From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Rapier Combat
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:11:34 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Alexander of Kiev (Carl Alexander of Harvard Square) writes:

>Oh really.  So, just exactly how is rapier combat, with blunted steel 
>weapons of historically accurate mass and balance, safer than sword-
>and-shield combat, with blunted steel weapons of accurate mass and 
>balance?  I don't think that I would find being inadvertently skewered 
>any less hazardous than having my helm -- and the head inside it -- 
>inadvertently split open.  

I'm not sure how to interpret this.  I never said that SCA rapier
combat should use "blunted steel weapons of historically accurate
mass and balance" any more than I said heavy fighters should use
"blunted steel weapons of accurate mass and balance."  Furthermore,
I don't see what either has to do with the price of rattan in China
or with SCA rapier combat.  Is it possible that you have never seen 
a demonstration of SCA rapier combat?   


>It should go without saying that the available documentation for 
>early period practices are almost never comparable to that for 
>late period practices.  All that this excessive concentration on 
>documentation can do is turn the Society into a bunch of Renaissance
>swishes. 

Well, then, you obviously consider requiring any documentation at all
to be excessive.  Again, I ask, can you provide one single scrap of
evidence to show that armored contests between two individuals on
foot (rather than horseback) ever took place in period?  I can, 
but I'd be willing to bet that you can't.  (Hint: I discovered it
accidentally while digging through the mountain of documentation
that exists on rapier combat.)   

What we see here is another example of the double standard by which
rapier combat is judged.  The original poster asked why rapier fencing,
being only "remotely documented" as period, should be allowed in the
SCA.  When I point out that there was less documentation for armored
combat, you say that armored combat and other early period practicies
should not require good documentation. (How do you know it's an early 
period practice if you can't document it?)  In other words, "We stick 
jocks don't need no stinkin' documentation."


Again, let me point out that there seems to be a certain amount of
bigotry, in some areas, by some individuals, against late-period
personae.  You complained that period firearms should not be allowed
at events because they "blow the atmosphere for you."  Never mind that
they can be absolutely, positively, 100% documented as part of the
SCA's period of study, which is AD 600-1600.  You don't like rapier
combat, either.  You indulge in name calling against later-period
personas.  I may be wrong, but I think I can guess how you probably
feel about late-period dress.  

The question is, is the SCA a historical recreation society or just
a fastasy gaming group?  Firearms and rapiers and Elizebethan costuming 
were definitely part of history during our period of study, even if they
are not part of your fantasy of the way history "should have been" between
600 and 1600.  Even if we were to forsake history and start reenacting
fantasy, it is not obvious to me that your fantasy is the one we should
be recreating.  For every person like you, who believes that rapiers and
gun powder "should not have existed," there's another who believes that
the Three Musketeers and Cyrano de Bergerac "should have lived prior to
1600" (and still another, possibly, who believes that Peter Pan and 
Captain Hook should have been real).  How are we to decide, once we
forsake history and documentation?  Should we get all of our "facts"
out of game booklets like the D&D people?  I think not.  If I believed
that, I wouldn't be in the SCA.  I would have joined some fantasy gaming
group, where people play in a make-believe world were things like
gunpowder never existed.  
  
Again, I would like to pose the question?  Why does this "early period 
chauvinism" exist in some Kingdoms?  I don't mean people who simply
prefer early period personas for themselves, I mean actual intolerance
toward others who have chosen a later time period.  What I find especially
odd is that the chauvinism always only seems to work one way.  I haven't
noticed late-period persona being similarly intolerant of early-period
types.  Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is? 

-- Nicholas van Leyden






From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet