Combat of Thirty- I'm an idiot.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:40 pm

I think I get it- the money is required to pay for the creation of the coins, and the coins are souveniers of the combat, right?
That's cool, as long as people don't start using these souvenier coins as some type of currency. What I mean is- if I take five captives, and I get a bag of coins, I just think it should stop there. I would be pretty disgusted if somebody could take those coinds and *turn them back into cash*.

Cet · Post by **Cet** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:46 pm

My understanding is this: What coins one recieves as ransom could be; kept as a souvenier ( perhaps to occaisionally bestow as a token of esteem to some man- at arms at some point in future?), given to some hospital or such other worthy cause who could exchange them for the local currency, which they may find of more use; or one could sell them off, like a merchant, to purchase divertments, beer, or whatever those of such mind have appetites for.

What one does shall speak to his character and worth. From what I know of these gentelmen I expect that none of these couins will be ever found in an alewife's till. Certanily, should I, through the Grace of God, prevail over any of the worthies brough forth by your most Noble and Gallant King and gain some ransome thereby it will treasured for the memory it will represent or go to help the unfortunate. May I be forver shameed if it is not so.

More like I shall be paying out my 2 coins, ( meager, but greater than my worth, shortly on),.

carlyle · Post by **carlyle** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 7:20 pm

Vitus: I would be pretty disgusted if somebody could take those coinds and *turn them back into cash*.

As I read the rules posted in the other thread, this is one specific possibility.

Just a quick question to qualify, though -- is it merely the possibility that is offensive, or must the act actually occur? I would feel very uncomfortable with the latter, but I would only be apprehensive of the former for what it might lead to.

I just don't understand why anyone would pursue this a-historical format in the face of such a potential downside when there are clear, period alternative models.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:37 pm

I am not saying that this is not a proper and historical thing that they propose- I myself have been a supporter of ransom exchanges, but I have promoted the use of gifts instead of cash substitutes for my own personal reasons, because everything that money touches usually turns to shit- baseball, punk rock...most great inventions get poisoned by money.
I have fought for years now to get the SCA to move towards Living History levels of presentation while keeping the highly competitive (important to capture the spiritual flavor) and relatively safe nature of our combat/study. I personally have to draw the line with things like outsider sponsorship, cash purses as prizes, or cash/cash substitutes for ransom payments. I am not against people using coins or coin reproductions as ransom- far from it, but after a man recieves a ransom, I am against that ransom being empowered with any actual purchase power of any kind.
It's MY problem....and I apologize for insinuating that it isn't a proper historical re-creation. It is. However, I have found people to act totally idiotic when only personal pride is on the line...

carlyle · Post by **carlyle** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:01 am

Vitus: I am not saying that this is not a proper and historical thing that they propose...

You are correct, this is not your proposition -- it is mine. Many of the actual mechanisms used to adjudicate a ransom are hidden to us, but this is not one of them, or it certainly was not common. I know of no historical tournament where the attendees were assigned an entrance fee according to their rank which was then held by the sponsor to pay the defeated participant's ransom to his conqueror. Romantically, it is as far from the idea of a "ransom of worth" as I can imagine, since it removes all control from the vanquished (the whole precept of setting your own price, a la The Toad, is the height of knightly pride). Simply saying this is intended to simulate the financial jeopardy associated with tournament participation with no better provenence than has been demonstrated is akin to recognizing that knights wielded swords in battle -- and then fighting "florentine".

Alfred of Carlyle (former two-sword fighter)