ANST - New topic

[Dennis Grace]

Salut, Cosyns,

Lyonel aisai.

I've been sitting back quietly pondering the responses Timotheus' questions
have generated.  I'm not sure I have any real answers I want to proffer, but
I do have some observations to share, and I think the questions themselves
raise some interesting side questions.  Let's look at question 1:

>        1: Do you give an opponent choice of weapons?  Let's say you are
>paired with Joe Newcomer in the first round.  What about Sir Supercool? Do
>you insist on your favorite? Does it matter if you're Duke Hotottrot and he
>has no chance? Does it matter if he's the Duke?

I find this a rather odd question in some respects.  Unless the tournament
specifies a weapon, don't we always give our opponents a choice of weapons?
As for our own weapons of choice, should they impact our opponents' choices?
Over the years, I've had numerous opponents in tournaments (though *never*
in Crown of Coronet lists)--upon seeing that I intended to fight
florentine--put aside their shields in order to fight florentine.  In many
cases, I have found this to be an unfortunate choice.  I respect my
opponent's desire to honor my choice, but I do not consider myself at a
disadvantage fighting florentine against sword and shield.  More to the
point, both combatants fighting with the same weapons does not necessarily
make the battle more fair.  

Take for example polearmsmen.  Most sword-and-shield fighters consider
themselves at an advantage when they meet a polearmsman in the lists.  In
such a case, many would quickly surrender the "advantage" of a shield and
take up a polearm in order to even the bout.  An old friend of mine
currently residing in AnTir, one Sir Aveloc the Young, has both beaten me
and lost to me fighting with pole weapons against sword and shield.
Fighting glaive to glaive, Aveloc usually trounces me; likewise, I've
usually beaten him when we both fought sword and shield.  I'm not certain,
but it seems to me that giving up my shield and taking up a polearm to
"honor" that particular gentleman, far from being fair, would be both
patronizing and foolhardy.

Another interesting point worth considering:  illuminations and literary
depictions of unhorsed medieval tournaments--especially of late period
fighting at the fence--frequently show combatants using dissimilar weapons.

So the final question I would have to ask in response to Timotheus' question
1 is why would you offer to change weapons?  If your opponent *asks* to
fight style X versus X or style X versus Y, she may simply be asking to try
something new--that would be a different matter, and I'd think you'd have to
take such requests case by case.  Otherwise, if a warrior enters the list
intending to fight with a great sword, knowing that the majority of her
opponents will be fighting behind shields, then she has predetermined that
she wishes to fight great sword against sword-and-shield.  Shouldn't we
honor *that* desire?

>        2: Do you give a point of honor to your opponent?  Arm or leg him,
>and would you give up your own? What if he's a superior fighter?  An
>inferior one? Would you want the same treatment? What if giving up an
>advantage *is* an advantage to you? What about giving an advantage to a less
>talented person to start the bout? (ie: fight offhanded against Joe Newcomer
>in his first tourney) Is that insulting to the other person?  What about
>accepting an advantage from a more talented person? 

Interesting choice of words here, Timotheus:  "point of honor."  If I
receive an honest advantage over an opponent and then surrender that
advantage, why is this honorable?  Personally, fighting florentine against
sword and shield, I rather like being knee-to-knee with an opponent who
can't run away. In that case, I don't think I'm giving up an advantage so
much as modifying it slightly.  Fighting sword and shield, on the other
hand, I think I'll keep my legs.  If I don't want the advantage, why should
I take it in the first place?  Similarly, I *can* see giving up your shield
or weak arm if you take your opponent's strong arm. That way you retain the
advantage, but you lessen it.  Why, on the other hand, should you give up an
arm when you've taken your opponent's shield arm?  If you strike your
opponent a fair blow, you're due an advantage.  If you respect your
opponent, shouldn't you keep advantages fairly won?

As to starting a bout with a handicap--here I'll gladly interject an
opinion--no. If your opponent needs a handicap, he should return to fighter
practice and hold out a bit on entering tournaments and wars.

>        3.Do you *try* to win every bout?  Give 110%? Maybe only 75%? Does
>it dishonor your opponent (or yourself) to *not* try to the greatest of your
>ability? Is it ok to "throw" a bout? What if the person is very deserving
>of victory? What if they are new? Or your friend?

This seems like such an easy question, and I usually hear responses like:
"I always give 100%," or "I would not dishonor my opponent by refusing to
give every ounce etc."  Truth is, we all have varying levels of
concentration, strength, competitive initiative, and ego.  I can remember
doing particularly well in one list where I placed all my mental effort on
winning.  I can also remember doing particularly badly in another lists
where I did the same thing.  I've gone into tournaments intending to just
enjoy myself only to find myself suddenly in the final round or even winning.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know what constitutes 100%.  I can win
by remaining relaxed, unfocused, and having a great deal of fun.  Or I can
win by being resolute, goal-oriented, and businesslike.  Or I can lose
through either method.  

As for throwing a bout, I can't see it.  How can an opponent be deserving of
victory if you have to throw the bout for her to win?  And can inexperienced
fighters become experienced fighters by having fights thrown for them?  And
aren't most of the fighters in the list our friends?

Of course, part of Timotheus' question #3 segues into this last question:

>        4. Now to the odd one... Is it honorable to *want * to win? ("huh?")
>I mean, everyone wants to win,(and have fun) but where do you draw the line?
>No one thinks it is a "good thing"(tm) to take *unfair* advantage of your
>most noble opponent, but  how you answer the first three points determines
>what you feel is a fair or an unfair advantage, and leads to your personal
>choice of "how bad do I want to win?".  From insisting on a specific weapons
>style to refusing to call blows is a VERY wide spectrum of "want".  Do you
>want to win enough to change your view on points 1,2, or 3? If it's the
>tourney of the Canton of Wayoutthere?  If it's your local group's event? If
>it's Crown?

1st (but not foremost): Some knights devise Crown-winning strategies,
usually designed to psych their opponents.  I have never been comfortable
with this, and try to follow consistent guidelines in tournaments at every
level.

2nd:  I don't care who you are or why you think you're there, "wanting" to
win so badly that you will cheat is still cheating.  If you cheat, you
dishonor yourself, your consort, your opponent, your Sovereign, and your
Kingdom.  I feel ill every time I hear "want" used as a euphemism for
"cheat."  Of course, we all make judgment errors; we're all subject to the
effects of epinephrine, endorphins, and encephalins.  Thus, we all
occasionally fail to call blows.  Making such errors again and again
throughout a tournament, however, is unacceptable behavior.  It's cheating.
Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down. I, for one, do not want to serve a
weeble King.

lo vostre por vos servir

Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
_____________________________
Dennis Grace
University of Texas at Austin
English Department
Recovering Medievalist
amazing at mail.utexas.edu

Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
                           AElfric of York

============================================================================

To be removed from the Ansteorra mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe ansteorra".