From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Rapier combat pro & con (long)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:10:59 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Someone sent me a copy of an article by Alfred of Carlysle 
(West Kingdom) that recently appeared on the Rialto.  (For
some reason, I did not receive it directly at my site.) The
subject of the article was why rapier combat should not be
allowed in the SCA.  
-------------------

>First, rapier fighting, even as documented, barely steps into the realm of
>SCA period.  The bulk of the romantic era with which it is associated is
>fixed in the middle of the seventeenth century.  

To paraphrase the miracle worker from "The Princess Bride," 
there's a big difference between "out of period" and "mostly
out of period."  There are plenty of other things that barely
step into the realm of SCA period -- almost all of the dances
we do, for example (at least, those that are not strictly out 
of period).  Are you in favor of banning dancing for the same
reason?

>As attractive as this time is (and it is very attractive to me), 
>do we want to push the bounds of the SCA to truly encompass the 
>cavalier period?   

Why do you assume that rapier combat requires "pushing the bounds
of the SCA to... the cavalier period?"  If rapier combat existed
from 1550-1700 (to use nice round numbers), does it follow that
any attempt to recreate rapier combat must encompass that entire
time period?  If so, then any attempt at archery must encompass
the entire period from ?? BC to present.  

>If we do accept the seventeenth century as a valid focus of our 
>organization, what reason would we then have for not accepting 
>an extension into the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries?  

If we accept the 14th Century, what reason do we have 
for not accepting the 15th?  If we accept the 15th Century, 
what reason do we have for not accepting the 16th?  You can
carry that argument as far as you like.  The answer is, we
have certain boundaries defined by our charter (Corpora).
If we choose to ignore that and decide that the second half
of the 16th Century is not valid, what reason would we then
have for accepting the first half?  Having decided that the
entire 16th Century if not valid, what about the 15th?  This
argument works both ways.

>The accoutrements of "heavy weapons" fighting presumes an
>armored opponent.  The romance of the "Age of Chivalry", which is tightly
>bound in the minds of many to what the SCA stands for, pivots around the
>"knight in shining armour".  

Really?  But the "shining armor" you talk about is plate armor.  
In other words, Renaissance armor.  It is comtemporaneous with
the rapier, not with Richard the Lionhearted of King Arthur (if 
Arthur ever really existed).  It is a development that, in your words, 
"barely steps into the realm of SCA period."  Perhaps you meant to say, 
"knights in grubby chain mail?" :-)

>Thrones were won and lost, ladies rescued, and great quests pursued 
>by these metal-clad heroes.  

This, I think, is part of the problem.  History may tell us
that the metal-clad hero did not, in fact, exist thoughout most 
of SCA period in fact, but myth and legend tell us he did.  The
question is, are we recreating myth or history?  Some people
want to rewrite any part of history that does not fit into the
myth (or "dream," if you prefer).  They may choose to believe 
that warriors in metal plate existed throughout all of SCA period,
because that is history "as it should have been" -- the way it is
in the King Arthur legends.  They may also choose to pretend that
rapiers and gunpowder never existed prior to 1600, because that
is also "the way it should have been."

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to the SCA because
of a romantic vision.  Many of us are.  The problem is, my
romantic vision my not be the same as yours.  But since we
need some common background against which to play this game,
how are we going to decide what that background should be.
If we define that background in objective, historical terms --
Western Europe between 600 and 1600 -- then we have a set a
standard.  People may disagree about details of the background,
but we can at least hope to find documentation that everyone can
agree upon.  But if we define the background as the dream -- 
history the way it should have been, rather than the way
it was -- how will we ever be able to agree on anything?  
Okay, so knights should have worn full plate armor in the
12th Century and gunpowder should have been unknown in the 16th.
What about dragons?  Should they have existed also?  What about
unicorns?  Griffons?  The lost continent of Atlantis?  Once we start
rewriting history, where shall we stop?  What will we use as
documentation, not for "what was," but what "should have been?"
D&D game books?  This is a slippery road that I think we should
not start down.
  

>Since armor is not unknown in the cavalier age, would it not be 
>more consistent with our current direction to simulate this form 
>of combat, rather than create another?
 
16th Century fencing masters and their students often protected 
themselves by wearing gauntlets and shirts of mail during practice.  
This is closer to early Medieval armor than the full-plate armor
that was used in 16th tournaments.  


>Third, rapier fighting deserves a mechanism of its own within which to
>flourish.  Regardless of how broadly accepted they become, fencers will always be
>second-class practitioners in the SCA.  They will inevitably be perceived as
>the tail wagging the dog or, what is worse in my mind, what the heavy
>fighters do "for fun" -- or what those who can't do "heavy" do instead.

By this same reasoning, dancers deserve an organization of their own --
as long as they remain within the SCA, dancing will be perceived as
what heavy fighters do for fun, or what those who can't fight do instead.
The same with costumers -- they will always be second-class practitioners
because they aren't fighters.  Make sure the embroiderers get an organization
all to themselves -- we wouldn't want the costumers, or the weavers, drawing
away any of the attention they deserve.  If we keep this up, we should be
able to create at least a hundred spinoff groups from the SCA -- and leave
a few poor stick jocks very lonely. 

It's nice that you are so sensitive of rapier fighters' feelings.  
It's interesing to hear that you feel that we feel like second-class 
citizens -- I hadn't realized we felt that way at all.  Perhaps this
perception results from the fact that you live in one of the few Kingdoms
that does not yet have rapier combat and therefore don't come into contact
with many rapier fighters on a regular basis?  I'm also interested to hear
that heavy fighters consider us second-class participants.  Again, perhaps
you should find out how the heavy fighters feel in Kingdoms that actually
have rapier combat.  You might start by asking any Ansteorran knight. Be
careful how you phrase it, though -- he's also likely to be an Ansteorran Don.


>It is a mistake to confuse the stated bounds of this organization 
>or its structure with either reality or historical precedence.  

I'm not sure how to interpret this.  Are you saying that the
stated bounds of the SCA are not based on reality or historical
precedence or that they should not be?  I'm also not sure what
"historical precedence" means.  Did you perhaps mean "precedents?"
What, in your opinion, are the stated bounds of the organization
based on?

>We are fighting that battle on so many fronts already -- the naming 
>of the peerages, recognizing combat archery and the contribution of 
>its participants, the role and place of membership --

The argument put forth for renaming peerages is that it would 
bring "the dream" closer to period practice.  Banning period 
rapier combat would move us in the opposite direction.  The
civilized Kingdoms :-) such as Ansteorra have already recognized
combat archery, as well as rapier combat.  As far as membership
goes, what does that have to do with the price of rice in Cathay?
 
-- Nicholas van Leyden