Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[SCA-Archery] Re: Guild/Fellowship

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Dail
    ... Standardization goes against the grain of the game in my eyes. We are supposed to be from *different* kingdoms. This implies cultural differences. If we
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > > But they aren't inherently bad either. That's why I ask what
      > > incentive there is for the kingdoms to "standardize," as you put it?
      >
      >but... THEY CAN BE. How many traditions do you know about are only
      >traditions because that's the only way it's ever been done. The
      >printing press got condemned and so did giving the mass in a language
      >other than Latin. I'm sure glad these traditions were changed.
      >
      >The tradition of having a major class distinction between archers,
      >rapier fighters and the heavies is one tradition I would like to see
      >go away. I would rather see one big community than several small
      >ones.
      >
      >Michael

      Standardization goes against the grain of the game in my eyes. We are
      supposed to be from *different* kingdoms. This implies cultural
      differences. If we standardize, we might as well just be one big
      kingdom:) I need solid period evidence of this in the field of
      archery before I accept it...


      MacDaill
    • Chris Nogy
      Speaking from one who is a peer (Laurel) for archery and archery related arts and sciences (as the scroll says - the research, construction, and use of
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Speaking from one who is a peer (Laurel) for archery and archery related arts and sciences

        (as the scroll says - 'the research, construction, and use of archery equipment')

        and being from a Kingdom where we actually have a Laurel solely for skill at the 'performance of archery'

        I can say that it is tough. Tough because the standards for the SCA archery game and the standards for the Laurel Society-wide are quite different. The Laurel promotes extremely period activities, deep knowledge of each period aspect of a particular art or science. The archery community snarls at this claiming snobbery if any type of contest or recognition requires more than the minimum.

        Competitions ranking archers on the Society level are based on scores by proxy, not on observation of the archer. Scores are higher when shot with equipment that has had the benefit of evolution (an archer shooting modern equipment almost always scores better than the same archer shooting with period equipment). Modern equipment allows modern shooting techniques that are not directly applicable to period archery (holding for aim, for example - a technique that robs most self and natural composite bows of performance and causes inconsistent shooting). Modern shooting techniques with modern equipment do not meet the basic criteria for a Laurel (at least no other Laurel activity rewards such extensive reliance on modern techniques and equipment where safety is not concerned).

        It has been said to me that the Chivalry is just a special type of Laurel granted for the 'performance art of tourney fighting' with allowances made for safety. I actually see the truth in this. But if this is true, then the reason that the Chivalry does not exist as an encompassed subset of the Laurel is that the criteria are too different from the basic criteria for all other Laurel activities. Archery is stuck in the same boat. Although a level of skill might be comparable, the Laurel really has no way of equating that level of skill to something inherant to the laurel order. A brewer, a costumer, a metalworker, a calligrapher, a musician, all these have common frames of reference. You can look at documentation and understand the validity of research even if it is not in your own chosen subject. You can look at seams, wood finishes, metal polishes, clarity of brew, and understand a little bit about the product through the attention paid to finish and fit. As a craftsman or artist, you have a basic global understand of art and craft that can help you to determine the validity of a cantidate for the order, as well as to be able to understand the points being promoted and discussed. There is no fit, no finish, no research that can be correlated to other Laurel pursuits in the shooting skills as practiced in the SCA.

        I was an exception, my shooting is done with period gear in period style, I taught and researched into the ways of a period archer, I built the equipment (weapons, armor, clothing, accessories) and learned their use. I am not the hottest shot in the Kingdom, far from it. But I took archery as a performance art and did what all other Laurels have done with their particular activities - presented all the parts of it in a way that could be correlated by the Laurels to their own standards. In this I fell short of the perfect archery peerage - one based only on shooting skill. But I did succeed in getting as close to a perfect match with the Laurel as I can imagine.

        That is why the Laurel track is so upsetting to so many archers - they do not want to have to go to the lengths I went to get there - they don't feel the need to do the extensive ancillary work that I did. They want recognition for a specific aspect of the art of archery - the ability to hit the target with the highest precision without carrying too much extra 'philosophical baggage'. So the answer for this will never be the Laurel, it must be somewhere else.

        The Chivalry is the perfect example of a peerage order based more on SCA standards than on medieval recreation. Our Chivlary order ideals could not exist outside the SCA, though mastery recognition for many of our Laurels could. The Chivalry is based on recognizing people who play with our very un-period weapons and styles, with all the restrictions and limitations of our game that were not present in period. And the SCA could no more exist without the order of the Chivalry than the Chivalry could exist without the SCA. It is the most pervasive part of the SCA that is unique to the SCA - it is the largest universally recognized identifier of what the SCA is as a group. This is exactly what the archers want - an SCA peerage (not a spin-off of a medieval peerage), developed from and being an integral part of, the SCA game, not relying so heavily on anything outside the world of the SCA as a game. But the Chivalry are not currently of a mind to expand their scope to grant this recognition, and I do not see this happening anytime soon.

        So we once again approach a new peerage out of necessity. A 'white scarf' -like quasi peerage would never grant what is desired, and only hinder the development of an actual peerage, most possibly terminally. An actual extra peerage has been declared "out of the question" by several Society Stewards and BoD decisions. So if the treaty idea doesn't work, the available peerages don't work, and there is no hope of a new peerage, what then? Despair, hopelessness, gloom. Not really.

        The Society is not impervious to change. But in many aspects of its governance, it is quite slow to be convinced. So it must start on a local level - with local groups recognizing and rewarding excellence in archery. Not just skill, but excellence. People must begin to set some type of general criteria that apply to SCA archery, so that the rest of the world can recognize what is a good SCA archer, and these criteria must be taught so people (most especially outside the archery fellowship) understand them. This will gain the attention of Kingdoms, and with motivated people and large enough numbers, the Kingdoms will begin to recognize archers (as Calontir has already done in a very outstanding way). This recognition will come in ways very unique to each Kingdom, but still based on good criteria and understanding of great archery. When the Kingdom support and recognition is high enough (I dare say almost universal will be required), and the numbers are great enough, the Society out of necessity will respond. They will have no choice. A large number of people with universally recognized accomplishments is a force to be reconed with. Keep in mind, though, that it will take more than a couple of presenters or a handful of expert archers. It will take a concerted effort on the part of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individuals. Not a petition, but active work. No previous decision can stand in the way of all that.

        And a very unique thing will happen when it is all over. Your new order will be accepted, because all the hoops you had to jump through will have taught you much about your society as well, and by the time you are about to succeed, you will not permit your ideas to jeopardize the SCA. People will see that and respond to you with open arms and open minds. You will have by design and necessity built a positive part of the SCA.

        Shortcuts will not provide these benefits. Shortcuts will be looked at with distrust at best. And the thing that grows from shortcuts will always be a crippled stepchild of the parent group, never realizing anywhere near the full potential that it could. And that would be a shame to have happen to SCA archery - a thing I have devoted more than a decade of my life to, sacrificed for, wept over, screamed about, felt joyous rapture for, nearly quit over. Just like so many of you.

        In the end, you have to work to get anything. The amount of work you have to do is not always decided by you - often your obstacles have been determined, built, and reinforced by others well beyond what you find reasonable. That is not always fair, but it is the way it is. And you won't change it merely by trying to point out how unfair it is - you must accomplish in spite of the inequities. But if you really want something, you just get down to work and do it. Because you can't get to the end of the quest without starting on it and working through it.

        Kaz
      • jrosswebb1@webtv.net
        Dear Kaz, WOW! I like your thinking, and I agree with what you ve said and think that this will be a noble venture. Please contact me privately if you would
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Kaz,
          WOW! I like your thinking, and I agree with what you've said and
          think that this will be a noble venture. Please contact me privately if
          you would because I would like to discuss some efforts that could be
          made in this way.
          I still don't see how the "Grand Fellowship" could work against this. We
          just want to "tag" people who have archery awards and orders,
          that's it.
          -Geoffrei


          http://community.webtv.net/jrosswebb1/EASTWINDStribal
        • Karl Sandhoff
          This post struck a very well known chord with me. I come from a geographically diverse Barony with a well known reputation for contentiousness. My geographic
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            This post struck a very well known chord with me. I come from a
            geographically diverse Barony with a well known reputation for
            contentiousness. My geographic area formed an incipient Canton in order
            to give our local people a way to play on an administrative level.
            Needless to say, our motives were suspect by those in power. After a
            particularly unsettled period and a charismatic leader, I was asked to
            become seneschal. I agreed and began sheparding our group toward full
            recognition. It took me 2 years of constant work to finally convince the
            powers that be that we could do the job repeatedly and were not planning
            a break away group, that our intent was to work within the existing
            structure. I wanted very much to be the seneschal to lead us to full
            recognition but such was not to be, that fell to my successor. We are
            now a full Canton in our Barony and helping to lead our Barony to greater
            acheivements. This may be a long winded introduction to a basic point
            but I think it has relevance.

            Today, the archery community is in a position of supporting the SCA
            heavily. However, because of many things which have been said over the
            years, a distrust of the motives of the archers exists in many minds.
            Just as I had to watch a frustrated populus deal with what seemed to many
            a conspiracy to deny us our rightful recognition, we will, as a
            collective, have to deal with similar frustrations. We must avoid, at
            all costs, ANY appearance of creating a "shadow peerage" or an ettempt at
            an end run around the existing power structure. We must work with and
            within this structure to attain our ends. We must demonstrate a
            willingness to work within the structure that currently exists. The
            first step is to accept the BOD's 4th peerage ruling. Whether there is
            eventually a 4th peerage to recognize aspects of the SCA experience not
            currently recognized or whether those aspects are recognized within the
            existing structure is yet to be seen.

            One of the first things we can do is to cultivate relationships with
            Laurels and Pelicans in our own kingdoms. Find out exactly how they
            judge candidates. For instance, here in Caid, a Laurel candidate must
            demonstrate mastery of one art and high competance in at least one other.
            A Pelican cnadidate must show a broad base of service is several areas
            (i.e. running archery events and programs only won't make it). The
            Chivalry was built on, and maintains, a tradition of being based on use
            of "tournament" weapons and conduct. Here, that means that the war only
            fighter is excluded. Cultivate your contacts and show them where the
            archery activities fit in their own scheme of things. Show them that
            participation in archery is a multi-faceted and complex activity. Help
            them play our game a little so that they understand the challenges
            presented. With time and understanding they will decide among themselves
            whether we should be included in their ranks or whether we need a
            recognition path of our own.

            Do not expect this to be easy or quick. Expect to get flak from both
            sides as there will be resistance from without and distrust from within
            the archery community. Expect this to take five to ten years to begin to
            make an inroad and start out on this road with that knowledge. If it
            takes less, rejoice. The SCA power structure is conservative and
            self-perpetuating -- accept it and work with it, don't fight it. It
            changes because it wants to. Plant the seed, nurture it, watch it grow.
            Let the powers that be take the credit for making the change. They will
            be quicker to act if they think it is their own idea. I have seen how
            many things have been accomplished by applying a constant but subtle
            pressure and letting someone else take the credit.

            But above all, we must decide what our goal is and unfailingly work
            toward it even when the path seems to go in the opposite direction. In
            the course of advancing my Canton I had to swallow a great many things I
            disliked but I knew that doing so would get me closer to my utimate goal
            and the pleasure in that success more than outweighed what I had to go
            through. As many in the mundane world say "Think Globally and Work
            Locally". This will get us what we want SCA wide.
            In service to the dream,
            Carolus von Eulenhorst
            eulenhorst@...

            On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:33:34 -0600 "Chris Nogy" <cnogy@...>
            writes:
            >Speaking from one who is a peer (Laurel) for archery and archery
            >related arts and sciences
            >
            >(as the scroll says - 'the research, construction, and use of archery
            >equipment')

            >snip<

            >In the end, you have to work to get anything. The amount of work you
            >have to do is not always decided by you - often your obstacles have
            >been determined, built, and reinforced by others well beyond what you
            >find reasonable. That is not always fair, but it is the way it is.
            >And you won't change it merely by trying to point out how unfair it is
            >- you must accomplish in spite of the inequities. But if you really
            >want something, you just get down to work and do it. Because you
            >can't get to the end of the quest without starting on it and working
            >through it.
            >
            >Kaz
            >snip

            ________________________________________________________________
            GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
            Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
            Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
            http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
          • wyvern@megahits.com
            ... No, I m deadly serious. ... I disagree. Read the definition of the Laurel in Corpora. Arcehry and Rapier fit into it with no trouble whatsoever. ... Call
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > > It's called the "Laurel." =)
              >
              > (I'M ASSUMING YOU SAID LAUREL =) TONGUE IN CHEEK)

              No, I'm deadly serious.

              > No!!! There is no peerage for these fighting techniques. They are

              I disagree. Read the definition of the Laurel in Corpora. Arcehry
              and Rapier fit into it with no trouble whatsoever.

              > calling the these martial techniques an art and giving them a Laurel.

              Call them an art or not (they are, but that's not even necessary)
              they are undoubtedly "skills" and that's what the Laurel is
              supposed to recognize.

              > Not the same thing. Archers were just as much of a part of the battle
              > as were the knights and the only difference is the social class.

              That has nothing to do with it. Knighthood isn't awarded for
              "battle." It's awarded for rattan tourney fighting.

              > I don't think that a peer level award for archery (or rapier) is
              > coming in the near future. A kingdom might never reconize archery. I

              Not a specialized one, no. Hopefully they will continue to gain
              acceptance among the Laurelate but I don't see any new specialty
              peerages coming any time soon. (Personally, I'm one of those who
              finds that to be a Good Thing(tm).)

              > have also noticed that archery is probably the best organized of the
              > fighting arts within the SCA. SCA Archers for the most part are far
              > more organized, friendlier, less political than any group I've seen in
              > the SCA (coming from me that's a major compliment).

              I don't know about archers being any better "organized." Up until
              last year there was no such thing as a Society Archery Policy yet
              the fighters have had a standard set of Society rules for at *least*
              20 years that I know of...

              > At this point in the game it would be WONDERFUL to have the awards
              > somewhat similar. A Grant level award would mean something similar to
              > a Grant level award somewhere else. So would an AoA level award.

              You still haven't answered *why* it would be so wonderful? What's
              bad about variety? Why is bland better?

              > Make the non-AoA awards either minor kingdom or baronial awards. If I
              > travel to another kingdom for an event and have the oppertunity to
              > spend time with another archer I know what he did to earn his award.

              Wouldn't you get to know far more simply by "spend[ing] time with
              another archer" then you would by just knowing that someone had
              a "standard" award?

              > In the karate community there are numerous styles and style varients
              > but everybody reconizes the term "Black Belt", "Brown Belt", "White
              > Belt". To have a inherit mutal understanding of an award, regardless
              > of name or how it was presented would sure be great.

              Do they? I've been in three different systems and about the only
              thing that was consistent was the black belt. And even that varies
              enormously by school. Below that every other color was just
              something less than a black belt -- you wouldn't know how *much*
              less unless you knew the system OR spent time with whoever was
              wearing it.

              > other than Latin. I'm sure glad these traditions were changed.

              Great. But you still haven't offered any substantial benefit inherent
              in changing this particular set of traditions.

              > The tradition of having a major class distinction between archers,
              > rapier fighters and the heavies is one tradition I would like to see
              > go away. I would rather see one big community than several small
              > ones.

              Okay. So how does standardizing archery awards across
              kingdoms help meet that objective?

              Macsen

              ------------------------------------------------------------
              Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's http://www.MedievalMart.com/
              *** BUY *** SELL *** BID *** HAGGLE ***
              Look for the East Kingdom Fundraiser Auction coming soon!
              ------------------------------------------------------------
            • J. Patrick Hughes
              I want to thank both Ragnar and Kaz for their respective and thoughtful posts. They each raised a number of concerns that we need to take into consideration. I
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                I want to thank both Ragnar and Kaz for their respective and thoughtful
                posts. They each raised a number of concerns that we need to take into
                consideration. I particularly found Kaz's analysis of the peerage issue of
                interest. That was a perspective I will need to think on. I have often
                thought of the Laurel in terms of period chivalry with the area of prowess
                being one or another art rather than the chivalry as a Laurel with the
                form being heavy weapons. Kaz has probably been aware that I have had,
                for years, strong philosophical convictions that both the Laurel and the
                Pelican circles need to recommend to the Crown the elevation of archers
                when the work falls within their scope. Perhaps we need to better
                articulate what sort of archery artistry and service is appropriate for
                such recognition. This will make both members of the orders and the crowns
                more comfortable when considering such peerages.

                I think that the entire discussion on either the guild or fellowship (and
                the distinction is not always clear) needs to not only establish solid and
                agreed upon goals, but we need to be sure that the means towards those
                goals are the best to achieve them. I fear that some of the things
                proposed will have serious negative effects. While there are many ways in
                place already to achieve some of the goals discussed. We should never
                create bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.

                Finally, I am concerned that seldom in our discussions has the question
                been asked: what did they do in period? I would be much more comfortable
                with a discussion at this point of the royally chartered company of
                archers under Henry VIII or the Schutzenguilds in the Holy Roman Empire.
                But this would possibility lead us back to local solutions to local
                situations. There were differences between realms (and over time) in
                period that far exceeds even the considerable differences between kingdoms
                in our Society.

                Charles O'Connor
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.