From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: 1 Jan 93 10:51:45
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org's message of Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:27:55


Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim) writes:
]  Hans Rancke wrote:
]  > I'd very much like to know what culture you define medieval 
]  > Scandinavia to be part of.
]
]  Barbarian fringe, like the Arabs and the Slavs (and quite a few of the
]  Germans), with 'western culture' gradually seeping in on the backs of
]  Christian missionaries (oops, sorry, used the C-word by mistake...).

You've got a strangley inverted picture of Euro-Arab interchange.
And I can't imagine why you'd consider Arabs "barbarians".

It was Islam that preserved the classical texts of Greek and Rome
that became the foundation of Mideaval philosophy [ philosophic
debate in the Middle Ages was usually definitively settled by 
finding out what the Ancient Philosophers though, even within
the Holy Roman Catholic Church]. It was Islam that developed the
number system that made efficient commerce possible. Saying 
"western culture" came "gradually seeping" into Islam is exactly
the opposite of what really happened : contact between the Europeans
and Islam was a major factor in ending the European Dark Ages.

What Arabs mainly learned from Europe were the atrocities religous
fanatics were happy to commit against their fellow humans. Of course,
if the Europeans hadn't taught them, the Mongols would have.

]  HR> All this sounds (to me) very much like you've decided what
]  HR> result you want beforehand and then tailored your definitions to fit your
]  HR> desires.
]
]  No, my desires are much narrower. "South of the Trent, north of the Loire,
]  west of the Rhine."

Why ? Was there some kind of force-field or Great Wall there that prevented
the interchange of goods, ideas and culture across them ?

]  HR> Germany and Scandinavia were very much part of western culture.
]
]  Only in the same way that the Mongols were very much a part of Asian
]  culture.

Considering they ruled most of it, I don't see your point. There's a 
lot more to Mongols than you suspect, I think, or you wouldn't say this.

]  HR> > The College of Arms (to a lesser extent than I do) focuses on the
]  HR> > practices of the "core" of feudal civilization: south of the Trent,
]  HR> > north of the Loire, west of the Rhine. 
]
]  HR> I should like some evidence to support the contention that the area you
]  HR> describe is somehow the core of feudal civilization.
]
]  Marc Bloch, *Feudal Society*", esp. c. XIII "General Survey of Europe".
]  Feudalism developed its highest forms feeding on the fragments of the
]  Carolingian empire; [...]

Why should the SCA care how fuedal a place was ? Venice wasn't fuedal,
nor were the Dutch, yet excluding them from "mideaval Western Culture"
seems insane.

Feudalism isn't the cornerstone of the SCA anyway. The Chivalric Ideal
more likely is. [end seriousness] Of course, "chivalry" is derived from
the French for horse if I remember correct, so it seems Intuitively Obvious
to me that Chivalry is "the Ideals of Those With Horses". And NOBODY
had more horses than Mongols, who typically had four horses for
every soldier in the Army, and within whose culture every man, woman
and child older than 5 could ride. Therefor, it seems to me that if we
really want to practice Chivalry we should all be Mongols.

And yes, Mongols did have heavily-armoured soldiers who charged
around killing people with lances, so people who view knights that
way can still be happy.

Backwaters like England and Scotland should be ignored. In
period, they just copied others anyway, and lost most of any
culture they could have honestly called their own. Anyone who
takes these statements seriously needs their funny-bone checked.

Back to seriousness : I really do think the Chivalric Ideal is the
core of the SCA. But it didn't really exist in period, except in 
the popular fiction of the time. This is no reason to eschew it.
But when we emphasize Courtesy and Chivalry over might-makes-right
and political double-dealing, we are being very OOP.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com