Lyonesse champions and winners....
Heidi J Torres
hjt at tenet.edu
Mon Oct 7 10:29:04 PDT 1996
Mari here again!
On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, dennis grace wrote:
> >According to most of the (admittedly limited) research that I've done,
> >you are mostly correct - there would usually be several "winners" or
> >"champions" for a given tournament. Thus, by insisting on a single
> >winner, aren't we imposing a 20th century "ideal" in a (theoretically)
> >medieval re-creation? Wouldn't having multiple winners give a better
> >feeling for what a medieval tournament was like?
> >Mikjal Annarbjorn
> So who gets to wear the crown on alternate Thursdays? :)
I can't speak for any other period style tournament, but Lyonesse Tourney
names both a number of "defenders" -- those who have, in the eyes of the
judges, performed with the greatest prowess, chivalry and flair during
the tourney -- as well as a "champion", chosen from among those defenders.
I have only limited knowledge in the area of period tourneys and
tournament societies, but from various things I've read, period
tournaments did at times chose a single champion, or at least designated
the fighter who would receive the lion's share of the prizes. Also
remember, in real tournaments there were often professional tourney
fighters, rather, I think, like modern tennis or golf pros. Just because
they didn't "win" the purse of gold, or the shield with the picture of
the Virgin on it (or whatever fine prize the sponsoring noble might
offer), doesn't mean they went away empty-handed.
I think I'm on a tangent now, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Mari ferch Rathyen
More information about the Ansteorra