A. E. M. M. A.

[Steve S.]

Vitus:

"If people like you, Bascot and SOFC are no longer interested inthe style of tournament combat that the SCA is doing- fine. Go do a different type of tournament."

Hey, don't throw me into that crowd. I love SCA combat! I think it is one of the only true combat sports available on the planet today! It is real combat. I think it's a lot of fun to do and watch.

My only problem is with people who draw too many parallels between SCA combat and medieval combat - tournament or otherwise. Logic tells me that SCA combat conventions are a series of rules and techniques that have risen out of modern concerns since 1969. Yes there are similarities to medieval combat, and some of the concerns of the medieval combat field are also the concerns of the SCA combat field. But there are also differences.

My experience, limited as it is, confirms this. Case in point: many SCA tournamnet fights do not look at all like two men fighting (unlike, say, boxing). Rather it looks like two Wild West gunfighters, each waiting (sometimes not even moving!) for the other to make some small movement before they "fire" thier shot.

And that's the point of this whole arguement. SCA combat is a <u>modern combat style</u>. Too many people get their noses out of joint when people point that out. Too many people seem to think that SCA combat is just the pinacle of medieval combat reenacting. It isn't. GET THIS - it doesn't matter to me in the slightest - I still think SCA combat rocks and it's about the best you can do and still have a full contact fighting event.

I'm no expert in medieval combat (tournament or otherwise) but I doubt this was how medieval fights (tournament or otherwise) happened.

Finally. I like you a lot Vitus. I think you are a pillar of the SCA. I think your voice in this dicussion carries a lot of weight, even more than mine, because you fight - you actually do this stuff, and I rarely do any more (I'm no good at it). But I think it's the height of arrogance to basically say, especially in a discussion forum where people are supposed to discuss the "Re-enactment of Medieval Armed Combat", to say "If you don't like it, lump it", as you did. What happened to frank discussion?

Steve

[Steve S.]

"Still have a question?"

Yes. I see a lot of people getting their noses tweaked when their illusions of SCA combat conventions being medieval are shown to be incorrect, but that doesn't constitute arrogance in my book.

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

[Robert Clark Carruth]

Sorry, what I see here is the SCA folks being protectionist and the only group that I have any involvement with is the SCA.

I think on one side you have those arguing that SCA combat does have some value but alone, it simply would not serve to effectively prepare someone for real medieval combat against a qualified opponent. On the other side you have those who take even this as a knock at the SCA. Brennus jumped in to change the point of the argument. I think everyone was clearly arguing about a qualified medieval opponent and not an untrained farmer. Then, he got all in a huff, after he was rude! He told Chef earlier he doesn't know what he's smoking! If that's not a condescending derisive comment regarding someone else's opinion then I don't know what is.

Chef's last post did not contain any arrogance or derision that I could see. It was a concise logical statement of his position.

But I have Brennus telling me that an SCA fighter can instantly and effectively drop years of ingrained habit in order to change his fighting style and on the other Vitus defending SCA SWORD technique and then saying that the fighters could pick up a MACE and be effective. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM BEING POINTED OUT. THE SCA CALLS THEM SWORDS! But for many of the techniques to be effective, the practitioner would have to use a mace. The very first time I watched SCA combat I knew that many of the strikes would not work with a sword. Many popular strikes come in at an angle that would simply glance off when your striking surface is literally a sharp edge. It's as if ANY non-positive opinion of the SCA can not be tolerated. I do not have a negative opinion of the SCA. I love SCA combat. I just think that SCA training alone does not prepare one well for actual medieval combat. Is it better than no training? Yes. But by itself it leaves out too many important aspects which I pointed out and which were ignored in rebuttals to my post.

Robert's argument: SCA leaves out cavalry, representative levels of archers and siege engines, ACTUAL death and maiming, lower leg and hand targets, grappling, destructible weapons shields and armor, opponents who require multiple hits to kill. Sword techniques taugh would often not work with a real sword. Therefore, if one is pursuing a knowledge of authentic medieval combat, additional methods must be pursued where possible to fill in these gaps in necessary knowledge.

Robert

[This message has been edited by Robert de Carruthers (edited 12-20-2001).]

[Hushgirl]

Sorry, I was reading arrogance on both side of that exchange. Seems to me this whole discussion is a little like arguing over who is the one true Elvis impersonator. While an EI with his own sideburns who can actually sing may be techically proficient, another with glue-on hair and a suit made out of a couch may be more in keeping with the spirit of Elvis, and might even be more fun. Apple and oranges. Connery, Brosnan or Moore. Question is, is this a Deadly Serious Discipline or a Fun Hobby? Choose--and accept that others will choose differently.

[Robert Clark Carruth]

Hush:
Elvis is, of course. He's alive and making a killing impersonating himself.

That wasn't and isn't the question actually. We were having a discussion about the extent of SCA combat's effectiveness in medieval combat training. It's just a hobby for me but I don't see why we can't discuss its validity as a training tool for authentic western medieval martial arts.

And Brennus, I do think it has value in many areas which I specified. I just don't think that by itself it has enough value if the standard of being abled to compete with a hypothetical qualified medieval opponent is applied. That's where we can agree to disagree.

Robert

[Steve S.]

I have to agree with Robert that this discussion is really fragmenting about what we are actually comparing.

On one hand we have SCA Tournament combat, on another SCA melee combat, on another we have medieval tournament combat, on another we have medieval melee combat, on another we have melee by raised levies of farmers, on another we have raised levies of professional fighters. And on another we have medieval masters who wrote some books.

I think a lot of the sparring here is happening because people are intentionally and unintentionally comparing apples to oranges.

After pondering this discussion over my yummy lunch (leftover burgers from the grill last night) I have to say that I think Vitus is coming from the point of view that SCA Tournament Combat is a lot like Medieval Tournament Combat. At least from the perspective that they both fight with weapons other than real swords, they both wear similar armour, and they both fight with a set of rules that make the combat different from "real" combat.

In that regard, I'm willing to say that SCA tournament combat is a reasonable modern attempt at medieval tournament combat.

I'm still not convinced that the best SCA Pas de Arms is a "living history" grade version of a period Pas de Arms, but I admit I don't really know enough about period combat (tournament or otherwise) to say for certain.

It's just that in my mind most medival combat, tournament or otherwise was basically a contest to physically dominate your opponent. In a lot of SCA tournaments the "victor" quite often has not demonstrated physical domination. Rather they have shown that they have a quick eye and quick sword so that they could ping their opponent's bar grill, for example.

Again, I'm no expert on medieval combat, but from my readings and such my impression is still that even in the most artificial tournament environment the combatants were not screwing around. Especially since even if your life was not at stake, often your livelyhood was (lose your horse, your armour, other posessions, or your chance at getting a job with some noble as a fighter for him)!

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that I still think SCA combat is cool as shit. And people that do it and excell are fantastic martial artists (and that is an area where I do have some expertise). SCA combat, for whatever else it is, is an extremely demanding martial art. And unlike some of the other awards that sometimes get handed out, generally speaking, the white belt means something in a big way. Chivalry and all the other stuff aside, you can be fairly certain that the wearer is one good martial artist - they know their shit.

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

[chef de chambre]

Hi Brennus,

I will apologise for the 'tone' of the first paragraph of my refutation of your point. If you have a BA, then you have read a book or two. Please note the 'tone' of what I am writing is intended to be level, not 'snide and condenscending'. In any case, I have refrained from the open insults and ad-homenum attacks that have characterised your posts regarding me, and still do.

Nevertheless, your posession of a degree in Archaeology, or working towards an MA does not give you an innate knowledge of the subject. What is your MA in, might I ask? You also assume I am uneducated, but I have trained as a historian (U-Mass, Lowell, 1990 - 1994), and at the moment I am working on several papers to be published touching the specific subject. I am an amature, as I do not get paid in the profession, but I am familiar with some inside it, who have more degrees and brains than you and I put together, and they respect my opinion on subjects in my own, little, amature baliwick. You made, and continue to make such wide, sweeping statements about the whole of the "middle ages", and Europe, that I made the assumtion that you were the novice (as this is what "entry level scholars" most often do - make wide, sweeping statements regarding subjects without providing documentation), which was perhaps foolish of me. That is why I made specific references to times and places.

If you have studied the subject as you have claimed, then you should be aware the first standing army in Europe is the Ordonnance companies of Charles VII of France, dating to the 1440's. The Ordonnance companies of the Dukes of Burgundy date to July, 1471, and remained in existance in some form until the 1690's.

If you have also studied the subject in depth, you will have noted that the late 13th through the 14th centuries spelled the death of the arri-ban, which even in France, the only heavy user of it throughout the 14th century, was used primarily to raise labour and cartage - not soldiers. The Militia of the Flemish towns that defied the chivalry of France at Courtrai were not a peasant arri-ban, they were well equipped and drilled milita, which came to pass from the circumstances I briefly skirted in my post objective to you. In the city hall at Ghent, there are sculptural references as to how these men were equipped. I mention the towns, because they had the economic drive and will to create the equipment essential to the specialized soldier, it is in the towns you find the technology to make arblasts, to found cannon, and to wright handgonnes. In England, Edward I was the English monarch who did much to commute the feudal dues of his subjects,and accept scutage to replace unreliable subjects with paid, professional mounted men at arms. A reader on the subject will note that armies are orgainsed in lances - be they reraders of secondary documentation, or primary documentation. What is the core element of the lance?

The 14th century in Northern Europe saw the first serious reversal of the man-at-arms - nearly his death as a battlefield element of any signifigance, due to challenges from orgainised units of disciplined infantry - again, primarily supplied with manpower from, and technology derived in - towns. The English longbowman proving an exception to the general rule of thumb. Due to technalogical advances in metalurgy and armour crafting, there was a brief (not, brief) revival of the importance of the Man-at-arms, or Gendarme, but relegated to a secondary, supporting role, much on the order of the tank in a modern army.

Heaven forfend I deify the capabilities of the Man-at-arms. He was a well trained soldier - more of a warrior than a properly disciplined soldier in most instances. That said, I still stand by the statements I made regarding his socialization. The problem with your comparison of violence for sport and entertainment then, and the movie, television, and video game industry now is that the Medieval violence was real. Animals and men died, in very close range confrontation. People actually drove spears or knives into their prey, or watched (and smelled) a man hanged, or a bear torn to pieces by dogs - as socially acceptable forms of entertainment. In comparison, modern violence is 'sanitized', and is a fantasy element of most peoples lives. People watchig and participating in such activities know them to be a fantasy, and would likely not participate if the violence and danger were real. It occurs in electonic games and movies, but when it occurs in reality, society demands that it be stopped, and the people responsible for it be punished. Our society does not condone actual violence as a personal expression, or a daily reality. Butcher a cow in the front yard of a suburban neighborhood, or torment a cat or dog to death publicly, and see what happens to you, how society (rightfully, I believe) will judge you.

Regarding the capabilities of the Medieval man at arms vs. the SCA knight. For most SCA knights, this is a weekend activity, with perhaps a couple of hours practise a week. Most come into the SCA in their late teens or early twenties. It is not their full time occupation, and they do not face the potential of death in participating. They have normal 40 hr a week jobs - usually sedentary. Contrast this with my definition of the man at arms (and I believe you will find it supported by most military historians, I would refer you to Malcom Vale, Phillipe Contamine, and David Nichole as scholars of the subject who would agree with my definition - can you provide me with some who do not?), who has trained to the task from childhood, who's primary form of entertainment is hunting and tourney, and who travels constantly on horseback, living a much more athletic life. I think that most people who reflect on these differences would give the advntage to the medieval man-at-arms.

If you were to argue that the modern, profesional soldier could give him an even go at it, I would say that you were correct. Those soldiers who's training is as physically demanding, and who train extensively in hand-to-hand combat could give him a run for his money, even odds as to who might win. Of course, the modern soldier would simple shoot him with his rifle. There is a psychological barrier on any non-sociopaths or those who have not trained to face death regarding the inflicting of death on fellow humans. To hesitate for the barest moment in a life-or-death confrontation with a man prepared to kill is to lose the fight and your life, and it is my supposition that the Medieval man-at-arms, just like an 'elite' soldier, or combat veteran today is prepared to kill, wheras the average modern is not. It is my understanding that modern military training is in large part designed to overcome this reluctance- not always successfully.

As for the partial bibliography of Wolfe Argent, the books listed on the site are intended to provide a reading list to the interested of obtainable, informative books on the subject, with in general sound scholarship behind them. If you would like some primary references for your own research on some 'narrow' point, feel free to drop me an e-mail, and I can provide you with some useful lists.

I have always said that "What I don't know would fill a warehouse". The more I learn about this subject, the more I realize I have yet to learn, and may possibly never be able to learn it. I am the last person who would be a self-proclaimed expert. I am just a student of my subject. It doesn't matter how many degrees you have, if you wish to gain some mastery of a subject, then the focus must be narrow. This is why I continue to research the area I do, in the humble hope that some person can take my scribbled efforts and move forward from that point, and unearth more than I ever can regarding the subject I hold dear.

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


[This message has been edited by chef de chambre (edited 12-20-2001).]

[Brennus]

I have deleted all my posts I have seen the real light. Gaston is right. There is no use me argueing this yes they are professional no their not crap anymore. You will not convince me and I will not convince you.

[This message has been edited by Brennus (edited 12-20-2001).]

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Likely, NONE of us would survive long in the wars of the Middle Ages.

All of us - SCA, AEMMA, Markland, Tuchux, etc., participate in a SPORT. Hopefully, none of you have had to take another human life. If you have, I'd wager it was at the impersonal range of a bullet or bomb.

Can you HONESTLY say you would enjoy pushing that knife through the other man's eyeslot? Or would continue to hack and bash on a prone opponent, even while he begs for mercy? Gleefully ride down people armed with modified farms implements,forced to fight or die by the liege-lords own troops? If so, I feel sorry for you.

Death was much more likely in eveyday life back then than it is now, and life much cheaper. If war did not kill you, disease would. Or you could be worked to death. Or starve. Or be killed for the cloak on your back. Most of us would NOT enjoy the privledge of nobility. We would be closer to cattle than people, and treated as such.

IMO, the SCA is trying to capture a Chivalric Ideal. A test of arms is but one way. We can be brutal, but chose not to. We can deliberately injure our opponent, but do not.

To me, SCA is closest to SUMO - beleive it or not.

Like Sumo, SCA is a martial art, whose codes of conduct, rules, and tradition is drawn from the ideals of an earlier, idealistic age.



[This message has been edited by Irish (edited 12-21-2001).]

[Aaron]

Chef,

Sometimes I just need to copy down what you say and hit the books. Nicely researched, and very polite with not even a HINT of elitism. That was a very nice olive branch you offered.

By the way, could you changed your web-site address as listed in your profile? The one listed as expired.


-Thank you,

-Aaron

[Mike Odea]

Read through most of this thread untill it DID become a pissing contest ,if you dont learn you dont advance(my ways the best way ,yours sucks )that attitude doesnt float in any bodys pond,when you dont advance and grow you become stagnant and ineffective against those that have learned something new,next time you walk on the field and a newbie gives you a hard run thruogh your usuall paces ,TIME TO WAKE UP,IM 50 Im still learning,and still holding my own ,God some of you guys sound like old ladies with your panties up a crack,every one has a point to make and every ones point is worth considering ,Ive trained with SCA,Adrian ,Haca and many others ,this has added to my knowlege and abilities,not detracted from it ,Im glad for the experiance and respect those I encountered even if I dont allways agree with thier methods,as Im sure they may disagree with me ,but respect is still there.Ok Ive vented for the evening ,go back to the BS

[Mike Odea]

WHAAAAAT ???? after 3 days and no one has a smart ass retort,maybe I had the last word ,or maybe ,just maybe someone learned something ,,,NAWWWWWW your all just too-too hungover RIGHT!!!!!!!--Merry Christmas and Happy New year dedecation and effort nuff said...

[Murdock]

Daaaaannnnnnngggggggg this thing is getting long.

(Though i'm still somewhat urked at the initial treatment we St Olaf guys got when we first contacted AEMMA)

I've read the whole thing now, even the useless bitching. It appears that some AEMMA might be a little more freiendly to talking with us SCA folks.

If thats true i'm _still_ interested in learning what they have to teach.

Do i think it'll make me invincible in SCA combat? No, do i think SCA training will help me in WMA? Not espically.

Do i think it will help me get closer to understanding what it was to be a knight in period, yes. Thats why i read their site and study the fetchbutch info listed there.

So if their willing to talk I and apparently others are willing to listen.

[mordreth]

Can I point out that a tremendous amount of venom appears on this post?
If there is only one true way to fight then everyone is wrong on some point or another. There is a great deal to be learned from period manuals, there is a great deal to be learned from sparring, there is a great deal to learn from being in a melee when you break through a SCA shield wall and get shredded by the second rank, and there is a great deal to learn from experimental archeology
For better or worse all any of us are doing is training, learning, studying, and hopefully having some fun in the process.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Fight's over- Mordreth wins.
-V

[machinegun]

As a member of Aemma, I feel I should add something.

I agree with a lot of what Bob Charron, said in his last entry. AEMMA and the SCA are two different creatures, and should learn from each other. There are many things about the SCA that I respect. For one, its ability to assemble hundreds of people on the field and have a battle. AEMMA could not do this, and maybe never will be able too. However, in many respects AEMMA does offer the closest thing to Armoured combat, that you can get.

Also AEMMA is a new group, and still very much under development. I think it should be given credit for the work that it has done, but most importantly given a chance to learn from its mistakes.

Who knows in twenty years there maybe little difference between the two groups.

I have many more points to add, but will leave them for another time.

[Russ Mitchell]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
If you have studied the subject as you have claimed, then you should be aware the first standing army in Europe is the Ordonnance companies of Charles VII of France, dating to the 1440's. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Western Europe, Chef. Sigismund's banderia predates it by thirty years, and you've dismissed the Byzantines, who, though I suspect you'd have some debates, can easily lay claim to having had standing armies.

I admit that it's a nit, but... if you're going to hold to scholarly standards, you have to put in your caveats... because it's what's unsaid but perceived that causes most of our more pointless flame wars...

You've read On Killing, I see, or been around people who have, or have seen the elephant. That book should be required reading for every fighter, of every stripe.

(There, Mr. Odea, does that nitpick qualify as a smart-assed remark?)

[This message has been edited by Russ Mitchell (edited 12-31-2001).]

[Brennus]

Russ the argument wasn't standing armies but professionalism of medieval armies and Chef and I have taken this argument off the board and onto private email. Please let this topic die...

[chef de chambre]

Hi Russ,

You are quite right of course, and that is based on my Western Eurocentricisim. The Byzantines on the other hand - well, that is extending the death date of the professional standing army rather than putting it's rebirth earlier.

It is my understanding that by the 12th century, it is either feudal or foriegn mercenary in aspect, rather than a standing army of subjects, but Byzantium might as well be the kingdom of Prester John to me, I am not well versed in it's history, and my researches hardly touch on it excepting the half-hearted mid 15th century attempts or promises from Western Europe to do something about their plight as the Turks closed in.

Actually, our argument did touch on the existance of standing armies as well, but I cannot 'document' that, as half of the dispute has been deleted.

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

[Brennus]

Chef I have most of the argument saved actually I think you mistaked something I said as meaning standing armies but from my side it was always a matter of professional armies we both know standing armies aren't always professional . Not to start this over I'll be happy to continue this on email but I havent responded to the last email you sent becuase Im in NC and until I get back to Pa and get some of my books out of storage I cant fully discuss your last email.

------------------
sic locus dignum, sic dignus placitum http://brennus.stormloader.com/interkin.html