ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Zarlor]

On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:15:08 PDT, Sir Lyonel wrote:

>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.

In this I must disagree. There was not such distinction, at least not
in Italy, between any kind of "light" or "heavy" style of combat that
I can find. In fact it could be said that tournaments had been more
politically motivated easily since the 14th century and were less a
test of skills used on the battlefield. (Especially since the main
weapon of the tourney field was the lance which had long fallen out of
favor and which we do not recreate on our standard tournament fields
in any case.)

The manuals of the 15th and 16th centuries concern themselves with
singular combat and give no indication whatsoever that this method of
"defence" was not meant for use on the battlefield but only for
protection in the street. In fact I would argue that protection in the
streets was about the last thing these manuals were written for. 

Finally as to suggest that this form of learning combat could be
hardly considered chivalric... Does armored combat involve a horse in
our recreations? The closest activity which might be considered
"chivalric" in the strictest of definitions would be equestrian
activities. However I do understand your intent and as such I would
suggest that armor does not make one uphold our somehow become an
embodiment of chivalric values and ideals. I suggest instead that it
is the person who does so, no matter the venue or the armor worn.

I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that because an individual
pursues the study of combat in a venue were visible armor is not
required that they must somehow be lacking in the qualities of
chivalry.

>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.

And that was not true in the earlier works? I find that most difficult
to believe, but if you wish I will happily provide an example from
16th century France of an individual most famous and written of that
was considered to be an embodiment of those ideals in that time. Have
you not heard of the Chevalier Bayard, the knight without peer and
without reproach? A man known for his prowess and exceptional courtesy
on the fields of war and on the grounds of singular combat. A man
renowned for his honor and chivalry and written of at length as a true
example of the chivalric ideal throughout Europe. That ideal most
certainly had not died by the 16th century, but was very alive and
very well. 

>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.

So is this the rub of the argument? Early celtic (non-armor) and 14th
Century Burgundian are similar? Certainly not in an historical
perspective. If you mean on the SCA fields, then of course you have a
point. Only in that there is a strict difference in the method of
safety used in pursuit of the practice of the sword. I can, and have,
worn the same armor, except for the helm, on the unarmored and the
armored combat fields. As long as that armor does not detract from my
ability to call a blow, then the safety requirements are met so I'm
not sure I see the point except that you feel the only true method of
practicing combat is with the use of rattan instead of a theatrical
blade. Is that the case?

I would also suggest that we look at other SCA venues. In the Arts &
Sciences competitions bobbin lace does not compete directly with
stained glass, indeed it cannot as these are two completely separate
venues. Instead they compete on their own merits. Cannot individuals
be looked at on their own merits as well?

In this respect I would refer back to your earlier question to Don
Kazimir where you asked if he would want you sitting in on a Don
circle. While I am not a member of that august Order, I know that if I
were I would have no problems with you sitting in on that circle. Why?
Because as a Peer you should already be recognized as an individual
who has done more than just fight, but who has shown maturity, a noble
bearing and an ability to judge those qualities in others, and it is
that quality that shows the greatest benefit in those circles. Of
course one would hope you would be familiar to some extent with the
skills of the individuals in question, but I don't think it is an
absolute requirement. How do the Laurels handle considering a
candidate whose skills lie outside of their own experience? Indeed, I
would suggest that the Laurels are all the stronger for their
diversity and acceptance thereof.

Honos Servio
Lionardo Acquistapace
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.