[Ansteorra] newcomer thanks

[Mr. and Mrs. Fryday]

I also am new to this game. I do however realize that this is an honor based
society. This means that until you prove yourself dishonorable you word is
taken as truth when it comes to rank and participation in activities. That
should be enough for us. Knight hood may have been restricted to those whom
could own and field a mount in period time. For us to limit it in such a way
now would not make Knighthood more noble. It would only serve to allow
anyone with a horse to aspire to knighthood. Now-a-days you do not have to
have a lot of money to own a horse and learn to ride it. Many impoverished
people have land and animals. For you to truly understand what it takes to
be a Knight I would suggest that you take to the field, train beside those
you would restrict from knighthood due to lack of a mount, see how much
time, honor, and experience these men have put into their activities. Lastly
I would say that the main difference in a Knight and a Master of Arms are
the duties each take upon themselves and the differences in allegiances
between the two. No matter how you look at it, both Knights and Masters have
proven their worth in combat on the field. I will not prescribe to the
belief that one is better than another nor would I tell the farmer with a
horse that he is a Knight just because the Master can't ride.

Gassion de Beaumarchais
----- Original Message -----
From: "hans kemper" <heidel12001 at yahoo.com>
To: <Ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:24 AM
Subject: [Ansteorra] newcomer thanks


> I truly appreciate all who took the time to respond to
> my question about how "period to be". I realized from
> my readings and associations with some who have been
> in the SCA for a time.
> I would like to ask a few more questions because of
> what I have personally seen, from what I have heard
> from those I know in the SCA, and from the research I
> and others have done.
> 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 -
> 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? 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.
> I realize that many could not afford a horse and have
> the means, land, etc. to properly take care of it -
> but as I said - that would make the title truly period
> and special. And since horses GENERALLY have to be
> registered - it would be easy for those in charge to
> confer and continue knighthood on those who have an
> animal.
> 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. Some of these participants AND
> OTHERS have even used their influence to get
> themselves and their friends recognition (awards)
> which have not been earned. 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?
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra