ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Dennis Grace]

Salut Cozyns,

Lyonel aisai.

Lionardo says:
>Actually, I'd like to delve a bit into that particular quibble, if I may. 
>In
>truth there are at least a few "rapier fighters" who do not consider
>themselves to fight with a Rapier at all, per se. During the early 16th
>Century in Italy, for example, the extant manuals on the Art of Defence
>covers numerous weapons and never mentions anything about Rapier, only
>calling the weapon a spada (sword). The difference as I see it between
>"light" & "heavy" is actually whether or not armor is worn. In the case of
>Unarmored Combat the style utilizes Olympic equipment or theatrical swords
>and concentrates on a thrusting style in the interest of safety (as well as
>for recreating the more common thrusting styles of sword combat in the 15th
>and 16th Centuries). The armor commonly worn to practice general swordplay
>outside of the tournament was padded clothing and blunted and baited 
>swords.
>So the only exclusionary statement in your revised question is "medieval",
>as the Art of Defence is more Renaissance but is otherwise still combat and
>is not unchivalric by any means (except for the lack of horses.) To me and
>my persona a sword is a sword, whether I wear Armor for protection in
>practicing the use of the weapon or not. So BOTH styles can be utilized to
>recreate "chivalric combat" to my way of thinking. (Probably not a commonly
>held view, though.)

I agree, generally, with much of your historical assessment.  I do not agree 
with your quibble.  "Light" combat is a sword fighting style (and, 
eventually, sword construction style) that evolved primarily for urban 
defense.  Armored combat, which was recreated in the lists at tournaments, 
was a matter for battlefields and wars.  It is the latter fighting form that 
concerns the chivalry.  As such, light fighting could hardly have been 
considered chivalric.

>[snip of knighthood modeling the Arthurian Ideal]
> > 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.
>
>Yet do we not attempt to recreate pre-17th century culture? Was not some of
>the finest chivalric literature written in the 15th and 16th Centuries?
>Certainly in Italy one of the defining works of the genre was "Orlando
>Furioso" written in the early part of the 16th century. I'm just as moved 
>by
>chivalric literature and it's traditions and just as firmly believe in 
>those
>ideals as any SCA knight I know.

Yes, but those texts were produced by way of %hommage%, a looking back to 
past traditions for a nobility and decorum the authors believed were lacking 
in their own societies.

>Yet by this definition Vikings and early
>Celts do not belong among the members of the Knighthood either, since they
>are not a part of that same Arthurian culture. In fact it could easily be
>argued that such personas, certainly from before 1000 CE or so, are even
>LESS a part of that culture than, say, a 16th century nobleman.

At least the early vikings are fighting with similar weapons and armor.  An 
armored Burgundian of the fourteenth century can compete directly with an 
armored Viking of the eighth.  The fencers are doing something else 
entirely.  The only way I can compete with, say, a 16th Century Scot is if 
he dons an armet and wields a broadsword.

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.