ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Dennis Grace]

Salut Cozyns,

Lyonel aisai.

In response to Viscount Galen's -
> > To think that _every_ possible SCA activity should be able to
> > recognized by a peerage seems to me to be a fallacy.

Lionardo says

>Why? Is there a specific reason that only if you fight with rattan in
>tournaments you should be allowed to be a peer?

First, the reference to rattan in this response is a couched insult 
(unintentional, I presume).  We are attempting, to the best of our ability, 
to simulate medieval chivalric combat.  For reasons of safety, we have long 
agreed that we should fight with "practice" weapons.  Our medieval 
counterparts used wood.  We use rattan and siloflex because they outlast 
wood and do not present the same potential threat as broken wood.  When I 
see my chosen martial art being called "rattan" or "fighting with rattan," I 
see a verbal sneer.

So, your question, more appropriately phrased, should be, "For what specific 
reason does martial prowess counts toward a peerage only if said prowess is 
displayed with the weapons of medieval chivalric combat?"

(Now, I realize that this quibble creates further quibbles, but I believe it 
is essentially correct. Yes, rapiers were used in the latter periods in 
tournaments at the fence, but for the majority of the era we are recreating, 
they were not.)

Second, to answer the rephrased question, the Chivalry is the only one of 
the three peerages with any resemblance to an actual medieval model (albeit 
more closely related to the *virtual* middle ages of Geoffrey of Monmouth, 
Wace, and Chretien de Troyes).  I wanted to be a knight (okay, specifically, 
I wanted to be Lancelot du Lac) long before I heard of the SCA.  I've read 
them a dozen times, but I still sweat when Lancelot crosses the sword 
bridge, still thrill with pain when Gawain takes the arrows in _Percival_, 
still tense with every blow, still cry when Mallory's Arthur dies slaying 
Mordred.  I may have a long way to go, but I still want to be Lancelot.

Fencing may be fine and noble, elegant and exciting, graceful and refined, 
but it no more belongs at Arthur's Round Table than sunglasses and a Ruger 
Blackhawk.

Third, consider the groups being lumped together in the mix of this proposed 
combat arts peerage.

1) Equestrian activities, target archery, and thrown weapons competition are 
not even in the same class as the others.  While all three have martial 
roots, they are all non-agonistic.  Frankly, I think the skills involved in 
target archery and thrown weapons are just too narrow for consideration of 
this sort, anyway.

2) I think it would be marvelous if we could recognize our equestrian folk 
(knights who actually ride horses - whoa! concept), but the logistics make 
this unlikely.  Too few can afford the time, money, and effort required.  
Still, it is a young art in the SCA.  Let's give it a chance to evolve on 
its own.

3) Rapier combat.  I used to believe this group would one day have a peerage 
all their own.  I no longer expect this to happen.  As Master Tivar has 
noted, knighthood was not generally granted for prowess with this particular 
weapon group.  By the time the broadsword had been replaced by the rapier, 
knighthood was a recognition awarded for extraordinary service and 
outstanding battlefield command successes.

4)  Throughout most of the middle ages, archery was a peasant form.  To my 
mind, the idea of a peerage for prowess in archery goes beyond the concept 
of re-creating the middle ages "as they should have been" and into creating 
a fantasy realm.

5)  A peerage in scouting?  That's the silliest thing I've ever heard (okay, 
not counting a couple speeches by Dan Quayle). Sorry, but I just can't find 
the strength to contain my sarcasm on this one.  The skill set involved in 
scouting is only slightly more complex than finding your way home from the 
mall.  Oh, wait!  How about a peerage in looking nice in garb that someone 
else made for you?

6) The real art of siege weaponry is in the construction, not in the 
battlefield application.  This is a question for the Laurel.

7) Non-tourneying chivalric combatants.  According to corpora, the order of 
the chivalry recognizes prowess "with the weapons of chivalric tournament 
combat" or some such.  The wording "with the weapons" does not require 
prospects to specifically fight *in tournaments*.  I've seen knights made 
for battlefield skill, so I think this group is already being recognized.

Lionardo further opines:
>I know I can think of numerous
>individuals I would easily consider "Peers" who will never be recognized as
>such because they don't quite "fit" into one of the above categories 
>because
>of whatever their "primary" activity is. So even though such individuals
>could provide a truly positive culture and input into one of the Peerage
>Orders, they should not be considered because their main area of activity 
>is
>not one that can be easily pigeonholed?

I have met some truly remarkable Dons and Don~as.  They are not peers of the 
realm, yet they provide a positive cultural model and have a profound 
influence on the operation of the kingdom.

I do not see a lack.

lo vostre por vos servir
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.