The Armour Archive

dukelogan wrote:and there are also a few examples in period of hand drawn missiles defeating men in cote armor (not hitting the armor but hitting the wearer). but that does not enforce the norm as it were. my point was, and remains, that the majority of tourneys that had a gallery to judge the worthiness of the combatants were decided upon by those that were in the contest. there are exceptions to almost every rule and it is folly to go with rare exceptions in place of that which was common.
\

Hahaha. When has this ever been the case in the SCA?

Besides, as posted, your thoughts seem to imply that a completely non-period practice (double elim) is better than one that was rare but period. I would disagree with that for a number of reasons.

1. The former are obviously more educational.

2. "Judged by the Ladies' tourneys involve more of the populace. You have a problem with how the combatants are judged?

- Hold a meeting of those interested in the day's bouts in the morning. Invite the KoSCA and those interested in chivalry to give short talks and discuss between themselves what chivalry, honor, and prowess mean to them.

- Hold the combats.

- Afterwards, allow the 'judges' to meet and discuss various things they saw that day, perhaps guided by a knowledgable gentle or peer.

The above might be lesser 'sport', but it is better recreation. Instead of serving the goals of SCA combat, the tourney serves the populace and the Society.

Personally, i'd rather see our tournies move to challenge tournies only, where you make a challenge and accept it and fight. Lots of fighting, no real waiting. (or you would have to wait if you wanted to challenge someone that everyone wanted to test themselves against.)

No points, no eliminations.

Have the fighters or the just the chiv come together afterward and advise the King, Baron, etc. who to award prizes to that ''did the most'', awarding several folks instead of just one.

But whatever. I don't mind the way the sca does things now. I'm easy, either way.

ACK! I thought I was going to stay away from this thread...."Just went I think i'm out...they pull me back in!"

i have never advocated double elimination tourneys as a good or better way to do things. please cite an example of me every saying that. of course thats a rhetorical quest since i know how i feel about double elim tourneys.

sca combat is not a study of period anything. it is a sport tat was created on its own. it is very loosely based on period foot combat that spans over a 1000 years. loose standards were put into place to define the rules of the sport.

it is silly to attempt to create it as something it is not. one of the fortunate aspects of sca combat is that, much in the same spirit as much of the tournaments in the middle ages, it allows the competitors to judge each other. since sca combat is non scripted, full force, fighting it is separated from almost every other form of historical play (be it living history, sad off-shoots of the sca by disgruntled former members, great off-shoots of the sca formed by those that want to study history without the infusion of genericelts, tu-chux, and chain maille bikinis, and groups that are about history and have nothing to do with the sca). the facet of sca fighting that is wholly unique for a group its size is the way fights are decided. that being by the man hit and not (with the sad exception of one kingdom where marshals have some say) by anyone else.

the point i made still stands. part time weekend warriors and their part time weekend ladies go to sca events. the part time weekend warriors fight and understand the society of fighters. the audience understands little to none of that since most sca participants dont actually study the middle ages, but merely play dress up and socialize (which is fine, but a fact nonetheless), the ones that do study the middle ages dont study just the tournaments of every society in the wide span of the scas scope, and they dont actually live in the middle ages so they are very uneducated as to the culture of the tournament.

that being the case it is stupid to grab a bunch of ladies and say "ok girls you pick the most chivalrous fighter today and we will award him a prize". wow sounds like fun but how so? and to whom? ive won some of these 'prizes' but never understood why. but again, sca sport combat is not a study of period tournaments. it is a sport that sits on its own platform with but a handful of peers (of fighting there are groups like acre, tuchux, agelessly, etc that do the same sort of stuff). to try to pick certain aspects of the middle ages and make them sweeping is foolish.

the culture of sca combat is one of personal responsibility. when you have things like over eager marshals and non fighters that judge it robs the essence of sca fighting. that being individual courage, effort, and display of prowess. that is what sca fighting is. not some theater show so non participants can play with the pieces.



hope that makes the point more clear. and, for the record, i do wish the sca was more based on reality. but again to do that it would have to narrow its focus greatly and enforce its current rules. i dont know that it should do the former and i know it fails miserably at the latter. so until then i see and support it as a social club based on the entirety of the middle ages that has some rules but little spine. i got into the sca for the fighting and branched out from there. the fighting still remains the best part of it to me although i am very glad to have learned and experienced everything i did.

regards
logan

Gabriel le Noir wrote:

dukelogan wrote:and there are also a few examples in period of hand drawn missiles defeating men in cote armor (not hitting the armor but hitting the wearer). but that does not enforce the norm as it were. my point was, and remains, that the majority of tourneys that had a gallery to judge the worthiness of the combatants were decided upon by those that were in the contest. there are exceptions to almost every rule and it is folly to go with rare exceptions in place of that which was common.
\

Hahaha. When has this ever been the case in the SCA?

Besides, as posted, your thoughts seem to imply that a completely non-period practice (double elim) is better than one that was rare but period. I would disagree with that for a number of reasons.

1. The former are obviously more educational.

2. "Judged by the Ladies' tourneys involve more of the populace. You have a problem with how the combatants are judged?

- Hold a meeting of those interested in the day's bouts in the morning. Invite the KoSCA and those interested in chivalry to give short talks and discuss between themselves what chivalry, honor, and prowess mean to them.

- Hold the combats.

- Afterwards, allow the 'judges' to meet and discuss various things they saw that day, perhaps guided by a knowledgable gentle or peer.

The above might be lesser 'sport', but it is better recreation. Instead of serving the goals of SCA combat, the tourney serves the populace and the Society.

Logan Said:

dukelogan wrote:the point i made still stands. part time weekend warriors and their part time weekend ladies go to sca events. the part time weekend warriors fight and understand the society of fighters. the audience understands little to none of that since most sca participants dont actually study the middle ages, but merely play dress up and socialize

I think it was Duke Richard that said this to me...maybe it was Gyrth...(or something rather like it)

In watching a fight consider the following as concerns whiether a blow looks good and whiether it is actually good or not:

The fighter who is hit has the best chance of knowing, since he himself judges whiether it is good or not. He is 100% clear.

The fighter that threw the blow is half as clear (50%) since, well he thru it, but he can't judge how it landed.

The marshalls are next at 25% because (hopefully) they are intently watching the combat and are skilled enough (also hopefully) to see how it landed.

Everyone else watching is at 1%. Everyone, because they only think they saw what they saw from way across a field.

"Let the slain man say he is dead" was how I was a'raised up.

Kind Regards to all,
byram

Brennus wrote:Combat determination in the Fourteenth Century was generally either decided by the Highest ranking Noble present or by the Spectators...

Spectators meaning the noble ladies present, not peasants in the crowd, right?

The difference between a judged tourney in the SCA and one in the 14th century is that 14th century ruling nobles and noble ladies were raised in a culture of chivalry, well-read in chivalric romances, and had attended tournaments since they were old enough to walk. They knew what they were looking for, and what actions were considered customary or honorable in the chivalric tradition. To simulate such a panel today you would need to find ruling nobles or noble ladies who have made an intentional study of such things, not just a handful of non-fighters.

It seems to me that it would be a fine thing for a tournament company or barony or some such organization to nurture and cultivate a pool of knowledgable, qualified judges. Once established it could grow, but it would take considerable training to establish. The judges would not call blows but would assess prowess, courtesy, and other chivalric virtues displayed upon the field.

Meanwhile, it serves little purpose to have judges who know little of the matter they are asked to judge.

Hey all!

I just found this thread and gotta say "Wow. Good one B!"

So my list of least favourite tournaments is only two:

1.) Siterbach Holiday Faire a few years ago. There was a scenario where you would lumber about from single fight "station" (meaning a series of fighters placed around the field who you had to fight in a certain order) to "station" all the while carring a large salt lick.

I still don't know what in the heck that was all about.

2.) "Calvin-Ball" Ice Castle this year. The format was annoying and the rules were fluid. I know those in charge did the best they could with what they had, but it doesn't change the fact that it came off poorly.

The only rule missing was having to sing the "I'm sorry" song...

But that said I still had fun fighting.

Andrew

Andrew Grey wrote:
2.) "Calvin-Ball" Ice Castle this year. The format was annoying and the rules were fluid. I know those in charge did the best they could with what they had, but it doesn't change the fact that it came off poorly.
Andrew

Having been a marshal for the "Traveling Tourney" at Ice Castles, I have to admit, I was embarassed to have to enforce those constantly changing rules, and disagreed strongly with how the rules were laid out. There were too many egos involved in the planning process.

All I can say is I was glad I didnt have to fight in it.

Pax,
Melisent

Maelgwyn wrote:The difference between a judged tourney in the SCA and one in the 14th century is that 14th century ruling nobles and noble ladies were raised in a culture of chivalry, well-read in chivalric romances, and had attended tournaments since they were old enough to walk.

Exactly right. Of course, the SCA is an avowedly educational organization, and things like this can be used as a doorway to teaching, discussion, and learning... pretty good for a passtime that has degenerated into a mere sport that does little at times to serve the goals of the SCA.

The problem, it seems to me, is that everyone is concerned that the 'rules' will be vague. So what? So what if they are? You can still show honor, and prowess, and chivalry. You can still have fun. In a game where we call our own blows, 'winning' clearly shouldn't mean as much to people as it does.

In many places, and at many times, the subculture of SCA fighters has degenerated into being little about education and virtue and more about locker-room comraderie and winning. I am for anything that begins to tie heavy fighting more closely to the goals of the Society of which it is a part.

but this was decided amongst those that competed against each other. usually the gift was presented to the fighter by the gallery (that would the spectators for those that dont know). the idea that women were allowed to determine this is a combination of romantic license and hollywood. sorry.

This is amusing so let us begin. Your first supposition is that women (and spectators) did not judge tourneys and that it is merely a Hollywood fancy. Your words suggest that these practices never occurred.

I provided I believe five primary examples where the ladies or spectators judged the winner of a tourney. In fact Froissart on occasion says "we ajudged" which seems to include himself and he was neither a Knight nor overly noble. Also by the 15th century noncombatant judges (these judges may have been knights Barons etc but they did not participate) were the norm if we are to believe King Rene who seems to be the expert on the subject.

Your second supposition is...

and there are also a few examples in period of hand drawn missiles defeating men in cote armor (not hitting the armor but hitting the wearer). but that does not enforce the norm as it were.

Hmm, I don't recall stating that women judging tourneys was the norm, in fact if you read my post you would see I gave a great many examples of how a 14th century Tourney was decided and if I am not mistaken I said that the ranking Noble present or spectators (judges) generally decided the outcome and I also stated in certain cases the combatants determined the winner. In fact there was no set criteria of who did the judging until the rules were formalized during the 15th century by notables such as King Rene and Lord Tiptoft. Also to clarify I do not mean to suggest that those people assigned to adjudging the tourneys were not Nobles or their associates. In fact Tiptoft's rules are quite simple and provide an excellent framework for judges http://home.stny.rr.com/rosensoldat/St_Michael/tiptoft.htm

Do you wish me to show that females judging a tourney is not a isolated incident? How many example do you need one, three, twenty, or would you first be willing to give us some inkling of where your assumptions are derived from. For example primary sources or even the judgment of secondary historians of note would possibly suffice. I would like to see fact rather than opinion if this is an academic debate your opinion is great but as they say opinions are like ....


I found the first example off the top of my head lets see what other examples of Ladies judging tourneys come to mind.

"The same ceremonies were to take place on the Monday, and the sixty knights to be prepared for tilting courteously with blunted lances against all corners. The prize for the best knight of the opponents was to be a rich crown, of gold, that for the tenants of the lists a very rich golden clasp: they were to be given to the most gallant tilter, according to the judgment of the ladies, who would be present with the queen of England and the great barons as spectators"

Another tourney in the chronicles of Froissart. I use him as his text is so readily available to anyone and he gives an excellent overview of the mid to Late 14th century. BTW this is the grand tourney in London the first mention of Lady judges is at the marriage of Queen Isabella.


Announcement of a tourney from 1390 indicating the Ladies are awarding the prize. Interesting to note the Knight gave the lady who danced best a prize as well.
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/chroniqu/cry1390.htm

I guess I could find some more but I think my point is getting across about primary documentation.

[/quote]2. "Judged by the Ladies' tourneys involve more of the populace. You have a problem with how the combatants are judged?[/quote]

It then often becomes a popularity contest.

what i think you are missing here gabriel is the fact that many of us assume that our opponents are able bodied, that our opponents are prepared to fight, that our opponents are men of honor, that our opponents are courageous, that our opponents are good intent, and that our opponents understand the rules of the list. that said, all things are equal except one. and that one thing is who is judged best.

why the hell is that so bad? if it wasnt what we fight for then why do we keep score? i can tell you why. it is simply because my opponent is an honorable, courageous, well intent, educated, and determined competitor. i am too. and we are competing to see who has more skill at the time we try our contest. nothing more.

honestly i dont understand why the concept is so hard for people to understand. it is about who wins because everything else is expected.

get it?
logan

Gabriel le Noir wrote:

Maelgwyn wrote:The difference between a judged tourney in the SCA and one in the 14th century is that 14th century ruling nobles and noble ladies were raised in a culture of chivalry, well-read in chivalric romances, and had attended tournaments since they were old enough to walk.

Exactly right. Of course, the SCA is an avowedly educational organization, and things like this can be used as a doorway to teaching, discussion, and learning... pretty good for a passtime that has degenerated into a mere sport that does little at times to serve the goals of the SCA.

The problem, it seems to me, is that everyone is concerned that the 'rules' will be vague. So what? So what if they are? You can still show honor, and prowess, and chivalry. You can still have fun. In a game where we call our own blows, 'winning' clearly shouldn't mean as much to people as it does.

In many places, and at many times, the subculture of SCA fighters has degenerated into being little about education and virtue and more about locker-room comraderie and winning. I am for anything that begins to tie heavy fighting more closely to the goals of the Society of which it is a part.

hey brennus, im really not interested in you nor am i interested in how you twist things around. i made my point and i dont feel like going over this with you in a tit for tat. your agenda regarding me is quite well documented and i dont feel like dealing with it again (you showed yourself in a true light the last two times). besides, wasnt it you that tried this same sly selective memory crap with count rhys regarding women and tourneys?

please man pick another target already. between you and john noob (or whatever the hell he called himself) and bascot you guys should form a he-man logan haters club. but i dont feel like going point for point for point with you over this or anything. i made my point and how history and the sca are not in bed with one another.

best of luck with whatever it is you are doing these days.

regards
logan

Brennus wrote:

but this was decided amongst those that competed against each other. usually the gift was presented to the fighter by the gallery (that would the spectators for those that dont know). the idea that women were allowed to determine this is a combination of romantic license and hollywood. sorry.

This is amusing so let us begin. Your first supposition is that women (and spectators) did not judge tourneys and that it is merely a Hollywood fancy. Your words suggest that these practices never occurred.

I provided I believe five primary examples where the ladies or spectators judged the winner of a tourney. In fact Froissart on occasion says "we ajudged" which seems to include himself and he was neither a Knight nor overly noble. Also by the 15th century noncombatant judges (these judges may have been knights Barons etc but they did not participate) were the norm if we are to believe King Rene who seems to be the expert on the subject.

Your second supposition is...

and there are also a few examples in period of hand drawn missiles defeating men in cote armor (not hitting the armor but hitting the wearer). but that does not enforce the norm as it were.

Hmm, I don't recall stating that women judging tourneys was the norm, in fact if you read my post you would see I gave a great many examples of how a 14th century Tourney was decided and if I am not mistaken I said that the ranking Noble present or spectators (judges) generally decided the outcome and I also stated in certain cases the combatants determined the winner. In fact there was no set criteria of who did the judging until the rules were formalized during the 15th century by notables such as King Rene and Lord Tiptoft. Also to clarify I do not mean to suggest that those people assigned to adjudging the tourneys were not Nobles or their associates. In fact Tiptoft's rules are quite simple and provide an excellent framework for judges http://home.stny.rr.com/rosensoldat/St_Michael/tiptoft.htm

Do you wish me to show that females judging a tourney is not a isolated incident? How many example do you need one, three, twenty, or would you first be willing to give us some inkling of where your assumptions are derived from. For example primary sources or even the judgment of secondary historians of note would possibly suffice. I would like to see fact rather than opinion if this is an academic debate your opinion is great but as they say opinions are like ....


I found the first example off the top of my head lets see what other examples of Ladies judging tourneys come to mind.

"The same ceremonies were to take place on the Monday, and the sixty knights to be prepared for tilting courteously with blunted lances against all corners. The prize for the best knight of the opponents was to be a rich crown, of gold, that for the tenants of the lists a very rich golden clasp: they were to be given to the most gallant tilter, according to the judgment of the ladies, who would be present with the queen of England and the great barons as spectators"

Another tourney in the chronicles of Froissart. I use him as his text is so readily available to anyone and he gives an excellent overview of the mid to Late 14th century. BTW this is the grand tourney in London the first mention of Lady judges is at the marriage of Queen Isabella.


Announcement of a tourney from 1390 indicating the Ladies are awarding the prize. Interesting to note the Knight gave the lady who danced best a prize as well.
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/chroniqu/cry1390.htm

I guess I could find some more but I think my point is getting across about primary documentation.

I am not trying to join the "He-man Logan Haters' Club." I agree with much of Duke Logan has said. There is just one small point I would like to make.

dukelogan wrote:why the hell is that so bad? if it wasnt what we fight for then why do we keep score? i can tell you why. it is simply because my opponent is an honorable, courageous, well intent, educated, and determined competitor. i am too. and we are competing to see who has more skill at the time we try our contest. nothing more.

honestly i dont understand why the concept is so hard for people to understand. it is about who wins because everything else is expected.

logan

Most of the Tourney are just straight-up "who is the best fighter that day" events. That is good and nothing wrong with that. I also feel that sometimes having something different or judges to award the "Most Chivalrous" is ok too. Having a "Most Chivalrous" winner sometimes may give some people who are good fighters and do well in Tourneys but have never won one, a chance to win one for once. There is nothing wrong with that and does not take anything away from those who win normal or regular (I can't think of better words) Tourneys.

I think the Dream of Chivalry we are trying to recreate is more then just "individual courage, effort, and display of prowess." I know I can't describe it at all. It is sort of a "Camelot" dream where Might is not always Right. So, have Tourneys where the best fighter that day wins. But also do some different things so that the same "hot sticks" don't win every time.

Just my two cents.

"I love you, Man"

I have been extremely civil to you for some time now. In fact I apologized for some of the harsh things that were said and I have recieved nothing in return from you nor do I expect anything from you but civility. I dont like you, lots of people dont like you, lots of people don't like me. Get over it and act in a civil manner. My personal dislike of you has nothing to do with this post if that was true I would be posting about you in forums all the time. This post has to do with correcting historic inacuracies. Let me address a few things.

1. You haven't made any point. This has turned into a discussion about history not how SCA does things. I provided historic examples for something you said never happened or were statistical anomalies.

2. Your not a target. I have not resorted to personal attacks. You however have no response to my arguement and belittle yourself with smear tactics.

3. If by Count Rhys you mean Brian Price I have met the man once and sat in on his civalry roundtable at Pennsic but I don't remember ever discussing women or tourneys with him. There were in fact members of this board there the day I met him. I think you are having some problem connecting me to things I havent done. Not surprising.

4. I don't care if History and SCA are in bed with each other. It's not the point. No where in my posts have I mentioned SCA. Your post directly said in the middle ages tourneys were not done in a certain way. I said yes they were and provided examples.

Why don't you pick another target. You and I should be able to disagree n a civil manner. I have done my best to do this. Does that mean I have to love you, thats not going to happen. I can be civil to you and discuss topics without having to resort to attacking your character to make my point, can you do that.

oh i agree that a twist now and then is fun (well, the non nipple variety that is )

but my question is how do you judge someone as the "most chivalrous"? and do you actually mean most "chivalric" or the incorrect modern usage as most "courteous"? that is where i have always had an issue. most inspiring is a much better twist and can easily be placed on the new guy who is trying his best despite his lack of skill and experience. or the guy who really dressed up his kit over the junk he has been wearing.

anyone want to tackle the defining of "most chivalrous" in an sca tourney?

regards
logan

EricvonWald wrote:I am not trying to join the "He-man Logan Haters' Club." I agree with much of Duke Logan has said. There is just one small point I would like to make.

dukelogan wrote:why the hell is that so bad? if it wasnt what we fight for then why do we keep score? i can tell you why. it is simply because my opponent is an honorable, courageous, well intent, educated, and determined competitor. i am too. and we are competing to see who has more skill at the time we try our contest. nothing more.

honestly i dont understand why the concept is so hard for people to understand. it is about who wins because everything else is expected.

logan

Most of the Tourney are just straight-up "who is the best fighter that day" events. That is good and nothing wrong with that. I also feel that sometimes having something different or judges to award the "Most Chivalrous" is ok too. Having a "Most Chivalrous" winner sometimes may give some people who are good fighters and do well in Tourneys but have never won one, a chance to win one for once. There is nothing wrong with that and does not take anything away from those who win normal or regular (I can't think of better words) Tourneys.

I think the Dream of Chivalry we are trying to recreate is more then just "individual courage, effort, and display of prowess." I know I can't describe it at all. It is sort of a "Camelot" dream where Might is not always Right. So, have Tourneys where the best fighter that day wins. But also do some different things so that the same "hot sticks" don't win every time.

Just my two cents.

"I love you, Man"

I didn't realize that rapier was only running one list...a little more room would have been nice.

Actually, Bryce, I did get off of Royal Duty long enough to watch the rapier, and I can tell you that from what I saw, they continually ran two lists, and on a couple of occasions, three. That made for a very crowded list, and there were occasions of fighters bumping into each other from separate bouts. It severely hampered the mobility that rapier fighters are used to having, and nearly turned it into a strip-fencing match.

We too had similar problems with the flooring (may the staff of the event be blessed for their efforts). The floor was slick and not conducive for any type of footwork; anyone lunging ran the risk of a torn groin muscle We too had similar problems going to our knees, in that there was nothing to pad the floor from our kneecaps. Rest assured, nobody of any fighting discipline had a cakewalk that day.

(edited cuz I kan't spayell)

dukelogan wrote:...anyone want to tackle the defining of "most chivalrous" in an sca tourney?

No!

I'm not willing to try to define, in advance, what is or is not a chivalrous act. The nuances and subtleties of how a deed is done are at least as important as what is done.

I am ready to tackle "How to select worthy judges for a judged list."
1. At least one person well versed in the practice of arms in the SCA, and none entirely ignorant, so that cheap shots, luck, or thick skin are not mistaken for prowess.
2. At least one person well versed in the history of armoured combat in medieval Europe, and none entirely ignorant, so that glitzy armour is not mistaken for authenticity in presentation, or for franchise.
3. At least one person well versed in the historic literature of chivalry, and none entirely ignorant, so that boastful speech is not mistaken for courage and foolish gestures are not mistaken for courtesy or nobility.

While I cannot pre-define the actions that would be "most chivalrous", I am willing to submit my own conduct on the field to the judgement of such a panel.

I don't mind "Ladies' Choice" tournaments. I just want them to really think about their choice. Many times I have seen the prize go to the guy who died most recently in a flamboyant manor, or who had the nicest shoes. The feeling that I often get is that the choice is made lightly, and I think it is worthy of some deeper thought.

Hmm. Maybe I should write some guidelines to help them out.

As for bad tourneys, I can fight happily in most types of tourneys and scenarios. However, I can't abide long conversations between the two combatants while everyone is watching and the other fighters are waiting in the wings for their chance. Be courteous, is fine, but please don't debate every glancing blow. A simple "no," or "light" is enough, and then get back to the fighting.

My first rule of tourney design is that boredom is a sin. I try to set them up so that there is very little waiting. I've been told that Avalon's 30 minute tournaments can be as exhausting as some wars.

BdeB wrote:What was the worst tourney that you ever fought in i.e. where you had the worst time? (Be it style, rules, weather, etc.)

I belonged to a group who held an event in a public park in Riverside CA, where on the same day there was held a "Christian Rap Festival".

Trust me when I tell you that you lose all sense of what you are doing while you are being assaulted by this.

I did get a good laugh when one of the rappers went on stage and started with "This is for Got (God, but pronounced GOT)y'all, this is for my momma.... Motherfu@%er say what?..." and then it went downhill from there... I almost peed myself in my armor.

baronalejandro wrote:

Actually, Bryce, I did get off of Royal Duty long enough to watch the rapier, and I can tell you that from what I saw, they continually ran two lists, and on a couple of occasions, three. That made for a very crowded list, and there were occasions of fighters bumping into each other from separate bouts. It severely hampered the mobility that rapier fighters are used to having, and nearly turned it into a strip-fencing match.
(edited cuz I kan't spayell)

Alajandro,

Good! I'm glad that you cleared that up. I walked over to talk to Christian and get water a couple of times and I noticed at least two running lists. but I didn't want to controdict the poster here that said there was only one at a time.

Thank you for the clarification.
Byram

Edward de la Pole wrote:I did get a good laugh when one of the rappers went on stage and started with "This is for Got (God, but pronounced GOT)y'all, this is for my momma.... Motherfu@%er say what?..." and then it went downhill from there... I almost peed myself in my armor.

Heh.

Maybe he was German....

Working the Celtic Festival had a similar effect two years ago when a "Celtic" band was blaring covers of Billy Joel and Hobastank next to our list field.

I don't think that the rules, nor the manner in which we "re-enact" medieval combat allow for us to have a "Most Chivalrous" combattant. The way that we fight on the field (or whatever) is defined by the rules as "chivalrous combat." It simply is chivalrous. You cannot then be most or more, unless someone else is UNchivalrous. This is like something being sort of unique- it cannot be- it is either unique or not (you are either knocked up or you ain't there ain't degrees of being preggers).

I think that you could say someone performed what appeared to be more chivalrous acts on the field than someone else, but that does not make that person more chivalrous, it means that they had a good day.

Unfortunately, because fights are over in the SCA so fast- or because we use stupid rules like acting out wounds- the opportunities for us to be chivalrouis in a period manner on the field are almost negligible, and we have to add in artificial instances of "chivalric acts" to make the whole thing appear kosher.

The other problem with "Most Chivalrous" at SCA tournaments is that someone can be a complete ASS but still be "Most Chivalrous" because they do stupid crap like give up their shield if they take someone's arm, or go down on their knees when they take someone's legs. When someone breaks their sword or chin strap or something, and their opponent let's them fix their gear so they can come back out instead of forfeiting the fight, that is chivalrous.

Alaric

DukeAlaric wrote:I don't think that the rules, nor the manner in which we "re-enact" medieval combat allow for us to have a "Most Chivalrous" combattant.

Semantic arguments aside, there are certainly opportunities to show good or bad behavior and yes, some are more chivalrous than others. The problem comes from differing definitions of "chivalry". Do you mean "acting in the manner befetting the cavalry(nobility)." or do you mean some Victorian ideal or something else entirely that reflects modern ideals of sportsmanship and grace. I think there is room for all three in our society. The problem comes when people get confused over which they are discussing.

Sportsmanship is something that comes under the medieval, Victorian, and modern senses of the word. Nobility have been expected to participate in sport and to reflect supperior character in the way they do it.

To that end, "The surest act of chivalry is just to call your blows." as the song says.

Next to that is not letting your opponent fall victim to a blow that you know wasn't good because he is giving you the benefit of the doubt or because it was flat or his own shield hit him or whatever...

Being polite helps too.

A good sense of competition helps.

Franchise is a chivalric virtue too, and to me that means not dressing like a homeless person.

We could go on and on but clearly there are distinct opportunities for your attitude and character to be revealed in our combats. Even the short ones.

Did I mention the importance of calling blows? That one means a lot to me.

I would post here a point I thought was important -

Yes, courtesy is not the end-all-be-all of chivalry. I think we can all agree on that. However, it IS the most easily forgotten, especially in the heat of combat. Perhaps that is why it is the virtue esteemed most highly by the ladies of the gallery?

When I am called upon to be a part of a gallery of ladies charged with determining the "most chivalrous" fighter, I don't look simply for the politest guy there. Heck, that might be the marshal! I look mostly at how the fighters behave - not only with each other, but with the waterbearers, the gallery, the marshals, etc. Maelgwyn said it best: " The nuances and subtleties of how a deed is done are at least as important as what is done." That pretty much sums it up right there.

Gwyneth

[quote="Gaston de Vieuxchamps"]
To that end, "The surest act of chivalry is just to call your blows." as the song says.
[quote]


What song is that, Your Grace?

. it is a sport that sits on its own platform with but a handful of peers (of fighting there are groups like acre, tuchux, agelessly, etc that do the same sort of stuff)

If you meant Anglesey, then thanks for the nod Logan.

hope that makes the point more clear. and, for the record, i do wish the sca was more based on reality. but again to do that it would have to narrow its focus greatly and enforce its current rules. i dont know that it should do the former and i know it fails miserably at the latter. so until then i see and support it as a social club based on the entirety of the middle ages that has some rules but little spine. i got into the sca for the fighting and branched out from there. the fighting still remains the best part of it to me although i am very glad to have learned and experienced everything i did.

That about sums up how I feel about my 12+ years as an SCA Heavy Squire. Well spaketh. Although I might have said "very grateful for the opportunity" instead of merely glad. I have a lot of awesome movie-epic-style melee combat memories of the "no-shite there I was" variety! I (still) love SCA Wars!!!

Oh. As for the topic at-hand, I would have to say that my worst SCA tourney was my very first one. In the year of my novitiate (Novice Tourney 1988), I was duly informed by members of the Chivalry of Atlantia, at the practice I attended (Strykgar's, at the Fairfax police station) that I would not be allowed to participate, even though I had been authorized for less than a year, that my years of fighting experience in Markland and Dagorhir made me a "ringer" (presumed automatic winner) and so I was not allowed to participate in an activity that some say can help define the tenor of your SCA fighting career.

More simply put, my worst SCA tourney is the one I was not allowed to participate in.

Small wonder that I never took a huge interest in one-on-one fighting after that, and chose instead to focus on melee and combat command skills, which in our Kingdom (Atlantia), is not really revered for the separate, equal and distinct discipline/science that it is. With all due respect of course...

Gaston,

I was pretty much taking everything that you had said as "givens."

I really think that we are thinking along the same lines. My difficulties with the whole prospect come in when we start having cross cultural differences as to what is chivalrous/courteous or not. They are furthered by the fact that what some people might deem unchivalrous/ uncourteous, someone else has no issue with.

For example, when I won my last crown, I armed and legged my opponent in the finals. After I stayed at range and killed him fairly, a large and vocal group of peers in Caid told me (and anyone else who would listen) that I was unchivalrous, and portrayed a terrible example of how a knight and peer should act on the field. To this end they handed me a petition that asked that I not accept my ducal coronet as a sign of my agreeing with them that I was unchivalrous, and essentially dishonorable in combat. Further, because I had attained the Corwn in this horrible fashion, I should make a speech or something similar saying that I apologized for having such a terrible fight, etc etc, and I was a bad example to up and coming fighters.

Did I even consider that I had done something wrong or unchivalrous? Where I had grown up in the East and Atlantia, this was considered normal combat, and well within the bounds of chivalrous conduct on the field. Yet in Caid they saw it otherwise. This >crap< was something that haunted the entire reign, to the point that my last Crown Tourney ended up being the worst tourney that I have ever fought in.

Alaric

BdeB wrote:What song is that, Your Grace?

The only filk song that Master Morric ever wrote.

"Ghost Rhinos in the Sky." to the tune of "Ghost riders"

This is the same Morric that wrote the famous "Belt and Chain"

The song is very cool but it names names, which can get a little tricky in some crowds but Morric is a champion of the idea that the ONLY tool we have to deal with cheaters is shunning and isolation.

From the third verse:
"The wraith who stood before me was a marshal I could tell.
He said, 'You see before you son a special place in hell.
for those who sell their honor just to win another bout
and as they fought on, I could hear their rhino shout...

(chorus)A glancing blow.
It was too light.
Ghost rhinos in
the sky.

Vladimir wrote:The whole "holy floor, don't degrade it" thing was too convoluted. A simple "we can't take a knee in here, so if you get legged you can't move" should have sufficed.

The way I heard it though was that His Majesty wanted to fight indoors. I just wished Colin had planned it out a little better.

Don't blame that crap on me, I fought tooth and nail against those rules and was the junior marshal on the field that day. Let be just go ahead and hang Edwin and Fritz out to dry for that nightmare. If I could come up with a couple more excuses I would because that tourney sucked!

And Logan, your guys really did do well that day. I thought the choosing fighters from different teams for the prize was kind of odd too (being that it was a 3 man team event) but I was asked for my "vote" and there it was. I'm also not sure that they were the ONLY undefeated team as we never finished all the rounds (too many rules and too late a start).

Colin

Maelgwyn wrote:I'm not willing to try to define, in advance, what is or is not a chivalrous act. The nuances and subtleties of how a deed is done are at least as important as what is done.

I am ready to tackle "How to select worthy judges for a judged list."
1. At least one person well versed in the practice of arms in the SCA, and none entirely ignorant, so that cheap shots, luck, or thick skin are not mistaken for prowess.
2. At least one person well versed in the history of armoured combat in medieval Europe, and none entirely ignorant, so that glitzy armour is not mistaken for authenticity in presentation, or for franchise.
3. At least one person well versed in the historic literature of chivalry, and none entirely ignorant, so that boastful speech is not mistaken for courage and foolish gestures are not mistaken for courtesy or nobility.

While I cannot pre-define the actions that would be "most chivalrous", I am willing to submit my own conduct on the field to the judgement of such a panel.

I really like this idea above. Makes sense in truth. Does anyone know of a tournament run with such a 3 judge panel and have it played out?

Colin

BdeB wrote:[
Alajandro,

Good! I'm glad that you cleared that up. I walked over to talk to Christian and get water a couple of times and I noticed at least two running lists. but I didn't want to controdict the poster here that said there was only one at a time.

Thank you for the clarification.
Byram

That would have been me. Sorry, I didn't watch the fencing, and the only times I looked over there I only saw one list.

My mistake, serves me right for posting with incomplete information.

thanks for the encouragment colin. my guys always do well and make me proud. hell, sometimes they even win a few. i watched the video that was provided for me and i thought they did ok. some very simple mistakes were made and they lost some feild control in a few fights. the whole not being able to move if you got legged caused some issues as well since they are taught to bring the fight the whole time.

im just glad that the toads that thought they didnt have a chance because i wasnt there got a chance to feel stupid. not sure why me being there would rob my guys of the credit they have earned but it worked out well that way.

regards
logan

ColinG wrote:

Vladimir wrote:The whole "holy floor, don't degrade it" thing was too convoluted. A simple "we can't take a knee in here, so if you get legged you can't move" should have sufficed.

The way I heard it though was that His Majesty wanted to fight indoors. I just wished Colin had planned it out a little better.

Don't blame that crap on me, I fought tooth and nail against those rules and was the junior marshal on the field that day. Let be just go ahead and hang Edwin and Fritz out to dry for that nightmare. If I could come up with a couple more excuses I would because that tourney sucked!

And Logan, your guys really did do well that day. I thought the choosing fighters from different teams for the prize was kind of odd too (being that it was a 3 man team event) but I was asked for my "vote" and there it was. I'm also not sure that they were the ONLY undefeated team as we never finished all the rounds (too many rules and too late a start).

Colin

i sure did trystan and im sorry i butchered the name. i also read your story about the novice list and you being restricted due to your previous experiences and im not sure how i feel about that. i have marshaled a novice list in which i forbade a knight from entering even though he just authorized in two weapon for the first time.

regards
logan

trystan wrote:

. it is a sport that sits on its own platform with but a handful of peers (of fighting there are groups like acre, tuchux, agelessly, etc that do the same sort of stuff)

If you meant Anglesey, then thanks for the nod Logan.

hope that makes the point more clear. and, for the record, i do wish the sca was more based on reality. but again to do that it would have to narrow its focus greatly and enforce its current rules. i dont know that it should do the former and i know it fails miserably at the latter. so until then i see and support it as a social club based on the entirety of the middle ages that has some rules but little spine. i got into the sca for the fighting and branched out from there. the fighting still remains the best part of it to me although i am very glad to have learned and experienced everything i did.

That about sums up how I feel about my 12+ years as an SCA Heavy Squire. Well spaketh. Although I might have said "very grateful for the opportunity" instead of merely glad. I have a lot of awesome movie-epic-style melee combat memories of the "no-shite there I was" variety! I (still) love SCA Wars!!!