ANST - Re: BG - Tourney d'Amore

[Lenny Zimmermann]

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:23:02 -0600, Ritter Dietrich wrote:

>I was actually there for the tourney and was witness to several of the
>actual reasons that the barrier was set aside when the rapier combatants
>took the field.  The main reason I heard from three of the combatants was
>that it was essentially quite absurd to use it.
>
>To elucidate: even though barrier combat was, in fact, at the height of it's
>popularity in the time of Elizabeth, the fact is that anyone competing in
>combat *at* a barrier in one of those tourneys would have been in a full
>cuiraiss and using a greatsword.

Broadsword or spear was also very common.

>  Additionally, when fighting at the barrier
>it was/is considered to be rude if one uses a thrust- this makes it somewhat
>difficult when using a rapier, does it not?

By the rules we use for rapier combat, yes. (Rapiers were not a thrust
only weapon, but for safety reasons we don't allow "hacking" with the
weapons.) 

>  These facts combined to make a
>fairly strong case for fighting to first blood as well as not using the
>barrier.
>
>I'm certain that we could have come up with a sort of premise for using the
>barrier (fighting ship to ship over a railing or something) but no one at
>the time could think up anything plausible.  Perhaps next year we'll be more
>prepared and think up a suitable scenario but in the meantime please know
>that there was some sound judgement for not using that wonderful piece of
>wood for trials of fence.

Of course, the fighting a boarding action with rapiers is not really
all that plausible, by this reasoning, either, as someone else
dutifully pointed out. Come to think of it, unless we are recreating
the Prize Fights of the London Masters of Defence (who used far more
than just Rapiers and is a Middle Class construct, anyway) or are
recreating a sparring match in a school of fence or are competing in
the period sport of fencing (which many of us are still researching),
none of the things we do on the field are "right". 

They are all constructs. I will say, however, that I prefer to look to
the methods used in our studied time periods to use as the basis for
recreation. And in that sense a barrier combat is probably far more
acceptable than a "boarding action". (What can I say, my persona is a
land-lubbing noble who doesn't have a clue what an "Elizabethan" court
is, since it's a few decades past his time.) I guess what it comes
down to is that any group of combatants, be they armored or unarmored,
will decide to try and play at what they think will be most enjoyable
for them and help them in their attempts at recreation. 

So I guess I've just made a non-argument. :-) I'd just have to guess
that they didn't want to fight the barriers because they thought it
wouldn't be fun. (Pure conjecture on my part, here, as I was not
there.) 

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg
(mka Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio)
zarlor at acm.org

"A soldier uses arms merely with skill, whereas a knight uses them
with virtuous intention. Mercenaries may be excellent soldiers; but
an action which may be praised in a soldier may be blamed in a
knight. For a soldier, the goal is victory: for the knight, since he
is ready to go, if necessary, to certain destruction, the goal is
honor."   - Pomponio Torelli, 1596.
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.