[Ansteorra] newcomer thanks

Tim Lozos sirtimo at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 20 09:36:10 PST 2001


>a. almost exclusively, a knight in the time period
>which the SCA recreates, had to own a horse and had to
>be able to field that horse - it was one of the
>primary distinguishing characteristics of being a
>knight -

In general, yes, very correct. Of course this ranges from a wealthy
land-owning noble with many horses, retainers, squires, etc, to the pauper
knight who literally used a plow horse from his fields.

>Should this not be the case in a organization with so
>many people placing such an emphasis on being period.
>Should not knighthood be conferred only on those who
>have the finances and the other means to OWN and field
>a horse?

There has been that arguement in the past. You might want to read a little
on the history of the SCA to see what proposals and ideas have been hashed
out in the past, as well as some of the reasons the SCA has developed it's
unique social structure. H.L. Stefan's Florigium is an excellent place to
find what amounts to a FAQ of the SCA.  I think I'm mispelling it but the
website is www.florigium.com (could someone verify this please?). Whether or
not the SCA is an organization that stresses an emphasis on being period is
another discussion.

>That way the title of knight (which is
>supposedly a highly respected title in the SCA) would
>remain truly special. The rest could be given the rank
>of master of arms - which is what they would be if
>they earn the title.

The rank of Knight is pretty special, just as all our peerages are, because
of the honor and respect granted to it's bearers by the populace at large.

Using the title Master of Arms as you suggest is not a period fashion. I
would not bring this up excepting that your point seems to be to use the
title Knight within a period structure. While we are at it, we could change
the whole award structure of the SCA. Lords and Ladies ranked far above a
common knight in period. In order for us to properly recreate that social
strata, we would have about 3000 farming peons and maybe a dozen feudal
lords in Ansteorra.

>b. Also, Many have witnessed some enter the crown
>tournaments who do not have the financial means or
>time , etc. to fulfill the obligations required and
>yet they are allowed to participate by giving their
>word that they do.

To which I would reply, how are you to know what their financial means or
obligations are? Are they not best able to judge for themselves if they are
able to bear that burden?

I agree there are many people who enter Crown not realizing the strain it
can take, both emotionally and financially.

Some of these participants AND
>OTHERS have even used their influence to get
>themselves and their friends recognition (awards)
>which have not been earned.

Nepotisim is unfortunatly a most period (as well as modern) practice.
However, I would caution you for being quick to judgement on who does or
does not deserve recognition, for the Crown bases Their decisions on the
recommendations of the populace, of which you are a member. You too may also
write and submit your recommendation to the Crown.

>Where is the HONOR AND
>NOBILITY in this? And why is there not a means to both
>stop and rectify these situations when they arise?

There is. The Crown has the final determination of who gets what award as
well as who is able to enter Crown Tourney.

Grace and Peace,


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list