Moving the SCA towards historical accuracy.

Jean Paul de Sens · Post by **Jean Paul de Sens** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 12:11 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
-- snip --
What I don't understand is why people who do not want authenticity post on some poor fellows thread who is looking for ways to make the Society, or their little corner of it more authentic. It is an incredibly boorish thing to do. My sympathies to Lodhur and the rest of you long sufferers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chef, don't know if you were referring specifically to me or just in general, but in his original post, Lodhur asks

What are your ideas for improving the SCA in these areas? Do you even _want_ to see the SCA become more historically accurate? Or do you prefer the 'Amtgard for adults' quasi-medievalism that we have always settled for?

so responses in the negative are not truly gauche.

To answer Murdock's question for clarification : Murdock, I gotta tell ya I'm not sure what I mean

How's that for a dodge? Seriously, while I enjoy a good suit of armour, whether transitional, full-chain, or a black-and-white pikeman suit, its not really what is important to me in the SCA. What is important is the walking out on the field, taking and giving good blows, and enjoying the comraderie and friendship of fellows-in-arms. If the person works hard on making their armour look good, authentic, and functional I will give them extra respect for such perseverance (obsession?).
And if the person has to armour down or take a break before I do because of the weight of his armour, that is to be expected. And if I am limping around at the end of the evening because I'm not smart enough to armour myself, the authentically armoured figher should taunt me.

But I digress. The SCA *was* a Tolkien society. What was wrong with that?

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 12:28 pm

Jean-Paul wrote-
"What is important is the walking out on the field, taking and giving good blows, and enjoying the comraderie and friendship of fellows-in-arms.."

KNIGHTLY SPOKEN.
However, please remember that although this type of thinking is very period- in the Middle Ages a man who thought this way would make every effort to look like Murdock looks. Why look just to Tolkien for inspiration? Nobody in Tolkien's books fights in tournaments or speaks of "taking and giving good blows".

This type of talk is straight out of Froissart! It's not the stuff of fantasy- it's the type of language that REAL HEROES -who ACTUALLY lived- spoke and thought!
It's the type of talk that the Black Prince or DuGuesclin would reward! The reason Murdock cares so much about the way fighters look is because he knows it's possible for us to think and speak like REAL KNIGHTS DID.
-Vitus

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 12:38 pm

Hi Jean-Paul,

I stand corrected. He obviously wanted to hear from the 'want-nots' as well.

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

Cedric · Post by **Cedric** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:09 pm

It is NOT that I do "not want" authenticity in SCA combat.

I dont want it to be mandated. I dont want people to be told "Go away, you cant play our game with your inauthentic non-period footwear" (Insert plastic armor, bargrill or whatever).

Bargrills are not authentic for a large portion of the time period covered by the SCA. The same could be said about GAUNTLETS. I dont see anyone including them in a list of inauthentic components that the SCA needs to get rid of. (plastic, one shot kills, kneeling when legged, bargrills and those damn late period gauntlets)

Cedric

Cedric · Post by **Cedric** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:22 pm

Oh, and for the record, I would NOT have a problem with a No Exposed Plastic rule, particularly for demos and large tournaments/wars.

I was shocked the first time someone told me about plastic armor and said that "all the knights are doing it - it makes them faster". Yeah, ok, using lightweight armor DOES give you an advantage, but the rest of us dont have to look at it.

Covering plastic up takes so little effort and improves the overall look of SCA fighting a great deal. It should be a no-brainer.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 1:56 pm

"I am not missing his point at all.
I am trying to point out that the armour standard gives us all a even point to start from, and regardless of how you choose to armour yourself we all have the same vulnerabilities."

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I guess I was confused because the title of this thread is "Moving the SCA towards historical accuracy" - negating the benefits of one's armour didn't seem very authentic to me.

"Its the prowess you work to achieve that makes the difference, not the fact that you can afford a gothic harness....which is what it would turn into."

You're right - the SCA would likely experience an "arms race" - quite authentically, too!

Steve

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

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:02 pm

"I dont want it to be mandated. I dont want people to be told "Go away, you cant play our game with your inauthentic non-period footwear" (Insert plastic armor, bargrill or whatever).

Bargrills are not authentic for a large portion of the time period covered by the SCA. The same could be said about GAUNTLETS. I dont see anyone including them in a list of inauthentic components that the SCA needs to get rid of. (plastic, one shot kills, kneeling when legged, bargrills and those damn late period gauntlets)"

I agree, Cedric!

Steve

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

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:38 pm

"..they are just as dangerous in their period style demo armour, as they are in their minimal Pennsic kits."

Being that they are gods of course they are just as dangerous. Again that is using the exception, 90% of fighters are not in that group. It is the average guy that either makes the sacrifice for bieng real or succumbs to the desire to win and ditches down to minimal. Using the prowess of Knights and Dukes in real harness isn't exactlly a accurate depiction of the advatage the nekked have over the accurate.

Other than that Steve and Vitus pretty much ansewerd for me.

Jean,
If neither of us knows then we're in trouble

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:51 pm

Murdock....

That actually is the point...

The "gods" as you call them had to start somewhere.
They werent born with a Ducal coronet and a white belt...they got there with dedication and years of sacrifice and training....all of which you ...or any other "average guy" can do if you have some natual talent and the dedication and drive to do. But dont say how they fight in a "real harness" isnt valid?
They were all newbies once too....and how they fight in a real harness is absolutely valid because it shows that with hard work they can supass this supposed disadvantage you all keep on decrying.

Concentrate on yourselves and your own prowess.....that is where the focus should lie.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 3:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sarnac:


You want to play that way....go do AMMEA.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must respectfully disagree with you.

Historically, the better armour (and weapons) won the tourney.

Besides, would you really go out onto a tourney field with an open-faced helmet? We need to get realistic with this. IF someone enters a tournament with counted blows, cap-a-pie (or close) standards -- those hit in the bargrill or plastic areas (unarmoured) are considered "too wounded to continue" for the next couple of months. No coming back. No return fight.

Now, if Sir Plastic and Sir Bargrill can still advance in said tourney, more power to them! But, we need to realistic...the unarmoured LOST to the armoured in almost EVERY encounter -- and we need a specialized SCA tourney need to reflect this.

-Aaron

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 4:37 pm

"That actually is the point...

The "gods" as you call them had to start somewhere."

Not everyone can be a "god". Even with an endless amount of training.

But we can always buy more armour

MUOOOAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahah!!!!

It's always better to look good than to be good, in my book! heheheh

You train. I'll open my wallet.

Steve

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

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 4:43 pm

When I first started I asked about the whole "Single shot kills" issue. The best explanation is that we don't demonstrate that we "killed" our opponent, just that we bested them. I struck a solid (telling means I can tell you hit me good") blow that got past/through your defense. NOT YOUR ARMOUR, YOUR DEFENSES.

SCA combat is a unique sport. It is not recreation of historic combat. It is the medium that we choose to connect to a CHIVALRIC IDEAL.

We fight from our knees to acknowledge that our opponent succeeded in getting past of defense to strike a good blow to the legs, and had earned an advantage for their skill. Same for dropping the arm when struck.

Honestly, I don't see as many people "die" on the tourney field as in the past. But the do acknowledge through word and salute when they have been bested. But one explanation to the whole "falling when bested" arguement is that we are required to do it in melee, to avoid either getting hit repeatedly, or causing confusion for the opponents or our own side in the middle of the battle. And it is easier to train 1 year around standard.

I would hope we choose our personas not for thier "advantages" on the field of combat, but becuase it is the culture and period of history we find the most interesting, and want to learn more about, to portray, to "connect to", even if it is in but a small way.

Because we don't fight for our own glory. We don't win for self-arragndisment. We don't ask our marshalls to referee. We don't have a point system and judges on the sidelines using an "8 point must" system. We rail against "list field attournys" as much as Rhinos. We don't try to really hurt, or humiliate our opponents. We don't fight to profit from our efforts in any real monetary, political or social way.

We fight for our Inspirations. We fight to preserve the concepts of chivalry, honor and courtesy in a world that far too often sees these qualities as a weakness, not a strength. We fight to make ourselves better people.

We fight to have fun.

Theodore · Post by **Theodore** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 6:22 pm

Sarnac "Arrows could penetrate plate easily with the right points on them."

Penetrate? on a lucky hit, penetrate enough to cause a fatal blow extremely unlikely under the best circumstances.
Count Sir Rhyse from the East has had a long standing challenge for one primary source confirming a knight or noble killed by an arrow THROUGH his armour. For years (decades) no one has been able to find a single source.
Even with maille, the chronicles describe crusading knights returning to their line to have multiple arrows removed from their armour.

As for giving advantage to those who wear real armour, I don't think that is the point. The point is that the rules give an advantage to those who INTENTIONALLY wear non-authentic armour to gain tactical advantage. The armour standard assumes that eveyone is wearing a maille hauberk, if you are unwilling to wear armour as good as or better than maille then there should be a disadvantage. I don't have a problem if people want to chose speed over protection, I just wish they had to choose.

I can say this from first hand knowledge, since 1994 I have fought exclusively in a 55 lb transitional harness with a pigfaced bascinet. Since I'm only an average fighter this limited my development. Against an even opponent it is not a serious disability but when I began fighting knights, wearing half or less in armour, the effect was obvious. After years of being told I had to lose the armour to improve my skill so I could gain reknown, this summer I finally broke down and made a bargrill and plastic armour to go under an arming coat. It made a serious difference in speed, breathing, endurance, and visibility.

As for the cost issue, most SCAdians spend more on beer than armour.

Theodore

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 6:43 pm

I wouldn't mind seeing plastic required to be hidden or unobtrusive. I'd LOVE (and do, in Markland) for my plate to be arrow proof.

What I'd like to see better handled is thrusts. Right now, if I set my spear point on someone and push, they ignore me. If I placed a real spear on someone in mail, and shoved, I could shove it THROUGH him. For now, too often, I have to truly rock someone to get them to take a thrust.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 7:08 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lodhur:

OK, So we've heard everyone's gripes about the SCA, both from outside & inside. Most of them seem to regard the SCA's self-representation as an historically based group.

Those of us who would like to see the SCA move closer to authenticity basically agree on the primary issues preventing that move.

Speaking strictly in regards to combat, we have (in no particular order):

Plastic
Indestructible shields
the 'one shot kill'

>I agree that we need a lot more one shot kills. I am perfectly capable of killing a guy wearing an open face cap with a single shot to the face with pretty much any weapon the SCA allows. If it won't kill him, it sure as hell would take him out of action or hurt him badly enough to stop the combat for humanitarian reasons (tournament).

not enough mail

>I disagree. We have entirely too much maille. We need more knightly full plate with closed helms.

bargrills

But problems have solutions, which I offer respectively:

The 'No visible plastic' rule, as implemented in Meridies.

>Yeah!

Expanding the seldom enforced 'anvilling' rule to include _greatweapons_. i.e., "A shield hit directly by a great weapon in full swing can be considered 'destroyed' after recieving 3 such blows successively." This would necessarily fall on the honor of the receiver, as with normal SCA combat.

>Well, it is interesting to consider, but quite frankly, it depends on the kind of shield. Some shields could get trashed just by a broadsword hitting it repeatedly. Especially if you block shield edge to sword edge with a style of shield where the edge was not reinforced. This is a good idea that would probably turn into rules lawyering and would be a pain in melee possibly. Nice idea though, I've toyed with it myself as a concept.

Armour As Worn. An 'Armor As Worn' policy, as opposed to the current 'Presumed Standard' would reduce the more unrealistic 'one shot' gunfights. The point being NOT to up the calibration to meet the armour, but LOWER it. You accept hits accordingly lighter than standard force in less armoured areas. Again, this would necessarily fall on the honor of the receiver, as with normal SCA combat.

>NONONONONO! It is already too hard to get an agreed upon standard agreed upon "good" level of force. The last thing we need is "I'm sorry milord, but you hit my left tasset which lays over my maille skirt and is supported by my cuisse, you must strike me harder".

I think that we will begin to see more mail as more acccurate Indian rivetted stuff begins to flood the market. There are other factors which may encourage this; 'Armour as Worn' & a change in sword shape. The main obstacle is the fear of the 'waffle effect'. I would peronally like to see a merchant market gambesons with pre-inserted, hidden plates on the critical areas. Something ready-made to go under a byrnie.

>OK. More maille is good for personnas that should be wearing maille and don't mind really big bruises and the broken bones in your arms. Except for big manly men types that don't break easily, at least in the East.

There are already efforts being made by fighters & armourers to hide or design around bargrills. What if an official group were to issue mail or leather drapes/ventails to fighters, for demos or just to improve the look of authenticity within the group? What if the soviergn were to issue an edict that a 'reasonable attempt' be made by fighters to make them less conspicuous?

>Depends. Some bargrills are period. And if you put a metal plate or drape over a bargrill, on a helmet style that would not have had a metal plate or drape (some sallets for example) it is no more authentic a design than the bargrill and potentially looks worse.

Some other issues are:

club-like swords

>True. But until we find a way to hit each other with swords shaped like swords without really hurting each other, this won't work. Unless we all go to full tournament plate. Call them batons instead? But then you would not have to worry about edge control, I like the idea of at least trying not to hit with the flat.

not enough archers

>Ackk! I hope you mean way too many archers. 1 archer is one archer too many in a tournament. Combat archery needs to be stamped out. Unless we are going to start fighting wars with winning at all costs being the objective. Then all bets are off.

no gunpowder

>Any gunpowder in the tournament lists is too much gunpowder.

falling on one's knees

>I hate it too. Come up with a solution that does not reduce combat to limb hunting armoured fencing wussiness and I'm all ears.

invalid targets

>What do you mean? If its invalid, don't hit it. Get a pell. Practice targetting.

falling down dead in tournament

>I can live with saluting your opponent and withdrawing. In melee, you often have to fall down if nothing else, to avoid confusion and being clubbed like a numb harp seal pup.

What are your ideas for improving the SCA in these areas? Do you even _want_ to see the SCA become more historically accurate?

>Yes. Absolutely.

Or do you prefer the 'Amtgard for adults' quasi-medievalism that we have always settled for?

>No.

Tell us the things you would like to see changed, but also tell us _how_. & don't tell me that the SCA should narrow its scope. That's what individual households are for. There is no reason we should reduce the inclusivity of the organization - that's the reason for our success.

>The SCA should narrow its scope and enforce the rules we already have for starters. We don't need personnas that would not be legitimate visitors to a Western European Medieval/Early Renn court. Or at least personnas that would have visited Western Europe during that time frame. Read the damn SCA guidelines. Grrrrr.

I want to change the SCA. I don't want to change it into something else. I want to see it live up to the Dream. If enough people have the idea, & talk about it, it will happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

>Good.

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-02-2002).]

Cedric · Post by **Cedric** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 8:29 pm

Mail can be done without major bruises and broken armbones.

I started fighting in the Kingdom of the West wearing a mail shirt made out of 3/32" high tensile steel welding rod. It weighed about 35lbs (if I remember right.. was some time ago). Worn loosely, with a thick gambeson and a good pair of vambraces that shirt protected me a LOT better then most SCA folks gave it credit for.

I think that the Dukes and Knights I learned how to fight against hit as hard as any other person I have seen in the last 10 years of fighting (and I have fought in a LOT of different kingdoms in that time)...

The problem I had with it was that I moved to Raincentral An Tir so it rusted a lot, plus it was butted mail so it fell apart alot. Finally I was convinced to trade it in for the blue plastic smurf armor, which was MUCH easier to maintain.

I would love to have a shirt of welded/rivetted stainless so I didnt have to worry about the maintenance issue. I think that alot more people in the SCA would wear mail if it was cheaper and lasted longer with less work. Sure, there would be some people who wouldnt wear it due to weight, but its really hard to look like a proper Saxon warrior without wearing mail.

Cedric

Lodhur · Post by **Lodhur** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:05 pm

My gods, I'm gone for 3 days & my thread is already flaming!

Its going to take a bit to go through all of these responses, ideas, & arguments.

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:10 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cedric:
Mail can be done without major bruises and broken armbones."

>Well sure maille protects great, IF you wear other armour with it to make up for its utter lack of protection against SCA swords. Or you learn to block.

"I started fighting in the Kingdom of the West wearing a mail shirt made out of 3/32" high tensile steel welding rod. It weighed about 35lbs (if I remember right.. was some time ago). Worn loosely, with a thick gambeson and a good pair of vambraces that shirt protected me a LOT better then most SCA folks gave it credit for."

>Notice the shirt protected well because you added a thick gambeson and a pair of vambraces.

"I think that the Dukes and Knights I learned how to fight against hit as hard as any other person I have seen in the last 10 years of fighting (and I have fought in a LOT of different kingdoms in that time)..."

>Good. That builds character and eliminates the T-shirt and a kidney belt, naked celts.

"The problem I had with it was that I moved to Raincentral An Tir so it rusted a lot, plus it was butted mail so it fell apart alot. Finally I was convinced to trade it in for the blue plastic smurf armor, which was MUCH easier to maintain."

>Argghhh. Smurfs! Die smurfs die!

"I would love to have a shirt of welded/rivetted stainless so I didnt have to worry about the maintenance issue. I think that alot more people in the SCA would wear mail if it was cheaper and lasted longer with less work. Sure, there would be some people who wouldnt wear it due to weight, but its really hard to look like a proper Saxon warrior without wearing mail."

> Why look like a Saxon warrior when you can be a knight in shining 15th century armour? Come to the light, there is peace in the light...

Cedric <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

>Richard

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-02-2002).]

Lodhur · Post by **Lodhur** » Wed Jan 02, 2002 11:54 pm

Alright. Starting from the top:

Fearghus

I wear the same sort of harness. Its been in service 3 years & is looking a bit ragged. I keep repairing it, because it has all the qualities you describe. Once I get more $, I'm going for mail.

hjalmr
Yes it is a rule.
Check section IV. C. in the Conventions of Combat

armouredhedgehog
Thank you.

lothar of hewlet packard
I like shield punching, but one thing at a time, here. & I don't think shield punching should generally be taken as a 'good blow' any more than pommel bashing. Its just a stun to set up for the kill.

David deKunstenaar
Now listen, I represent that D&D remark. err resent, rather. actually, I've only this past year gained any interest in it, & I've been scadian since '93. I guess I was thinking that, in period nearly shields were wooden. & no, not 3 'random' hits, either. 3 blows judged solid & direct by the _receiver_. If your persona has a metal shield, you could just as well disregard it. Its all about your honor.

Cedric
Yes, but not for everyone's period. & not in the style you typically see on the field.

Irish
shields: Its not _that_ complex. No more so than judging any other blow. Once you get a "feel" for it, its becomes instinct.

armour as worn: NOW LISTEN! Would you all stop mentioning D & D? It colours the whole debate. Nobody said anything about hitting anyone more than once. We're not debating counted blows. Different thread. Armour as worn is all judged by the fighter _receiving_ the blows. A good hit is still a good hit - at the same calibration we have now. If you are hit somewhere with less armour, you can take a _lighter_ hit as good. Meaning fewer bruises, fewer broken forearms. Alot of people do that anyway, without realizing it. But once again, this would make it a matter of honor on the individual, as opposed to the "how much can you take" method we currently use.

grills: Yes, exactly. What if we said, 'OK, just at least paint or tape them black if they're out of period.

Lochlainn
You are correct.

Minamoto
One thing at a time, yes. Everything should be tested, modified, & tested again, before it is made standard. THe SCA already has some allowances for experimentation in the list, & that is the best way to make changes - you can *show* people what works.

I don't know about the hands, but I can see leg targetting happening. Slowly.

"directly by a great weapon in full swing" - & the blow is judged by the receiver. such a hit, even on a shield, is no 1 second love tap.

armour as worn - well, until its tested we won't know, eh? The stock market will never hit 6k, either.

Egfroth
I don't think it confers any great advantage over the speed gained from less armour. But as has been said, a to truly skilled fighter it makes no difference. The difference in in the appearance of historical accuracy.

Torc
I don't know but there's got to be a market.

shield: yes, there's the 'friendly fire' issue, but isn't there always? & we're not talking about pilas or spears - if you can find a way to do that safely, let me know. Generally, when you take a direct impact from a greatweapon in full swing, there is little question in your mind. But just like any other blow, if there is a question, then it is yours alone to answer.

non-combat authenticity:
yes. many events have rules on that - only period tents in cetrtain areas, etc.

armour as worn:
NOT "armour value" - why does no-one get this concept?

OK. That's a big enough post for now. & Richard, could you stop posting for a minute so I can catch up?

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Thu Jan 03, 2002 12:20 am

Richard Blackmore wrote
Why look like a Saxon warrior when you can be a knight in shining 15th century armour? Come to the light, there is peace in the light...
Run Cedric Run - that column of light thing is full of dead ancestors

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Thu Jan 03, 2002 12:38 pm

Lodhur - I wasn't trying to make a D&D comparison. However, The more rules you add, the more opportunity there is to bend those rules. Why let "list field lawyers" have an easier time of it?

Most fighters fight on their honor. I don't have to hit a man in a white suit any harder than the man in the leather body bracelet. And I shouldn't. We aren't hitting people to injure them! In honorable SCA combat, we demonstrate our skill to get a solid shot past our opponents defenses (not armour, but skill at defending themselves).

The whole "armour as worn" rule would give people liscense to Rhino. Would a 12 guage breatplate protect better than a 16? What about aluminum, which is metal, but lighter than steel? Or a cloth covered plastic breatplate tha at 10 feet is indistinguishable from a cloth covered metal one?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the worst offenders wuold all be in either aluminum armour, or cloth covered plastic in under a year....

Why not standardize what is meant as a good blow instead? Don't define it as "A shot that would injure or incapacitate if it was a real weapon." IMO, this is where a lot of Bad Stuff occurs, especially at interkingdom wars. Compare your average Atlantian and Meridian fighter - 2 different scales there, regaurdless of armour worn.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Thu Jan 03, 2002 2:24 pm

"has a metal shield, you could just as well disregard it. Its all about your honor."

Metal shields????

Who had metal shields until _really_ late period?

Aluminium shields did'nt exist guys, they would have to theoretically be treated as wood.
Only exception i can thing of is post 14th c Steel bucklers and those big round steel shields like in MRL from the late 15th C(?)

And good grief who's toting a steel heater? Thats gotta be one strong guy.

Lodhur · Post by **Lodhur** » Thu Jan 03, 2002 11:41 pm

Theodore
Some good points.

Sarnac
I respect your opinion. I like the SCA as it is, too. That doesn't mean it cannot stand to be improved, just as we improve ourselves as individuals. The SCA has changed a great deal over the years, & will continue to do so. But the real question is, what game *are* we playing?

Why eat at Taco Bell when you could eat real mexican food?

I really don't think we're talking about making anyone invincible. A good hit is still a good hit, at the same calibration that we have now. Armour as Worn simply means that if you have less armour you can take a lighter hit as good. I could be fighting that way now, & no-one would know it. There will still be rhinos, at both sides of the spectrum. The change is not as drastic as you think. It certainly won't make me shy away from scale & mail.

Vitus
As always, your opinions are wisdom incarnate, & precisely addressed to the issue at hand. Thank you. When I am autocratting event years from now your name will be honored as an inspiration.

Pathfinder
You are right. The rules are mostly there already. We just need to make an effort.

Lyelf
I am sorry, but this is EXACTLY what we all are trying to avoid! Please, you're not helping the cause at all. I know you mean well, but I just want EVERYONE to know that this is NOT what I mean by 'Armour as Worn'.

I too would like to discourage basket/gauntlet blocking, but not that way. It might discourage the blocking, but would _encourage_ targetting, which is just not safe.

Cedric
I agree with you, but OUR bargrills are made very recognizably different from theirs.

hjalmr
who said that?

Steve -SoFC-
yeah

Cedric
My bad for not clarifying "pre-15th century" bargrills.

Jean Paul de Sens
Wait a minute, I thought the SCA IS a re-creation group! If we're not a re-creation group, what the Hel are we? If I may quote www.sca.org:

"The Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating pre-17th-century European history."

Read that again: >>>*_re-creating_*<<<. The SCA is a group that re-creates. The SCA is a re-creation group. But thank you for playing the comparative counterpoint.

Murdock
I agree with you, mostly. Except I don't think our rules work against full harness as much as you say. Its just that it requires effort to make, or money to buy. The SCA is not as serious an endeavor as what we call 're-enactment', therefore there is not as much social impetus against half-assed kits/camp/personas. That is both the beauty & the downfall of our game. Its the reaon we are so large, & so mediocre. It is also why we maust constantly find ways to improve, while keeping our inclusivity.

Alcyoneus
Most people don't really sit their shield right on their leg, as you say. That's why its so hard to enforce. Basically, I'd like to see that rule modified as I described.

chef de chambre
"tourney great-bascinets, some extant example of which are made out of leather"
Are you saying the BARGRILLS were leather, or the whole bascinet?

Rev. George
Since when are any of the rules supposed to be optional?

Steve -SoFC-
I agree with you. Bargrills are necessary. But there are ways we can minimize their impact. Rivets, vs. ugly weld jobs, for instance.

sarnac
You speak wisdom. I don't really care what advantage or disadvantage my armour gives me. I want to make it appropriate to my persona. If I get beaten down by some 16th century tank, but I fall on the field of honor, I'm a happy camper. Our ancestors were not just in it to win. They wanted either to gain victory, or be honorably defeated.

Steve -SoFC-
Yeah, again. I'm glad I have barristers to hold my position while I'm away.

OK, the words are swimming again. I need to go dosomething else.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 12:17 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vitus:
speaks of "taking and giving good blows".

This type of talk is straight out of Froissart! It's not the stuff of fantasy- it's the type of language that REAL HEROES -who ACTUALLY lived- spoke and thought!
It's the type of talk that the Black Prince or DuGuesclin would reward! The reason Murdock cares so much about the way fighters look is because he knows it's possible for us to think and speak like REAL KNIGHTS DID.
-Vitus

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein of Gelderland in "A Knight's Tale" spoke of this as well. And he was right.

Reinhard · Post by **Reinhard** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 3:19 am

This is getting a trifle, umm, odd.

Bargrilles and shield baskets exist for a very real reason, open helms were the norm for a very long time and gaunts are the most expensive and difficult things to procure.

My personal view that the square 'thingies' on the bayeaux tapestry Norman's maille is that they're face drapes that they're not wearing. The nasal would hold the maille off the face but it'd pull your beard hairs out!
These could be used over bargrilles, and would look very funky.

Gaunts are hard to buy, they take forever to get delivered and look totally wrong on most personas. You could buy thick leather gaunts I suppose, is this the alternative that is being bruited?

Down here in Ynys Fawr (Tasmania, Aus), many fighters are looking at rock oak leather armour, especially for those guys with bad knees (bad knees! bad!) and it weighs almost nothing, I'm a bit concerned as I am making 16 gauge german export armour from the 1470's. Looks like I'll be in heart attack territory trying to keep up! The leather armour is made in a fraction of the time as comparable steel armour, and is dyed black with Raven oil, it looks very nice.

Rambling Rein strikes agin . . .

Rev. George · Post by **Rev. George** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 3:48 am

Lodhur sapke with a mighty voice and sayeth:
Rev. George Since when are any of the rules supposed to be optional?
Thus does George respond:

Blows repeatedly blocked by a weapon in contact with a fighterâ€™s helm, body or shield at the moment of impact may at the Crownâ€™s or Marshallateâ€™s discretion, be considered to have broken the blocking weapon. This will force a fighter to forfeit the fight, unless a secondary weapon is carried or the opponent chooses to allow the fighter to rearm with another weapon. Rules of the list, Article IV section C

From the meridean website I assume that the discepency of numbers is clerical, or results form a revision:
C. Blows repeatedly blocked by a weapon in contact with a fighter's helm, body or shield at the moment of impact may at the Crown's or Marshallate discretion, be
considered to have broken the blocking weapon. This will force the fighter to forfeit the fight, unless a secondary weapon is carried or the opponent chooses to allow
the fighter to rearm with another weapon.

WITHIN THE KINGDOM OF MERIDIES WE DO NOT APPLY THIS CONVENTION (CONVENTION III.C.). {emphasis thiers} 

That's how. first you have to dance around saying that it is optional while inflating the ego/percieved power level of the crown/ Marchallate. Then wait till some people complain about it, and add a "non enforcement clause" to the rules.

-+G

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 9:12 am

Hi Lodhur,

The grills for this type of club-tourney helmet are metal, along with a grille like framework of metal for the helmet itself, upon which the cuirbolli is overlaid and attatched.

An extant example of same can be found in the MET, on permanent display. Don't have a catalog number, but it is in the galley with the helmets on permanent display in cases, as you walk in and to the back, on your right. It is German, c. 1480, and from the plaque giving the attribution, it was a very common form and practise, mentioned in Rene of Anjou's book of the Tourney, in the section covering tournament armour.

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

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 9:54 am

Man, I play at being a Landsknecht, having a handgonne would be cool.
For about 30 seconds, and then the novely would wear off, and it would be back to business as usual with my greatsword.

My opinion has always been-if people want to shoot at each other, they should go play paintball.

I like period handgonnes, but they are only around for a fraction of the time we're playing at re-creating, and I'm sorry, if you don't have the stones to stand with me and fight, I don't really have alot of use for you in combat.
I'm being a dick by saying that, I know, it's my choice.

Will I carry repro-guns I have made at events?
Oh yeah.
What Landsknecht WOULDN'T if they could afford them?
I also wouldn't mind a small part of the archery/thrown weapons ranges devoted to period handgonne use.
Target shooting and the like, at select events.
But I NEVER, EVER, EVER want to see gunpowder weapon types incorporated into SCA heavy combat.
Safety has nothing to do with it, it just goes against everything we're trying to do.

VvS

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 10:35 am

"But I NEVER, EVER, EVER want to see gunpowder weapon types incorporated into SCA heavy combat.
Safety has nothing to do with it, it just goes against everything we're trying to do."

In your opinion.

In my opinion, melee is a representation of war. We call them "wars". We have archery. We have siege engines. This makes melees, in my opinion, not a recreation of tournament combat but a recreation of war.

As such, any weapon of war from the time period the SCA covers should be allowed. So long as it is safe according to our combat conventions, of course.

For this reason, I think it would be very cool to make, for example, a spring loaded handgonne that fired golf balls, or perhaps slit racquet balls, if you are concerned about stepping on them.

Steve

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

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 10:49 am

I saw this on another list and I thought it would apply well here...

What does the SCA re-create???

We re-create (or attempt to) the spirit and flavor of a society based on the precondition that it consists of "personas" who *might* have existed In (according to the Corpora) "pre-seventeenth century" times. No mention is made of place except to say that the SCA "predominately" uses western europe, and the "high middle ages".

The basic requirement for participation in the SCA is "An Attempt at pre-17th century Garb".

In so far as we're able, I think that we do a pretty good job of creating our mythical society that spans a whole world, and over a thousand years of time. Asking us to try and be perfectly authentic within that scope is asking for trouble, IMHO, because the scope's just too broad for that. (Although, I personally use the assumption that My 8th century Irish self has moved in space (from ireland to Byzantium) rather than time.. The byzantine empire was acrossroads of many cultures, so there's plenty of room for me to assume that everything strange is from "the east", including coke cans, styrofoam coolers, and sneakers worn with elizabethan.

In this way, I insulate myself from those "medieval moment" shattering influences, and at the same time, I don't have to criticize anyone for *their* level of authenticity.. I'm too busy paying attention to my own.

I think that most of the "authenticity friction" that occurrs in the SCA comes from the lack of understanding between the terms "re-creation" (as in, from scratch, but keeping the flavor intact) and "reenactment" (as in duplicating a particular time and place). I seem to meet a lot of people who get annoyed (or downright angry) when the SCA fails to meet their standards of what it "ought" to be. They talk about changing it, making it more like what *they* want, because it's the closest thing they can find to what *they* want to do; it's the only raw material that they have to work with.

While I thnk we should try to advance scholarship, honor those who pay particular attention to detail, and enjoy their works, I think that worrying about what the SCA *isn't* takes time away from enjoying what it *is*- A social club for folks who have a common interest in history, and want to bring the period romances (Le Mort D'Arthur, The Song of Roland, Beowolf, Etc.) that jazzed us to life in some way.. to *live* some of the magic that first sparked that sense of wonder when we read the hopeful, beautiful, and sometimes terrible tales that told the people of our period how heroes are made.

For a long time now, I've been using the romances for the inspiration (why) and the history for the execution (how). And I've been enjoying the hell out of the company for the most part!

But I get a little down whenever someone starts telling me everything that's wrong with the SCA, because it usually means that they're annoyed that it never lived up to a promise that it's never made.

I've also stopped trying to get these people to mellow out and enjoy what's around them too... I find that we don't really speak the same language. When I try to explain that the SCA is more about what happens in your head and your heart than what happens in the event hall, I get a "Dog being shown a card trick" look and a few phrases about why I'm "Wrong" that tell me that my point hasn't made it into the argument. After a while, that sort of thing eats into your fun, so I stopped worrying about it, and avoid "SCA state of the union" discussions as a rule.

After all, I don't mind playing next to someone else's fantasy since I'm in the middle of my own!

YIS,
Breac MacFinnien
"Fiat Iustitia Ruat Caelum""

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 2:49 pm

Hey Sarnac - that's a great article and sums up my take on it as well. Thanks for posting it!

Steve

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

Triumph · Post by **Triumph** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 9:50 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein of Gelderland in "A Knight's Tale" spoke of this as well. And he was right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes! Ulrich von Lichtenstein! He was a wonderful historical figure. And what a movie...

...for me to poop on!

Triumph · Post by **Triumph** » Fri Jan 04, 2002 10:22 pm

& another thing! I want to know why the hump all you 'SCA' history people can't even show up with historically authentic Fidos. I always wanted to know what a great mastiff's butt smelled like. So I went to that catbox you call 'Estrella War'. You know what I found? Nothing but your regular Rex, Spot, & Spike! No Russian Poodle bitches! (Hey Fifi mi amour! Hubba hubba!) No Irish Wolf Hounds! Not even a Harrier! Pull your face out of Scooby Doo's butt and get real. I'd rather go hump Sam Donaldson's shins.

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Sat Jan 05, 2002 10:01 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Triumph:
& another thing! I want to know why the hump all you 'SCA' history people can't even show up with historically authentic Fidos. I always wanted to know what a great mastiff's butt smelled like. So I went to that catbox you call 'Estrella War'. You know what I found? Nothing but your regular Rex, Spot, & Spike! No Russian Poodle bitches! (Hey Fifi mi amour! Hubba hubba!) No Irish Wolf Hounds! Not even a Harrier! Pull your face out of Scooby Doo's butt and get real. I'd rather go hump Sam Donaldson's shins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure if you ever find yourself in the East Count Rhys will let you smell his greyhounds rear end - your life will then (I assume) be complete

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Sun Jan 06, 2002 12:19 am

Attention editors. Would one of you hardworking people who normally avoid censorship, please make an exception?

I respectfully suggest that you should offer Triumph counseling or better yet just boot him out of here. Unlike others who make poor attempts at humor, he apparently serves no useful purpose, contributes nothing, willfully insults others and has no redeeming qualities that I have discerned to date.