From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: On the nature of armor....
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:30:07 GMT

...well sort of.

I'm going to wax philosophic on the recent thread athat started with
the intent to make red anodized aluminum lamellar armor--and why I
think it's not a very good idea.

Why does the SCA use armor?  Well...  It was used in our period.  For
this purpose *any* consistet armor that *looks* right will actually
serve and anodized alumninum is a perfectly reasonable choice.

It's the sort of protection one needs (and is required to have) for
SCA combat.  Will aluminum serve this purpose?  Perhaps...  I know one
lady who fights in aluminum armor.  She's not very big, and the weight
savings is probably important.  However, her back and breast key
together in a solid, imcompressible unit--making it much better
protection than a lot of steel harnesses.  Bearing this in mind,
remember that one of the protective characteristics of armor is it's
*mass*.  (That, by the way, is a major reason that lighter material
aren't used in helms.  Too light a helm drastically increases the risk
of neck injuries.)  Aluminums virtue is low weight--thus removing a
reason for using armor....

Consider what we do as a sport--the combat at least.  this is probably
the most controversial point.  What is the purpose of SCA combat?  Is
it to re-create period combat?  Is combat an end in itself?  What are
the permitted types of advantages?   consider, for comparison, the
ways in which sailing restricts materials in boat construction for
specific class boats.  There, there is a desire for uniformity of boat
to bring out the difference in sailing skills.  I tend to see the
reach for advanced materials in armoring to stem from a number of
sources.  First, there is cost--whether percieved or real.  Cariadoc
has shown that hardened leather need cost very little more than
palstic which exemplifies the 'percieved' cost aspect.  some materials
can be scrounged--driving the cost way down.  There is the skill
aspect.  Many folks embarking on their first efforts to make armor may
not have (or not feel they have) the neccesary skills to deal with
period materials--so if they cna hide the modern materials, they feel
the use of them is acceptable.  Ultimately (and *I* think, wrongly)
there is the search for an edge.  This leads  to the very best
plastics for low weight, aluminum--touting low weight, and so on.
Finally, there is a search for low *maintainence*.  Not having a manor
full of hot-and-cold-running flunkies, one may want armor that doesn't
rust....

Let me now deal with the issue I just raised about seeking an edge.  I
think this works against basic principles of the SCA--and (I my biased
and uneducated opinion) against the tenor of idealized Knightly
combat.  While an edge due to less mass to tote around in combat may
win you a crown, is it worth it?  If the goal of SCA combat is to win,
then it probably is.  If the goal is to fight joyously with one's
peers because It's The Thing To Do, then I think searching for that
edge is dishonorable and unchivalrous.  If you want to wear less
weight, then wear less armor and count blows accordingly--but don't
seek low weight as an edge.  There are those of us who think less of
those who are out to win and take every legal advantage (Rule's
Lawyering, in gaming terms) to gain an edge than we do of those who
fight on even (or disadvantagous) terms and lose.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca