 6th century goth persona certainly has a sense of honor. As does Owen's legionairre. There is a knightly class, or what would later be called such. I do not aspire to knighthood in the SCA, but have a very strong sense of personal honor to uphold. In fact, Scadia is one of the few social arenas in which I give a rat's hairy a$$ about honor, with all it entails. Which is why I no longer found my household acceptable.
& Owen: Correct me if I'm entirely off base, but there were many feodorati who's authorities set themselves up as 'Rex'. If you were stationed there as a limitanei (for some reason) under Ducal command, that Duces would likely also be 'Rex', at least in the later Empire. You might then be oathsworn to that ruler as a representative of the emperor. All the more likely scenario for a roman in a western european court.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>Anybody see that guy on the Eastern side at last Pennsic- the guy with the shield that had the elaborate barbarian painted on it? There was a cartoonish speech balloon that said "Bite me, Middies!"
-V</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm glad someone mentioned him, he belongs in this thread. A perfect example of what should NOT be allowed on the field. I cannot believe that he passed inspection. How did that happen? I'd love to hear how he's supposed to be "behaving in a knightly and chivalrous manner" or "acceptable to the soverign".
I think I know what his purpose was - it's the modern sport mentality of trying to "rattle" your opponent. Another example of the WWF-smackdown mentality ruining what should be a noble pursuit. Trash talking your opponent is 100% wrong. Someone should clue this guy in on the "most noble and worthy opponent" concept.
Or maybe he was showing off? "Look at me and how cool I am - I can tell an entire army to piss off." If that's the case I'm not impressed. Try "Bite me Tuchux" next year and THEN I'll be impressed.
Deacon
<B>Anybody see that guy on the Eastern side at last Pennsic- the guy with the shield that had the elaborate barbarian painted on it? There was a cartoonish speech balloon that said "Bite me, Middies!"
-V</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm glad someone mentioned him, he belongs in this thread. A perfect example of what should NOT be allowed on the field. I cannot believe that he passed inspection. How did that happen? I'd love to hear how he's supposed to be "behaving in a knightly and chivalrous manner" or "acceptable to the soverign".
I think I know what his purpose was - it's the modern sport mentality of trying to "rattle" your opponent. Another example of the WWF-smackdown mentality ruining what should be a noble pursuit. Trash talking your opponent is 100% wrong. Someone should clue this guy in on the "most noble and worthy opponent" concept.
Or maybe he was showing off? "Look at me and how cool I am - I can tell an entire army to piss off." If that's the case I'm not impressed. Try "Bite me Tuchux" next year and THEN I'll be impressed.
Deacon
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
We also have to take into account that the term "barbarian" is reletive...
The Europeans called the Japanese and Chinese and even the Mongols "barbarians" because they were different than anything they had ever seen before. The asian cultures have a refined history that goes back while the Europeans were still culturally wallowing in their own feces...
Do these cultures have "Knights"???....in their own ways, yes...and an honour system that is different but still has the same basis that we are all trying to reach in our game.
The Europeans called the Japanese and Chinese and even the Mongols "barbarians" because they were different than anything they had ever seen before. The asian cultures have a refined history that goes back while the Europeans were still culturally wallowing in their own feces...
Do these cultures have "Knights"???....in their own ways, yes...and an honour system that is different but still has the same basis that we are all trying to reach in our game.
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
[Quote]Anybody see that guy on the Eastern side at last Pennsic- the guy with the shield that had the elaborate barbarian painted on it? There was a cartoonish speech balloon that said "Bite me, Middies!"[/Quote}
Same group that took up a battle cry of "Stomp the bitch!" when a lady fighter displayed the prowess to kill one of them with a spear in the woods battle. She was injured in that part of the battle.
Same group that publicly disdains the SCA, and are the "anti-SCA" by their own admission, and pride.
And most of them are paid members of the SCA.
But you know what? Not all of them are jerks, and the SCA has plently of jerks of our own.
You can only control your own behavior. We, as a society, can lead by example, reward those who meet those ideals.
Do jerks get knighted? Sure, occasionally. That's the system, and it does have faults (internal politics, the need ot go out and "be seen", the fact that if you as 10 Knights what they look for in a candidate, you'll get 12-15 different responses, jusat to name a few). But for every jerk wearing a white belt, I know 5 who are great examples of Chivalry. I know some very honorable and chivalric people who simply don't have near the prowess for Knighthood.
That is life. If you are honorable and Chivalrous just to get a strap of white leather around your waist, Your chivalry and honor is just a veneer, a false front.
Take the field, be the best warrior you can. Remember that your worst defeat with your honor intact is greater than your best victory with your honor sullied.
Same group that took up a battle cry of "Stomp the bitch!" when a lady fighter displayed the prowess to kill one of them with a spear in the woods battle. She was injured in that part of the battle.
Same group that publicly disdains the SCA, and are the "anti-SCA" by their own admission, and pride.
And most of them are paid members of the SCA.
But you know what? Not all of them are jerks, and the SCA has plently of jerks of our own.
You can only control your own behavior. We, as a society, can lead by example, reward those who meet those ideals.
Do jerks get knighted? Sure, occasionally. That's the system, and it does have faults (internal politics, the need ot go out and "be seen", the fact that if you as 10 Knights what they look for in a candidate, you'll get 12-15 different responses, jusat to name a few). But for every jerk wearing a white belt, I know 5 who are great examples of Chivalry. I know some very honorable and chivalric people who simply don't have near the prowess for Knighthood.
That is life. If you are honorable and Chivalrous just to get a strap of white leather around your waist, Your chivalry and honor is just a veneer, a false front.
Take the field, be the best warrior you can. Remember that your worst defeat with your honor intact is greater than your best victory with your honor sullied.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Deacon:
Trash talking your opponent is 100% wrong. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quite right!
It will be a sad day for the SCA when we need to run over and look up to the Tuchux for lessons on knightly behavior and chivalry. I fear if the bad behavior is not put in check, then Bedlam will have to give classes on how to use a napkin and a fork at the dinner table (1560 AD).
-Aaron
Trash talking your opponent is 100% wrong. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quite right!
It will be a sad day for the SCA when we need to run over and look up to the Tuchux for lessons on knightly behavior and chivalry. I fear if the bad behavior is not put in check, then Bedlam will have to give classes on how to use a napkin and a fork at the dinner table (1560 AD).
-Aaron
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>Anybody see that guy on the Eastern side at last Pennsic- the guy with the shield that had the elaborate barbarian painted on it? There was a cartoonish speech balloon that said "Bite me, Middies!"
-V</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That "gentle" was a Master of Arms from the East (I believe it was the east). I would have never spoken to him except for the fact that the group I was with had to switch sides after the first set of bridge battles to even up the sides. He was a barbarian as well as any other and seemed a bit addle minded too. He said that he plannes on making an even more offensive and equally out of period shield next year. When a knight in my household asked him why he was doing such things he responded that it was all in fun and in the spirit of his persona.
I thought "Wow my persona isn't literate, but barbarians must be because no one can prove otherwise."
btw Deacon, weren't you with us in that battle???
------------------
<B>Anybody see that guy on the Eastern side at last Pennsic- the guy with the shield that had the elaborate barbarian painted on it? There was a cartoonish speech balloon that said "Bite me, Middies!"
-V</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That "gentle" was a Master of Arms from the East (I believe it was the east). I would have never spoken to him except for the fact that the group I was with had to switch sides after the first set of bridge battles to even up the sides. He was a barbarian as well as any other and seemed a bit addle minded too. He said that he plannes on making an even more offensive and equally out of period shield next year. When a knight in my household asked him why he was doing such things he responded that it was all in fun and in the spirit of his persona.
I thought "Wow my persona isn't literate, but barbarians must be because no one can prove otherwise."
btw Deacon, weren't you with us in that battle???
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Deacon:
[Bor "acceptable to the soverign".
Another example of the WWF-smackdown mentality ruining what should be a noble pursuit
"Look at me and how cool I am - I can tell an entire army to piss off." If that's the case I'm not impressed. Try "Bite me Tuchux" next year and THEN I'll be impressed.
Deacon[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. Something to think about.
2.Agreed, the feet of the chairs remain on the ground, and all the other McMann crap can go out the door as well.
3. It's only impressive if he takes the field against the foe alone. And wins. But he would still remain a jerk.
4. Isn't a "barbarian" a non-Greek? Originally, at least.
[Bor "acceptable to the soverign".
Another example of the WWF-smackdown mentality ruining what should be a noble pursuit
"Look at me and how cool I am - I can tell an entire army to piss off." If that's the case I'm not impressed. Try "Bite me Tuchux" next year and THEN I'll be impressed.
Deacon[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. Something to think about.
2.Agreed, the feet of the chairs remain on the ground, and all the other McMann crap can go out the door as well.
3. It's only impressive if he takes the field against the foe alone. And wins. But he would still remain a jerk.
4. Isn't a "barbarian" a non-Greek? Originally, at least.
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
BUMP! Mainly for new member SyrRhys' benefit as I thought he might enjoy this topic. Note that this is also one of the threads where Feral's use of the infamous Bite Me Middies/Comic Book LOBO shield first appeared.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I don't know that many people will care much for my take on this subject, but here it is: non-chivalric cultures (by which I mean cultures that didn't have a knightly class int eh sense we mean it, such as Mongols) have no business participating in SCA tournaments. Moreover, anyone behaving in a non-chivalrous manner has no business participating, either.
The tricky part is this: How do we define "chivalrous behavior"? Frankly, I detest modern (by which I mean any ideas from after our period, sich as Victorian) ideals of chivalry. I say: let's learn what medieval knights thought was and wasn't chivalrous and go by that.
Of course, there's a problem with that, too. Notions of chivalry changed over time and from region to region; I suspect the German knight froissart mentioned in his recounting of the Jousts at St. Inglevert was only doing what was considered acceptable where he was from (and even if he wasn't, the analogy still holds true). Still, we can build a composite bahavior system tied to our form of combat by basing it on medieval ideals, and that's just what we should do.
As I have studied primary source material and the commentaries written about it, one thing seems clear: the medieval knight believed that chivalry meant a.) following the rules of the engagement, and b.) giving your opponent a fair and even chance to beat you (witness the fantatical emphasis on matching weapons and even making sure the weapons were of the exact same length, etc.).
I believe that way too much of what we consider "chivalrous" today would be simply ludicrous to a medieval knight. I also think that just saying "everyone should fight in a chivalrous manner" is meaningless without specifying *exactly* what you mean by "chivalrous behavior"; i.e., what are the specific rules of behavior?
Is it unchivalrous to use the haft of your polearm to smack somone onto the ground? Of course not, yet I've heard many knights argue that it is.
Is it unchivalrous to grab your opponent's shield to pull it aside so you can hit him? Of course not, yet, again, many would argue it is.
Is it unchivalrous to strike someone who's dropped his weapon? Ah, now we come to a grey area. In period, many bouts were stopped by the presiding noble when one of the combatants was disarmed *completely*, but if you have a dagger, yank it out and go to! This happened at the pas d'armes at Pennsic this year in my bout with Niccolo: he disarmed me of my axe, so I pulled my dagger and attacked his eye slots.
Anyway, to make a long rant short (grin) I think what really needs to be done is to sit down and decide the precise specifics of what "chivalrous behavior" is (based purely on medieval ideas, not modern notions!), and then to demand that of the combatants on the field.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
BUMP! Mainly for new member SyrRhys' benefit as I thought he might enjoy this topic. Note that this is also one of the threads where Feral's use of the infamous Bite Me Middies/Comic Book LOBO shield first appeared.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I don't know that many people will care much for my take on this subject, but here it is: non-chivalric cultures (by which I mean cultures that didn't have a knightly class int eh sense we mean it, such as Mongols) have no business participating in SCA tournaments. Moreover, anyone behaving in a non-chivalrous manner has no business participating, either.
The tricky part is this: How do we define "chivalrous behavior"? Frankly, I detest modern (by which I mean any ideas from after our period, sich as Victorian) ideals of chivalry. I say: let's learn what medieval knights thought was and wasn't chivalrous and go by that.
Of course, there's a problem with that, too. Notions of chivalry changed over time and from region to region; I suspect the German knight froissart mentioned in his recounting of the Jousts at St. Inglevert was only doing what was considered acceptable where he was from (and even if he wasn't, the analogy still holds true). Still, we can build a composite bahavior system tied to our form of combat by basing it on medieval ideals, and that's just what we should do.
As I have studied primary source material and the commentaries written about it, one thing seems clear: the medieval knight believed that chivalry meant a.) following the rules of the engagement, and b.) giving your opponent a fair and even chance to beat you (witness the fantatical emphasis on matching weapons and even making sure the weapons were of the exact same length, etc.).
I believe that way too much of what we consider "chivalrous" today would be simply ludicrous to a medieval knight. I also think that just saying "everyone should fight in a chivalrous manner" is meaningless without specifying *exactly* what you mean by "chivalrous behavior"; i.e., what are the specific rules of behavior?
Is it unchivalrous to use the haft of your polearm to smack somone onto the ground? Of course not, yet I've heard many knights argue that it is.
Is it unchivalrous to grab your opponent's shield to pull it aside so you can hit him? Of course not, yet, again, many would argue it is.
Is it unchivalrous to strike someone who's dropped his weapon? Ah, now we come to a grey area. In period, many bouts were stopped by the presiding noble when one of the combatants was disarmed *completely*, but if you have a dagger, yank it out and go to! This happened at the pas d'armes at Pennsic this year in my bout with Niccolo: he disarmed me of my axe, so I pulled my dagger and attacked his eye slots.
Anyway, to make a long rant short (grin) I think what really needs to be done is to sit down and decide the precise specifics of what "chivalrous behavior" is (based purely on medieval ideas, not modern notions!), and then to demand that of the combatants on the field.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
I would like to also welcome Sir Rhys.
It is quite possible that I have missed the entire meaning of your post, please forgive me if this is the case.
Could you please clarify part of your excellent post for me? You mention that one of the hallmarks of chivalrous behavior is "following the rules of engagement". You also mention certain acts that some SCA knights find unchivalrous - striking with the haft, grabbing shields - would certainly not be considered unchivalrous behavior by their medieval counterparts.
Now here is where I am afflicted with confusion.
If these acts that you speak of violate the "rules of engagement" that we fight under, could they not be considered unchivalrous? Now, I agree that our rules would seem pretty silly to a period knight (and quite a number of other folks) - but they are the rules by which we order our combat. Do you regard these acts as not uncivalrous because you think the rules should also be changed?
(edited because Marvin's internal spellchecker malfunctioned)
[This message has been edited by Marvin (edited 01-23-2002).]
It is quite possible that I have missed the entire meaning of your post, please forgive me if this is the case.
Could you please clarify part of your excellent post for me? You mention that one of the hallmarks of chivalrous behavior is "following the rules of engagement". You also mention certain acts that some SCA knights find unchivalrous - striking with the haft, grabbing shields - would certainly not be considered unchivalrous behavior by their medieval counterparts.
Now here is where I am afflicted with confusion.
If these acts that you speak of violate the "rules of engagement" that we fight under, could they not be considered unchivalrous? Now, I agree that our rules would seem pretty silly to a period knight (and quite a number of other folks) - but they are the rules by which we order our combat. Do you regard these acts as not uncivalrous because you think the rules should also be changed?
(edited because Marvin's internal spellchecker malfunctioned)
[This message has been edited by Marvin (edited 01-23-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Marvin:
<B>I would like to also welcome Sir Rhys.
It is quite possible that I have missed the entire meaning of your post, please forgive me if this is the case.
Could you please clarify part of your excellent post for me? You mention that one of the hallmarks of chivalrous behavior is "following the rules of engagement". You also mention certain acts that some SCA knights find unchivalrous - striking with the haft, grabbing shields - would certainly not be considered unchivalrous behavior by their medieval counterparts.
Now here is where I am afflicted with confusion.
If these acts that you speak of violate the "rules of engagement" that we fight under, could they not be considered unchivalrous? Now, I agree that our rules would seem pretty silly to a period knight (and quite a number of other folks) - but they are the rules by which we order our combat. Do you regard these acts as not uncivalrous because you think the rules should also be changed?
[This message has been edited by Marvin (edited 01-23-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hello Marvin,
I think you might be confusing two parts of what I wrote: I was trying to contrast what a medieval knight would have considered unchivalrous with what most SCA knights consider unchivalrous; it isn't fair to hold a modern knight to *both* sets of standards!
First, let's be clear about what "following the rules of the engagement" means: To me, from my reading of medieval tournament chronicles, it means that if the rules say you mayn't fight with a dagger, and you then pull one, you're unchivalrous. But the point I was making is that anything not specifically mentioned in the rules is both fair and chivalrous, while many in the SCA seem to have these invisible rules that they hold you accountable for.
For example, I'm reminded of the trick The Marshall (I think it was him; I'll have to go re-check)used to have of waiting until most of the other knight's teams had been engaged in combat for a while before leading his mesnie (well, the Young King's, but he really led it) onto the field to trounce the more exhausted fighters. To us, that seems a horribly unchivalrous act, yet the sources we have suggest it was largely admired. (By the way, I don't think it would have been later in the period; back to my point about chivalric standards changing over time.)
Does that answer your question?
What I want to see is fighters being not just allowed, but *encouraged* to do things that were done in period by chivalrous knights but which would get you censured in the SCA today. It's time we worked to become a real living history organization, and changing the way we view combat is an important first step since it's the one thing we do better than everyone else (in terms of skill level only!).
Next, of course, comes changing the rules of our combat system to make them more realistic, but we'll save that for a later post...
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>I would like to also welcome Sir Rhys.
It is quite possible that I have missed the entire meaning of your post, please forgive me if this is the case.
Could you please clarify part of your excellent post for me? You mention that one of the hallmarks of chivalrous behavior is "following the rules of engagement". You also mention certain acts that some SCA knights find unchivalrous - striking with the haft, grabbing shields - would certainly not be considered unchivalrous behavior by their medieval counterparts.
Now here is where I am afflicted with confusion.
If these acts that you speak of violate the "rules of engagement" that we fight under, could they not be considered unchivalrous? Now, I agree that our rules would seem pretty silly to a period knight (and quite a number of other folks) - but they are the rules by which we order our combat. Do you regard these acts as not uncivalrous because you think the rules should also be changed?
[This message has been edited by Marvin (edited 01-23-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hello Marvin,
I think you might be confusing two parts of what I wrote: I was trying to contrast what a medieval knight would have considered unchivalrous with what most SCA knights consider unchivalrous; it isn't fair to hold a modern knight to *both* sets of standards!
First, let's be clear about what "following the rules of the engagement" means: To me, from my reading of medieval tournament chronicles, it means that if the rules say you mayn't fight with a dagger, and you then pull one, you're unchivalrous. But the point I was making is that anything not specifically mentioned in the rules is both fair and chivalrous, while many in the SCA seem to have these invisible rules that they hold you accountable for.
For example, I'm reminded of the trick The Marshall (I think it was him; I'll have to go re-check)used to have of waiting until most of the other knight's teams had been engaged in combat for a while before leading his mesnie (well, the Young King's, but he really led it) onto the field to trounce the more exhausted fighters. To us, that seems a horribly unchivalrous act, yet the sources we have suggest it was largely admired. (By the way, I don't think it would have been later in the period; back to my point about chivalric standards changing over time.)
Does that answer your question?
What I want to see is fighters being not just allowed, but *encouraged* to do things that were done in period by chivalrous knights but which would get you censured in the SCA today. It's time we worked to become a real living history organization, and changing the way we view combat is an important first step since it's the one thing we do better than everyone else (in terms of skill level only!).
Next, of course, comes changing the rules of our combat system to make them more realistic, but we'll save that for a later post...
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Murdock:
<B>
I'm glad to hear it. Agree or not it's good to hear someone be honest, and not hide behind fake civility.
It's weird to see someone of such renoun listed as "New Member".
Welcome Syr Ryhs.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you very much for your kind words, and I promise that "fake civility" is one of the few faults I don't have!
I'm on a mission to make the SCA, or at least large parts of it, more realistic and more authentic. I've found that mincing words doesn't forward that goal.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>
I'm glad to hear it. Agree or not it's good to hear someone be honest, and not hide behind fake civility.
It's weird to see someone of such renoun listed as "New Member".
Welcome Syr Ryhs.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you very much for your kind words, and I promise that "fake civility" is one of the few faults I don't have!
I'm on a mission to make the SCA, or at least large parts of it, more realistic and more authentic. I've found that mincing words doesn't forward that goal.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<<< Is it unchivalrous to use the haft of your polearm to smack somone onto the ground? Of course not, yet I've heard many knights argue that it is. >>>>
It may, or may not be chivalrous -but it is ILLEGAL (as it is unsafe and a clear attempt to injure your opponent.)
<<< Is it unchivalrous to grab your opponent's shield to pull it aside so you can hit him? Of course not, yet, again, many would argue it is. >>>
I use to think that this was unchivalrous, but I have since seen the errors of my way thanks to some nice chats with some very respected fighters.
<<< Is it unchivalrous to strike someone who's dropped his weapon? Ah, now we come to a grey area. >>>
It is not unchivalrous to strike someone who has dropped a weapon but is still armed with another. However it is not chivalrous to strike someone who is reaching for a sheathed weapon during single combat. This can be best understood by someone who has lost his grip on a weapon with a lanyard –he is still has a weapon (since it is swinging from his wrist) but he is not armed. In SyrRhys’s example, I would have waited until he drew the dagger, before continueing my attack. This is a hard thing for people to grasp, but I learned my lessons from Tuchuk fighting –who usually have a few weapons stashed here and there.
Heres a question for you: Is it unchivalrous to tap your polearm on the ground before swinging it at your opponent? I know of a few fighters who do this and get slack about, but I don’t believe that it is unchivalrous. It is more of a distraction. When I first started fighting, I use to glance at a certain part of my opponents body (usually the closest leg) just before throwing a shot at a different body part (like the head) –this was amazingly effective against chivalry. Is this unchivalrous? I don’t think so.
Heres a new one for you: Is it unchivalrous to drop your weapon (primarily polearms/greatswords) to avoid getting hit? I don’t know about the SCA rules, but it is against the rules to do this in the Middle Kingdom. What is your opinion and your kingdom rules on this matter?
(^_^)
It may, or may not be chivalrous -but it is ILLEGAL (as it is unsafe and a clear attempt to injure your opponent.)
<<< Is it unchivalrous to grab your opponent's shield to pull it aside so you can hit him? Of course not, yet, again, many would argue it is. >>>
I use to think that this was unchivalrous, but I have since seen the errors of my way thanks to some nice chats with some very respected fighters.
<<< Is it unchivalrous to strike someone who's dropped his weapon? Ah, now we come to a grey area. >>>
It is not unchivalrous to strike someone who has dropped a weapon but is still armed with another. However it is not chivalrous to strike someone who is reaching for a sheathed weapon during single combat. This can be best understood by someone who has lost his grip on a weapon with a lanyard –he is still has a weapon (since it is swinging from his wrist) but he is not armed. In SyrRhys’s example, I would have waited until he drew the dagger, before continueing my attack. This is a hard thing for people to grasp, but I learned my lessons from Tuchuk fighting –who usually have a few weapons stashed here and there.
Heres a question for you: Is it unchivalrous to tap your polearm on the ground before swinging it at your opponent? I know of a few fighters who do this and get slack about, but I don’t believe that it is unchivalrous. It is more of a distraction. When I first started fighting, I use to glance at a certain part of my opponents body (usually the closest leg) just before throwing a shot at a different body part (like the head) –this was amazingly effective against chivalry. Is this unchivalrous? I don’t think so.
Heres a new one for you: Is it unchivalrous to drop your weapon (primarily polearms/greatswords) to avoid getting hit? I don’t know about the SCA rules, but it is against the rules to do this in the Middle Kingdom. What is your opinion and your kingdom rules on this matter?
(^_^)
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hjalmr:
<<<It may, or may not be chivalrous -but it is ILLEGAL (as it is unsafe and a clear attempt to injure your opponent.)>>>
I don't agree that's it's unlawful to push someone with the haft of a polearm. The rules say you may not *strike* with it (which is obviously a silly rule), but say nothing at all about pushing, and there's no reason to believe doing so is more dangerous than hitting someone; in point of fact, it's sometimes impossible to avoid hitting someone with the haft of your polearm, especially in melee, and we don't see terrible injuries arising from this.
<<<I use to think that this was unchivalrous, but I have since seen the errors of my way thanks to some nice chats with some very respected fighters.>>>
Good, now let's expand your definitions of "chivalrous" even further.
<<<However it is not chivalrous to strike someone who is reaching for a sheathed weapon during single combat. This can be best understood by someone who has lost his grip on a weapon with a lanyard –he is still has a weapon (since it is swinging from his wrist) but he is not armed. In SyrRhys’s example, I would have waited until he drew the dagger, before continueing my attack.>>>
Why must you wait for him to draw his weapon? Just hit him; it's up to him to draw his weapon quickly enough to protect himself. Of course, in standard SCA fighting with the silly idea of one-shot kills against an armored opponent this is a problem, but in a counted-blow system you just take a hit, draw your weapon, and keep going! But in any system, I think it's incumbant upon the person who lost his weapon to move away long enough to draw his backup.
<<<Heres a question for you: Is it unchivalrous to tap your polearm on the ground before swinging it at your opponent? I know of a few fighters who do this and get slack about, but I don’t believe that it is unchivalrous. It is more of a distraction.>>>
I can't think of any possible reason anyone would even dream of calling this unchivalrous; it sounds like you found a fighter with insufficient concentration who tried to legislate away something he couldn't deal with! Many of our "rules" seem to get started this way.
<<< When I first started fighting, I use to glance at a certain part of my opponents body (usually the closest leg) just before throwing a shot at a different body part (like the head) –this was amazingly effective against chivalry. Is this unchivalrous? I don’t think so.>>>
Of course not, and it's highly accurate, to boot. Ringeck emphasizes doing just this several times.
<<<Heres a new one for you: Is it unchivalrous to drop your weapon (primarily polearms/greatswords) to avoid getting hit? I don’t know about the SCA rules, but it is against the rules to do this in the Middle Kingdom. What is your opinion and your kingdom rules on this matter?>>>
In a sane and realistic rule system it wouldn't matter: If someone drops his weapon, you hit him. Period. In the standard SCA rule system as it stands now it strikes me as a cowardly act. If someone does this to me I'll rest the point of my weapon against him and tell him I expect him to yield.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<<<It may, or may not be chivalrous -but it is ILLEGAL (as it is unsafe and a clear attempt to injure your opponent.)>>>
I don't agree that's it's unlawful to push someone with the haft of a polearm. The rules say you may not *strike* with it (which is obviously a silly rule), but say nothing at all about pushing, and there's no reason to believe doing so is more dangerous than hitting someone; in point of fact, it's sometimes impossible to avoid hitting someone with the haft of your polearm, especially in melee, and we don't see terrible injuries arising from this.
<<<I use to think that this was unchivalrous, but I have since seen the errors of my way thanks to some nice chats with some very respected fighters.>>>
Good, now let's expand your definitions of "chivalrous" even further.
<<<However it is not chivalrous to strike someone who is reaching for a sheathed weapon during single combat. This can be best understood by someone who has lost his grip on a weapon with a lanyard –he is still has a weapon (since it is swinging from his wrist) but he is not armed. In SyrRhys’s example, I would have waited until he drew the dagger, before continueing my attack.>>>
Why must you wait for him to draw his weapon? Just hit him; it's up to him to draw his weapon quickly enough to protect himself. Of course, in standard SCA fighting with the silly idea of one-shot kills against an armored opponent this is a problem, but in a counted-blow system you just take a hit, draw your weapon, and keep going! But in any system, I think it's incumbant upon the person who lost his weapon to move away long enough to draw his backup.
<<<Heres a question for you: Is it unchivalrous to tap your polearm on the ground before swinging it at your opponent? I know of a few fighters who do this and get slack about, but I don’t believe that it is unchivalrous. It is more of a distraction.>>>
I can't think of any possible reason anyone would even dream of calling this unchivalrous; it sounds like you found a fighter with insufficient concentration who tried to legislate away something he couldn't deal with! Many of our "rules" seem to get started this way.
<<< When I first started fighting, I use to glance at a certain part of my opponents body (usually the closest leg) just before throwing a shot at a different body part (like the head) –this was amazingly effective against chivalry. Is this unchivalrous? I don’t think so.>>>
Of course not, and it's highly accurate, to boot. Ringeck emphasizes doing just this several times.
<<<Heres a new one for you: Is it unchivalrous to drop your weapon (primarily polearms/greatswords) to avoid getting hit? I don’t know about the SCA rules, but it is against the rules to do this in the Middle Kingdom. What is your opinion and your kingdom rules on this matter?>>>
In a sane and realistic rule system it wouldn't matter: If someone drops his weapon, you hit him. Period. In the standard SCA rule system as it stands now it strikes me as a cowardly act. If someone does this to me I'll rest the point of my weapon against him and tell him I expect him to yield.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Rorik Galbraith
- Archive Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
- Contact:
Vermin, I think what is being alluded to is the possibility of secondary injury from an unplanned often ungainly fall precipitated by a hafting, not the hafting itself. That is the SCA reasoning behind no hafting, it is too easy to knock someone in armour down and the possiblity of injury is to high.
It is considered excessive force to attempt to knock someone from thier feet also since we are not actually attempting to injure one another.
As to the matter of behavior, ie. chivalrous or proper behavior no matter what the personna, I feel that someone who is being boorish, thug-like or just plain being an ass and then stating that is my persona then expecting to get the accolade just cause they are a hot stick really needs thier thought pattern re-adjusted. I have been known to state just such in the circle when discussing a candidate. I fully agree with Robert on this. You wanna be an ass? Fine go play some game where being an ass is rewarded, not the SCA.
I attempt to portray an Orkney Viking of Birsay circa 980 under the rule of Jarl Sigurd the Stout. Even in this 'Barbaric' culture of farmers/raiders/pirates being an ass would've gotten your throat cut. So why should I agree to a Hollywood rendition of barbarism in the SCA?
------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.
It is considered excessive force to attempt to knock someone from thier feet also since we are not actually attempting to injure one another.
As to the matter of behavior, ie. chivalrous or proper behavior no matter what the personna, I feel that someone who is being boorish, thug-like or just plain being an ass and then stating that is my persona then expecting to get the accolade just cause they are a hot stick really needs thier thought pattern re-adjusted. I have been known to state just such in the circle when discussing a candidate. I fully agree with Robert on this. You wanna be an ass? Fine go play some game where being an ass is rewarded, not the SCA.
I attempt to portray an Orkney Viking of Birsay circa 980 under the rule of Jarl Sigurd the Stout. Even in this 'Barbaric' culture of farmers/raiders/pirates being an ass would've gotten your throat cut. So why should I agree to a Hollywood rendition of barbarism in the SCA?
------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rorik Galbraith:
<B>Vermin, I think what is being alluded to is the possibility of secondary injury from an unplanned often ungainly fall precipitated by a hafting, not the hafting itself. That is the SCA reasoning behind no hafting, it is too easy to knock someone in armour down and the possiblity of injury is to high.
It is considered excessive force to attempt to knock someone from thier feet also since we are not actually attempting to injure one another.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you know this is dangerous to do? And how do you know it requires excessive force to knock someone down?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Vermin, I think what is being alluded to is the possibility of secondary injury from an unplanned often ungainly fall precipitated by a hafting, not the hafting itself. That is the SCA reasoning behind no hafting, it is too easy to knock someone in armour down and the possiblity of injury is to high.
It is considered excessive force to attempt to knock someone from thier feet also since we are not actually attempting to injure one another.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you know this is dangerous to do? And how do you know it requires excessive force to knock someone down?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
One thing for Cetes Sir Rhys,
Grappeling, disarming, and throwing were all done in foot combats at tournaments of the Late Middle ages. One only need to refer to "The Deeds of Jaques de Lalaing", or the Beauchamp pagent to see examples.
It is a case of a modern concept of chivalry vs. a medieval one.
------------------
Bob R.
Grappeling, disarming, and throwing were all done in foot combats at tournaments of the Late Middle ages. One only need to refer to "The Deeds of Jaques de Lalaing", or the Beauchamp pagent to see examples.
It is a case of a modern concept of chivalry vs. a medieval one.
------------------
Bob R.
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
non-chivalric cultures (by which I mean cultures that didn't have a knightly class int eh sense we mean it, such as Mongols) have no business participating in SCA tournaments.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am very sorry Sir Rhys but you are incorrect here.
The Mongols had a Knightly class.
They were known as Ba'hadur....literaly translated means "hero".
Subedai was one.
He was given the title by Ghengis Khan.
Also the Khan's Keshik was one of the highest honours one could aspire to.
These were the Khan's personal guard and chosen from the finest warriors of the Khan's Army. The Ba'hadur were mainly chosen from them.
I find your statement rather insulting.
So...just because I have an interest in Asian history and culture..and have decided to have a Mongol persona...that I have no place in the SCA tournament?
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-24-2002).]
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-24-2002).]
non-chivalric cultures (by which I mean cultures that didn't have a knightly class int eh sense we mean it, such as Mongols) have no business participating in SCA tournaments.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am very sorry Sir Rhys but you are incorrect here.
The Mongols had a Knightly class.
They were known as Ba'hadur....literaly translated means "hero".
Subedai was one.
He was given the title by Ghengis Khan.
Also the Khan's Keshik was one of the highest honours one could aspire to.
These were the Khan's personal guard and chosen from the finest warriors of the Khan's Army. The Ba'hadur were mainly chosen from them.
I find your statement rather insulting.
So...just because I have an interest in Asian history and culture..and have decided to have a Mongol persona...that I have no place in the SCA tournament?
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-24-2002).]
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-24-2002).]
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
I don't think that Rhys meant to be insulting. I think he was touching on one of the interesting problems with the way the society is structured and how we approach an accurate recreation of tournaments that would have occured in a Western European Medieval environment.
Does it make sense that pre-chivalric warriors fight in chivalric tournaments?
Maybe not.
Mongols however did exist and visit (and invade!) Western Europe during the chivalric period where tournaments were held. Did they participate in them? I don't know. But at least it is theoretically possible.
It is not possible for a Roman Legionairre to have done so, or an early barbarian, which is where the questions usually start.
Should the SCA permit it?
I don't know. It certainly makes it interesting, but it does not always make sense.
Does it make sense that pre-chivalric warriors fight in chivalric tournaments?
Maybe not.
Mongols however did exist and visit (and invade!) Western Europe during the chivalric period where tournaments were held. Did they participate in them? I don't know. But at least it is theoretically possible.
It is not possible for a Roman Legionairre to have done so, or an early barbarian, which is where the questions usually start.
Should the SCA permit it?
I don't know. It certainly makes it interesting, but it does not always make sense.
-
Rorik Galbraith
- Archive Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
- Contact:
Syr Rhys: In response to your question of how do I know? Simple....I have gotten my rear chewed on more than one occasion over the last 20 years for back flipping someone with a blade. It does take excessive force to normally accomplish this task unless you catch the unfortunate off ballance and even then the chance for injury is quite high due to the uncontrolled fall. Now if the person falling has the training to break that fall properly, then of course, the chance for injury is reduced substantially. Due to this chance, I always teach my students how to break a fall even if it is not pure European methods.
Now remember, I am not saying it is not chivalrous, just by SCA standards a bit excessive. I actually enjoy fighting at full power, with all that implys and I often wish the SCA would have some of this, but there are few who are willing to play at that level and since I was once banned from fighting for 6 months due to 'breaking' my fellow toys, I have learned to fight at a much reduced intensity to make everyone happy.
------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.
Now remember, I am not saying it is not chivalrous, just by SCA standards a bit excessive. I actually enjoy fighting at full power, with all that implys and I often wish the SCA would have some of this, but there are few who are willing to play at that level and since I was once banned from fighting for 6 months due to 'breaking' my fellow toys, I have learned to fight at a much reduced intensity to make everyone happy.
------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>One thing for Cetes Sir Rhys,
Grappeling, disarming, and throwing were all done in foot combats at tournaments of the Late Middle ages. One only need to refer to "The Deeds of Jaques de Lalaing", or the Beauchamp pagent to see examples.
It is a case of a modern concept of chivalry vs. a medieval one.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just checking here: Are you agreeing with me or trying to correct me? Just checking, because I was trying to say just what you did. In fact, I'm working on a set of rules for tournaments to specifically allow for some limited grappling.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>One thing for Cetes Sir Rhys,
Grappeling, disarming, and throwing were all done in foot combats at tournaments of the Late Middle ages. One only need to refer to "The Deeds of Jaques de Lalaing", or the Beauchamp pagent to see examples.
It is a case of a modern concept of chivalry vs. a medieval one.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just checking here: Are you agreeing with me or trying to correct me? Just checking, because I was trying to say just what you did. In fact, I'm working on a set of rules for tournaments to specifically allow for some limited grappling.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sarnac:
<B>
I am very sorry Sir Rhys but you are incorrect here.
The Mongols had a Knightly class.
They were known as Ba'hadur....literaly translated means "hero".
Subedai was one.
He was given the title by Ghengis Khan.
Also the Khan's Keshik was one of the highest honours one could aspire to.
These were the Khan's personal guard and chosen from the finest warriors of the Khan's Army. The Ba'hadur were mainly chosen from them.
I find your statement rather insulting.
So...just because I have an interest in Asian history and culture..and have decided to have a Mongol persona...that I have no place in the SCA tournament?
(edited 01-24-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
:::sigh::: Why does everyone have to find disagreement to be insulting?
I didn't know that Mongols had an elite warrior class, but even if they did, if you go back and read what I wrote you'll see I interjected this parenthetical comment: "by which I mean cultures that didn't have a knightly class in the sense we mean it, such as Mongols"
I suppose the Mongol "hero" class you describe could be said to be analagous to the medieval knightly class in some ways, but it just isn't the same thing; their culture was just too different.
Please get back to me with specific instances, from primary sources, in which Mongol heroes participated in Western European tournaments during the period covered by the society. As soon as you do that I'll be happy to admit that Mongols should be permitted to participate in Western European medieval tournaments. Until then, I still disagree with it.
Again, no offense intended.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>
I am very sorry Sir Rhys but you are incorrect here.
The Mongols had a Knightly class.
They were known as Ba'hadur....literaly translated means "hero".
Subedai was one.
He was given the title by Ghengis Khan.
Also the Khan's Keshik was one of the highest honours one could aspire to.
These were the Khan's personal guard and chosen from the finest warriors of the Khan's Army. The Ba'hadur were mainly chosen from them.
I find your statement rather insulting.
So...just because I have an interest in Asian history and culture..and have decided to have a Mongol persona...that I have no place in the SCA tournament?
(edited 01-24-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
:::sigh::: Why does everyone have to find disagreement to be insulting?
I didn't know that Mongols had an elite warrior class, but even if they did, if you go back and read what I wrote you'll see I interjected this parenthetical comment: "by which I mean cultures that didn't have a knightly class in the sense we mean it, such as Mongols"
I suppose the Mongol "hero" class you describe could be said to be analagous to the medieval knightly class in some ways, but it just isn't the same thing; their culture was just too different.
Please get back to me with specific instances, from primary sources, in which Mongol heroes participated in Western European tournaments during the period covered by the society. As soon as you do that I'll be happy to admit that Mongols should be permitted to participate in Western European medieval tournaments. Until then, I still disagree with it.
Again, no offense intended.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rorik Galbraith:
<B>Syr Rhys: In response to your question of how do I know? Simple....I have gotten my rear chewed on more than one occasion over the last 20 years for back flipping someone with a blade. It does take excessive force to normally accomplish this task unless you catch the unfortunate off ballance and even then the chance for injury is quite high due to the uncontrolled fall. Now if the person falling has the training to break that fall properly, then of course, the chance for injury is reduced substantially. Due to this chance, I always teach my students how to break a fall even if it is not pure European methods.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm well known for thinking that most SCA calibration is way too light, but in this instance I don't think that's the issue. I believe you can push someone to the ground or out of the lists (both valid techniques in the combat system we use in The Company of Saint Michael) without striking them harder than a normal blow and without employing a "throw" (which I agree is dangerous, :::sigh::.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Syr Rhys: In response to your question of how do I know? Simple....I have gotten my rear chewed on more than one occasion over the last 20 years for back flipping someone with a blade. It does take excessive force to normally accomplish this task unless you catch the unfortunate off ballance and even then the chance for injury is quite high due to the uncontrolled fall. Now if the person falling has the training to break that fall properly, then of course, the chance for injury is reduced substantially. Due to this chance, I always teach my students how to break a fall even if it is not pure European methods.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm well known for thinking that most SCA calibration is way too light, but in this instance I don't think that's the issue. I believe you can push someone to the ground or out of the lists (both valid techniques in the combat system we use in The Company of Saint Michael) without striking them harder than a normal blow and without employing a "throw" (which I agree is dangerous, :::sigh::
.------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Bojei Temur
- Archive Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Franklin Park IL USA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
[B]I don't think that Rhys meant to be insulting. [/B}
Maybe not but that's the way it came across.
The mongols' conquests were often brutal when they encountered resistance or a conquered area rebelled but they had a definate code of ethics and social ranking system. In addition to Sarnac's comments on Bahadur & Keshig, there are several examples of people (such as herders) being elevated into the nobility for following said ethics. There were very definate military rankings. At least one noble defected to Chinngis' side in violation of their codes of loyalty so Chinngis had him killed for the violation. There are several examples of adopting the children of a defeated tribe into their family and raising the kids as family (Chinngis had a couple brothers this way.) Their leaders were elected at kuraltai - any women got a vote. Women were actually put in charge of things and ran a couple (small) territories. They set up a social welfare system.
Barbarians? Unchilvalric? Maybe some research would be in order.
[B]I don't think that Rhys meant to be insulting. [/B}
Maybe not but that's the way it came across.
The mongols' conquests were often brutal when they encountered resistance or a conquered area rebelled but they had a definate code of ethics and social ranking system. In addition to Sarnac's comments on Bahadur & Keshig, there are several examples of people (such as herders) being elevated into the nobility for following said ethics. There were very definate military rankings. At least one noble defected to Chinngis' side in violation of their codes of loyalty so Chinngis had him killed for the violation. There are several examples of adopting the children of a defeated tribe into their family and raising the kids as family (Chinngis had a couple brothers this way.) Their leaders were elected at kuraltai - any women got a vote. Women were actually put in charge of things and ran a couple (small) territories. They set up a social welfare system.
Barbarians? Unchilvalric? Maybe some research would be in order.
-
Rorik Galbraith
- Archive Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
- Contact:
Rhys, I think we are actually in agreement here. I think I might have mis-understood your response. I have absolutely no problem with using the haft to 'adjust' ones center of gravity to the point of 'out of the list he flew' in fact I whole heartidly agree with it. I just wish the SCA did. The more I research my time and place I try to emulate, the more I learn about what that society considered right and proper. Maybe some day I will get it right.
------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.
------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bojei Temur:
<B>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
[B]I don't think that Rhys meant to be insulting. [/B}
Maybe not but that's the way it came across.
The mongols' conquests were often brutal when they encountered resistance or a conquered area rebelled but they had a definate code of ethics and social ranking system. In addition to Sarnac's comments on Bahadur & Keshig, there are several examples of people (such as herders) being elevated into the nobility for following said ethics. There were very definate military rankings. At least one noble defected to Chinngis' side in violation of their codes of loyalty so Chinngis had him killed for the violation. There are several examples of adopting the children of a defeated tribe into their family and raising the kids as family (Chinngis had a couple brothers this way.) Their leaders were elected at kuraltai - any women got a vote. Women were actually put in charge of things and ran a couple (small) territories. They set up a social welfare system.
Barbarians? Unchilvalric? Maybe some research would be in order.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say they weren't chivalrous (by their own cultural standards, about which I know nothing), I said they weren't part of a chivalric culture, id est, medieval Western Europe. I think the research that needs to be done is for you to understand the difference between those two ideas.
Did they do nice things for themselves? I'll take your word for that. Yo want me to believe they had a noble and worthy culture? Hey, I don't know enough to say, but I'll take your word for that, too. Did they fight in medieval tournaments? No. Should they therefore participate in tournaments? Well, I think that question answers itself.
Look, I don't know why this sounds insulting, but it's not intended to be. I am really, really confused by your anger. Could you possibly explain why you feel insulted by a recitation of historic fact? Perhaps if I understood I could explain where we're miscommunicating. And remember, please, that e-mail is a lousy way of expressing ideas; too much gets lost. You might want to ask before leaping off the cliff of anger, ok?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
[B]I don't think that Rhys meant to be insulting. [/B}
Maybe not but that's the way it came across.
The mongols' conquests were often brutal when they encountered resistance or a conquered area rebelled but they had a definate code of ethics and social ranking system. In addition to Sarnac's comments on Bahadur & Keshig, there are several examples of people (such as herders) being elevated into the nobility for following said ethics. There were very definate military rankings. At least one noble defected to Chinngis' side in violation of their codes of loyalty so Chinngis had him killed for the violation. There are several examples of adopting the children of a defeated tribe into their family and raising the kids as family (Chinngis had a couple brothers this way.) Their leaders were elected at kuraltai - any women got a vote. Women were actually put in charge of things and ran a couple (small) territories. They set up a social welfare system.
Barbarians? Unchilvalric? Maybe some research would be in order.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say they weren't chivalrous (by their own cultural standards, about which I know nothing), I said they weren't part of a chivalric culture, id est, medieval Western Europe. I think the research that needs to be done is for you to understand the difference between those two ideas.
Did they do nice things for themselves? I'll take your word for that. Yo want me to believe they had a noble and worthy culture? Hey, I don't know enough to say, but I'll take your word for that, too. Did they fight in medieval tournaments? No. Should they therefore participate in tournaments? Well, I think that question answers itself.
Look, I don't know why this sounds insulting, but it's not intended to be. I am really, really confused by your anger. Could you possibly explain why you feel insulted by a recitation of historic fact? Perhaps if I understood I could explain where we're miscommunicating. And remember, please, that e-mail is a lousy way of expressing ideas; too much gets lost. You might want to ask before leaping off the cliff of anger, ok?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rorik Galbraith:
<B>Rhys, I think we are actually in agreement here. I think I might have mis-understood your response. I have absolutely no problem with using the haft to 'adjust' ones center of gravity to the point of 'out of the list he flew' in fact I whole heartidly agree with it. I just wish the SCA did. The more I research my time and place I try to emulate, the more I learn about what that society considered right and proper. Maybe some day I will get it right.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if you ever get it right I hope you'll teach it to me; sometimes I feel so ignorant it seems like I'll *never* accomplish my goals.
In any case, yes, I think you understand me now. I never said anything about hurting anyone with the haft of your weapon. As for the legality, I don't see *anywhere* in the SCAs rules that it is unlawful to push someone with the haft of your weapon; you may not *stike* with the haft, but that's different (and silly, considering that it's an unavoidable part of melee combat, but hey, SCA fighting rules just make little sense to begin with).
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rhys, I think we are actually in agreement here. I think I might have mis-understood your response. I have absolutely no problem with using the haft to 'adjust' ones center of gravity to the point of 'out of the list he flew' in fact I whole heartidly agree with it. I just wish the SCA did. The more I research my time and place I try to emulate, the more I learn about what that society considered right and proper. Maybe some day I will get it right.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if you ever get it right I hope you'll teach it to me; sometimes I feel so ignorant it seems like I'll *never* accomplish my goals.
In any case, yes, I think you understand me now. I never said anything about hurting anyone with the haft of your weapon. As for the legality, I don't see *anywhere* in the SCAs rules that it is unlawful to push someone with the haft of your weapon; you may not *stike* with the haft, but that's different (and silly, considering that it's an unavoidable part of melee combat, but hey, SCA fighting rules just make little sense to begin with).
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Stoffel
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: corpus christi, tx
- Contact:
*from my limited experience point of view...*
I believe the SCA is a great organization for generic practices of martial arts. Everyone from just about every persona culture can come together and fight in an orderly(sometimes) fashion. Yes, I would love to see a melee with only plate armour from the 15th century, but I know that will never happen in the sca. There are too many people with different interests. With the SCA being so large and spread out, we have to give way for others perspectives. If there were other groups the size of the sca, then we wouldnt have this problem. We could have groups for later period combat, roman combat, asian combat, but there arent those groups(as large as the sca). Sure there are smaller regional groups that can allow only a certain group of fighters from certain time periods and regions, but at least where I live there is no way that there can be a group for each of the type of personas we have here. I'll probably have to come back here and restate some stuff, as I'm pressed for time right now. Off to english class.....
I believe the SCA is a great organization for generic practices of martial arts. Everyone from just about every persona culture can come together and fight in an orderly(sometimes) fashion. Yes, I would love to see a melee with only plate armour from the 15th century, but I know that will never happen in the sca. There are too many people with different interests. With the SCA being so large and spread out, we have to give way for others perspectives. If there were other groups the size of the sca, then we wouldnt have this problem. We could have groups for later period combat, roman combat, asian combat, but there arent those groups(as large as the sca). Sure there are smaller regional groups that can allow only a certain group of fighters from certain time periods and regions, but at least where I live there is no way that there can be a group for each of the type of personas we have here. I'll probably have to come back here and restate some stuff, as I'm pressed for time right now. Off to english class.....