If we were the SCA, what would the fighting system be? Who would be in charge? Etc....
I know that quite a few of us are against knee fighting, plastic, etc....but I don't think the SCA in general is reflected in the AA.
Yep, I'm trolling.
-Aaron
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Ron Broberg wrote: For someone who came into this cold and old and full of doubts, that's just half-bad!![]()
Suzerain wrote:well, if I were in charge....
the SCA would have about 10 members as the rest fled in horror, so it's probably a good thing for the lot of you I'm not SCA...
but... there would likely be about 1/10th of the rules currently in place, using rebated steel weapons instead of rattan, and with an anally retantive history fascism observing that soft and hard kit be as acurate as possible, and emphasising the proper use of western martial arts tradition, through i.33, Fiore, lichtenaur's school and his descendants (thalhofer, ringeck, etc) and into Meyer, Marozzo, Capo Fero, etc, etc.
none of these wrap shots damnit, I would be expecting to see use of full grappling, and secondary weapons. Ballock dagger in the 'nads as they go down? oh yes.
those recreating 16th century fence, or using longsword techniques with an emphasis on the thrust would be the one exception to the accuracy of equipment, as I'll grudgingly accept that a meshed exchange visor for safety is a concession to sanity on an otherwise open-faced burgeonet or cabbaset... that however does'nt apply to earlier period open helms used in predominantly cut-based combat... if you want to wear a norman nasal, learn to protect the face...
I would also open out the combat to include longsword, polearm etc, for unarmoured combat.
Oh, and visible plastic, all non-period metals (aluminium/ti/etc), pop rivets, and morions would be banned on personal grounds of taste, or a lack thereof of anyone who has them...
are'nt you glad I'm not SCA, reading that?
Kilkenny wrote:
What makes you think there aren't SCA people who agree with you ?
However, I would ask you the same thing I ask themWhy would you want to change the SCA into something it was never meant to be, rather than going to one of the groups already doing what you want ?
Suzerain wrote:Kilkenny wrote:
What makes you think there aren't SCA people who agree with you ?
However, I would ask you the same thing I ask themWhy would you want to change the SCA into something it was never meant to be, rather than going to one of the groups already doing what you want ?
apologies, I suspect a little bit of sacasm in my post was lost over the internet - a hope it was not seen as a attack on the SCA's core values, and if it was, I firmly retract the comments taken as such.
I certainly dont doubt there's a good few who are into the same approach of steel/WMA as I am - there's always a few people who've had common sense knocked out of them,after all. However, I know its a very different approach to the overall scope of the SCA, which, to my point of view is closer to a sport, in that respect. (let me emphasise - there is no "right" way in my opinion. all approaches have their merits)
likewise, to answer your second question, I would not want to change the SCA, as it's a perfectly valid take on the entire subject of western martial arts. it's just not for me - hence my "a good thing for the lot of you I'm not in the SCA" comment. (if "the lot of you" came across as derogatory of SCA as a group, can I please emphasise, that it was not intended as such.)
We are all here because in one way or another, we love history - the fascination with the arts of combat, the depths of sciences, the culture of those periods of the past. We can celebrate that shared interest, while at the same time appreciating - and sometimes laughing at, or with - those whose approach is different.
My comment was to the question "If we were the SCA, what would the fighting system be", and my reply was, in summary "It would'nt be the SCA if I were to get my grubby mitts on it - are'nt you glad I'm not mucking up the society?". Quite simply, it is the diversity of our interests which allows cross-pollination of ideas, developments; technical and academic, and social networking among all groups - the exact reason I've joined this forum, as I learn the collected wisdom of those members whose advice I value.
Hope that's cleared it up without confusion.
Thorvaldr Skegglauss wrote:Suzerain wrote:Kilkenny wrote:
What makes you think there aren't SCA people who agree with you ?
However, I would ask you the same thing I ask themWhy would you want to change the SCA into something it was never meant to be, rather than going to one of the groups already doing what you want ?
apologies, I suspect a little bit of sacasm in my post was lost over the internet - a hope it was not seen as a attack on the SCA's core values, and if it was, I firmly retract the comments taken as such.
I certainly dont doubt there's a good few who are into the same approach of steel/WMA as I am - there's always a few people who've had common sense knocked out of them,after all. However, I know its a very different approach to the overall scope of the SCA, which, to my point of view is closer to a sport, in that respect. (let me emphasise - there is no "right" way in my opinion. all approaches have their merits)
likewise, to answer your second question, I would not want to change the SCA, as it's a perfectly valid take on the entire subject of western martial arts. it's just not for me - hence my "a good thing for the lot of you I'm not in the SCA" comment. (if "the lot of you" came across as derogatory of SCA as a group, can I please emphasise, that it was not intended as such.)
We are all here because in one way or another, we love history - the fascination with the arts of combat, the depths of sciences, the culture of those periods of the past. We can celebrate that shared interest, while at the same time appreciating - and sometimes laughing at, or with - those whose approach is different.
My comment was to the question "If we were the SCA, what would the fighting system be", and my reply was, in summary "It would'nt be the SCA if I were to get my grubby mitts on it - are'nt you glad I'm not mucking up the society?". Quite simply, it is the diversity of our interests which allows cross-pollination of ideas, developments; technical and academic, and social networking among all groups - the exact reason I've joined this forum, as I learn the collected wisdom of those members whose advice I value.
Hope that's cleared it up without confusion.
Thank you for the most polite post I have ever read in regards to an understanding of the differences but not superiority of any one group over another. I understand you don't "do" SCA but if we were to ever meet somewhere (since I live in Europe) I owe you a pint of whatever your having.
regards
Thorvaldr
Alex Baird wrote:Valstarr Hawkwind wrote:Sir,
I hardly think the ability to urinate a 3/4" wide piece of copper has anything to do with this thread.
You mean this isn't about pissing contests?
mordreth wrote:AriAnson wrote:Everyone could pean a rivet...nobody could embroider a hanky.
Don't bet the rent check on that - I own a copy of Rosie Greers embroidery book for men
Isabella E wrote:Is the peeing about distance or volume?
audax wrote:Isabella E wrote:Is the peeing about distance or volume?
We'll have to run it by the BoD and see if we need to add padding or an elbow cop behind the urethra.