New name for 'Heavy Weapons Combat'

[dennis guy grace]

At 10:04 AM 11/20/96 Gnith wrote:
>I prefer the term 'Armored Combat.'
>
>'Chivalric Combat' tends to sound stuffy and 'Tournament Combat' leaves us
>melee fighters in the cold.

To provide some background:

I previously noted the lack of poetry in the term "heavy combat," and I find
the term "heavy fighter" ludicrous (the only time I feel like a heavy
fighter is after a big breakfast).  The terms are used in opposition with
"light fighters" and "light lighting," which terms I find equally
disagreable as it has been--at various places and times in the SCA--applied
to EVERYTHING other than our rattan-and-armor martial art:  fencing, period
fencing, shinai, boffer fighting, combat archery.

Mistress Gunnora and Viscount Galen of Bristol suggested "chivalric combat,"
which I think sounds fine--despite Gnith's objections--but which has a
number of other problems.  First, chivalric--lexically--is synonymous with
chivalrous.  I've noticed that SCA members tend to disregard this fact,
however, and equate "chivalrous" with "valiant and courtly" on the one hand
and "chivalric" with "things knights do" on the other.  Since the lexical
equation exists, however, I feel uncomfortable calling one form of fighting
"chivalrous" as this label implies something less savory about all other
martial forms.  In other words, ALL of our combat forms are chivalrous.
Second, (and this is not a major issue for me) while "chivalrous" is a
variant on a 14th century coinage, "chivalric" is an 18th century coinage.
Chivalric ain't period.  Third, strictly speaking, chivalric/chivalrous
combat etymologically suggests combat ahorse.  Yeah, I know, so do the
spurs, and so do the terms "chevalier" and "cavalier."  Still, I feel a bit
dishonest calling our art "horseback combat" when we don't use horses. It's
hard enough explaining our martial art to mundanes without having to explain
that OUR version of horseback fighting is done without the horse.

Gnith also notes that "Tournament Combat" leaves melee fighters without a
label, and I agree.  Can't say I'm a real fan of "armored combat" either,
though.  "Armored combat" is what Patton and Rommel did in North Africa or
what the Monitor and the Virginia did in the Civil War.

For now, all my objections aside, I'm sticking with chivalric combat until
someone comes up with something better.  Hey, at least it beats "heavy
fighting."  Until I hear a better idea, I remain

Yours in e-Service

Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
_______________________
Dennis G. Grace
Postmodern Medievalist
Division of Rhetoric and Composition
University of Texas at Austin
amazing at mail.utexas.edu
_____________________________________________

Si hoc legere scia, nimium eruditionis habes.