ANST - Fighting awards/orders...
pmitchel at flash.net
Wed Nov 5 14:34:07 PST 1997
Pug Bainter wrote:
> Did I hear of a King's Lancer for equestrian?
That's a tourney title, like Steppes Warlord, or Queen's Champion.
> >> If so, why
> >> aren't the Falcon, Rapier and Archer the equivalent of the Thistle and
> >> Crane. (I think the Thistle mechanism would easily work for the
> >> Martial Arts and thus have one award with multiple categories.)
> > Because in their wisdom, the various rulers of Ansteorra who created
> > these honors did not set it up that way. Nor do I think fighting
> > suffers the lack of an AoA-level award in this kingdom; the knights'
> > squires, the Masters' students, and the Don's cadets seem to serve
> > as the equivalent recognition. Hindsight is easy.
> Can it be correctly in hindsight? Should it be?
Not without much confusion. A _lot_ of Sable Falcons have been given
out. And goodly number of Queen's Rapiers by now, too.
> I don't think that fighting is lacking, I just like consistancy. *smile*
Remember for whom "foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin..."
> This is more of what I was wanting to touch on. So the prerequisites for
> a Centurian are different enough from the Knighthood that someone can be
> recognized as one, but never the other?
Certainly! I think it no scandal to publically admit that there are
Centurions who will never be knights; and it's unlikely that any knight
will become a Centurion who has not gone far and away beyond the work
expected of knights. Certainly, I never expect to be a Centurion.
> > If we wanted to, we could knight someone for excellence in
> > rapier combat; don't hold your breath.
> I know I won't. That was my original question, but the way I read it,
> they were restricted from the Order of the Chivarly.
> Martial arts are "including but not limited to tournament lists, wars,
> combat archery, and period fencing, as well as such related activities
> as scouting and target archery."
> Order of Chivalry is made in part for being "considered the equal of his
> or her prospective peers with the basic weapons of tournament combat"
The Order in each kingdom gets to decide _exactly_ what that means,
and who's met the standards.
> As well, this is the sentence I read that (incorrectly?) implied to
> me they couldn't receive armigerous titles for rapier combat. "Rapier
> combat, not having been part of formal tournament combat in the Middle
> Ages, shall not be a part of formal tournament lists for royal ranks
> and armigerous titles."
I can see your point, but what it means is that we can't set up
a rapier tourney and make the winner a King, a Prince or a Baron.
pmitchel at flash.net / http://www.flash.net/~pmitchel/galen.htm
"Commit principled acts of self-interest and ruthless logic."
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
More information about the Ansteorra