HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: recreating the middle ages
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:17:05 GMT

In article <9301091427.aa18909@mc.lcs.mit.edu> SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
>I've got a problem with this - it involves things I regard as unethical.
>
>For instance, being a proper Hundred Year's archer would involve (to stick
>to the typical) a tendency to loot anything not bolted down, get roaring
>drunk (if possible), wench indiscriminately, and sometimes shoot at heralds.
>I have no desire to act like that.
>

Just because most common soldiers acted like, well..er, soldiers,
doesn't mean you have to too. (BTW you forgot to add Blasphemy to your
list. Learn to say "Goddamn" as often as possible if you want to be
truly authentic.)

>What I *do* want to do is to be able to do what an English archer of the
>Hundred Year's War era (since I have no hope of finding out anything specific
>about about Saxon archery, other than it existed) could do, and with what
>(so closely as I can manage) he did it with.
>
>So, folks, what's *that* recreating??

The pro's call it "Experimental Archeology". We can recreate the
artifacts and emulate the skills of the Middle Ages, etc. far more
easily than we can recreate the mindset of the people who made the
artifacts and practiced the skills.  
>

Lothar (who has on many occasion nervously noted that that his herald's
tabard puts a nice, big, yellow "X" right on his center of mass).
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Subject: Re: Even Mongols may eventually "get it".
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:20:35 GMT

Carolus suggests:
  For example, if Lord Poofter Espagnol is a rapier fencer
  who dresses in lace, carries a pomander, and is interested
  in musketry, he might choose to start a household devoted
  to the interests of his period. He might even  decide to hold
  an event at which musketry and fencing were encouraged, and a
  16" lace ruff and thigh high boots were required garb.

Of course, for it to be an SCA event, he must let anyone in, in
any attempt at medieval garb, if he does not wish to violate
Corpora (II.D).

Although, overall, I favor the response, heavily.

	Tibor (As if I have to sign an article that quotes Corpora)
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@progress.com)
[I'm just showin' you my opinions: this ain't a gift]
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: brandon@gauss.math.brown.edu (Joshua Brandon)
Subject: Re: HELP! name searching.
Organization: Brown University Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:56:51 GMT

Henry did write:

   I remember some allusion to Scots borderers for bynames that were both
   anti-social and often obscene.  The source was likely The Steel Bonnets,
   George MacDonald Fraser (I think, the author of Flashman, but this is
   non-fiction).  The only one that sticks in my mind is David No-Good-Priest.

I was looking through an encyclopedia article on some aspect of early
Norman-English history recently and noted the surname "Mauclerc", which I
assume refers to a lousy scholar....

			---Simon
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: ilaine@panix.com (Liz Stokes)
Subject: textile mailing list
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:56:52 GMT

	I've sent out a message to everyone who asked to be on the list. If
you asked and you haven't received, send me email and we'll try to work out
the problem.
		-Ilaine

-- 
Liz Stokes         | 	Ilaine's E-Z Garb Workshop
Ilaine de Cameron  | 	We're going to try an experiment now. Instead of using
                   | 	a loom, we're going to wind all the yarn into balls
ilaine@panix.com   |    and adopt an infinite number of kittens...
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: habura@vccnorthb.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)
Subject: Re: crown tourney
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:11:04 GMT

One evil thought I had, tipped off by someone's comment about elective 
monarchies where the king's eldest son had the "inside track":

Designate a group of Electors for a kingdom. The Electors choose the king,
but the winner of Crown Tourney gets a block of votes automatically (say,
with nine electors, there are fifteen votes altogether; winner of Crown gets
six for winning). This way, if the selection process turns up a truly bad 
potential royal couple, they can be prevented from ruling. In the example
above, at least eight of the nine Electors would have to be opposed.

The Electors could be chosen from three groups, like the Holy Roman Empire's
electors were (maybe the principals of the three Peerage orders, three 
former rulers, and three territorial Barons/Baronesses?). Their names and 
decisions would be public knowledge, as a hedge against pettiness; they 
had best be prepared to face the consequences of their votes.

Then again, I'm not sure that the political repercussions would be worth 
saving the damage that a bad potential couple could cause.

Alison MacDermot

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re:  Sca Gaming Rules
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:10:24 GMT

In article <C0DzH7.B1B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> balaxson@systems.watstar.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>If you want more one on one/ small skirmish rules then take a look at  
>RuneQuest.  The author apparently based the combat system on his  
>expericiences in the lists of the SCA.  The game is also more realistic  
>and it can be fun to see what happens if a knight really did *try* to kill  
>a giant.....:-)

Three of the four, anyway.  The three being Steve Perrin (Comte
Stephen de Lorraine), Steve Henderson (Sir Steven MacEanruig) and
Warren James (whose SCA name I forget....).  The fourth writer--Ray
Turney--has never been in the SCA and flatly states that he wasn't
about to interfere with the other three developing the combat system.

While none of the then-active SCA authors of the game are particularly
active now (though Henderson shows up at the local fighter practice frm
time to time and the occasional event and has been making noises about
about taking up fighting again) Perrin and Henderson are on the
Convention Committee for DunDraCon--along with a number of active SCA
folk.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)

Nothing in this missive constitutes an act or opinion of the Lord High
Constable of the Kingdom of the West unless otherwise explicitly stated.
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: 880840m@axe.acadiau.ca (MICHAEL ALEXANDER MCKAY)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: period calendar
Summary: Who requested it in the first place?
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:26:23 GMT
Organization: Acadia University


 Who was it that started this thread in the first place? Whoever you are, 
please contact me through E-mail (880840m@axe.acadiau.ca) - I have some 
ideas, but need to correspond with you to better understand what it is
you're looking for.
                                               - Mike
From: Cat.Moran@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Cat Moran)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Spinners/weavers/etc. list
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 08:15:26

IdC> |  We're going to try an experiment now. Instead of using
IdC> |  a loom, we're going to wind all the yarn into balls
IdC> |    and adopt an infinite number of kittens...

Ilaine, *you* get to clean the infinite number of litter boxes!

                            Caitlin ni Mhorain
                            Steppes, Ansteorra


 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Non fighting royalty
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 20:42:02 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!  Bertram wrote:

> I would welcome further elaboration of just what is meant by "Distribute
> the power to more people."  Stronger barons?  Stronger households?  What
> is your vision of a more widely distributed power structure?

Allow the creation of more levels of feudalism, both between the Crown and
local groups and on a local level.  [Note: I am _not_ proposing to create
more levels of bureaucracy, just more levels of feudalism.  Feudal
land-holding does not have to be linked to legal branches of the
corporation.  Indeed, we could completely separate the brueaucracy from the
feudalism: After all, why must a kingdom correspond to a legal reporting
unit of the corporation?]  Cariadoc's County proposal is an excellent
model.  These intermediate rulers could be chosen like "super-barons", i.e.
nomination by the local participants and appointment by the Crown, or like
"mini-princes", i.e., by competition.  Pass most award-giving authority
from the Crown to the lower-level rulers, not increasing the number of
awards but rather distributing the authority to give the lower-level
awards.  That alone would eliminate a large part of the royal business and
remove the pressure on the Crown to travel so much.  It would distribute
the most important real power of the Crown, formal recognition, to more
people.  At the same time, I would advocate eliminating any adminstrative
authority vested in the Crown, making it a purely medieval, ceremonial
position.

> Would it take ANY revisions to Corpora (or most kingdom's laws) for the
> King and Queen to announce that ONLY those combattants able to submit a
> list of 30 (or some other large number) other fighters willing to attend
> Crown Tourney and fight as their 'army' would be considered 'acceptable'
> to compete in the upcoming Crown?  Along the same lines, would it take
> any revisions to the existing rules to have "melee" be one of the
> "weapons forms" used in a more traditional round of the finals?

I do not see anything in Corpora that precludes either option.  There is
precedent, however, for the Board regulating new forms of Crown Tournament:
When the East wanted to use archery to decide one bout of the finals, we
got special permission from the Board.  That doesn't mean we had to get
that permission, but it may create a presumption that the Board must
approve any "non-customary" form of tournament.  The Board has formerly
based rulings on non-statutory custom.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Dollar Cost of Awards
From: pears@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Arnold N Pears)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:46:13 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <9301051741.aa22395@mc.lcs.mit.edu> SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca (Graydon) writes:
>Greetings!

Greetings to Graydon, and all on the Rialto.
I would like to generalise Graydon's point for a moment and ask a
related question.
Or perhaps argue that investment for an award is already an
intrinsic part of the SCA structure.

>So, you're looking at a minimum of 2 years and about 1 500 $CDN; I do
>not think it is reasonable to restrict archery contests *or* awards
>to people willing to plunk down an equipment outlay of 1 500 $.

Right, this is where I would like to make a few comments and ask others
to comment.
I believe that the way that awards are structured requires a person
to expend money to gain them.
Consider the following.

	Service awards : If your time is worth money, then when you do
		SCA paperwork, cook a feast, dig latrines at the war,
		or whatever. YOU are spending money to get an award.
		OK so this one is a bit esoteric, but if you are a Kingdom
		officer what about mail, stationery and phone costs?

	A & S Awards   : I think there is a stronger case here. If I
		want to become a Laurel, (which of course I do), I must
		spend money on the materials I use to make items of
		costume, caligraphy, or whatever art forms I wish to
		make an impression on others with. Over the time spent
		to become a Rose Leaf in the West I estimate spending
		over $4000 on costume materials, metal to make suits of
		armour, equipment like hammers, a drill press, chisels,
		a forge, a sewing machine, etc, and 7ish years.
		Not to mention the costs associated with any teaching
		requirements. Workshops for costuming, armour etc all
		have hidden costs in consumables, and equipment maintenance
		which are absorbed by the person holding them.
		Of course time is also an issue, as for service.

	Fighting Awards : You must spend money on armour, and there has
		been a discussion on how to minimise that on the Rialto
		recently. Assuming that leather or plastic is OK for you
		and your persona this can be done quite cheaply. But how
		many swords and shields would you consume in becoming a
		knight? What types of new armour would you need to adopt
		to get a competitive edge?
		I can't really cost here.
		And there is also the time again.

As Bertram would say, just a few comments, I look forward to your
responses over time. Keep well,

Arenwald von Hagenburg.
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Arnold Pears.  Computer Sci Dept		ACSNET : pears@latcs1.oz
La Trobe Uni, Bundoora 3083.			"Well here we all are then."
    Ph (03) 479-1144						-ME
From: DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Non-European Personas
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:10:21 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

(Etienne) wrote: "Wazir which means minister will work for baron(I'm
working on  that one so don't put too much weight on it-it might break)"

I think "Wazir" (Vizier is the usual english form) is much more appropriate
for seneschal than for baron. The Wazir was an administrator assisting a
ruler, not someone in a feudal hierary."Emir" seems appropriate for both
baron and prince.

David (Cariadoc)
From: Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 22:52:56

 JB> Tadhg wrote:
 JB>     The "core area" that I specified is certainly not the *whole*
 JB>     of "western culture", nor even the *focus* of "western culture",
 JB>     but it IS the focus of the aspects of "western culture" that we
 JB>     in the SCA are trying to emulate: the noble tourneying society
 JB>     of the High Middle Ages.
 JB>     
 JB> No, that *you* in the SCA are trying to emulate.  *You* can do
 JB> whatever you like; what *we* do is bound only by Corpora, which says
 JB> nothing of the sort.

 That's because *you* are just in a play; *we* are in the SCA, and not
 every little detail of the SCA is expressed in Corpora.

 Go ahead ... try to register a green mount on a blue field (nothing
 against it in Corpora, right?) and see how far you get. Hope you don't
 mind if I laugh....

    Tadhg

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: 4 On Fealty
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 22:10:50 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!  Tadhg wrote:

>  I was responding to Arval's "It's my fealty and I can swear it if I want
> to" message. Unless he's getting (or giving) pensions or equivalent (and
> occasionaly trinkets do *not* qualify), then it ain't fealty.

Since you haven't any idea what I exchange with my various overlords and
vassals, you were arguing from ignorance.  However, since many (if not
most) SCA fealty agreements do not include an annual payment, let's grant
your assumption for the moment.  I agree that the typical peerage fealty,
which has no actual consequences for either party, is bad medieval
re-creation; if that is what you were criticizing, then we have no
substantive disagreement.  Perhaps it would help for me to explain exactly
what I have in mind.
  
  Master Humbert agrees that each year he will feed his vassal Gwendolyn
  every night at Pennsic and pay her camping fee in return for her arriving
  early enough to deal with the land lottery and set up his camp.
  
  Master Humbert agrees that each year he will supply his vassal William
  with a year's supply of calligraphic inks in return for William's
  producing up to ten works of calligraphy each year at Humbert's behest.
  
  Master Humbert agrees that he will teach his vassal Pietra the art of
  calligraphy in return for her serving him in such ways as they agree over
  the course of the year.

These arrangements are analogous to contracts of service fealty that I have
seen in the SCA.  I think that, given the practical limitations of life in
the Society, they are excellent adaptations of the medieval concept of
fealty to our needs.

You argued that a peer's oath to the Crown is not fealty because the Crown
does not return a fee; the peer remains a peer whether he swears the oath
or no, and so receives no benefit from the contract.  The point I made a
few weeks ago was that the peer can treat his peerage as if it were fee
from the Crown.  He could refrain from displaying the regalia of his order
until he renewed his fealty each reign, and make sure to perform the
services promised.  From his point of view, his peerage _is_ a fee received
in return for his service, and his oath is fealty.  That may not be true
from someone else's point of view, but that's true of everything we do in
the SCA: Duke Cariadoc is not a Berber traveller from anyone's point of
view except his own.  The King of Ansteorra is only a king if you agree to
play his game.  Perhaps this particular form of play-acting would be
unsatisfactory to you (it isn't to my taste either), but given that we are
engaged in communal play-acting of various kinds, I think this scenario is
a reasonable re-creation of medieval notions of fealty.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: period firearms
Keywords: firearms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:58:03 GMT

"Michael Squires" <mikes@cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Remember that it is sometimes difficult at an event to find someone who can
>really inspect welds on helmets, and firearms are much more difficult to
>inspect.

	I'd have to call Winchester and find out, but I believe a very
common and popular method of testing a firearm was to load it hot and
fire it a time or two.  If it passed, it was safe.  Not wishing to get
into the rather long argument of metal fatigue, stress fractures of
microscopic size weakening the steel, and the like, there are two points
that could address this entire issue:

	1) black powder shooters have a favorite load.  In my case, it's
32 grains of black powder and a .457 ball.  Loading a gun with 1.5x the
powder and firing would certainly prove it's safe, but might do some
harm to the weapon.  Thus, I'd say firing it five times with my favorite
load is proof enough that the weapon is safe.  Remember, I've probably
fired it five hundred times prior to this before feeling ready to take
to the range.

	2) A metallurgust is not needed to inspect a weld.  Likewise, I
suspect we have a fair share of ex-military people, hunters, and
plain shooters milling about our society.  Their training alone should
make for proper security of a range.  Formal attention to rangemaster
orders would be required, of course, but firearms safety training is
far easier than learning to control your blows on the field.

	Simply never point the gun at anything you are unwilling to
place a large hole in.  Enforcement by anybody, official authority on
the rangemaster and his deputies.

	However, aren't we going a bit over-board here?  The original
proposal, as I made it, was that shooting of period firearms be considered
as a portion of an event, similar to various minor matches at a Tourney.
If the site isn't condusive to such, or of the group does not feel they
are up to putting such an event on safely, don't do it.  Nobody has
asked for mandatory usage, just whether or not it was feasable.

	If we agree that it is feasable, I would contact the NRA and
see about getting one of their guides for match shooting regulations.
The safety points are all easily worked out; whether this makes it
worth doing or not is the point of contention.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: jeffs@math.bu.EDU (Jeff Suzuki)
Subject: romance and authenticity
Organization: The Internet
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:45:55 GMT


William writes:

>The result I aim at is *not* a fully authentic system built on any
>time and place, but rather a romantic system founded on various
>authentic and typical western-European medieval traditions and
>systems -- and the reason for this desire is that the romance is
>enhanced by authenticity. 

To some extent.  The problem is that the romantic versions come from a
lot of different time periods, and most artists (e.g., writers) simply
transplanted their own neighbors (so to speak) back in time; i.e.,
they were being (gasp) inauthentic.  E.g., the historical Arthur
probably didn't wear chain mail, given that it was't around in 5th (?)
century Britain.  Look at the various paintings of "The Martyrdom of
Saint So-and-So": then cross check when St. So-and-So died and see how
"authentic" the garb, etc., is in the paintings, for a much more
concrete example.  

To inject a note of levity, you must have _some_ authenticity,
otherwise you end up like Don Quixote who tells Sancho that since the
chivalrous romances didn't mention knights paying for anything, they
obviously didn't, and since they didn't mention knights eating, they
obviously didn't...

Tio dell'abaco
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca