A question on War
Robert G. Ferrell
rferrell at bga.com
Wed Jul 19 21:20:06 PDT 1995
>Let me lump some of these together here in an effort to slow the number
>From: keandbc at ix.netcom.com (Keith Ewing)
>Subject: Re: A question on War
>>Ansteorra is presently a main combatant in only one war. The Gulf War.
>>Ansteorrans travel all over the known world to attend wars in which
>>other kingdoms are the main combatants, but the kingdom is only
>>involved in Gulf Wars. I answered your last question first.
>That's all right. I've never been critical of our Main war, although the
>rationalization for it escapes me. However, if rumor is to be believed,
>and I will do so in this case as it may indicate a possible trend, we
>are actively *soliciting* wars.
>>Now the first part of the first question, "why?". From a fighters
>>standpoint it is the only way to test one aspect of our art.
>This makes perfect sense to me, particularly as regards the recreating
>period strategies for experimentation (Although I do question how effective
>such recreations can be without details such as cavalry and organized
>drilling of one's troops (which is something I've not seen Ansteorrans
>all that keen on)). I can even understand the fact that for the
>participants (and even some observers) wars can be fun and an opportunity
>to do things that normal one on one combat doesn't allow.
>>More on "Why?". From the standpoint of any Scadian, wars are an
>>excellent opportunity to meet people from other parts of the known
>>world and exchange ideas with them...
>As a Scadian who does not see that wars are an excellent opportunity, since
>they are not advertised or presented as such, I must question your use of
>the word "any". Your message is the *first* time I have heard anyone
>discuss wars as ANYTHING other than "an unsightly brawl" (since we don't
>use artillery :) ), (other than Pennsic, which has become well known for
>its non-combatant aspect).
>>I could go on. I haven't mentioned dancing or reveling or enchanted
>>ground or kingdom patriotism yet.
>That's all right, the points you *have* made have been more than adequate
>to suggest that there might be other reasons to attend the Gulf Wars.
>>Now to answer the last part of your first question, "Why so MANY?"
>>I have never considered one annually to be "Many".
>One annually is not "Many", you are correct. Moreover, for every kingdom
>to have their "own" war may well be a good thing in that they could serve
>to take some of the population pressures off of Pennsic. OTOH, doing so
>could "Glut" the market, making wars less "Cosmopolitan" since people
>would have no reason to tavel that far to attend a war.
>I suppose the root of my questions has to do with a certain dissatisfaction
>that the growth of the "War" thing just reinforces the point that the Society
>is centered on heavy weapons fighting, and everything else is little more
>than keeping the camp followers busy.
>>Kein MacEwan, Warlord of Ansteorra. (Does it show?)
>Not usually :)
A war is just another event. It is no more or less necessary than any other
SCA event. While the *focus* of a war is ostensibly heavy weapons fighting,
events are what you make them. I can go to a war, never put my armor on,
sometimes never even witness the fighting, and still have a great time. I
have been to a great many A&S oriented events, on the other hand, where I
wished desperately for combat or something like it to break the monotony.
Of course, A&S has become a lot less fun in the six years since I became a
Laurel; that is another kettle of fish entirely. My point is simply that the
theme of an event is not necessarily a binding constraint on what you choose
to do while there. Some groups (such as, for example, Bjornsborg) take the
party with them; the type of event is almost completely irrelevant to what
kind of atmosphere exists in their vicinity. Don't let autocrats or
convention dictate whether or not you enjoy yourself.
More information about the Ansteorra