From: ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Subject: Re: Aluminum Armour
Reply-To: ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:42:23 GMT


Two  points on the "Aluminum Armor" controversy.

1. Some of the people who object to aluminum armor see it as a way of
getting an unfair advantage against opponents in tournaments. I do
not know about this particular case, but an alternative explanation
is that it is a way of making fighting less exhausting and thus more
fun. That is certainly one reason I wear hardened leather--I am
sufficiently old and out of shape so that I tire fairly quickly,
which means I do not get to do as much fighting at a practice as I
would like.

2. I think the more serious objection, also raised by several people,
is that putting time and energy into a modern way of solving a
problem distracts one from looking at period ways. One reply is that
one element of authenticity may conflict with another. My standard
example for this is a period song sung in the original language. In
some respects it is more authentic than a translation, but in some
less--the original performance, after all, was for people who
understood the language the song was written in.

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). 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?

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.

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 fact that you have a right to do something does not mean that it
is the right thing to do. I have a right to believe that two and two
equal five, but someone who points out that I am wrong is not
violating that right. I have a right to act in persona at events, but
someone who tries to persuade me that it is not a good idea to do
so--that the SCA is more fun treated as a costume party--is not
forcing anything on me, he is simply disagreeing with me.

David/Cariadoc
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca