From: guth@unixg.ubc.ca (Geoff Guth)
Subject: Re: Pennsic Land Allocation
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 06:06:12 GMT

In article <9208281443.aa01709@mc.lcs.mit.edu> WHITE@DUVM.BITNET (Avid Reader - Fledgling Writer) writes:
>>From: Wilson Heydt <whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com>
>>
>>
>>...  Let the Barons figure out how to divide what they have among
>>those of their Barony--and use the choicer parts to entice the
>>powerful fighters (or the most neccesary and effective supprt
>>personnel!) to come and support their side.  Let enterprising folks
>>use good camping sites and amount of space as a bargaining chip for
>>allies.  In short, let the maneuvering for advantage involve
>>*logistics* as well as moving an army around the field.
>>
>>        --Hal
>
>      Good my lord,
>
>         I know that in the latter part of your message that I removed,
>you stated that your plan was impractical and unweildy.  Still, this is
>not the first time that the plan has been proposed, and I would like to
>be the first to give a reason (this year at least) why this method is
>best left on the shelf of 'gee wouldn't *that* be neat' ideas and never
>even once put into practice.
>         You've been in the SCA longer than I have, Hal - I've only been
>attending meetings and events since 1977.  As such, I'm sure that you've
>seen this certain little monster that seems to have a rather tenacious
>hold in various parts of the known world - its called *politics*.
>         Yes, it would be 'cool' to see feudalism at work.  However, I
>personally don't think it *would* work.  I have seen politics split
>friendships faster than an axe in a rotting log, and this over such
>'ephemera' as an office in a shire.  Just think of the spectre of the
>monster politics if there was a tangible reward available in the
>*Immediate* future - such as prime camping land at Pennsic, or even any
>camping land at all.  Imagine a King/Queen playing favorites (and
>ignoring all those cool logistical factors you talked about) in
>allocating land to his friends, with those barons he doesn't even know,

[Much on the topic of the ruinous effects of politics deleted]

My lord,

Hmm..much of this DOES sound rather period...there's plenty of examples
of rotton royalty in history who decided that playing favorites was more
important than using those "cool logistical factors".  Prime example:
Richard II of England (and we all know what happened to HIM).  I agree, ofr
the good of the society, such politicking can only hurt us.  I have
not been in the sca for nearly as long as either one of you, a mere two
years.  However, I have done a little travelling in that time, and what
I have seen of the landed Barons and Baronesses is very encouraging to me,
they seem to try to keep such things to a minimum.  I cannot speak for the
knighthood, since, as I am not a fighter, I don't know many very well.
However, the peerages tend to be chosen rather well, I have noticed.
As for kings, queens, princes, and princesses, most of these will have been
in the society for a long time.  Hopefully, this is enough to encourage them
to act in a manner becoming to their rank.  However, even if the occasional
"bad apple" appears, it's not for forever...just for a few months.

I realize that much of my optimism may be naivete...as I said, I haven't 
been in the society that long, and still tend to view things through
rose colored glasses :)  And I have met people in the society that I would
hope would never achieve a position of power becvause of the reasons you
mention.  But such people have been few and far between.

>      So, what if the politics monster can be kept in abeyance, by some
>miracle?  Well, for starters, where do shires come in?  We're not truly
>feudal, in that shires are under Baronies (are under Principalities) are
>under the kingdom.  Shires are autonomous.  Where do they fit into this
>plan?  (Enter politics again - how do you decide which Baronies to place
>the shires under, should you wish to go that route?)  And then there are
>the people who are not active members of any group - who stand outside
>this structure for whatever reason.  Where do they go?

I would suppose that the shires could either form an alliance with a barony
that they choose (form a sort of "traditional alliance").  This would mean
that they would fight for that Barony at Pennsic, but would not be in any
other way part of that Barony.  Alternatively, the shire could become a
mercenary group, and sell their services to anyone who's buying (like the
Swiss).  Or every fighter could individually (or in smaller groups) sell
themselves.  The same applies to people who are not attached to any group.
At the last Clinton war, there were people wandering around actively trying
to recruit people for one of the sides.

>      You mentioned that the Barons could compete for the best support
>staff.  Well, there are only so many cooks that are needed - what about
>the ones not chosen?  Not everyone goes to Pennsic to serve - some just
>go to lay around, soak up the atmosphere, observe, and maybe shop.  Where
>do these people fit into your plan of a Baron optimizing his land usage?
>If you start to say 'they don't belong', you're gonna start a *huge*
>fight, I can tell you.....

Not everyone has to actively participate if their barony/shire/whatever
has been recruited.  I happen to fall into the latter group when I go
to a war.  But if I'm bored, or have nothing better to do, I may volunteer
part of my time to the service of my barony, in whatever way I am required.
Not every cook has to cook for the king and queen.  Nor do the royalty have 
to restrict themselves to one persons culinary skills for the entire war.

>      In closing, I would like to recommend again that this idea never,
>ever be seriously considered for use by anything.  While there might be
>some big boys and girls that would get a huge kick out of being able to
>wield amazing power (and we all know what is said about 'power' and
>corruption, right?) - Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses and
>Barons and Baronesses and even large household heads and good task
>organizers.  But it would put a hell of a lot of people - the majority
>of the attendees at Pennsic - out in the cold.  Like Ellisif said, 5-6K
>people are a lot to deal with, and most of them don't fit into any
>'support personnel' structure, nor do they want to.  Life may not be
>fair, and neither may Pennsic - but we don't have to intentionally create
>more hard feeling and ill will for the sake of realism.  Its just not
>worth it.

I think this is a good idea that ought to be given a chance.  I may be
going out on a limb here, but I do believe that the majority of people
in the sca are mature enough to handle a position of responsiblity
without descending to the level of intriguw you outline. If it worked,
it would make the wars much more interesting for more people.  For
example, in the process of negotiation, the royalty might try to start
outdoing each other in terms of entourages consisting of bodyguards,
servants, cooks, royal poets or bards, dancemasters (had to slip that one
in! :)  ), scholars, not to mention barons and officials from all
the groups they had attracted.  I believe that this could become, if
done properly, a more inclusive exercise, rather than an exclusive one.

I acknowledge the danger of "politics" you describe.  But I have faith
(perhaps misplaced) that that can be avoided.  It would certainly make
for an interesting war.

Richard.
who has no title, and is not a member of any household, and so is totally
outside of the power structure..and likes it that way!
>
>            Dafydd Cyhoeddwr
>            white@duvm.bitnet


-- 

|Geoff Guth                          |Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni |
|Richard Britnell de Salisbury (sca) |     in rebus latinis alacribus et      |
|guth@unixg.ubc.ca                   |        fructuosis potiri potes!        |
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca