ok...why do some folks dislike Wars and siege engines, etc..

Dagisd · Post by **Dagisd** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:26 am

From reading the other thread here, I'm taking it that a number of folks, on the BOD and in the populace, don't want War anymore. Why? Was not war a significant part of history? Was not seige weaponry a significant factor in deciding the outcome of many of those battles in the War? So, why does there seem to be a drive to ban it?
I've fought in one Tourney, and yes, it was great fun. But it was a pale comparison to absolute thrill and joy I felt at Pennsic, in the various battles. If it comes to baning war scenarios, I guess I'll look elsewhere for my fun...and I'm thinking a great many will too.
And, maybe I'm dim-witted, but what is the difference between a grand melee and a war scenario?

Thanks,
Dagisd

DanNV · Post by **DanNV** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 11:30 am

It all comes down to what you like and what you envision the SCA to be. Some people would rather turn it into their vision than allow multiple visions to coexist.

Dan

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 11:58 am

It's not that we don't want wars "any more", it's that we've *never* done wars (even when people *called* them wars because they didn't know any better), and can't do a good simulation of war, so we shouldn't really bother.

In period wars and tournaments looked much alike in general form: Armored men at arms would fight each other with weapons. The main differences between wars and tournaments were the safety rules put in place to make the tournaments less dangerous; another way to tell was that in tournaments non-noble ancillary troops (archers, sappers, etc.) weren't used. So you could tell the difference between a war and a tournament by the inclusion of safety rules and by the absence of support troops.

For example, in the biography of Don Pero Nino, we see the following reference to jousting in tournament:

...but in their great ardour it happens that two or three come forward together against him who has stood forth, notwithstanding their courtesy; for they see how the matter is going, never against one man does more than one man come forward.

In other words, ganging up on someone was considered discourteous... just as in SCA fighting!

If you want to do war reenactment you have to eliminate the techniques we forbid for safety: You have to allow full running charges, grappling, eliminate the 4-on-1 limits, allow full-power hitting from behind (and allow hitting someone on the ground, for that matter), and you have to eliminate restrictions on blow calibration. Personally, I think that would be fun, and I wish the SCA did at least some of its fighting that way, but I suspect that very, very people agree with me. But until you allow those things, you're fighting a tournament, and if you're fighting a tournament, combat archery and siege weapons are *completely* inappropriate and unchivalrous.

In addition, of course, if you wanted to do a war scenario you'd have to change the SCAs rule that says we're all members of the nobility, because since archery and the use of siege weapons wasn't done by the nobility, it would be completely inappropriate for any of us to do those things. Actually, for a noble to have done so would really have been "unchivalrous" (what a great way to show how that word is really supposed to be used!).

So, since we have to have safety constraints that prevent us from doing good simulations of war-fighting, it's silly to add one element of war (e.g., siege weapons) into our tournaments (remember, tournaments happened as mass combat, too; don't make the mistake of thinking "tournament" means only single combat as so many SCAdians do).

So this isn't about some of us just wanting to make the SCA into our image, it's about doing a good job of reenactment.

Of course, there are some folks who don't care about that, but they belong in another group. Our charter requires us to recreate the middle ages, not make them into something we think is cool.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DanNV:
It all comes down to what you like and what you envision the SCA to be. Some people would rather turn it into their vision than allow multiple visions to coexist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my previous post, Dan. It's not that we don't want multiple visions to coexist, it's that we want to do something *accurate*, and since we can't do accurate recreations of war fighting we shouldn't try.

You think it's about us being mean to your vision, when what it really is is us pointing out why you *aren't* doing war, and trying to limit you to doing something we *can* recreate with a fair degree of accuracy.

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

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:02 pm

What Rhys said.

[This message has been edited by Morgan (edited 03-30-2002).]

white mountain armoury · Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:32 pm

I disagree that we should not try, dont call it a war, still call it a tourney, but modify the rules to be all inclusive. I think banning scenarios that call for archers, sappers engineers is disapointing, limiting their involvement is a good idea, Why is there a huge castle built at pennsic, to lay seige to it, im in total agreement that we need events that better replicate the grand melee, but i dont want to see it done at the cost of other activities.
I am in total agreement with alot of the potential new rules, especially those regarding behavior and appearance, but i would hate to see combat archery and seige gear and the like vanish from our game, i think that multiple scenarios are the best option. I also feel that alot of the new rules are realy not needed, we just need to enforce the rules that exist.
These new rules can be the best thing that has happened to the sca, but i dont think we should aleniate our members.
And the rule that annoys me the most is excusing chive and crown from the armour appearance rule, it the exact opposite of what needs to be done

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:54 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by White Mountain Armoury:
I disagree that we should not try, dont call it a war, still call it a tourney, but modify the rules to be all inclusive. I think banning scenarios that call for archers, sappers engineers is disapointing,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I just showed that medieval tournaments *didn't* include these things; how can we ignore that? We might as well be playing D&D (do people stil play that?) or something.

Why is there a huge castle built at pennsic

Through ignorance.

but i would hate to see combat archery and seige gear and the like vanish from our game,

Why? Don't you care that their wrong? You can't just argue that "we should do it because I want to do it", you have to say *why*. You have to prove your point.

These new rules can be the best thing that has happened to the sca, but i dont think we should aleniate our members.

I'm perfectly happy alienating those who don't want to do medieval recreation. You ignore the fact that a lot of folks who might otherwise be interested are probably driven away by the inauthentic elements of the SCA. The ACW reenactors seem to have no problems with recruitment, and they're among the strictest groups out there. Do you think if someone wanted to use an M-16 at an ACW reenactment that the people would just say "well, it's not right, but let's not alienate anyone"? Come on!

And the rule that annoys me the most is excusing chive and crown from the armour appearance rule, it the exact opposite of what needs to be done

So you hate the upper nobility having extra priveleges? Welcome to the feudal system! LOL! But what does this have to do with what we're discussing??? Just a chance to vent? (And by the way, I'm not for allowing *anyone* to do anything grossly inauthentic; I just think this comment has nothing to do with this conversation, and I'm tired of folks doing Peer Bashing).

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

InsaneIrish · Post by **InsaneIrish** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 3:52 pm

Dagisd: You are completely Correct that Combat Archery and Seige Engines were an extremely important part of the outcome of any war.

BUT, from the SCA's charter "We recreate the Middle Ages as they SHOULD have been at the Hieght of Chivalry. We recreate medieval Tourneyments and GRAND MELEES."

Now, in a GRAND MELEE there was no Combat Archery or Seige Engines.

Yes they are cool and some people really do an excellent job of designing and making them. Should we have a "WAR" or 2 that they can use them? Sure, but I don't want them at every GRAND MELEE event that the SCA has.

Now, onto the CHIVALRY part of it. If you can come up with a serious well thought out, and medievally documentable way that Combat Archery and Seige engines were considered a CHIVALROUS form of combat. I will support CA and SE at every event.

BUT since niether CA(combat archery) or SE(seige engines) are chivalrous I don't think they have any business being allowed on a list field.

Now for the personal reason I don't like CA or SE:

GULF WARS this year at the castle assult battle. Calontir showed up on time for the battle, only to be made to wait for 3 hours while 2 kingdoms had court on the field, and marshals explained and re-explained the rules to the fighters. All this in armour and getting sunburned on the fighters faces. NOW we get to armour up and fight, OH wait no we have to stand inside the castle for 30 MIN while the SE crews and CA take pot shots at us from safe positions on the field.

I was standing there and my 6 foot glaive was hit with a balista bolt and I was called dead and had to leave the feild.

Now, I waited 3 hours in the sun to stand in a big barrel and get hit by an UNCHIVALROUS weapon with no chance to defend myself.

I think we "could" have certian events or "some" battles where CA and SE are involved but not almost EVERY ONE.

I love our "wars" but I am just trying to play the game we play by the rules set before me. I try to conduct myself at all times in the most Chivalrous way possible. And while CA and SE are accepted I can not in good consence support at fighting style that ruins so many others fun and is UNCHIVARLOUS.

Insane Irish

[This message has been edited by InsaneIrish (edited 03-30-2002).]

white mountain armoury · Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:03 pm

Im not going to argue SyrRhys, we have been throught this, and your entitled to your oppinion, i just think that there is room for everybody, And im not saying it i want something simply becasue i want it, im saying it becasue many many people enjoy it, arguments on this forum have shown that some people like it and enjoy it and want it to stay, that sounds like enough of an argument to me and likely many others, but i wont argue it becasue i can live without it.
As for ACW and the use of an m-16, thats a poor argument, acw has well established authenticity rules, our societys know world handbook tells you how to make an outfit with 2 terrycloth bath towels and a pair of clothes pins, huge diff there between their rules and ours.
As i stated these rules could likely be the best thing ever to happen to the sca, id just hate to see them drive people away, but your right too, ive seen people not join because of what it was, i procrastinated for 10 years about joining because i didnt like what i had been exposed to, im a memeber of Wolfeargent, Its founder was turned of by what the sca has to offer, im anxious to see what comes from all this, change is good provided its well thought out and is not a knee jerk reaction to specific events.
And no im not chiv bashing, i practice regularly with a knight i have a geat deal of respect for, his kit looks like hell and hes happy that way, maybe im just venting like you said but its not important enough to me to warrent a new thread, i think authenticity rules are great, ive been hoping for them for along time, id love to be an authenticity "mashal" or what ever they may call it, i spend about 50 to 60 hrs a week excluding weekends devoted to improving the appearance of sca fighters, but i think those authenticity rules as well as all rules need to apply to every one regardless of the alphabet soup after their name. I repeat i am not Chiv bashing !!
By the way Irish sorry to hear about that battle, i took a very powerful shot from a ballista in the opening moments of the castle battle, i was very disapointed, but we fought the scenario again, I was also supprised to see that they let these ballistas shoot down at people from above, i was hit at short range instead of the usual lazy arch, i was supprised at the force.

[This message has been edited by White Mountain Armoury (edited 03-30-2002).]

Dagisd · Post by **Dagisd** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:10 am

I don't think that simply on the basis that we can't beat our opponents to death, as would be authentic to a true war, that we can't re-create a war *scenario. I think that is taking authenticity to a stubbornly ridiculous level. If that were the case, I could certainly argue that since not every single member of the Chivalry can act chivalrous at every given moment, that we should ban knighthood, as it cannot be *authentically re-created. Or, (going into the appearance of the Chivalry), if they cannot afford a panoply fitting to their portrayal of a knight, then they should not be given that honor. Is that not an asinine suggestion? Of course it is. Real world matters come into play, regarding such things.
I personally like having to dodge arrows and bolts and whatnot. It certainly adds to the atmosphere. But, I too could live without it if it happens to be thrown out.
A question for you, SyrRhys. Do participate in the various battles at Pennsic, or just the Tournaments? Or do you boycott them as a statement against it's lack of authenticity? I'm not being crass or snide. I am curious.

As for you Irish. That situation was the fault of bad planning. Blame the messangers on that one.

I wish you each Well,
Dagisd

P.S. The assumption that everyone is at least minor nobilty is inaccurate, inauthentic, and utterly asinine.

Let's re-examine old rules before impliminting new rules.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:34 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dagisd:
I don't think that simply on the basis that we can't beat our opponents to death, as would be authentic to a true war, that we can't re-create a war *scenario. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one said that being able to actually beat everyone to death was the only factor necessary to create a war reenactment. God, I'm so sick of "selective reading" on the part of the folks who just don't want to admit the obvious.

What's different between war and tournament is the *concept* of safety rules. I didn't just list eliminating the limits on calibration, I listed 5 or 6 more. Did you simply not get this?

I think that is taking authenticity to a stubbornly ridiculous level. If that were the case, I could certainly argue that since not every single member of the Chivalry can act chivalrous at every given moment, that we should ban knighthood, as it cannot be *authentically re-created. Or, (going into the appearance of the Chivalry), if they cannot afford a panoply fitting to their portrayal of a knight, then they should not be given that honor. Is that not an asinine suggestion? Of course it is. Real world matters come into play, regarding such things.

Of course that's an asinine suggestion; it fits perfectly in this post. No one said anything about any one person's portrayal effecting the validity of the entire concept. For that matter, why would every knight have to be uniformly chivalrous to make the concept valid? Certainly not every knight in period was chivalrous. Come on, think these things through before you write.

A question for you, SyrRhys. Do participate in the various battles at Pennsic, or just the Tournaments? Or do you boycott them as a statement against it's lack of authenticity? I'm not being crass or snide. I am curious.

I particpate in all the melees except the woods battle; they are, after all, *tournament* melees, not war, whatever the ignorant may call them. I stopped doing bridge battles for a while until a friend pointed out that these kinds of obstacles must have occurred in the wide-ranging tournaments of the early MA. The woods battle, however, has *no* medieval relevance, and as such I do not participate. I also refuse to fight in any battle where cowards with toy bows shoot at their betters.

P.S. The assumption that everyone is at least minor nobilty is inaccurate, inauthentic, and utterly asinine. Let's re-examine old rules before impliminting new rules.

OK, I nominate you as one of the first new peasants; would you like that? See, it's not asinine, no one wants to be lower class.

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

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:48 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by White Mountain Armoury:
Im not going to argue SyrRhys, we have been throught this, and your entitled to your oppinion, i just think that there is room for everybody, And im not saying it i want something simply becasue i want it, im saying it becasue many many people enjoy it, arguments on this forum have shown that some people like it and enjoy it and want it to stay, that sounds like enough of an argument to me and likely many others, but i wont argue it becasue i can live without it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So just because most people seem to want to run around in Frazetta-inspired costumes and harness we shouldn't try to improve things? No! That's not an argument, it's wishful thinking.

As for ACW and the use of an m-16, thats a poor argument, acw has well established authenticity rules, our societys know world handbook tells you how to make an outfit with 2 terrycloth bath towels and a pair of clothes pins, huge diff there between their rules and ours.

Wrong, it's exactly analagous. It does point up the fact that our standards can never be as high as theirs, but the concept is the same. People think that because it's completely impossible to match the ACW level of authenticity we needn't bother to try at all. Crap. We *do* have well-established authenticity rules; they're simply being ignored! And so what about that stupid article in the Known World Handbook? Must we always be punished by the ignorance of folks who came before (and I'm not using the word "ignorance" to criticize; we are all learning, but we need to better implement that learning)? No! We must constantly strive to learn and to improve.

It is my fond hope that a much less tolerant treatment of authenticity issues will drive the Dungeon Bunnies (tm) out of the SCA and bring in more folks interested in the fun and interesting stuff our charter requires us to do. Let the Dungeon Bunnies go to SF conventions and LARPS and leave us alone so that we can have *fun*.

Of course, there will always be inconsiderate idiots who claim that because we can't be perfect we shouldn't try to come as close as possible, and who will try to continue the inaccuracies of the SCA. We have to learn to run rough-shod over them as knights did the peasants of old.

Look at what you wrote: You yourself said you stayed out of the SCA because of its failings. Now that you've joined you have to decide which side you're on. You say you're a member of a LH group; that's great. So you figure that since you're doing good LH reenactment in one group it's OK to speak up for inaccuracy in another organization? Come on! Are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution??

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

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:50 am

Good Gentles, if I may,

I have always called them wars because I needed to be on the same page with the others. However, I have always, in my heart of heart, thought of them as Grand Melee. Um, not a primary source I know, but break out your copy of Ivanhoe and read about the tourney. That's it. Now then, because of this No CA, and no siege engines.

Bjorn

Dagisd · Post by **Dagisd** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:57 am

SyrRhys,
My compliments. You are indeed a fine model of what you portray.

In the future, I'll refrain from asking a question for various opinions. I see that yours is the only one that truly matters.
Until a more fiting field is presented to us...I wish you well.

Dagisd

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 12:48 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dagisd:
SyrRhys,
My compliments. You are indeed a fine model of what you portray.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I only portray a knight on occasional weekends. Why is it that when people can't defend their position the first thing they do is sulk and tell me I'm a bad person?

Besides, can you imagine how a *real* knight would have responded to you? LOL! I think people have some very weird ideas about knighthood! You seem to think a knight is required to be *nice* to you; what makes you think that??? Haven't you read any history?

In the future, I'll refrain from asking a question for various opinions. I see that yours is the only one that truly matters.

Oh, so because you can't refute the logic of my arguments I'm suddenly the kind of person who thinks that my opinion is the only one that matters?

The only opinion that matters is the one that's supportable with logic and evidence. I've done that, you have not. Period. Sorry that that apparently makes you feel bad about yourself.

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

[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 03-31-2002).]

freiman the minstrel · Sun Mar 31, 2002 1:48 pm

Sir Rhys,

I am coming to respect your opinions even when I disagree with them which, sadly, is almost all of the time.

I disagree with you about the CA/SE, though I do not doubt your logic, nor your reasons. I Really like wars. I like them far more than the list field, which I enjoy.

I too have been hit with arrows and crossbow bolts, and have walked away from the field muttering in disgust. I don't mind the arrows, I mind getting hit. that means that either I can't fight anymore that day, or that I have a long walk back to the res point. But at no point do I say to myself, "d*mnit! that arrow would never have come my way if this was done correctly"

Besides, at this point, we have spent a lot of money on castles that are just too much fun not to storm.

Crystoll · Post by **Crystoll** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 2:27 pm

SirRhys,
Once again, I applaud your research and vigor in assulting this topic.
However, here are a few points for contention.
The SCA is a herd animal, and as such, mob mentality applies.
If the masses are happy don't change anything.
As a whole, the SCA is large enough to accomade those who have extremely differening ideas on everything, including War/CA/Authenticity.
If it truly bothers you, form another one of the splinter groups that abound in the SCA, make your own tourneys, events, grand melees and be happy playing your game.
Your vision does not apply to us all, nor should you take a *grins* monarchal stance and dictate to the masses from on high saying "This will be, and it will be good."
SCA: Society for Creative Ananchronism..
Not Society for People who must be historically correct in every way, shape, deed, or thought to fit in.
I respect you for your views and apploud your efforts( if you have made any outside of this forumn) to make changes to the SCA.
Unfourtantly, I promise you that you will be shouted down by those who disagree with your views, no matter how much research you have, if you try to take away their involvement in this game.
The SCA is not the ACW or anything else, and it doesn't pretend to be so. (Hence the bathcloth clothing

)
This is a volunteer organization, and when it stops being fun, people leave.
And from what I've seen, My idea of the SCA is that we welcome everyone, plastic armour or not.

Respectfully,
Crystoll Mackintosh
p.s. Apologies for the stream of though post.. Late night armouring, not enough sleep/coffee yet

white mountain armoury · Sun Mar 31, 2002 4:38 pm

SyrRhys, you are making points in your argument that are the same as mine, yet somehow you seem to not notice them, Im very devoted to authenticity, ive put alot of thought into my diff gear and how to make it functional yet appear correct, ive spent hours doing the same for others, You quote to me that we are ignoring our own rules like im unaware of that, but if you read my above post or recall my other posts on the same topic you would notice that i said that we currently have the rules needed we just choose to ignore them, ive stated the exact thing you are stating yet for some reason you dont seem to understand that, you complain about selective reading, your guilty of the same thing, re read my post.
And as for people complaining about your approach to discussion, well more than one have pointed it out, you sound more like someone having an angry tantrum than someone in a discussion, you come across about as reasonable as Hushgirl and it deflates your argument
Ive said it time and time again here but it must be selective reading, we already have many of the rules we need in place, they are just being ignored, you said the same thing, yet somehow you cant see we are in agreement.
Change is good, but i dont think you take out an axe and cut of the offending member, you instead teach people the errors of their ways, not tell them they are wrong and they should leave, maybe thats your approach but its not mine.
I see people running around with torses on their bascinets, but ive yet to see a period example, should we ban the use of the torse on inapropriate helms, or should we explain why its not appropriate and help find better options.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 4:58 pm

Since what we do could be easily tweaked to more closely resemble actual medieval Deeds of Arms on foot, then why shouldn't we try to get as close to that real, medieval place as possible?
In the interests of safety, we all agree that a "tournament" is what we can most closely re-create. There were no siege engines or archery in tournaments, so they don't belong in an accurate re-creation of tournaments. This is all Rhys is saying.
Some people believe that re-creation is what we are supposed to be doing. The limitations of our "war" re-creation make it completely unrealistic- not even close. Combat Archery and siege engines ruin the accurate re-creation of tournaments, and do not add to the accurate re-creation of War because they would only be a small part of the experience anyway. Remove Combat Archery and Siegecraft and then we are at least *closer* to the feel of a medieval tournament.
I think we should try to create more accurate tournaments, and accept that SCA "war" is a modern type of war-game, not much different than Paintball. It's a great way to have fun while learning about what medieval warfare may have been like. I like SCA "wars" to have as many types of toys as possible. I don't lie to myself and pretend like it's just a large tourney- it's not. I like it for what is is while accepting that it ISN'T re-creation of any type- it's recreational.
Create more accurate tourneys and better "war-games"- always striving to bring in as many educational -and FUN- elements as possible. Don't say it's War- it ain't. Don't say it's Grand Melee, because now it isn't that either.
-V

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 7:02 pm

Here we go again... [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:05 am

"You ignore the fact that a lot of folks who might otherwise be interested are probably driven away by the inauthentic elements of the SCA"

This gets said far too rarely. I know of at least 5 people who quit/do not play because there are so many genericelts/plastic palidins, or because of acted wounds, innane sumptuary law ect ect ect.

Yes we have a big tent, if your a Tuchuck or per period Hitite a vampire ninja rastafarian pirate viking. But if you want to be "real" your on your own. Your allowed at events, just don't block the keg with all the plastic cups around it.

I don't mind CA and SE, but it can really make the game not fun. I think irish nailed it with the comments on the fort battles. Standing in the sun in black for an hour while tennis balls are lobbed about was not very enjoyable.

As an aside why do people not at least try volley fire with missles? It'd be alot more effective imo.

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:06 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Murdock:
As an aside why do people not at least try volley fire with missles? It'd be alot more effective imo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's really not. Volley fire leads to volley blocking. With impenetrable shields, it means that your opponent knows when arrows are coming in. Besides, there usually aren't enough archers to do this effectively (maybe Gulf Wars...).

And, chalk me up as one of those guys who is turned off by the inauthenticity. I remember pulling into Pennsic a couple of years ago, and looking about at the tartaned geeks and poofy-pantsed, tennis-shoed masses that greeted me. I was flat-out disgusted.

Thank God for Beer!

------------------
All bleeding eventually stops.

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 9:25 am

The subject that never dies......

OK, we don't fight wars. We have melees. Not Grand Melees, but melees.

Personally, I don't see the problem, unless is it by the people who set up the battle schedules.

For every scenario with CA and siege weapons, run a duplicate battle without them. The people who want it get a battle like they want, the people who don't want it get a battle like they want, and those of us who like both get more fighting!!!

Why does it have to be a I win / you lose issue here?

Dilan
Midrealm

Morgan · Post by **Morgan** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:03 am

I think it's a subject that SHOULD never die. No matter HOW good or how authentic or how enclusive or how much fun we get, we should NEVER EVER stop striving for more. Stagnation is death.

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:27 am

I'll tell you why.
There would be twice as many battles.

And a certain group would whine about not being able to play in them and play the discrimination card.
So we'd end up with more battles, but with CA.

You don't think so?
Then why does it work the way it does?
Think about it a bit.

Why IS there so much CA?
How did it GET to this stage?
Why do you think the trend would NOT continue if we added more battles?

If you schedules twice as many battles, you'd have to start EARLIER.

Oh, yeah, riiiiiiiiiight.
Sure.
(grin)

Look, if you feel you need to bring the equivalent of a gun to a martial arts tournament just to be able to compete......well, what can be said about that?....

Does that make things any clearer?

VvS

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:37 am

I didn't mean authenticity - I was referring to the whole Combat Archery / Tourney or War / my version of hte SCA is better than yours thing.

Authenticity beyond a certain minimum is a personal choice. Just like the culture or time period you choose. Just like how authentic you choose to do your arts or sciences. Or how dedicated you are to the practice of your arts martial.

Question - you have 2 fighters - both are equally authentic. Lets say Vitus, and Vitus' twin - but doing a 9th century viking persona. If they are on the field together, doesn't this throw the whole authenticity thing out the window?

Encourage by your example, by teaching those who want to learn, and encouraging those who try - fail or succeed.

Dilan

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:50 am

Vermin

Twice as many battles? That would be a shame..... [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Now I admit I tend to think of things in terms of Pennsic, where there doesn't seem to be any shortage of battles - 3 fields, 3 bridges, etc. The only "single battle" is in the Woods.

But heck, I've seen it done successfully at Blackstone Raids and Border Raids, and at smaller Midrealm events like Baron Wars. I just don't see why running a Bridge Battle with and without CA is a bad thing....

And, multiple battles would allow those who are offended by combat archers the option of not facing an opponent they feel is unchivalrous / unsafe - which is their right.

Dilan
(Who doesn't shoot CA - but doesn't hate it)

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:25 am

I don't dislike CA either. I just hated standing there for an hour. I think i've been killed by a CA or SE maybe twice. So it doesn't really bother me.

As for the volley fire, for some reason the invulnerabel shields slipped my mind.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:40 am

I have come to one inescapable conclusion-

NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE BICKER ABOUT THIS STUFF, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW/IMITATE/RE-CREATE WHATEVER CAPTURES THEIR IMAGINATION AND PASSION. IF YOU WANT TO INSPIRE PEOPLE TO CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING- MOST OF WHAT WE WRITE HERE WILL NOT CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND ABOUT ANYTHING.

I like being around a bunch of interested and inspired people much more than I would enjoy being around a bunch of people who were afraid to follow their silly dreams and fantasies. What is most important to me is being around people who are PUMPED and HAPPY about what they are doing, because these people will learn more, and turn me on to things I didn't know about before.

All we can do is figure out what we like, and present the best effort possible to the other people on the field. Part of what we do is performance art- I know it sounds wierd, but think about it.
-Vitus

Anton · Post by **Anton** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:58 am

Authentic tourneys? So does that mean I get to ransom those I capture? Or is that over the top? Where's the line between fun and being authentic? Are we doing SCA for fun or doing it to be authentic? Those are the two camps and I don't there's much middle ground. So have our big melees and if the LH guys want to stay home because archery isn't chivalrous or siege weapons weren't used, cool. CA makes life more interesting and SEs are just cool. If the LH guys want to have very accurate tourneys good for them. My real life constraints wouldn't let me devote resources necessary for that. One isn't better then the other as long as both camps are achieving their goals and having fun.

pax
Anton

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:03 pm

Maybe the early "seige volley" is just the "tradition" for Gulf Wars, or part of the scenario - If I understand correctly, there are towers that could be neutralized by seige (and the archers using the towers) plus the gate had to be hit either by seige weapons or a ram.

The castle battle last year at Pennsic didn't have this happen, but then there weren't many seige weapons or combat archers. Plus seige weapons were pretty much made ineffective by the rules (ballistas counted as archers).

I imagine if more seige weapons show up this year, the action might change.... But would the wait for archers / trebs/ ballistas to use their ammo be authentic?

Dilan

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:41 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dagisd:
 From reading the other thread here, I'm taking it that a number of folks, on the BOD and in the populace, don't want War anymore. Why? Was not war a significant part of history? Was not seige weaponry a significant factor in deciding the outcome of many of those battles in the War? So, why does there seem to be a drive to ban it?
I've fought in one Tourney, and yes, it was great fun. But it was a pale comparison to absolute thrill and joy I felt at Pennsic, in the various battles. If it comes to baning war scenarios, I guess I'll look elsewhere for my fun...and I'm thinking a great many will too.
And, maybe I'm dim-witted, but what is the difference between a grand melee and a war scenario?

Thanks,
Dagisd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dagsid,

Rhys has already addressed your basic question Grand Meleeâ€™s versus war. Grand Meleeâ€™s had rules about what could and could not be done, what weapons were and were not allowed, and who was allowed to participate. War wasnâ€™t so restrictive.

(There is on its face, a counter argument to this: in theory, most war between Christians during the middle ages had rules as well. However, most of the rules mentioned would not effect our combat, they were more along the line of donâ€™t slaughter the folks who surrender, donâ€™t loot the churches, donâ€™t butcher the peasants etcâ€¦ Also, breaking the rules of a tournament resulted in severe sanction, obeying the theoretical rules of war got a positive note by a chronicler, if you were lucky. There seems to be from my reading a lot of questions of whether the â€œrules of warâ€

Dagisd · Post by **Dagisd** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:49 pm

I'll stand up for the idea of more battles. List one as the Grand Melee Field Battle, and a second as the almost-like-a-war Field Battle. That way everyone can enjoy what it is they want to do. I'd certainly enjoy both.
I will say though, that I'd prefer seeing a bit mroe strict stance on seige engine appearance. I don't particularly care for the 2x4 onagers and trebs. Even if the mechanics of it are modern , I'd at least like it to *look real.

Oh, bother..........

Dagisd

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 6:27 pm

I particularly enjoyed this site on early tournaments. Interesting descriptions of the grand melee and use of CA.

http://icg.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/tournmt/ben-tour.htm

Juliana

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 6:49 pm

Asbjorn -

Why can't CA/seige be used in SOME battles, and not in others at the same event? Grand Melees aren't authentic for all personas / time periods represented in the SCA - mine for example. Should all personas who time period predates the Grand Melee or later period documentable tournaments be disallowed in the SCA in the name of authenticity?

The big battles at Pennsic / Gulf Wars / Estrella are designed to cater to the SCA as a whole - regardless of persona, level of authenticity (beyond a expected minimum) or ability. They are for everyone who cares to participate. They are for the masses.

Anyone with a tighter area of interest has ample opportunity to host and participate in almost any specialized tourney they want - and dictate armour / authenticity requirements, rules beyond the SCA minimum, and style of the tourney itself. We see this all the time, and the trend is growing.

What I am saying, in a nutshell, is that there is room in the SCA for battles with CA/Seige and Grand Melee. Both should be allowed.

Dilan
Midrealm