The Armour Archive

I was agreeing with you Rhys......

------------------
Bob R.

Vermin wrote
<<< "as it is unsafe and a clear attempt to injure your opponent."
Huh?
I can smack the bejesus out of someone with a 6 foot rattan stick, but if I TRY to knock them down I'm trying to HURT them? I don't think I get where you are coming from with your argument. >>>


My argument was directed at the original message containing the word smack in thie sentence: “use the haft of your polearm to smack somone onto the groundâ€

Originally posted by hjalmr:

<<<On another note, it is unsafe to place your polearm against a body part and push. Besides dislocating joints, and tearing tendons, you could inavertantly break bones if pressure is applied in a way that the target body area is not designed to move. It’s just unsafe in what we do. >>>

I can't agree. Oh, sure, accidents can always happen, but people get pushed all the time as part of normal SCA fighting.

<I agree with this statement in melee’s or counted blow tourneys, but not in single tourneys. Why? Well I feel that we are suppose to show our skill at defeating a respected foe and I don’t feel that it takes a lot of skill to club someone who is not armed. Now if I accidentally deal a telling blow during this situation, then I won’t take it back, but I feel that we should give the person the chance to draw another weapon. Now there are (as always) exceptions. If the person purposely dropped a weapon to draw another one –I will keep attacking. But if the weapon just fly’s out of his hands and he desperately grabs for another, I’ll wait for him to rearm –if possible (if I’m not in midswing or executing a flury of blows, etc).>

With respect, I believe you're applying a modern sensibility here that a medieval knight would not feel.

<I would like to see some defined, SAFE, rules for this. I won’t argue that it was or wasn’t period, but I feel that most intense grappling is dangerous –especially in regards to two different sized, and/or different fighting level, fighters just trying to have some fun in an otherwise crazy world.>

The interesting thing about grappling in manuscript illuminations of armored combat (where it shows up all the time), is that you don't see the fancy (and complicated) joint locks and throws so common to the fecthbucher. What you usually see is one guy pushing or holding another so he can hit him with his weapon or push him out of the lists. Granted, in the chronicles about Jaques LaLaing you sometimes read about a simple throw, etc., but that's not the norm. I think we should be able to grab, push or pull an opponent in order to knock him down, push him out of the lists, or hold him so we can hit him with little risk beyond that of normal fighting. For example, I'm thinking of the double arm hold shown in both Talhoffer and Fiore. Good pictures of these kinds of techniques can be seen in the Manessa Codex. See: http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder?manessebilder

I agree that trips, joint locks and throws are too dangerous to try in armor, but I personally believe they weren't common in armored combat (for one thing, many of them require more dexterity than a gauntleted hand will permit, and for another the iconography, as I said above, doesn't show them very often).

Besides, we'll never make our tournament combat *perfect*, we just have to try to make it as close as possible.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Sorry, I am having trouble figuring out how to quote someone on this forum; I end up deleting what he wrote and putting most of what I'm writing in Italics.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Good ole Rhys.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lubeck:
<B>btw Deacon, weren't you with us in that battle???
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bridge battle? Sure was!

Did we meet? What unit were you with?

Deacon

"Several weeks ago I charged a greatsword fighter to get close enough to hit him, only to have him slam my shield so hard with his greatsword tohat he drove my shield into my face (jerking my head backwards) and knocking me off my feet –breaking my ankle! "

Well, I'm truly sorry you got your ankle broken.
But-

Have you ever fought greatsword for any length of time?
Here's what it's like-
People with sword and sheild slam into you all the time, and you get knocked about.

Happens all_the_time.

In tourneys AND melees.

No, really, have some 250lb guy with a war door run at you sometime and slam into you.
You had a sheild?
Lucky you!

VvS

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B>
With respect, I believe you're applying a modern sensibility here that a medieval knight would not feel.
</B>

Ok...Modern sensibility...I don't know about everyone else but I'm ok with that in an SCA list concept.

Let me preface the rest of this post with, I'm from Meridies, and yes we hit lighter than most folks down here, I don't think I'd equate it to what Sir Richard calls "armored fencing" but this crap I'm hearing about hitting someone so hard you KNOCK them off their feet? hmm maybe its just where I'm from but FOR THE _GAME_ WE PLAY that seems a bit, lets say, excessive? honestly in a game among FRIENDS is there really a reason to hit harder than a good bruise? lets think about this I go 6ft 235...I've done a lot of things in my life, football, wrestling, Tanker, SCA combat and heck I grew up with the first name Kim . So lets just say I can handle myself in a real fight as well as, or better, than I can in an SCA fight, i.e. I don't go down easy. But *If you _hit_ me -with a weapon- hard enough to knock me off my feet were gonna have issues. not on the field. but were gonna have them. Being knocked over in a charge during a melee is a different animal I get that, and am ok with it. I don't know about all the other kingdoms but "pushing" someone over (off their feet) in Meridies would do you no good, as you cant strike them on the ground, you must allow them to regain their footing.
and for most of the people I know "pushing" them with the haft of your weapon will only get you hit. so I don't see the validation in it anyway.

that said I'd be all for more contact in SCA combat from a -personal- point of view, if I were all about winning. If I could make tournament combat more like a brawl, with trips,grappling, bashing etc...it would be more period. I'd be better at it than I am at current SCA combat, because of my background. Should we do it? NO! remember my favorite saying, just because something is period, doesnt make it better, it just makes it period. but if we did it, then right after it happens the SCA will go away forever. because the first time someone like myself or bigger (by SCA standards I'm slightly below avg size...I love that part) starts playing at true "full strength" then the SCA wont be around much any longer. for those of you who know him...Imagine going against Duke Gareth at Full Strength, with Grappling legal. though the thought sounds kinda fun to someone my size and back ground, imagine now being 5'8" 160 and having to face that in the lists. No, that doesn't need to be SCA combat. SCA Combat is pretty good where it is. (i.e. its periodish and fairly safe) perhaps some, for lack of a better term, standardization needs to take place across kingdoms. but they're working on that.
-sorry about the tangent back to our regularly scheduled topic-

what was it again..oh yes...don't want to be "chivalrous and knightly, dont fight in the SCA"

I agree SCA combat is supposed to be knightly combat..if you wanna be a barbarian, don't play in the SCA...if you don't strive for knighthood, don't play in the sca (and don't become a squire or expect to be knighted just because you fight well). but those are my PERSONAL opinions. do I have friends in the SCA who don't want to be knights, who dont strive to be Knightly? yes. should they fight in the SCA? no. do I tell them that? yes. are they still my friends? yes.

Ulrich
The Direct Squire (tm)
(who'd just like to fight one tournament with cestus and armored glove.)

Vermin wrote

<<< Have you ever fought greatsword for any length of time? Here's what it's like-
People with sword and sheild slam into you all the time, and you get knocked about. >>>

Why yes, I have. I have fought with all the weapon styles, including “gulpâ€

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It is not possible for a Roman Legionairre to have done so, or an early barbarian, which is where the questions usually start.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's "Legionary". "Legionairre" is a member of the modern French Foriegn Legion. Would it help if you thought of me as a 12th C. psychotic who THINKS he's a Roman? Feel free, if it does.

Anyway, so what? The SCA is, for all practical purposes, the only game in town of its size. I want to swing sticks, my options are limited. Frankly, I think the SCA should EXPAND it's coverage, not restrict it. Mind you, I ain't charging machine guns. I'm crazy, not stupid.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Okay - now I know where I got confused. It was over the word "smack". I mistook that for "strike". If you read it like that, it just doesn't make sense with the first part of the post. My bad.

Two people seperated by a common language.

(I feel much better now, thank you)

...Imagine going against Duke Gareth at Full Strength, with Grappling legal...
Only with a shark bangstick, and good sniper with a 50 cal to back me up. And then to shoot me to put me out of my misery


Ok I have to repeat this is a game about SKILL and CHIVALRY. Sure you can bulldoze, but is not better to fake me out and kill me.
Sure you can shove me around like the rat and you are the terrier.

Sure you can put 10 guys up front with just 4 foot by 4 foot shields, but is not better to use a real period size shield and give them short swords.

It is no better if stop and ask me if I missed those two shots , than crank up and dent my 14 ga helm.
(Don't get me started on heavier ga helms)

Can't we all just play nice and be happy for 1 day bragging rights that my kingdom beat yours instead my kingdom MUST beat yours.

Hi All,

The skills required to grappel, throw, and use all of ones poll weapon were considered NECESSARY for the chivalrous to display in foot tournament, or they would have been considered unskilled boobs.

Many of these techniques are equalizers against the stronger, bigger opponent. Sorry, but wrestling is considered the core skill of Medieval martial arts.

------------------
Bob R.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jasper:
<B>...Imagine going against Duke Gareth at Full Strength, with Grappling legal...

Ok I have to repeat this is a game about SKILL and CHIVALRY. Sure you can bulldoze, but is not better to fake me out and kill me.
Sure you can shove me around like the rat and you are the terrier.

Can't we all just play nice and be happy for 1 day bragging rights that my kingdom beat yours instead my kingdom MUST beat yours.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So your main concern then, is that you won't be able to win against a stronger opponent if we allow grappling? Should faster fighters have to use heavier weapons, then so I can keep up? My preference would be to make the fighting more realistic and let the better man win.

And you emphasize that this is about chivalry; could you explain how it's unchivalrous to grapple or haft an opponent? As near as I can tell, such things were the *norm* of medieval tournament combat (even though there are occasional late-period references in which grappling was banned), and if they were considered chivalrous by medieval knights we can hardly consider them unchivalrous now, can we?

Finally, what do you mean by the last paragraph above when you talking about "playing nice"; how is this not playing nice? And what does this have to do with bragging rights? I'm not sure how to respond because I'm not sure how you mean those things.

I'm not urging these things because I want to hurt anyone; frankly, I think these things are a *lot* less dangerous than people think (hell, if you show a mundane our fighting many of them think what we do is dangerous, and that's just not true once you get used to it). I'm urging these things for the same reason I push the counted-blow system of combat and new rules like grabbing sword blades and half-swording: because they're what was done in period, and we need to do them to make our fighting more realistic.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hjalmr:
<B>

I AM applying a modern sensibility here because we (SCA) are attempting to fight safely so that we can enjoy this for many years to come. No offence, but if I wanted to risk life and limb everytime I stepped out on the field I would fight with the Tuchuks (no offence to them). I have no doubt that grappling, throwing, etc, was part of the scene –but so was torture. Remember that we are all suppose to be FRIENDS here. Also: Since your “quoteâ€

I see many of your points Sir Rhys....and I agree that much of what you purpose would bring us closer to what a tourney was like......in the later periods.
Every thing you are talkng about happened in a span of 200 years or so.....which leaves about 800 years worth of interest out in the cold.

I, for one dont particularly care for the later, European periods. My interests lie in Asia and the Middle East during the earlier part of the periods that the SCA covers. I do not see how that makes my participation less valid then yours.
Nor do I see how my focus on this, should disallow me from particiapating in our combat.

Think about this- Sir Henrik of Havn attended this first event. Did you see the new T.I.? Henrik wore his original hauberk and helmet to the last Hastings re-enactment and FIT RIGHT IN.
Here is the original flyer for the first SCA event.
The original flyer contains the sentence that has plagued the more historical-minded among us to this day...

http://www.earlysca.homestead.com/files/H_Announcement_01_Full.jpg

Now, what was "Outremer"? It meant "the land beyond the sea". These were the Crusader Kingdoms and beyond- this brings in unlimited amounts of other potential cultures.
The flyer mentions fairies as well!!
So, the problem is this- are we still
supposed to be operating on the original premise?
These problems have been here from the beginning. Sir Henrik is now able to attend "legitimate" reenactment events in his AS 1 armour!
I feel that the chivalric spirit appears all over the world.
I totally support period-specific
tournaments, and even period-specific events.... But the regular SCA is a melting pot, and the concept of Chivalry has been with us from the beginning. Chivalry does not miraculously appear in 1400

Heck, I like bumping and grinding...

oh wait, were we still talking about fighting?

SyrRhys…
So your main concern then, is that you won't be able to win against a stronger opponent if we
allow grappling?…

No read the smiles. I would not want Duke Gareth to get a hold and toss me around. He may let go at the wrong moment and I will end up flying into the next county.

I get back to grappling. If I don't remind me.

… preference would be to make the fighting more realistic and let the better man win…

Ok only if we have a maximum gauge of armour, which could be documented. I think people have posted and said most armour was 16 ga or lighter. This will prevent god armour.

…, such things were the *norm* of medieval tournament combat (even though there are occasional late-period references in which grappling was banned), and if they were considered chivalrous by medieval knights we can hardly consider them unchivalrous now, can we?…

William Marshall would enter the tourneys late and fresh with his buddy boys. And then clean up. Ok I take Duke Gareth, Bearkiller, John the Mad Celt, etc and wait to the last 10 minutes of the resurrection battle which is schedule for 90 minutes. Would you consider this fair?

Better yet if you lost the bout, are you willing to ransom (pay thru the nose) to get your armour back before the next event. After all …" if they were considered chivalrous by medieval knights we can hardly consider them unchivalrous now, can we…"

… Finally, what do you mean by the last paragraph above when you talking about "playing nice";how is this not playing nice? And what does this have to do with bragging rights? I'm not sure how to respond because I'm not sure how you mean those things….

The playing nice comes from hearing and seeing people rhino at wars just to make sure their side wins, or because so and so house hold cheated last war. So lets crank it up people.

… I push the counted-blow system of combat and new rules like grappling sword blades and half-swording: because they're what was done in period, and we need to do them to make our fighting more realistic….
Half sword and grabbing blades okay in certain tourneys. Along with grappling.

However I don't trust you, me, my knight to man handle/ grapple with people safely under the current training conditions. Period knights trained more than once a week. They did not have worry about the missed work if William Marshall knocked them into next week. You show me 10 guys from the far reaches of a kingdom grappling safely I may reconsider. Grappling reminds me of my Army days where guys would start a friendly wrestling tussle. Until the pain started the I will kill you sucker reflex. And it got serious.

Current Training methods is I learn from so and so and teach my group. I may be able to foot sweep and toss half the people I play with. However I do not want the others to fall on me. They would squish my little head!

Hafting. There is a difference between using your haft to push me off you and kill me while I recover. And shoving me so hard you can kill me while I am flying through the air.

Hope I cleared up my viewpoint.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sarnac:
<B>I see many of your points Sir Rhys....and I agree that much of what you purpose would bring us closer to what a tourney was like......in the later periods.
Every thing you are talkng about happened in a span of 200 years or so.....which leaves about 800 years worth of interest out in the cold.

I, for one dont particularly care for the later, European periods. My interests lie in Asia and the Middle East during the earlier part of the periods that the SCA covers. I do not see how that makes my participation less valid then yours.
Nor do I see how my focus on this, should disallow me from particiapating in our combat.

Think about this- Sir Henrik of Havn attended this first event. Did you see the new T.I.? Henrik wore his original hauberk and helmet to the last Hastings re-enactment and FIT RIGHT IN.
Here is the original flyer for the first SCA event.
The original flyer contains the sentence that has plagued the more historical-minded among us to this day...

http://www.earlysca.homestead.com/files/H_Announcement_01_Full.jpg

Now, what was "Outremer"? It meant "the land beyond the sea". These were the Crusader Kingdoms and beyond- this brings in unlimited amounts of other potential cultures.
The flyer mentions fairies as well!!
So, the problem is this- are we still
supposed to be operating on the original premise?
These problems have been here from the beginning. Sir Henrik is now able to attend "legitimate" reenactment events in his AS 1 armour!
I feel that the chivalric spirit appears all over the world.
I totally support period-specific
tournaments, and even period-specific events.... But the regular SCA is a melting pot, and the concept of Chivalry has been with us from the beginning. Chivalry does not miraculously appear in 1400</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that chivalry miraculously appears in 1400; in fact, I have little interest in things after 1400 myself. Nor did I say that tournaments started in 1400. Barber and Barker show pretty conclusively that the tournaments, as we think of them (I use the plural because of the many kinds of 'hastiludes' than can be grouped under that word), started in the very late 11th or early 12th centuries, if I remember correctly. Duke Heinrich's harness would have fit in fine. Outremer is fine, too: The crusaders often jousted to pass the time. Faeries are *not* fine. Fortunately, we've grown away from that. Just because they did something one way at the beginning isn't of and by itself a good reason to continue doing it if later study shows it to be a mistake.

And the chivalric spirit doesn't exist "all over the world"; the ideas of what was and wasn't chivalrous varied from country to country even within Western Europe. Correct beahvior for a warrior was determined by the culture in which he existed, and those cultures had very divergent opnions. For example, a bushi would consider the bow and arrow to be a noble and "chivalrous" (to misapply the term) weapons form, while a medieval knight would not. I suspect (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) that you're attaching a set of fairly modern values to the word "chivalry", and looking to find those values in other cultures. I believe that approach is a mistake. We must define chivalry according to medieval knightly culture.

Personally, I prefer tournaments that date from the 14th century. Why? Two reasons: First, it's very, very difficult to fight in an accurate pre-14th century harness: just as one example, safe gauntlets weren't worn before then. Second, most pre-14th century tournaments were fought on horseback; the practice of combats in the list on foot is a late-period activity. Since there's a noticible dearth of horses at our events (and the weenies won't let us joust even when there are!), this means that it's difficult to do an early-period tournament well.

As for non-Western personae, hey, if you want to do it I can't stop you (and I won't really try). But the fact remains that Mongols (etc.) didn't fight in western-European medieval tournaments (I was looking for evidence that middle eastern people participated in Crusader tournaments the other day and couldn't find evidence of that, either, but my references are weak in that area, so I'm not saying that conclusively).

A knight from 1100 wouldn't have seen a Bushi or a mongol, etc., on the tourney field, nor would a knight from 1453. It's that simple. Our charter says we're studying pre-17th century Western European culture; they might have *seen* some of these people, but they certainly wouldn't have met them in the lists!

How does this relate to the original question? Simple: If we require fighters to behave chivalrously in the lists we need to be able to define "chivalrously". To have a meaningful definition of the word we need to go to the root: the behavior of actual medieval knights. Since Mongols et. al. didn't fight in medieval tournaments they don't have any place in our tournaments; how can we even apply the same notions of chivalry to them (which, before anyone explodes, doesn't mean they can't be chivalrous people! It just means the medieval standards aren't applicable)?

You want to fight as a Mongol? Go ahead. People wear non-medieval armor all the time, and no one stops them. Heck, some of them are good friends of mine. Will I hate you for fighting in a medieval tournament under the guise of a persona that had no business being there? Of course not! I'll be saddened that you're adding to the lack of versimilitude in what we do, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person!


------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jasper:
<B>SyrRhys…

Ok only if we have a maximum gauge of armour, which could be documented. I think people have posted and said most armour was 16 ga or lighter. This will prevent god armour.

William Marshall would enter the tourneys late and fresh with his buddy boys. And then clean up. Ok I take Duke Gareth, Bearkiller, John the Mad Celt, etc and wait to the last 10 minutes of the resurrection battle which is schedule for 90 minutes. Would you consider this fair?

Better yet if you lost the bout, are you willing to ransom (pay thru the nose) to get your armour back before the next event. After all …" if they were considered chivalrous by medieval knights we can hardly consider them unchivalrous now, can we…"

The playing nice comes from hearing and seeing people rhino at wars just to make sure their side wins, or because so and so house hold cheated last war. So lets crank it up people.

However I don't trust you, me, my knight to man handle/ grapple with people safely under the current training conditions. Period knights trained more than once a week. They did not have worry about the missed work if William Marshall knocked them into next week. You show me 10 guys from the far reaches of a kingdom grappling safely I may reconsider. Grappling reminds me of my Army days where guys would start a friendly wrestling tussle. Until the pain started the I will kill you sucker reflex. And it got serious.

Current Training methods is I learn from so and so and teach my group. I may be able to foot sweep and toss half the people I play with. However I do not want the others to fall on me. They would squish my little head!

Hafting. There is a difference between using your haft to push me off you and kill me while I recover. And shoving me so hard you can kill me while I am flying through the air.

Hope I cleared up my viewpoint.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Armor varied in thickness dramatically, from perhaps as little as 20 guage on the limbs to as much as 14 oe 12 guage on the body and head. Why did you bring that up?

The William Marshall thing is an example of the need to break our modern ideas about what is and isn't chivalrous. If medieval knights didn't consider it unchivalrous then neither should we.

As for "cranking up", I have never said to use unsafe levels of force, so I'm not sure why you said that.

I don't know that knights trained more than once a week in period. Do you? In actuality, I suspect many knights didn't even practice once a year, while others practiced once a day. You can't make that kind of broad statement.

As for safety, however, you have a point. Once again, I don't believe that the more complicated joint locks, etc. have any place in our tournaments. In the first place, I don't see any evidence for them in the iconography. As I wrote earlier, most paintings show relatively simple things like grabbing your opponent's arm or body or weapon to immobilize him while you hit him, and I think that's perfectly safe for us to do; moreover, many of the very complicated techniques shown in the fecthbucher simply can't be done whilke wearing gauntlets. In the second place, while some of the tournament chronicles do reference throws and trips, I also believe in safety, and I have strong doubts about whether we can do those safely, so I don't recommend them.

As for hafting, you're right: There's no reason to strike someone hard enough to kill them with your haft. All you have to do is unbalance them enough to strike them or to knock them over. This shouldn't take any more force than what people are already used to.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

But Sarnac,

Wrestling is a part of Eastern cultures as well. There are Arabic "fechtbuchs", and don't tell me that there is no such thing as unarmoured combat in Eastern culture.

I will wager that grappling and wrestling occured in Mongol combat on foot. Of course, mongol combat and life in general primarily occured on horseback. You don't let a lack of horses stop you from portraying one.

As to the techniques of wrestling not being used in earlier European combat - that is a poor excuse as well. There are 13th century manuscript illuminations showing mounted knights grappling with their opponents.

Saying that you shouldn't have to grapple because you are an earlier, Eastern persona is a hollow excuse.

------------------
Bob R.

Rhys -

I am always impressed by the knowledge that guys like you and Vitus bring to the SCA.

But, the SCA is not trying to exactly recreate Chivalry as it really existed in the period - We are trying to create and maintain a society where Chivalric IDEALS are held foremost. And yes, these ideals are a modern definition at worst, a Victorian one at best. Our personas, Arts and Sciences, and our combat are simply vehicles that we use to achieve and honor those ideals. A churl who is perfectly period in appearance and technique is still a churl.

Yeah, our combat has some rules and traditions that don't necessarily make "sense" in terms of historical accuracy. But these are the rules and traditions that have dictated by the Society, and we are bound by our honor to uphold them. This doesn't mean we can't try to bring about changes in hte rules and new traditions, just that we have to work these changes within the system.

So yeah, grappling was done in period. But to the romantic chivalric ideal that people come into the SCA with, do they really WANT to see two guys wrestle, even if it is compeltely period? Or recreate the many nasty, brutish things that were accetpable in the real Middle Ages?

Or do they want to see 2 men strive in skill at arms to honor their inspiration, and each other, and the Ideals of Chivalry as they exist in our Society? Do they want to see Athur, Gawain and Lancelot made flesh? Do they want CAMELOT?

You ask 100 SCA people, I'll bet Camelot wins. And it should.


Diolun
Midrealm

[This message has been edited by Irish (edited 01-25-2002).]

Just a few notes on various topics:

On the Early days of the SCA:

Duke Heinrich of Havn and Duke Armand de Sevigny had excellent kits even in very early times. Duke Armand is another one that would fit right in at Hastings. Both also have full horse kits as well and have practiced equestrian arts for many years. They were always inspirations for those of us on the west coast.

Lysander of Sparta was another from those times with great kit, though it was from an ancient period. The kingdom of the West "history" site has some great pictures.

At that first tourney, I think they also had guys in motorcycle helmets and baseball bats... we don't want to do that anymore.

*******************************
On personas outside of Western Europe:

I try to pretend they are just European guys dressed in "Fantastic" costume for exhibition or festival. I have a hard time mentally pushing that to Japanese, and some of the new world costumes though and really believe it is inappropriate for the SCA. People can argue that with me all they want, but I don't believe in "contact" cultures being encouraged. I do agree with Sarnac and others that there were non-western cultures that had "significant" presence in Europe during the period. Those I have no problem with - Mongols, Vikings, Middle Eastern.. even Chinese traders for those who are not combatants... My husband has one Squire who is a Sicilian Norman, who fought as a merc with the Mongols for years (and he's a MS in History and has documented this). One Squire is a Mongol (but he no longer fights due to physical issues, which is kind of too bad as he was really awesome in his prime.)

For example: Madus, I have told new members that they are welcome to take up whatever weapon they want, just don't expect us to have lunch with them if they fight with a madu. Kudu horns is where we draws the line.

**********************************
On Grappling:

In the Empire of Adria, "Knightly Combat" is considered grappling and is allowed in live steel upon the agreement of the combatants.

Mostly it tends to involve falling down on each other, but I can't recall when someone has been hurt. Luckily they do have the same wound pathology as the SCA, so when a big bubba knight charges me, I usually just leg him and run..... my knees are getting a bit old for falling down in 70 lbs of armor. Actually its the getting back up that hurts..

After fighting in the SCA, the first time you get punched in the face with a guantlet, it is quite stunning.. even though I did beat him anyway

Basically I think that if two combatants agree with grappling, why not? If the rules were changed to support that, I'd be for it.

Juliana

[This message has been edited by FrauHirsch (edited 01-25-2002).]

And you emphasize that this is about chivalry; could you explain how it's unchivalrous to grapple or haft an opponent

Good Sir and all,
Not to answer a question posed to another, but....
I don't see it as being unchivalrous to do these things, but, right now,and I know most everyone knows this, it is against the rules of SCA combat. And until, if/when, the rule is changed, a lot of people will see it as unchivalrous since it's not allowed by rule.
I've also followed your posts on other boards and know that you are working to make combat more period. I applaud your efforts.
Connor, KSCA

Wow I had another really long boreing post I was gonna hammer you all with. Instead I think I'll just say.

(while pointing up at Irish's post.)

"Yea What he said"

Ulrich

On rules of engagement:

The rules of engagement for Caid are outlined in the Kingdom combat manual. Fighters who break those written rules should be called on it. Marshals should step in.

However, I do get miffed when I get people adding in additional ones like: "you have to drop your shield if you arm someone", or "hitting an arm is unchivalrous" or "thrusting to the face is unchivalrous" ... or name that "rule". Often these problems have started when Knights of renown move here from another kingdom and bring in their own philosophies and gain some following who are happy to spout off their new "religion".

Course I'm an old phart Sr. Marshal and "Laurel of great antiquity" and have no problem providing a clarification of the rules... in an ever so nice way of course The rules is the rules...

Juliana

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>But Sarnac,

Wrestling is a part of Eastern cultures as well. There are Arabic "fechtbuchs", and don't tell me that there is no such thing as unarmoured combat in Eastern culture.

I will wager that grappling and wrestling occured in Mongol combat on foot. Of course, mongol combat and life in general primarily occured on horseback. You don't let a lack of horses stop you from portraying one.

As to the techniques of wrestling not being used in earlier European combat - that is a poor excuse as well. There are 13th century manuscript illuminations showing mounted knights grappling with their opponents.

Saying that you shouldn't have to grapple because you are an earlier, Eastern persona is a hollow excuse.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contrair mon frair....

I am not saying anything of the sort...
My arguement was not that the wrestling or grappling didnt belong....it is the foundation of most of the combat structures ever created....including the Mongols who still consider wrestling an intregal part of life to this day......

My arguement is that I, as a eastern martial arts practitioner, and a student of asian culture, do not belong in the tournament structure of the SCA as defined by Sir Rhys.

I disagree.

I believe that My Mongol persona has just as much relevance within the Society as a 15 century Burgundian persona.

It is this ability to persue our personal interest and remain a viable part of the SCA which I find refreshing and endearing.

I am not forced to follow a cookie cutter format to express my interest in Medieval life, yet still able to participate in what brought me to the Society in the first place.
Honourable combat between two people, following the same path, trying to be the best they can be.

Can I Prove that a Mongol fought in the Tourneys of the later periods of Europe?
No.
Can I prove that during our time period that is covered, that the Mongols had interaction with European cultures?
Extensively. They conquered most of Eastern Europe.

In my eyes...that is more than enough to justfiy my presence.

chef de chamber posted:
I will wager that grappling and wrestling occured in Mongol combat on foot. Of course, mongol combat and life in general primarily occured on horseback. You don't let a lack of horses stop you from portraying one.

Yes, the mongols have a form of wrestling - both period and today. It definitely resembles standing grappling a lot more than the common American idea of wrestling. There's many period references to it and it gave rise to quite a lot of betting. A thousand horses anyone?

SyrRhys posted:

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.

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.

You said 'non-chivalric culture' and the only limitation you put on it was 'knightly class.' You didn't specify western Europe. Neither does the only dictionary I have handy - From Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Chivalric -relating to chivalry; chivalrous
Chivalrous - (1) of or relating to chivalry; (2) marked by honor, courtesy, and generosity; (3) marked by especial courtesy to women
Chivalry - (1) mounted men-at-arms; (2) the system or practices of knighthood; 93) the spirit or character of the ideal knight
Knight - (1) a mounted warrior of feudal times serving a king (2) a man honored by a soverign for merit and in Great Britain ranking below a baronet; (3) a man devoted to the service of a lady; (4) a member of an order or society; (5) a chess piece having an L shaped move

So, let's analyze this.
"mounted warrior" - most definitely.
"Feudal times" - well, no serfs, not agricultural, but Chinggis and post-Chinggis lands were held by grant from the khan and there was a definite hierarchy of nobility - I'd say check.
"serving a king" - well, they're called khans, the homeland is inherited by the youngest son not the eldest and you actually have to be chosen/elected but Khans are the rulers. And the keshig and most of the noble warriors, captains, & pretty much everyone in the army swore personal oaths to the khans. Check.
"Marked by honor, courtesy, and generosity" - Ethic system, yep. Courtesy - yeah, they had manners and behavioral standards. Want details? Generosity - many examples of khans coming across someone in a bad situation and throwing money at them. They (knowingly) overpaid merchants to The khans tended to give away the treasury (leading to some nasty fiscal problems.) Mongolian culture requires them to give their enemies shelter from the storm. Check.
"honored by sovereign for merit" - yep, that's how they got to be bahadur and keshig. Check.
"man devoted to the service of a lady" 'marked by especial courtesy to women"- service? - nope, sworn to the khan. But women had substantially more rights and responsibilities than most European cultures of the time.
"member of an order or society" - keshig. Check.

"the system or practices of knighthood" and "the spirit or character of the ideal knight" - isn't that what the thread's about? These topics get debated on the board quite frequently.

Overall, unless chivalric culture is limited to only Europe, the Mongols qualify. (No, I don't think they were perfect, just rather misunderstood.)

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?

Yes. They also did nice things for others. They significantly decreased the punishments allowed by the Chinese legal code including the number of capital crimes. They promoted religious tolerance.

Did they fight in medieval tournaments? No. Should they therefore participate in tournaments? Well, I think that question answers itself.

They held hunts and tournaments of their own - do you really think that martial competition for sport/entertainments is a soley European pastime? Now, did they trot over to Europe to participate in Lord so-and-so's tourney? No, they tended to try conquering the territory on their way. And did European tournaments really pull participants from the entire continent?

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?

Actually, I wasn't angry when I posted. (This post is meant to be a little sarcastic though.) I just get a little sick of people who apparently don't know anything about Mongolian culture using them as an example of (insert your favorite vice or lack of virtue here.)


[This message has been edited by Bojei Temur (edited 01-26-2002).]

Irish: Yeah, our combat has some rules and traditions that don't necessarily make "sense".... But these are the rules ... and we are bound ... to uphold them. This doesn't mean we can't try to bring about changes in hte rules and new traditions, just that we have to work these changes within the system.

You seem to imply that, by striving for a narrower interpretation of chivalric combat participation, this goes against the rules. Or that these efforts somehow fall outside of "the system". This is a "Straw Man" fallacy of argument. By suggesting that we narrow our interpretation of chivalric combat, Rhys has neither broken the rules nor circumvented the existing process to change it.

Irish: So yeah, grappling was done in period. But to the romantic chivalric ideal that people come into the SCA with, do they really WANT to see two guys wrestle, even if it is compeltely period? Or recreate the many nasty, brutish things that were accetpable in the real Middle Ages?

And yet, it appears that to one of the greatest Victorian romantic writers, Arthur Conan Doyle, wrestling is an acceptable element of chivalric combat. In "The White Company", his famous hero, Sir Nigel, is described rolling in the dirt with a much larger spanish knight -- barely surviving by thrusting his opponent in the armpit with a dagger at the very last moment.

Irish: Or do they want to see 2 men strive in skill at arms to honor...? Do they want to see Athur, Gawain and Lancelot made flesh? Do they want CAMELOT?

Again, you imply through fallacy that wrestling is not a recognized skill of arms. There is enough romantic literature, historical and Victorian, where the great heroes resort to grappling in the course of the fight. Apparently, wrestling in tournament is part of Camelot, too.

Sarnac: Can I prove that a Mongol fought in the Tourneys of the later periods of Europe? No. Can I prove that during our time period that is covered, that the Mongols had interaction with European cultures? Extensively. They conquered most of Eastern Europe. In my eyes...that is more than enough to justfiy my presence.

Rhys does not say that Mongols do not belong in the SCA, only that they do not belong in tournament combat. You admit yourself that you can find no provenence for this very thing. How, then, do you explain this in the context of your persona, either historically or romantically? In another thread, you express a desire to improve the appearance of the fighting community on Your field by prohibiting the use of visibly jarring elements. By your own words, however, it would appear that mongols (and samurai) are just as out of place in tournament as are tennis shoes and blue plastic. In the absence of explanation -- if you'll pardon my slippery-slope *grin* -- I fear that you undermine your own mandate with such obvious contradictions and risk providing the worst kind of example.

Of course, if you covered it (the Mongol persona) with a tunic so nobody could see it, that would be alright *big grin*….

With respect,

-cheval-

All, 
So the bottom line is…. 

"If you don't want to be chivalrous and knightly, don't fight in the SCA "

My short answer is I agree… but do not think for an instant that you can mandate [b]“Chivalrous and Knightlyâ€

The point of posting the flyer from the first tournament is to prove that the founders wanted us to have a very inclusive persona enviroment.
It really burns me up to see early period folks show up at the Pas. I don't like it. I also don't show up at the Holmgang, either. I also wouldn't show up at the Hastings re-enactment with the kit I wear now.
The point is that people like Henrik of Havn have been in the melting pot of the SCA all their lives, and yet they can step out of what we do and then step right back in. I like century-specific tournaments and culture-specific fighting scenarios. Do I belong in all of them? Hell no. But I really like the regular SCA concept because everyone can just forget all that crap and just go play under this assumed "armor standard" nonsense. Who cares if it's silly.
If you want to get specific- there is nothing in the rulebook that forbids you from doing so.
The original flyer was posted to remind you WHY most of our events are melting-pot nightmares where things aren't exactly fair. It's the original premise that caused so many people to go to SCA "sport" armours- because it supposedly leveled the playing field.
I still don't want non-europeans and early period people showing up at the Pas.
-Vitus

Vitus,

I agree with you completly.... 100%. Could not agree with you any more....

The subject of this topic is

If you don't want to be chivalrous and knightly, don't fight in the SCA

I was addressing only that...

Specialized / Generalized tourneys.. YES...

Restricting people from the list: " don't fight in the SCA" is not the answer.

In my posting above I displayed my opinion on allowing special tourneys "I think the idea of having a Plate and Maille tourney at Pennsic is about the best thing that can be done. However, I also would like to see other specialized tourneys. How about a Mongol only tourney? How about people that portray Saxons and Normans in a Melee tourney. How about a Norse Tourney, with the rules modified to better represent what they did for a pastime."

Best of luck with the Tourney in Pennsic. I hope to see some great photos from it.

Giles of Redheugh


[This message has been edited by Giles of Redheugh (edited 01-27-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Giles of Redheugh (edited 01-27-2002).]

Cheval -

At this time, wrestleing / grappling DOES fall outside of SCA rules of Chivalric combat. And we do (at least in the Midrealm) have procedures for people who want to experiment with a new weapon for (which I would count this as); You write up a proposal and rules, present it to the Kingdom Earl Marshal, and get his approval. He then gets people from various areas of the Kingdom to try it and give feedback. If the experimentation period proves positive, then it opens up to the fighting community at large. It worked for face thrust, butt spikes and unpadded polearms and other forms/weapons.

If someone wants to go that route, cool!

And I never said that grappling wasn't a period practice - it was. That doesn't mean we should do it in the lists. Boxing and punching was period, as were kicks - do we allow those too? As a guy with a bit of competitve boxing behind me, I can tell you the chance for injury would go up - a lot.

And I would oppose any attempt to limit participation of tournament combat to spcific time periods or personas. My persona is Irish, 600-800 AD. We held contests of arms, awarding prizes and glory to the victors. Champions of Kings were often chosen this way.

But to my persona, a man clad to completely in metal as the late period armours would be totally out of place too -

Like so many people point out, the SCA is not a pure recreation group. Never has been. To me, it is a group that tries to glorify a romantic ideal of Chivalry. Our combat, A&S, service, and pagentry are simply our chosen vehicles.

Are we completely accurate? No. Are we far too idealized, too romantic in our view? Maybe. But I would rather err to that direction.

Diolun

Midrealm

Rhys: "A knight from 1100 wouldn't have seen a Bushi or a mongol, etc., on the tourney field, nor would a knight from 1453. It's that simple. Our charter says we're studying pre-17th century Western European culture; they might have *seen* some of these people, but they certainly wouldn't have met them in the lists!"

Just to clarify my position -- the 'charter' I subscribe to is the one that says we are a medieval organization, and that while the exploration of non-western cultural personaes is not discouraged, they should conduct themselves as guests in a western medieval court. Now, you can rationalize this however you want -- the adoption of exotic personaes for tournament was a well documented practice (might have been a few Romans and Greeks in there, too, if I remember correctly, Rhys), and even Arthur had his Sagramor. Whichever your argument, though, it does provide a mechanism by which non-western, non-christian warriors can participate -- as long as they conduct themselves according to the prevailing chivalric code. So to paraphrase Richard's original tirade (thanks for the reminder, Giles), if being chivalrous and knightly is your thing, regardless of your persona, then I would welcome you warmly to play in -MY- SCA...

-cheval-

Diolun: "Like so many people point out, the SCA is not a pure recreation group. Never has been. To me, it is a group that tries to glorify a romantic ideal of Chivalry. Our combat, A&S, service, and pagentry are simply our chosen vehicles."

Bravo!! But here's the tripping point -- what exactly do you mean when you say "Chivalry"? Rhys has offered up one definition and, strict as it may seem, it's internally consistent and self-referencing. And once you've defined it, how much do you allow for those people who, either by persona or personality, are unwilling to apply themselves? If the huns won't bow to your king, do you allow them to stay in court? If the barbarians repeatedly flaunt your rules of engagement, do you allow them to return to next year's war? If the duke won't cover his plastic, do you allow him to fight in Crown Tournament again?

With respect,

-cheval-