From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Aluminum Armour
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:58:40
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
	<1gnq2gINNqjb@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec17.074223.10925@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:42:23 GMT


ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman) writes:
] Two  points on the "Aluminum Armor" controversy.
] Dennis O'Connor argues, if I understand him correctly, that he can do
] a better job of making armor authentic by using inauthentic material,
] given that his armor has to stand up to SCA fighting, since
] sufficiently strong steel armor would be heavier than real mongol
] armor. This raises two questions:
]
] A. Is this true? What is the evidence on weight and thickness of
] Mongol armor (I ask because I do not know, and Dennis has not so far
] discussed the evidence, only the conclusion).

Unfortuneatly, the real archealogical evidence I have so far
isn't really very good, but I'm working on it.

] If true it is certainly interesting. Our swords are no heavier than
] period swords (i.e. the range of weights for both is similar) and 
] they are a great deal blunter, so why would they be satisfied with
] armor that would be destroyed in our combat? Is the essential difference 
] that we expect to get hit lots of times in practice and they very rarely
] in battle?

Examine period mail : light, brittle and of no use against impact weapons.
An effective and common defense against period swords, but not against
period maces. Also, for Mongols in particular and likewise the Japanese,
it was arrows that were the most common threat. Add to that that many
historical sources say few Mongols wore any armour at all, usually
only bagaturs and nyans ( knights and princes, effectively ).

] B. Are there period solutions to the problem? I had thought that some
] mongol armor was lacquered leather--and hardened leather would
] certainly give you the combination of armor hard enough for SCA
] combat and substantially lighter than steel.

Richer Mongols used steel, "middle class" used leather, most
just used fur robes. From this I'd assume that the steel did
a better job for the same amount of encumbrance, or why wear it ?
Mongols were more Military than Chivalry : practicality seemed
the order of the day for them, not show.

] One point of Dennis's that I do not agree with (if I understand it)
] is his comment that:
]
] "Those who defend their their personal level of authenticity as the
] right one FOR THEM are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, as long as they remain
] within the bounds established by the governing bodies and documents
] of the SCA.
]
] Anyone who disagrees with this is trying to force their own personal
] opinion of "what the SCA is for" on others. And that's WRONG. Some
] people just don't get this point."
]
] This sounds as though trying to persuade someone to change his
] standards, which is what the people posting on this thread (and
] disagreeing with him) have been doing, is the same thing as "trying
] to force their own personal opinion of 'what the SCA is for' on
] others." That strikes me as carrying tolerance to the point at which
] it makes interesting conversation impossible. Argument is not force. 

The difference between what I meant to say and what you say it
sounds like may be due to the limited bandwidth of this medium.
On re-reading it, I admit it doesn't carry my meaning well.

Certainly I'm for educating people about what's In/Out of Period.
Certainly I'm for teaching people how to do things in period ways.
Certainly I want to learn : I've spent many hours trying to find good
solid archeological data on Mongol armour, but nomads don't
leave a lot of it, and I'm almost resigned to Persian or Yuan
Chinese data, since Mongols did sometimes use those kinds. But
peopel who make up the name "Sir Coke-Can" to denigrate someone
in period-style armour made of aluminium aren't furthering periodness : 
they're engaging in non-productive verbal bullying for reasons
I do not care to speculate on. Other behavior people have said
they engage in, like shunning people who don't live up to their
personal standard of dedication to authenticy, is also not conducive
to the "interesting conversation" that you and yes I too love.
The lines between informing, advising, criticising and bullying
can be fine ones. The more to the former and the less to the
latter the better, I think we'd agree. 


--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca