The Armour Archive

In period, religion was a huge part of everyday life in Western Europe during the middle ages. It was a very different world than the one we live in today, which is largely secular. In the middle ages, even those that did not believe truly, usually acted outwardly as if they did in order to avoid such minor inconveniences as being punished or killed for a lack of faith. And even if you were faithful, that wasn't enough, you needed to be of the One True Faith, the Holy Catholic Church and a follower of the Pope (or in more interesting times, one of the multiple coexisting Popes. During the end of the SCA period in England, you did have the option of being an Anglican under good old Henry VIII, but that is more Rennaissance than Medieval, even though it is part of the "legal" period covered by the SCA).

The typical good Western European Knight became, very early in the chivalric period, a follower and eventually a defender of Holy Mother Church. If you wanted to be a knight, you generally had to be a Christian. Being a knight in the early days may have simply been a warrior ranking, but as the true knight evolves, religion becomes part and parcel of his role and rank. Yes, Richard the L.H. may or may not have knighted a Muslim or two, but that was politics, not real knighting and certainly not the typical case.

In the middle ages in Western Europe, you were typically a Christian (usually Catholic), a Muslim, a Jew or you were in big trouble. Quite frankly, even the Muslims and Jews were often treated remarkably badly and persecuted by both the Catholic Church and secular rulers.

So...

Do you believe all SCA knights should be Catholics?

Can the SCA truly portray knighthood accurately without at least acknowledging the religious aspects and influences a real knight had to deal with?

If you don't believe a knight should be a Catholic, does he at least need to be a Christian?

If you don't believe knights should be Catholics or at least Christians, do you believe that for an accurate portrayal that they should at least act out the part giving at least lip service to the concept by pretending to be one when in persona?

For example, few of us actually believe many of the medieval supersitions or beliefs regarding witchcraft, the world being flat or many period medical practices, but we pretend to sometimes to make our portrayal of medieval personas more accurate; should we do the same with religion?

I don't have a problem with a Jewish guy, an agnostic or whatever portraying a knight, but I tend to assume they are at least pretending to be Christians (especially the crusader personas! ) for the sake of historical accuracy.

And I don't mean we should recreate Christian atrocities or persecution of other religions. That is not what I am talking about.

And whether you actually fight as a Catholic knight (or aspiring knight) or pretend to be a Catholic knight, do you believe God is on your side in the lists? Do you want him (or her, but in the middle ages it would be a he)to be?

Are you offended when people like me wear a cross on our shields as part of our heraldry and ask for God's blessing in the lists and his aid in defeating our enemies in the melee known as Pennsic? Are you offended because I am asking for help and you feel it is out of place in a recreation or are you offended because God might side with me and that would depress you?

When knights try to portray themselves as members of an actual holy order of knighthood (Templars, etc.) is this a good or a bad thing? Not a lot of Jewish Templars in period.

The medievals did not think invoking God's help in their just cause was wrong, in fact they relied upon it as a basic thing that you would do!

By the way, I am not a Catholic, so don't misunderstand the point of this post. I happen to portray a Catholic Knight of the 15th century because I like armour from that period and knights from that period were typically religious or at least paid lip service to religion.

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 02-05-2002).]

Well, this is a bucket of worms, Richard!

Personally, I'm an atheist, but Rhys is a catholic. Is he devout? Well, let's just say I don't "play" a persona that way. To me, my persona is just a focus, a way of making determinations about what kind of kit I should have and how I should be have. I can say, "would an English knight fighting in France in the second half of the 14th century have had/done/burned this?" when making decisions about what to make or buy or how to act.

From that standpoint, Rhys' actual belief in religion is meaningless as long as he acts as though he believes.

I tried very hard to be allowed to add some religious aspects to my coronation, but I was shouted down at evry turn. It was very frustrating to me. You see SCAdiands doing pagan or whatever kinds of things all the time, and everyone thinks it's cool, yet that's no different from catholic rites. We're just pretending.

As for whether some supernatural being influences the way I fight (or the positions of the stars or the spell someone cast last Thursday), no, of course not. There is no such thing.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
*********************************************
"Do you believe all knights should be Catholic? Can the SCA truly portray knighthood accurately without at least acknowledging the religious aspects and influences a real knight had to deal with? If you don't believe a knight should be a Catholic, does he at least need to be a Christian?"
*********************************************
Well, if we're talking SCA then there could be a bit of a "grey area" for backwoods areas, and early medieval personas. If you're portrayuing an 11th cent. Prussan there would be no real difficulty in being an Odin Worshipper, if you're portraying a scandinavian, or Welsh (ex.) knight of the mid 12th century there might be some practices that a modern Catholic wouldn't recognise as even Christian, if you're portraying a free thinking knight in the languedoc in the 14th century you'd have difficulty obtaining health and fire coverage. Obviously if your persona is high middle ages/Renaissance/central Europe you're fucking with history to be anything but publicly christian, and in most cases R.C.
*******************************************
For example, few of us actually believe many of the medieval supersitions or beliefs regarding witchcraft, the world being flat or many period medical practices, but we pretend to sometimes to make our portrayal of medieval personas more accurate; should we do the same with religion?
********************************************
A few years ago at Pennsic (late evening) my squires and I passed a group of eastern dancers on one road, the strumpets were twirling about driving men mad with lust.
As we passed I instructed my squires and men to "keep your eyes foreward, and pray for strength to ignore them,the pleasures of the east are many, but they will lead to the damnation of your soul"
There was a shocked silence from the drum circle, and I heard one small voice ask "Was that knight serious?" another voice replied
"I've heard of him he don't like fun, and he don't like his people having any"
- I was overjoyed to find that someone understood my persona, it adds that special something on occasion to react as I would in my era
*****************************************
"And I don't mean we should recreate Christian atrocities or persecution of other religions."
*****************************************
Spoilsport!
*******************************************

And whether you fight as a Catholic knight (or aspiring knight) or portray to be a Catholic knight, do you believe God is on your side in the lists? Do you want him to be? Are you offended when people like me wear a cross on our shields and ask for God's blessing in the lists and his aid in defeating our enemies in the melee known as Pennsic? Are you offended because I am asking for help and you feel it is out of place in a recreation or are you offended because God might side with me and that would depress you?
The medievals did not think invoking God's help in their just cause was wrong, in fact they relied upon it as a basic thing that you would do!
*********************************************
I usually drop away from a list field for a few moments, and ask for Gods help in reminding myself that the field exists for courtesy,and chivalry, not for vainglory.
I ask for His blessing in keeping the fighters, marshalls, and spectators safe from harm, and focused on the sheer joy of combat, so that bodies, tempers and reputations are all whole at the days end. If this offends anyones sense of how things should work - tough
As a side point I have noticed that God seems to have a special place in His heart for people who have practiced harder than everyone else has lately
*********************************************
By the way, I am not a Catholic, so don't misunderstand the point of this post.
*****************************************
I'm a practicing Catholic (have to practice or I would be even worse at it than I am) so my replies are based on how I see the world working


[This message has been edited by mordreth (edited 02-05-2002).]

"God is on the side with the largest battalions."-Napoleon (Wellington?)

Personally, I think there is still enough trouble in the real world with religion extremism to worry about it in the SCA. If you are just acting, wouldn't those who take their religion seriously (RC, Anglican, or whatever) be offended?

To a certain extend, I would be just as offended seeing someone ask the blessing of God (TM) before a tourney, as I would having a psuedo-viking (biker wannabee wearing black) yelling "ODIN!", at the cry of lay on.

Okay in period Say the 14th centry Germany. If you were A Knight you were Catholic. But also To be A Knight you just had to have A suit of Armor, A horse and maybe some retainers. All you would have to do is ride some where you were not known and present your self as a Knight.

Now as for the SCA and Knight hood and Christ? Well I think It has gotten some what of A bum wrap. Yes I think if you want to have it added in you should let it. How ever Like the Pagans in the SCA they have no way in telling me what I can and can not do. I think it should be left up to the Indevidual to determen what he thinks. But never let us forget how Ramon Lull Died. I think he was A prime example of forceing his opinoins on others. and look where it got him.

Here I leave this behind. I found this pasage in the Charneys book.

Knight can rise through prowess only if that prwess is born aloft on the wings of liberty and courtesy.
Liberality or Larges are seven featehrs of of one wing. 1. Be Courages in battle 2. Give to rich and poor alike 3. Spend with out care for wordly wealth 4.Give what is promised 5.Give promptly 6.Give liberaly and 7.Give fine feast's
They other seven feathers are 1.Honour and gard holly church 2.Avoid pride 3.refrain from bosting 4.Enjoy good entertainment 5.Avoid envy 6.Avoid slander and 7.Be a lover

This was writen in the 13 centry By Raul (Last name eluds me)

From Knoch

A very vehement - YES and NO
-----------------------------

FIrstly - the assertion that all knights in period in catholic countries were Catholic by requirement should in some way be strongly documented.

As a possible piece of counter evidence --
eyewitnesses reported that Spainsh Jewish refugees in Turkey were addicted to Tournaments - also, in Italian Jewish cemetaries, the graves of refugees from Spain may often be distinguished by arms that include symbols of knighthood - ie: helmets, swords... - Could it be that until some time close to 1492 Jews in Catholic Spain were not debarred from knighthood?

Secondly - assuming your assertion as true for the moment:

Sure - in a single-religion country which either forbade or made very difficult the worship of any other religion - to succeed one would have to be of that religion --
and it wasn't just knighthood - by the Renaisance Jews in many western countries were unable to practice much of any trade - partialy through legal limitations and partially through Guild "closed shops" -- the guilds having all sorts of rules limiting things to Christians.

So -- yeah, a knight in France would have to be Catholic.
...in Russia he would likely have had to be Orthodox.
(just as in 19th century Germany a doctor would be Christian)

These countries had official religions and rules forbidding others

But -- the SCA (possibly for that as one reason) holds itself out as a set of specific countries -- specifically NOT the Catholic countries of the Middle Ages.

The SCA doesn't have an official religion and expressly requires that all be treated equaly --
thus just as an East Kingdom smith is not required to be Catholic, a Knight of the East Kingdom does NOT have to be Catholic.

However --
if one portrays a European Knight on Crusade -- then that Knight certainly has to be Catholic

...and that gets us to Scope issues
In Central Asia there were no religious restrictions in many periods and countries.
Some countries in Western Europe within the stated scope of the SCA were not Christian.
Some countries vaguely within Scope were "Greek catholic" or Muslim
...then there's those personnas that are from theoretically outside scope altogether (ie: China Japan)
Even in Catholic Europe it is not the case that the restrictions against Jews and others were always so strict (already gave an example above). I suspect that the strict limitations came in late "high Middle Ages" to "Renaisance" (one would have to research, but it was quite close post period -- and before the enlightment - that there were Jewish Knights made in England -- why would the English go and do something like that?)

So anyhow -- YES - if your personna should be Catholic you should be playing at it in asmuch as it doesn't infringe on others around you.
But -- NO - the SCA Kingdoms are not catholic lands -- and thus - a Knight of the SCA Kingdom certainly does not have to be Catholic.

Bringing me back to the 19th century doctor analogy --
In a theoretical 19th cent Scope SCA
-- just because Germany forbade Jewish doctors in the 19th century -- doesn't mean one can't play a 19th century Jewish doctor Just be sure your personna is not practicing in Germany!!!

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

Hi Richard,

To be a knight in the SCA? No obviously not. None of the other trappings are required, so why ought this be?

In my role as a historic interpreter, obviously my 'persona', Stephen Philpot is. I myself was baptised a Methodist, raised a Congregationalist, and theologicaly hold the positions of a Wesleyan Methodist, but in the role of a esquire/ officer of the Burgundian army in the last half of the 15th century, I am a thorough, and rather pedestrian Catholic. As 'typical' an example as proper - my current harness even bears a prayer enscribed "Mater Dei Memento Mei", and my new one will bear A.M.O.R (hail the mother of the omnipotent redemptor).

If you are presenting an accurate image of the past to the public, then it behooves you to include those aspects that were important to the type of person you are portraying - religion formed a large part of the average persons lif, even if it took the form my modern self finds leaning to superstition and vulgarity.

To intentionaly ignore this aspect in a public learning environment is to in essence lie about the past. To purposefuly choose and present an oddity to the public is to present a lie about the 'norm' also.

Please bear in mind I am not talking about those religions common in Europe, be they Jew, Moor, or Orthodox. I am not even talking about 11th century Lithuanian pagans. I would strongly object to a person portraying to the public a 15th century pagan German knight, as being "normal", or even anything more than a fiction.

Since the SCA is in no way concerned with public education, it can do whatever it wants. I find it distressing the seemingly vast number of people who take our modern fashionable views on the objectional nature of aspects of the common religion of the time. From my observation, they seem to work that into their presentation, and own personal beliefs about the "Middle Ages", and how it really was. To those who doubt what the "norm" was regarding religion in Western Europe during the "Middle Ages", I strongly reccommend picking up a book and reading up on the subject.

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

Hi all! Great input. Thank you.

Part of what brought this up was a number of SCA knights over the years who profess in persona to be pagans, wiccans, agnostics, atheists, Protestants, witches, Jews, Druids, or modern/out of period variations of the Christian faith. As well as a large number of SCA folk who seem to want Christianity banned from even being mentioned, while permitting non-Christian ceremonies and practices to be used in persona. For the most part I really just wanted to see how people personally feel a knight of the middle ages should be portrayed and if religion and God have any place either in their persona's portrayal or in their personal beliefs regarding knighthood in the SCA. Some people, having won crown, give thanks to God for granting them victory. It does not bother me. It does bother some people.

As far as Norman's very interesting post:

very vehement - YES and NO
-----------------------------
FIrstly - the assertion that all knights in period in catholic countries were Catholic by requirement should in some way be strongly documented.

> Does it matter if they were Catholic by requirement or by preference? I do agree that documentation would be interesting however.

As a possible piece of counter evidence --
eyewitnesses reported that Spainsh Jewish refugees in Turkey were addicted to Tournaments - also, in Italian Jewish cemetaries, the graves of refugees from Spain may often be distinguished by arms that include symbols of knighthood - ie: helmets, swords... - Could it be that until some time close to 1492 Jews in Catholic Spain were not debarred from knighthood?

>Fascinating. I was not aware of this. Although I should mention that helmets and swords may not necessarily reflect knighthood. I think it would be interesting to find out if there were non-Catholic knights in the 15th century, though even if there were, I suspect they were an aberration. This could be like the fish skeleton bar grills, period, but the exception to the rule.

Secondly - assuming your assertion as true for the moment:

Sure - in a single-religion country which either forbade or made very difficult the worship of any other religion - to succeed one would have to be of that religion --
and it wasn't just knighthood - by the Renaisance Jews in many western countries were unable to practice much of any trade - partialy through legal limitations and partially through Guild "closed shops" -- the guilds having all sorts of rules limiting things to Christians.

>That was largely my point. It didn't matter why the knights were Catholic. If all knights were Catholic, portraying a medieval knight that isn't Catholic would be ahistorical.

So -- yeah, a knight in France would have to be Catholic.
...in Russia he would likely have had to be Orthodox.
(just as in 19th century Germany a doctor would be Christian)

These countries had official religions and rules forbidding others

But -- the SCA (possibly for that as one reason) holds itself out as a set of specific countries -- specifically NOT the Catholic countries of the Middle Ages.

>Ah true, but our culture is based on Western Europe during the Middle Ages (and Rennassance unfortunately. Damn stupid 1650 cutoff nonsense). I think that knighthood in Western Europe is what we based our knights on and therefore the religious aspect of Western European knighthood should not be entirely discounted, much less prohibited.

The SCA doesn't have an official religion and expressly requires that all be treated equaly --
thus just as an East Kingdom smith is not required to be Catholic, a Knight of the East Kingdom does NOT have to be Catholic.

>I know what is required and not required by corpora, I am interested in what people think SCA knighthood should be and what it should include and what their motivation and logic is.

However --
if one portrays a European Knight on Crusade -- then that Knight certainly has to be Catholic

>Well, not under your definitions unless I misunderstood them, but I agree with your point completely.

...and that gets us to Scope issues
In Central Asia there were no religious restrictions in many periods and countries.
Some countries in Western Europe within the stated scope of the SCA were not Christian.
Some countries vaguely within Scope were "Greek catholic" or Muslim
...then there's those personnas that are from theoretically outside scope altogether (ie: China Japan)

>Well yes, but most of these would not be knightly personnas. No knights in Japan and China or Central Asia for the most part. We cover Western Europe, not Japan, China and Central Asia, except that visitors to Western Europe from those areas/cultures can be represented at our events as visitors to Western Europe. And yes, if one of those visitors exemplified chivalry and met the requirements and wished to take on the obligations of a Western European knight, they could be knighted by an understanding and liberal monarch. Of course then they would have to follow the chivalric guidelines and codes. One of which is typically to defend Holy Mother Church, which is part of what started this thread. Which relates to separate topics on other threads including does it make sense to knight an Aztec, Mayan, American Indian, pre-chivalric period Celt/Greek/Roman etc. except that now we bring in the religious conflicts inherent in such a decision, but that is not really the main point of thise thread, although technically I guess it is actually a big part of it.

Even in Catholic Europe it is not the case that the restrictions against Jews and others were always so strict (already gave an example above). I suspect that the strict limitations came in late "high Middle Ages" to "Renaisance" (one would have to research, but it was quite close post period -- and before the enlightment - that there were Jewish Knights made in England -- why would the English go and do something like that?)

> I believe I already touched on this specifically, but as far as out of period knighting of Jewish Knights in England, I don't see that that has anything to do with medieval knightings. I am interested however in your prior mention of Spanish Jews who may have been knighted. Sounds like a great research project.

So anyhow -- YES - if your personna should be Catholic you should be playing at it in asmuch as it doesn't infringe on others around you.
But -- NO - the SCA Kingdoms are not catholic lands -- and thus - a Knight of the SCA Kingdom certainly does not have to be Catholic.

Bringing me back to the 19th century doctor analogy --
In a theoretical 19th cent Scope SCA
-- just because Germany forbade Jewish doctors in the 19th century -- doesn't mean one can't play a 19th century Jewish doctor Just be sure your personna is not practicing in Germany!!!

>There is a difference, we know there were Jewish doctors in 19th century Germany. I don't know if there were Jewish knights in Medieval Western Europe!

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn

Knights in period were Christians so knights in the SCA should be Christian. I don't mean they should meerly portray or pay lip service, they should be practicing the faith and believe in it. I know that there are many other short comings in the typical scadian as far as authenticity goes (including myself but I am atleast putting in the effort) but along with all the other things they should be doing like making period as possible gear, educating theirselves on their persona, and behaving in an authentic manner they should be christians as well. I don't think that they must be Catholics however, Martin Luther lived with a German Knight while he was in hiding so would that not make this Knight in his heart protestant? The point is they should be Christian because that is how God wanted his knights to be. The unperverted knight is one who loves God and serves him, protects those who are to weak to defend theirselves, executes virtuos deeds, and is loyal to his lord. These standards should be
required of all SCA knights as well. Though you probably would not have met the requirement of your father being a knight but that is really a different issue. They had to start somewhere in period right? So I doubt the *first* generation of knights fathers where knights as well. So we could do the same thing except not require your father being a knight either. If we were caught up in lineage then we would have the same problems over it that were in period. Which I don't think is what God wanted to be going on back then anyway. It should be a mans deeds, renown, and faith that grant him knighthood not what his ancestor did. I know that this would not keep probably over 90% of the chivalry belted and I don't mean it as not allowing them something they earned, to insult their worth, or to force them christianity. They must come to God on their own if they ever do. Perhaps a different order of perhaps Sergants would be more appropriate? I wouldn't neccesarily give these nonchristian people lesser power or the Christians increased power. All I'm saying is if you are going to be a *knight* you need to be a *christian*.

Well vincent, I dunno...

Are you saying that a meber must be christian? or that a Persona must be christian? Must it be a period form of christianity?

I personally feel that in period a knight was ASSUMED to be christian. Wether he was or wasnt may never be known. If it was found out that he wasn't, he's probably be stripped of his rank, and threatened with stake burning (reference the templars, who were knights, and were brought down under allegations of heresy) Of course, there were pockets of paganism (was it lithuania that want converted until 16 something?) in europe, though i doubt thier titles would be granted full value by the non pagan kingdoms...

Realistically, the SCA knighthood is a reward for service and prowess as it relates to combat. Should it be more? I dunno. I just call it what it is.

-+G

can it be documented, 100% accuracy, that every single Knight in period was Christian?

I'm not saying proven they they claimed to be christian, i'm saying WAS christian.


I won't discuss my religious beliefs, for it is the business of mine and the deity it involves. But my persona is a Templar. Or you saying because I am not *really* willing to kill for my God, that I shouldn't be playing the part?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>To be a knight in the SCA? No obviously not. None of the other trappings are required, so why ought this be?

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

Bob, you're quite right about how wrong it is to ignore christianity when portraying a western european knight (and I will remind the other posters that our organization's charter *requires* us to focus on western europe).

At the same time, however, your continuing efforts to paint the entire SCA with the broad brush of ridicule is getting tiresome. While much of the SCA is every bit as awful as you point out, the SCA is not a homogenous organization. Had you come to the passage of arms held this past Pennsic I think you would have seen some of the best living history work out there (and some less so; even there we aren't all uniform; I for one, have a long way to go). And remember that whatever the SCA lacks, the main feature of knighthood is prowess, and there no other organization even comes close; to me, they seem as lacking as the majority of SCAdians since they fight so poorly (just as SCA knights fail because they don't joust on horseback). Try to remember that, please. Also try to remember that criticism from outsiders is less acceptable than the same from insiders.

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

I am saying that they must be Christain. Yes period knights *could have* been simply going through the motions as many people do today but even if SCA knights were made to do this they could be going through the motions. Whether or not someone is true in their heart is only known by God and the person. As for members no they should not have to be Christians. See if we as the SCA say we want to are reecreating the middle ages which were in many ways centered around Christianity then that is what we should do as well. Else we are not at all authentic and should not be complaining about combat archery, plastic armour, or nylon tents all the same.

I don't think we should be arguing with nonchristians, persecuting them, or making a Christians only club that becomes a faction against everyone else. Being a Christian has just as much if not more to do with being a knight as service, prowess, and renown.

I see denominations as either twisting the true faith or socio political factioning. If we are all under God then why do we fight amongst ourselves when our only concern should be his will? So I say a knight should be Christian and leave it their.

If i were to become a Knight, and the rank is period for me, although somewhat different in substance from the late medieval, I would still be pagan. Not the same flavor I actually am, but pagan nay the less.

I do not feel that it is necessary for a person to have a Catholic or Christian persona to be a Knight. Remember, Sir Richard, you AREN'T a medieval knight, but a Knight of the SCA. I don't have trouble with Templars and such, but I do disike the mock portrayal of religious ceremonies. And asking for God's help in a battle violates Corpora.

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

Sir Rhys,

I was not "painting the SCA with a broad brush of ridicule", I was stating an observed fact. You read in whatever emotion you chose to in reading my statement. If my reporting on something I have observed is tiresome to you, I would suggest you stop reading my posts to save you discomfort, as I always have and always will "speak my mind", and plainly.

You can write about chivalry all you like, and tout SCA knighthood. From what I have read of your posts, and Richards, and others, I respect you and your opinions. From my observations, both here and elsewhere, I do not think a large majority of the society's chivalry hold your and Richards opinions.

That said, from what I have observed of SCA chivalry, here and elsewhere, I do not think you can say with any stretch of the imagination that the SCA is the sole repository of chivalry in the modern world. Far too many peers of the society fall too far away from the chivalry tree.

With notable exceptions like Richard, the majority of the society's chivalry range from reluctant to adamant to speak out against members of the order who are in no way chivalrous, and who got their title solely based on "prowess" - witness the recent allegations against the late royalty of the North-West for an example of title , apparently without any other virtue of "chivalry" save "prowess". What worth prowess, if the possesor displays moral cowardice? I am not accusing you of this, as I have seen that you speak plainly and to the point regarding whatever topic is at hand.

Prowess is not the sole arbitrator of what makes chivalry. Were this not so, there would be no other chivalric virtues. Plenty of non-knightly soldiers were capable of "prowess", and displayed same over the course of the middle ages. What seperated them from the knightly class was 1. Station, and 2. a horse. As far as a Medieval is concerned, had you not prowess on horseback, you were no knight.

What experience do you have outside the SCA regarding historical western martial arts? You seem to have pretty strong opinions regarding others "prowess" if you have not had any experience regarding same. I can plainly state that I have met SCAdians who are scholars of the historical western martial arts, and who indeed have prowess.

I do not "paint the SCA with a broad brush", I know, respect, and admire many SCAdians. I base a persons worth on their actions and their integrity. I do not base worth on whatever alphabet soup some club tacks onto a persons name as honorifics for playing a game.



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

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>I was not "painting the SCA with a broad brush of ridicule", I was stating an observed fact. You read in whatever emotion you chose to in reading my statement. If my reporting on something I have observed is tiresome to you, I would suggest you stop reading my posts to save you discomfort, as I always have and always will "speak my mind", and plainly.

You can write about chivalry all you like, and tout SCA knighthood. From what I have read of your posts, and Richards, and others, I respect you and your opinions. From my observations, both here and elsewhere, I do not think a large majority of the society's chivalry hold your and Richards opinions.

That said, from what I have observed of SCA chivalry, here and elsewhere, I do not think you can say with any stretch of the imagination that the SCA is the sole repository of chivalry in the modern world. Far too many peers of the society fall too far away from the chivalry tree.

With notable exceptions like Richard, the majority of the society's chivalry range from reluctant to adamant to speak out against members of the order who are in no way chivalrous, and who got their title solely based on "prowess" - witness the recent allegations against the late royalty of the North-West for an example of title , apparently without any other virtue of "chivalry" save "prowess". What worth prowess, if the possesor displays moral cowardice? I am not accusing you of this, as I have seen that you speak plainly and to the point regarding whatever topic is at hand.

Prowess is not the sole arbitrator of what makes chivalry. Were this not so, there would be no other chivalric virtues. Plenty of non-knightly soldiers were capable of "prowess", and displayed same over the course of the middle ages. What seperated them from the knightly class was 1. Station, and 2. a horse. As far as a Medieval is concerned, had you not prowess on horseback, you were no knight.

What experience do you have outside the SCA regarding historical western martial arts? You seem to have pretty strong opinions regarding others "prowess" if you have not had any experience regarding same. I can plainly state that I have met SCAdians who are scholars of the historical western martial arts, and who indeed have prowess.

I do not "paint the SCA with a broad brush", I know, respect, and admire many SCAdians. I base a persons worth on their actions and their integrity. I do not base worth on whatever alphabet soup some club tacks onto a persons name as honorifics for playing a game.

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

You do paint the SCA with a broad brush: You speak about it as a whole without regard to the subgroups within working to do the right thing. Either you choose to ignore them or you don't know about them; either way, it's a disservice.

Nor do I intend to ignore your posts. Much of what you write seems fairly well researched and interesting, and it's nice to see someone making an effort at living history outside of the SCA: It gives a nice counterpoint. It's merely your attacks against the SCA I urge you to temper.

I never claimed prowess was the *sole* attribute of chivalry, I said it was the primary one, and it is; go back and re-read what I wrote. In Painter's _French Chivalry_ (now sadly dated in some respects, but still useful), he reports on the Lady who, when asked if she'd rather have a man who was preux or one who was courtoise, said she'd rather have one who was preux; she could teach him to be courtly.

As for my prowess, well, I'm nothing remarkable, but I invite you to test it. You don't care for titles or alphabet soup and neither do I (except in persona). But neither am I impressed by a bunch of guys in t-shirts waving wasters in the air and misinterpreting old fechtbucher who think of themselves as mighty warriors! LOL! As we say in the dog world, "when the tailgate drops, the bullshit stops". Of course, they claim they can't prove that they're dangerous warriors because our rules are unfair, but when I challenged one to name his own rules he declined and accused me of thuggishness! LOL! and this was even before I'd started to sudy the fechtbucher; I should have been easy prey for this modern master. One of the very best things about the SCA is that we can fight full speed, full power, and that has led to the development of some of the most amazing martial artists I've ever seen in a life largely devoted to combative arts. That is the single greatest strength of the SCA. All that's needed is to develop a more accurate combat rule system that encourages a more authentic style of fighting, and this we are doing.

The fact is that techniques are just techniques. The fechtbucher are interesting (and take up the majority of my research these days), but they have little relevance to armored combat *a plaisance*, being largely intended for unarmored combat or judicial duels. Regardless, when it comes to victory on the field in whatever type of bout, amateurs study techniques, professionals study strategy.

As for horses, you have a valid point there, and I wish the SCAdians would allow for jousting on horseback. Alas, that's one area I don't think I can have any effect, they'll never change their minds.

And while prowess is inclusive of horsemanship, the use of weapons is even more fundamental. Remember, too, that those of us with later-period personae would have done the majority of our fighting on foot. By the way, I'm not knocking horsemanship: I practically grew up on horses and think they're very cool and very important to what we do. I just don't think they need to be used as the central definition of medieval knighthood; that's old scholarship.

And as for speaking out against the SCAs chivalry, I have done so when they are in the wrong, but far more often they are in the right and those making the complaints are just venting jealousy and sour grapes. You cite occasional lapses of chivarly, and the do indeed exist; all of us fail some of the time. But they are by far more often chivalrous than not, with the exception of rare individuals. That fact notwithstanding, however, you aren't qualified to comment on that subject; I doubt you have had sufficient first-hand exposure. Everyone loves to look at those above themselves and try to find sin.

I would encourage you to reply to this post, however may I suggest that if you do so you do it in a private e-mail? This discussion is both unrelated to this topic and of little interest to others.

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

[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-05-2002).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Owen:
[B]If i were to become a Knight, and the rank is period for me, although somewhat different in substance from the late medieval, I would still be pagan. Not the same flavor I actually am, but pagan nay the less.

I do not feel that it is necessary for a person to have a Catholic or Christian persona to be a Knight. Remember, Sir Richard, you AREN'T a medieval knight, but a Knight of the SCA. I don't have trouble with Templars and such, but I do disike the mock portrayal of religious ceremonies. And asking for God's help in a battle violates Corpora.

>Actually I thought that nonsense in corpora was finally deleted by right thinking people. I just took a quick look. The rules of the list no longer seem to mention it. Section II Events, subsection F POLICY ON RELIGION, specifically gives me the right to do so and prevents you from trying to stop me! Thank GOD ALMIGHTY for helping his servants on the board to do the right thing!

You may be referring to the infamous Grand Republic of the East Kingdom's liberal attempts to institute stupidity in the lists, most notably through the notorious CC16 (East Kingdom Conventions of Combat item CC16).

This little gem has done more to make the East seem ridiculous than anything else I can think of. While well intentioned and certainly keeping magic out of the lists make sense, some anti history/anti religion zealots conspired to create this embarassment of a rule, which treats religion whether historical or modern as being the same as magic or superstition:

"CC16. No mention is to be made of magic, religion, superstition, or supernatural powers in connection with combat. Many fighters take such matter seriously, giving an unfair advantage to an opponent who violates this convention by claiming that such powers were involved with his prowess or victories. Needless to say, no honorable fighter would seek such assistance to unfairly insure victory on the field."

In preparation for battle of any kind, practice, tournament list or melee, any honorable fighter portraying a Western European knight would absolutely be acting appropriately to ask for God's blessing. As far as it being an unfair advantage, being righteous and serving God is a fair advantage not an unfair one and in period it was the duty of the Chivalry to do so. If God gave you an advantage for serving his just causes, then it is a FAIR advantage. To say that no honorable fighter would seek such assistance is absurd and ahistorical. The majority of accounts of great deeds and battles includes either a call upon God for his blessing in advance or an attribution of the cause of victory as being God's favor, etc.

In fact, corpora specifically DOES permit me exercising my beliefs, which certainly can include calling upon God for any manner of blessing or assistance and corpora protects my right to do so even if you don't like it. And as far as it being unfair, if my God is better than your God, or at least more effective, that is your problem, not mine pick a more effective diety dude!

Where corpora does get sticky, due to being badly written on this topic, it prohibits religious ceremony at the same time that it says it does not. Go read the paragraphs if you like. But as far as a fighter asking for God's blessing or his help, Corpora absolutely allows it. As far as a modern person asking God to protect him or grant him victory in the game he is playing in the SCA, that right to personal religious belief and expression is also protected by Corpora. By the way, since Corpora overrides Kingdom law when there is a conflict, I'll ask for God's help whenever I feel like it.

-Richard Blackmoore, Devout Knight of The SCA
Fan of Gunther the Disciple who vowed to stamp out witchcraft during a fealty speech years ago.

Hum...
A BIG can (or is that council) of worms
As Sir Vincenzo di Calabria, B. 1499, I have the Tau cross on my armor, and will add a scallop shell this year.
Back in, gosh, '78 or '79 I got yelled at for dropping to my knee and crossing myself after the salutes in the list. The fact that my opponent did the same (we planed the action, and the victor knelt over the fallen and did it again) did spread the blame.
The enforcement of the restriction on religion in official settings does seem to turn a blind eye (ouch, bad Vinnie, no hammer for you) to those that are not of the cross type.
I just live with it, it’s part of the game.
I do use a blue head wrap rather than green when doing “middle easternâ€

The enforcement of the restriction on religion in official settings does seem to turn a blind eye (ouch, bad Vinnie, no hammer for you) to those that are not of the cross type.

WHAT RESTRICTION??

The only restriction is that one may not perform religious cermonies in such a way that it appears the society is supporting them.

Can I bless fighters before a pas? Of course.

Can I have a witch burning party in my camp? Of course.

Can the society seneschal announce a service on sunday morning in the flyer? probably not.

Can the king request a blessing? I dont see why not.

Can the king have religion mentioned in his coronation speech? I dunno. *I* wouldnt have a problem with it, regardless of WHAT deity he called upon. but then some people are just harpies and want to ruin fun for others...

-+G

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
[BBut neither am I impressed by a bunch of guys in t-shirts waving wasters in the air and misinterpreting old fechtbucher who think of themselves as mighty warriors! LOL!
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir Rhys, I would go so far as to say that you are painting with a broad brush of ridicule all those who are not studying the medieval flavour of SCA combat.

As to the original point of this post, I think that Catholic Christianity in the middle ages was quite different than modern Catholicism. If you are planning on researching the differences, and portraying someone who holds to that archaic beleif system, power to you. If the intention is to make everyone present the illusion beleif in modern Catholicism, it's just weird, and out of place in a club that promotes fun first and foremost.

Broðir

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brodir:
<B> Sir Rhys, I would go so far as to say that you are painting with a broad brush of ridicule all those who are not studying the medieval flavour of SCA combat.

Broðir</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I think that the way I wrote that probably does come across that way, and for that I apologize. What I was referring to are those who only practice the motions in the fechtbucher without actually doing full contact fighting and yet who still think themselves great warriors, and *especially* those who look down their noses at those of us who actually *fight*. Don't get me wrong, *I* practice the material from some of the fechtbuchers (always with a huge grain of salt taught to me by my other martial experience) in a t-shirt, too, and I recognize that some of it *can't* be practiced full power, but much of it can be, and those who don't even try and yet still act like they're the serious martial artists while SCAdians aren't is apalling to me.

But you're very correct that I didn't word that as well as I could have when I wrote it, and I thank you for drawing it to my attention so I can correct what I wrote. Please accept my apology.

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

Ahh, relegion an Knighthood in the SCA. I think this falls to each individual. If you are a muslim is it (in your beliefs) sacreligous to portray a Christian knight. Also, is it really important since this is after all a hobby, a game if you will. Personally I am Christian so I have no issue with it. I do have a tendancy to pray before entering the list or joining a battle, for the safety and enjoyment of my commrades on the field. Personally, as a secular group I don't believe a persons religion or their portrayal of religion should factor in, although I do agree that it is the period, western european thing to do.

Angus Gunn
Squire to Sir Alrik Canin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by AngusGunn:
<B>I do have a tendancy to pray before entering the list or joining a battle, for the safety and enjoyment of my commrades on the field. Personally, as a secular group I don't believe a persons religion or their portrayal of religion should factor in, although I do agree that it is the period, western european thing to do.

Angus Gunn
Squire to Sir Alrik Canin</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't mind you praying for my safety, if you don't mind my lighting a stick of incense for you.

Angus, say hi to "Sir Bunny" for me.

[This message has been edited by Alcyoneus (edited 02-06-2002).]

If you are a muslim is it (in your beliefs) sacreligous to portray a Christian knight. Also, is it really important since this is after all a hobby, a game if you will. Personally I am Christian so I h

Hmmm I guess that's why we have no popular muslim actors... LOL

Seriously, Do you believe that it is wrong to portray/ pretend/ act as a member of a religion you are not. In the SCA? In a Play? In a long running TV series? What's the difference?

-+G

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Owen:
<B>And asking for God's help in a battle violates Corpora.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm...perhaps you should review Corpora before making reference to it.

<I>F. Policy on Religion
Having no wish to recreate the religious conflicts of the period under study, the Society shall neither establish nor prohibit any system of belief among its members. No one shall perform any religious or magical ceremony at a Society event (or in association with the name of the Society) in such a way as to imply that the ceremony is authorized, sponsored, or promulgated by the Society or to force anyone at a Society event, by direct or indirect pressure, to observe or join the ceremony. However, this provision is in no way intended to discourage the study of historical belief systems and their effects on the development of Western culture.
Except as provided herein, neither the Society nor any member acting in its name or that of any of its parts shall interfere with any person’s lawful ceremonies, nor shall any member discriminate against another upon grounds related to either’s system of belief.</I>

There's no restriction on the personal expression of religious belief or even participation in a religious ritual. You just can't have a relgious expression as an offical function of a sanctioned event.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Fafrnugn:
<B> Erm...perhaps you should review Corpora before making reference to it.

[i]F. Policy on Religion
No one shall perform any religious or magical ceremony at a Society event (or in association with the name of the Society) in such a way as to imply that the ceremony is authorized, sponsored, or promulgated by the Society or to force anyone at a Society event, by direct or indirect pressure, to observe or join the ceremony</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where the problem with having the Crown doing something from the thrones sets in.

"Can the SCA truly portray knighthood accurately without at least acknowledging the religious aspects and influences a real knight had to deal with."

The SCA as a whole seems unconcerened with portraying anything accurately. The "middle ages as they should have been" is the oft coined cop out. Why should this be any different?

In period were Knights Christian? Yes,virtually all of them at least they portrayed them selves that way. Remember Mongol's, Vikings,Aztecs, Samaurai are _not_ knights. So they are not at issue.

Now are some people with those personas KSCA? Yes but that's not the same thing.

I'm trying to loosly quote the dictonary here so bear with me. "Knights-the mounted warrior elite of Europe, from approximately the 11th to the 16th centuries."

In that period virtually all of Europe was Catholic or some form of Christanity, with a smattering of Jews, Muslims.

It's like asking if Shoulin monks were Buddist.

Now me, i'm a un-denomiational Christain.

Ld Murdoch McArthur is Catholic and would defend the Holy Mother Church to the death.

Course _he_ has a horse.

I found it amusing to no end that while hunting the "undead" at Pennsic, people gave us grief about the religous aspects of it.

I mean, you can run around half naked in fur, tattoo the bejesus out of yourself, pierce everything that can be pierced, hang a Thor's hammer from your nose, wear fake fangs, AND THAT'S OK, but if you wear a cross and say you're hunting vampires for Holy Mother Church, people get pissed.

OOOOhhh the irony.....
(grin)

VvS

I'm not a Catholic, but my persona is. As part of my effort to re-create the lifestyle of a medieval knight, I will incorporate a measure of his religion into my re-creation to add that much more authenticity. This doesn't mean I'll be "putting on my persona" and heading off to hear Mass every day, or observing Lent or other holidays. But when at events and such I will behave in a manner consistent with a medieval Catholic, including crossing myself and asking God's blessing before combat.
And while I'm doing so I won't give a fig if it offends practicing Catholics or any other flavor of Christian. Or pagans for that matter. In an effort to better understand/portray the (admittedly somewhat idealized/romantic image) medieval knight I am engaging in similar behaviors. It's not a parody of religious activity or a jest at the expense of the devout - it's part of a learning process.

Man, the temptation to launch into religious/philosophical theorizing and debate is really strong. I better go chop up that soapbox for kindling....

------------------
Long live the Prince and Princess of Cynagua!

Nice topic!
SCA knighthood is an award/recognition for prowess on the field of combat and (supposedly) honorable conduct. Most SCA people (in my experience) think of knighthood in a romantic, idealized fashion that resembles stories of Arthur and Camelot a lot more that it resembles actual historical knights from any period/location. I think the SCA award should be renamed so that we stop debating whether or not someone who's persona is from a time/place where the title 'knight' wasn't used can be given our highest level fighting award. Just change the name or the order and let the members use whatever title is appropriate for their time/culture.

So, do I think SCA knights have to be Catholic or Christian or at least play one in the SCA? No, I don't.

Besides, do you really want to tell one of the premier knights in the society that he can't be a knight anymore because his persona is muslim? (ie Duke Sir Cariadoc of the Bow.)

Now - on to persona knighthood & religion. We don't and we never will do an authentic portrayal of just about anything or person from pre-17th century Europe without including religion.


Are you offended when people like me wear a cross on our shields as part of our heraldry and ask for God's blessing in the lists and his aid in defeating our enemies in the melee known as Pennsic? Are you offended because I am asking for help and you feel it is out of place in a recreation or are you offended because God might side with me and that would depress you?
Nope. Now, if you extend that couple sentence request for a blessing into 5 minutes I'd have a problem with it - after all, if I leave the list I forfeit the bout so I'm stuck listening to you.

When knights try to portray themselves as members of an actual holy order of knighthood (Templars, etc.) is this a good or a bad thing? Not a lot of Jewish Templars in period.
neither - the holy orders were very common in the middle ages. Can you imagine a crusader event without them? Wouldn't work. However, I don't think someone's persona should be a priest, monk, nun, etc. unless they are one in their mundane life.

"However, I don't think someone's persona should be a priest, monk, nun, etc. unless they are one in their mundane life"

I disagree with that, as it's getting to be damned hard to find openings in the mundane inquisition job market.

And I make a damned fine Landsknecht inquisitor.....

VvS

This is a great discussion but as lot of this is tied up in the differences in how people approach the SCA, and the way our awards system is structured versus period practices.
Our award system has evolved in a very reactive way, with seemingly little planning or consideration with period practice or the implications for what would occur. This wouldn’t be so bad, but we attached a period terms to our awards, so you end up with problems. If you consider the SCA a medieval themed social club, this isn’t much of a issue, you would just be concerned that the appellation is applied in an internally consistent manner. If you consider the SCA a framework for portraying individual recreation of a period persona, than you probably have a big issue with the implications. Like most of us, I fall somewhere in between.

Ideally you would only use the appellation “knightâ€

I had an image in mind of Sir Richard, before a bout, praying in the eric loudly and openly for God's aid and blessing. If I were to cast a spell at that time, you better believe people'd be upset, no matter what I cast, even a simple "luck" spell for myself. A personal prayer is an entirely different matter.

Much easier for you christians, too; where am I going to get a goat and four roosters for every bout?

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

I haven't enjoyed reading a thread this much in a long time. Excellent topic bro!

Here's my two cents;
For me (more or less an outsider) it comes down to two things-are you (the Scadian knight) trying to recreate history, and what are you using as a HISTORICAL definition of a knight?
Taking the second point first...if you even WHISPER the the word chivalry you are talking about a CHRISTIAN culture knight. Owen's definition-a Romanized pagan dark aged warrior doesn't really wash as a knight. Warloard, land owner, warrior with fealty obligations yes, but this culture didn't adhere to the same tenents we attribute to knighthood and chivalry (not they were any less valid). Jews, Saracens, pagans-not during the middle ages of Europe. These relgious cultures had their own warrior elite-but they weren't considered in the same social class as knights (especially by other knights!-or nobility of Europe) The Saracen equivalents were never given the same recognition by their western counter parts even when they were being ransomed back to Europe as losers of the crusades. Eastern Europe had knighthood...about 13th century and they were DEFINITLY orthodox at least in name if not in practice. Early Bogatyrs were pagan, but they were basically freebooting mercenaries with little to mirror their western counterparts-I could debate this with Norm for weeks!
Basically, you are ignoring the power that the church had during all of the middle ages and how religion was one of the biggest factors in a medieval persons life.
No problem-that's fine. The alternative of possably offended each other, recreating religious persecution, violating the contemporary civil rights of both your membership and the public all would seem to make it alot safer to just skip it. BUT
Why worry about whether your helm is period correct, your various armor pieces accurate for your persona or any of the other "little" historical neuances? If the SCA is "the middle ages the way they should have been" then it's easy to create a fictional land where knighthood ISN"T an element of a wholely Christian society.
If, however you are apart of a subgroup or chapter that is presenting "historically accurate portrail" the by GOD if you are a Knight then you are...by God! Not odin, not vishnu or or baal, God. God's Christian religion would have been historically a driving force in your life, whether were truly faithful or not! I think it is ashame that the SCA and it's membership feel so bared from including one of the biggest cultural element in it's expression of medieval culture...but I DO understand why. Thankfully, as a Marklander I am not as limited with this-my persona is definatly a proper Christian Knight, with appropriate (yet tasteful) expressions of his faith whenever in persona. I have conducted Knighting cerimonies with people portraying clergy-even in a church-because that's what really would have happened. Luckily I have the option of inviting those who would be offened to NOT attend. Maybe that is YOUR answer- having read the rules as posted here it seems that you DO have that option. For what it's worth ,some of the SCA knights I've known hold themselves to all the other tenents that their medieval ancestors did.

with nothing but respect,
Blackcross

Blackcross

Hi Sir Rhys,

The last derailing of a very good thread -

God knows there are many pretenders in all camps, be it HWMA, SCA, or any martial art you can name, down to Louy's Kendo dojo in the strip-mall.

Perhaps some in the HWMA community are reluctant to come to blows because they lack the proper equipment - some probably take a suggestion to a bout the wrong way (I see some SCAdians on this board and others who let fly with a "challenge on the field of honour" whenever somebody says something offensive to them - usually directed at people who are most likely immature children, or who have no concept of honour, so the effort is a waste, and makes the challanger look foolish to boot).

Me, I'm nothing special either - I am a humble student of HWMA, and God knows there are many far more advanced in study than I. That said, I'd be perfectly willing to have a friendly bout if either of us are in each others neck of the woods at any given time, with some forwarning. I happen to have the equipment to allow such a thing, and I have no huge ego concerning 'martial ability' in case of loss, but I am willing to try what ability I have.

Unless you use technique known to have been historically used, you aren't practising historical western martial art. I study what I do to get a better insight into the man-at-arms of the 15th century as a fighting machine.

Oh, where I come from, and what the pro's tell me (regarding warfare) is that amatures study tactics - professionals study logistics.


Back to the topic at hand.....

If you are presenting history, then at the time and place being represented, religion is far more important that it is to the average man today. To portray it as otherwise is to misrepresent the past.

If you are a private club, and you have make believe kingdoms, and a social structure substantialy different than the actual structure during the middle ages, then it has no bearing on what is going on - only inasmuch as it is important to any participant.

The differences that arise is because there is a number of radically different views of what the SCA is, and what it is supposed to be, and the direction it is supposed to take. In one camp, we have the Sir Richards, Sir Rhys's, and the tournament companies (oh Rhy's, I am well aware of a number of different groups interested in authenticity within the SCA, just so you know - I regularly trey to help those members of such groups who ask the help), in the other corner, we have the equally interested in authenticity, but don't quite fit in with the first mentioned groups vision of the Society - the Effingham's, Norman's Sarnac's of the SCA world. Then you have the sport fighters, who could care a fig less about authenticity, then there are those for who the thing is just a Medievally themed party. There are groups of people who find the idea of religion (let me clarify that by saying traditional Western European monotheisim - bear with me Norman) offensive, and will make life difficult for those of you wish to portray this aspect of your persona.

The problem arises that when any one group trys to forward it's agenda, the other groups within are apt to see it as a threat to their personal vision of the society - to say nothing of the people just content with the status quo.

You cannot by any means enforce a person to depict themselves as any particular religion within the society. I think if you make a personal show of it for the sake of accuracy, you will tend to breed more ill-will towards your drive for authenticity than might otherwise exist.




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