Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 this page has a number of problems... 2 Urban Legends and "Freaking the Mundanes" Lore 3 The SCA as a tribe 4 Anno Societas 5 Recent anon edits 6 "world's largest non-militant army" 7 Reputation? 8 Youth Combat and Minimum Ages 9 Number Consistency 10 Out of context bits 11 textile arts 12 Fencing in the round & fencing in general 13 For you SCA member editors 14 American? 15 Martial Art 16 branches of branches 17 chop and tidy 18 connection to sf fandom 19 Criticism 20 Invitation 21 Queens by their own hands? 22 Thrown weapons 23 Clean up needed on Ext Links~* 24 Copyright Infringement 25 Copy-editting other peoples talk page entries? 26 clean up links 27 Political Correctness Amok

[edit] this page has a number of problems...

This article, which concerns a highly personal topic for Wikipedia's core editorial group (i.e., know-it-all sci-fi/fantasy geeks such as myself), is a fascinating example of what is wrong with this project. The improvement of such articles would be a benchmark for the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole; until then, the academic community (i.e., college instructors such as myself) can not take Wikipedia seriously.

Though the SCA is a fascinating phenomenon and a wonderful activity for many people, this page has a number of problems. To begin with, it reads as an "introduction to the SCA" and not an encyclopedia article on this group/(sub)culture. Secondly, it is woefully uninformed from any point of view save for that of an uncritical member of the SCA. "Knights represent the epitome of combat arts and chivalry" (to cite one instance) is a rather biased and vague statement. Are these medieval European knights or SCA knights (the two are not the same thing)? Do they represent the epitome of the SCA's idea of chivalry, or what Huizinga spoke of in "The Waning of the Middle Ages" or what Ramon Lull wrote about? And do they represent the "epitome" (or merely skill at) all martial arts or merely the SCA's combat sports?

Amongst the first questions that should be addressed in this article is how did this group form and grow? This should be at the head of the article. Also at the top should be its scope and how it differs from other reenactment/recreation groups. Only after that should come some insight into what sort of people are attracted to it and what its activities are. That SCA fencers are called "wire weenies" and discussions of the group's internal politics do not belong in an encyclopedia article. (The first sentence of the fencing subsection doesn't even approach accuracy, drawing some sort of dichotomy between "Olympic" fencing, which a tiny number of elite athletes participate in, and FIE-sanctioned fencing, which is meant.)

Also needed is some sort of sociological insight from authorities. Why is this group in existence? What need did it meet in the mid-twentieth century American psyche?

I also think this article should be locked, as the page's history shows that whenever a point not concordant with the general tone of the article as it now stands is introduced, said point is edited out.

KCM

---

I can't make an informed judgment on either the opinion of Olympic fencers about SCA fencers or the overall quality of SCA fencing as a whole, but at any rate I thought POV discussion about it was inappropriate, so I deleted it as best I could.

---

I have created a page for historical reenactment and living history (same page for now, though the could be split in the future). They could use some more content. Especially on

• history of historical reenactment
• reenactment groups
• living history groups
• differences between living history, reenactment, recreation, drama
• references to PBS content: Frontier House, 1940s House, ...
  • What is it the participants were doing? (Livining history, I think)
  • What is it that PBS was doing? (Creating historical entertainment, I think)

Happy editing! Jeff 21:15 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

---

Can someone supply some numbers for SCA? Number of chapters worldwide? In the U.S.? (I'm assuming the majority of the membership is U.S., but perhaps not.) Ditto for total number of persons involved and their distribution? ---Michael K. Smith 21:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These numbers are hard to come by, because there's no membership requirement for participation in SCA events. SCA.org says "over 30,000 members," but I have no idea where this number comes from (and if they actually mean paid members, there are probably several active non-members for each offical member). ---Jeffhos 21:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.sca.org/docs/scafaq.pdf lists membership as just shy of 30,000 members worldwide. Jake 00:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Many of these problems could be solved, methinks, by changing the order of some of the sections - might begin with the history of the SCA and the broad view, then go for the specific stuff.

(I'd offer to do it, but I have not done that sort of large scale editing and may stuff it up!) Mfgreen 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I edited the first paragraph because as a long time, old time SCA person the term 'historical re-enactment' riled my dander even though I no longer belong. I'm using the Corporate bylaws to describe what the corporation wants to say. That way we are talking about facts not what it is like in your area of the world. (no offense intended). My goal is to get the wipedia reservations off this page as I did with the Clout Fantasy write up I did so that we can get it as a straight factual, no opininated article. (Much smaller but I had to do it from scratch). I'm not sure how the sign your posts thing works so forgive me please if I don't do it right. Jirel 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Legends and "Freaking the Mundanes" Lore

There are a number of amusing urban legends surrounding the SCA, from the "SCA vs the Hell's Angels" to "Butterfly and 'Blood for Odin!'" to "The Burglars and the Broadsword ('Broke into the wrong goddam rec room, din't ya?')" to "'Are you in the SCA?' 'No, I'm in a play.'" It'd be great to collect them somwhere. Would it be appropriate to add a section to this article? Brendano

I'd say Cunnan is the place for that. Actually, can we put the little "asides" in Cunnan too? We can't explain everything at the same time. Let it wait until it's section, link to the section if you need.

The article is getting to a size where it needs to break into pieces. I'm not sure we should document the whole of the SCA experience in an encyclopedia so I'm suggesting the SCA wiki, Cunnan. Otherwise, we're going to need pages in wikipedia for 'Kingdom of the East (SCA)', 'Heavy Weapons Fighting' and 'Cooking (SCA)' to name a few. TomCerul 14:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The SCA as a tribe

To 68.42.167.77 — I think it's probably a bit misleading to call the SCA a tribe. It's certainly true that, in a very general sense, the SCA tends to lean more to the left than society as a whole, and that SCAdians tend to feel a lot of comraderie with each other, but it's far from a homogeneous group. I've met everyone from born-again Christians to pagans & atheists in the SCA, and people with a wide range of views on different issues. It might perhaps be valid to call some of the households in the SCA tribes, but I think it's a mischaracterization of the Society as a whole. ---Jeffhos 16:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

68.42.167.77 — To which "guidelines" are you referring? Jeffhos 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anno Societas

What is "anno societas" supposed to say, exactly? From the way it is used I assume it should be "anno societatis" (or societate maybe)...in 39 years, has no one ever noticed this? (It's a creative use of the language, I guess :)) Adam Bishop 20:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've actually seen it spelled (and pronounced) both as "anno societas" and "anno societatis" (and Google searches for both will turn up plenty of SCA pages). But I looked it up in the Known World Handbook, and it, in fact, "Anno Societatis". My mistake. Jeffhos 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, okay...I found a bunch of results for societas on Google, but I didn't think to look up the proper spelling. Sorry :) Adam Bishop 07:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Latin is likely wrong as applied, but we use it for "Year of the Society," and date the "A.S." from the year of our founding. 31 Jan 2006

The anno is correct, I think, but I would have to check the genetive of society to be sure of the total translation.85.20.106.187 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Societatis" is, I believe, the correct genitive of "societas". And "anno societatis" is the only form I've ever heard the phrase used in in my 8 years in the SCA. For once, the SCA got its Latin right. :) --71.246.183.235 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent anon edits

All the edits by the anon user at 12.221.102.20 seem to be ripping the Society. Even if some of these things are true, it seems they could be phrased better, less POV. -- Logotu 17:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first word in the organization's name is "Society" - it's a collection of people, for better and worse. Some folks have not had happy experiences.Brendano 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "world's largest non-militant army"

But is it true? I'd like to see some documentation, myself. "SCA Heavy Weapons Fighters also practice many-on-many engagements called melees or wars, and make up the world's largest non-militant army, according to an unofficial FBI source." Very interesting, if true. And, at the risk of a stupid question, what is a "non-militant army?"

--cuiusquemodi 00:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been a member since 1980, and back then the story was that the FBI investigated the SCA in the late 60's or early 70's. The final report (which I have never laid eyes on) reportedly describes the organization as "a bunch of harmless monarchists." Brendano 21:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to find the source of this. It's a neat-sounding "fact," but is sounds anecdotal/apocryphal, and I couldn't find anything substantial. If anyone can find a verifiable reference source, please add link to the source. Otherwise, this should be deleted, or altered so it is not reported as fact. The closest thing I've been able to find is a somewhat anecdotal account, [[1]]. The account, supposedly from a member of the SCA, mentions he asked for documentation from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act in the 80's. The upshot of the somewhat underwhelming response was a few papers that assessed "that the SCA was a nonprofit educational association." Durty Willy

As far as "non-militant," it probably refers to the fact that this particular "military" force does not intentionally kill or injure combatants, but is organized like an army. This could be better described as "paramilitant,", used for any group that is organized like an army; combat is not relevant, it's how it's organized that's important to this definition. Boy Scouts of America, Hitler Youth, and US Civil Air Patrol are all non-combat paramilitary organizations, for example. Private security forces and mercenary groups, revolutionary and guerilla forces, and the fictional Fight Club are examples of combatant paramilitary. Durty Willy 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the SCA is bigger than the Salvation Army. From the SA article "Its membership includes more than 17,000 active and more than 8,700 retired officers, around 100,000 other employees and more than 4.5 million volunteers." Applejuicefool 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation?

From my experience (well, roughly a year) as a medieval combat reenactor in Germany and especially in South England, the SCA is generally regarded as a joke, probably due to the rule system and the fantasy flair.

Elitist, much? --NRen2k5 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In Germany OTOH the American SCA rules seem to have been the basis for the somewhat flawed Codex Belli ruleset (a very beaurocratic system relying on safety "licenses" which ironically tends to result in very aritificial and dangerous maneuvers because the legal hit areas were restricted to the torso and upper extremities for safety reasons) which is held high as the quasi "standard" by a fraction of the German combat reenactors -- once again resulting in a negative view of the SCA by those who oppose Codex Belli.

Is this a local reputation or a general one? --Ashmodai 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, re-enactors look down on the SCA who looks down on the Ren Faire and so on ad nausium. The main thing is that each organization does things differently and for different reasons. The biases you saw are norally directed at the SCA due to the fact it tends to be quite laid back in areas they believe need to emphasised. That is perhaps what makes the SCA what it is thought, for most members are using the Society as an escape and don't see why they have to push their standards up like that. The SCA has its faults, and yes the combat rules and styles have created some unrealistic fighting styles, but the SCA operates in its own world and could care less what many outside the group say. And most SCA members try not to look down at the other similar groups. Donovan Ravenhull 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Aye. So it's really less about reenactment and more about creative extrapolation?

As I said I'm doing medieval combat reenactment by a ruleset pretty similar to the semi-contact ruleset of the Early Medieval Alliance, which is a larger group (incidentally there don't seem to be "good" large groups at all, just larger and smaller ones) in Southern England. That is, we have a stronger focus on safe fun fighting which looks authentic from a few meters away.

We try to look and act somewhat authentic (no smoking on the battlefield, no truely offensive insults -- especially too-modern ones that are not directly derived from Monty Python sketches), but we don't try to emulate historical languages or restrict the materials our clothes and weapons are made of to those that have been around at the time we are reenacting (unlike many true reenactment groups in Germany). But the "looks authentic from a distance" rule rules (heh) out stuff like plastic weapons and the like, which seem to be okay for the SCA (although we DO restrict training with children under 16 to LARP swords for legal reasons, but they don't participate in battles, displays or similar events for the same reasons and the fact they can't fight with LARP swords at such an event).

I suppose it's because the SCA's rules are so loose that they are frequently thrown into the same bin of disrespect as LARPers. The odd combat rules may add to that. --Ashmodai 19:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still learning wiki, apologies if I do this wrong *g*

(ashmodai said) "Aye. So it's really less about reenactment and more about creative extrapolation?"

Yeah, thats fair. I've heard it described as a "medievally themed social club", which about sums it up. You get everything from folks who like to dress up in funny clothes and drink alot, to weekend warriors, some folks are leading scholars in their fields, and some just wanna have fun. The SCA is very open like that, something for everybody. The SCA gets bagged on alot by folks that like to look down on us... I don't know why, I don't think we're trying to pretend to be anything that we're not (in general, anyway *g*).

(ashmodai said)"... rules (heh) out stuff like plastic weapons and the like ..."

I can't think of a single allowable "plastic" weapon in SCA combat. The armored folks use rattan and sometimes fiberglass or shaped rubber(for poll-arms), the rapier folks use commercially available sword simulators made of steel (see www.darkwoodarmory.com, for one example). Some folks will use plastic "armor" as protective gear, but they're encouraged to hide it. *g* Rapier42 29 June 2005 02:38 (UTC)

One other factor to add to the consideration is that the SCA, while being there for fun and for "recreation", highly values the sharing of knowledge and education on historical times. With a membership and diversity of location as large as this, the reputation and quality of the group is based on a "local division of" the SCA. Human experience and bias make it difficult to get clear-cut views. While this will impact the SCA on the whole, it is not neccesarily indicative of the mandates and spirit of the SCA and its ongoing pursuit of recreating medieval times. --24.71.223.140 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Youth Combat and Minimum Ages

When we are editing the sections on Youth Combat, let's make sure we don't set in stone information that only pertains to one region. Currently the rules for Youth Combat do vary greatly from Kingdom to Kingdom, and some blanket statements don't apply. For example, here in Meridies (where I've participated in organizing YC since nearly the very beginning) we don't use golf tubes, and do allow experimental use of shaved rattan in place of pvc pipes (still padded, but the rattan doesn't break with those nasty sharp edges like pvc, but is harder to find).

Also, I haven't had a chance to check, but what is the BoD's rules on minimum age for participation in full adult combat? I know in Meridies, we require everyone to be 18 or over, but are flirting with allowing some 16-17yo YC prodigies to participate. Donovan Ravenhull 29 June 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Here in the East Kingdom it would seem that under-18s are allowed to participate in activities only with parent's permission and with a chosen guardian present. This applies not only to combat but to target archery as well. --NRen2k5 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number Consistency

In the 'Combat Events' section, it mentions wars can have more than 5,000 armored combatants. In the 'Wars' section, it drops down to 200+. In the 'Heavy Weapons' section, we jump back up to 1,500. It would be nice if someone could put more accurate numbers in here. Unfortunately, I don't have them, though I'm pretty sure that 5,000 combatants (or about half the people that show up) is a bit high for Pennsic (the only war I make it to). SKA Virgil or PerlKnitter 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Out of context bits

I'm pulling material out if it doesn't fit where it is and dumping it here. Put it where you think it belongs if you want. TomCerul 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• (In SCA jargon, this era is called "Period", although some insist that "Period" only legitimately refers to the millennium of A.D. 600–1600. According to the founding documents of the SCA, Inc., there is no back date; however, they do state "Middle Ages" in one place, and simply "pre-17th-Century" in another. As a result, there is a large contingent of Roman Legionaries, and smaller groups of such cultures as Ptolemaic Egyptians.)
• A blow to the head or body is considered a "killing blow", and the fighter so struck acknowledges the fact that s/he has lost the fight by falling to the ground. Fighters who refuse to call good blows quickly develop a reputation as "rhino hides" or "immortals". Consistently unchivalrous fighters may find themselves unable to find opponents who are willing to face them.

• Fencers will also mime the effects of hits. Fencing combatants are considered to be wearing street clothes and leather gloves so draw cuts and slashes are considered effective. Fencing garb consists of fencing masks with hoods and full-body coverings that can be demonstrated to resist four hard thrusts with a broken foil blade.

• The minimum age for participation in armed combat varies from area to area. Some Kingdoms, such as Meridies, require all be 18 and over, while other Kingdoms allow those 16 and older to participate in "heavy", or armored, combat, and youth as young as 14 to participate in "light", or rapier, combat. More strict guidelines have been debated in the Board of Directors.

• Recently, though, a trend has emerged to begin Youth Combat activities. Typically, armor requirements are stricter and the weapons are padded golf tubes or PVC pipe rather than taped rattan. The standards and practices do vary widely between Kingdoms, but as various experiments are found to be successes or failures, interkingdom communication has begun to create de facto standards across the table. The SCA has been around long enough - 40 years - that some members now have grandchildren of legal age who have grown up handling swords and shields.

[edit] textile arts

Could we get a write up on the amazing stuff you crazy spinners, weavers, embroiderers and tailors do? I'm renaming the current textile arts to 'Garb/Costume' because it has no mention of the study and effort that some people contribute. I'm imagining something more like "Some members raise sheep, card and spin wool thread to weave fabric" ie something focused on the Activity of the textile arts. TomCerul 15:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fencing in the round & fencing in general

Can someone support this? "It is important to note that fencing in the round is in fact not characteristic of this period of fencing," I'd believe that schools weren't teaching fencing in the round but would be surprised to hear that it wasn't happening in the streets. And we're simulating the streets, not the schools as far as I know. (I'm 10th C Rus and fight heavy so what do I know?) TomCerul 15:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted this as it is NOT accurate. If the SCA is portraying pre-1600 then fencing in the round WAS, to an extent, the norm. I think the way the article is worded is a bit inacurate as fencers may circle while looking for an opening, but most attacks and most defensive actions are linear.

The purely linear fencing used today did not come into the fore until the advent of the small sword - late 17th Century and the idea of limited footwork and lanes until the birth of the foil in the 18th Century. Rapier combat in the 1500's was a very different operation. Period fencing texts - I will cite Ridolfo Capoferro for one, Agrippa for another, all cite sideways movements as part of attack and defense - the Girata, for example, involves a side-step in conjuction with an attack to the opponent's side. Capoferro DID discourage sideways movement, but his text did teach the footwork for it. Interestingly enough, most period texts teach cutting as well as thrusting - the thrust is primary, but cuts were part of the repertoire of the weapon.

Anyone who's fenced using a rapier or an accurate rapier simulator knows they're heavy! If you try to use modern fencing moves you will get hit. Trying a parry/ripost with a 2.5 pound weapon with a 43" blade well illustrates why most defensive actions of period combat were done with an off-hand weapon or through body voids.

If you want modern confirmation then see the book By The Sword by Richard Cohen - but please read the period texts if you have a real interest in this subject. --Lepeu1999 14:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to fencing changing Atlantia is experimenting with sidesword to 'some of the kingdoms are...' as East at minimum is doing so as well. --Lepeu1999 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone(s) who wasn't logged in did a really nice job cleaning up the grammer and syntax of this section and making it vastly more readable. Thank you. --Lepeu1999 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Made a couple of edits - one for tense and the rest for 'accuracy'. I know the SCA fencers tend to refer to all non-foil/epee bladed weapons as 'schlaegers' but that isn't the case. A schlaeger is a particular weapon all its own, used in Mensur fencing. What the SCA uses is an unsharpened schlaeger blade in a period style hilt. I changed the reference to refer to 'schlaeger blade'. I know the authorization is for Schlaeger, but non SCA members/fencers may become confused if we don't use the conventional terminology for it.

Also on 'sidesword' as far as I know from the new East Kingdom rules schlaeger blades are NOT on the authorized list of blades so I've modified that section to read 'blades suitable for cut-and-thrust style fencing - which is what sidesword is. that should cover any particular rule variations. --Lepeu1999 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For you SCA member editors

there is a new category to populate... Category:Wikipedia SCAdians feel free to add this category to your user pages...  ALKIVAR™ 06:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism Lord Inali of Tanasi, GDH Orange Mike 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American?

I assume the SCA is an American society? If so, the article should say so. (There are no doubt similar societies in other countries, but not called the SCA as far as I know.) Ben Finn 08:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is an international society born in America. We have groups throughout Europe and Australia, enough that they have their own active kingdoms there. Also, there are local groups throughout the rest of the world, though admittedly most are centered on american military bases. So, I would not call it an American only group, though it is highly americanized. Donovan Ravenhull 11:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

And of course Canada has a fairly large population too, being Canadian and in the SCA myself--Corvyn 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too —NRen2k5 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martial Art

This bit: "...This "Heavy Weapons Fighting" is a full-contact sport, not a martial art, although our members will try to convince people otherwise..." needs fixing.

1. The "our members" is 1st person or close to it
2. Its not clear (to me at least) what this contrast between a "full-contact sport" and a "martial art" is all about. I'd be inclined to remove it completly.

You're right about the first person perspective -- that sentence was probably written by an SCA member who wanted to criticize his/her comrades' views regarding the practice, i.e.: strongly POV.

AFAIK the difference between a full contact sport and a martial art is that the full contact sport permits physical contact to reach the goal of the sport (IIRC American Football is a full-contact sport, whereas European Football ("Soccer") is a semi-contact (or non-contact? I've never been much of a ball sports person) sport -- just compare the maneuvers permitted/used in order to retrieve the ball from an opponent) and the martial art requires it.

i.e. in a martial art the goal is usually to "disable" your opponent in one way or another, in a full-contact sport the goal is usually not in the physical contact itself, this is usually only a means to archieve a different goal (e.g. "disable" the ball carrier in order to get the ball).

I could be wrong, though -- I'm not sure whether all combat sports are categorized as martial arts (modern sports fencing is usually not regarded as a martial art, although it originates from one).

I'd rather define SCA Heavy Weapons Fighting as a full-contact combat sport, which is true for several sports usually regarded as martial arts as well (Olympic fencing OTOH is definitely a semi-contact combat sport). This avoids the problem that not all martial arts are also practiced as sports (most martial arts practiced as competitive sport rely on a fixed subset of the actual martial art, thus excluding moves that would incapicate, permanently injure, or kill the opponent, martial arts that consist nearly entirely of such moves CANNOT be practiced as a sport in most countries).

Since it's a sport with a fixed ruleset and is based on two (or more) people hitting each other with weapon-like objects, it qualifies as a combat sport, which sounds a bit more serious than just "full-contact sport" (which may be a fitting description for several variations of the basic sport nevertheless -- Battle of the Flags (mostly identical to the Capture the Flags seen in some computer games) for example).

From what I've heard and read SCA Heavy Weapons Fighting tends to be a more abstracted than normal re-enactment combat (in regards to authentiticy, anyway) and the rules about non-lethal hits (jumping on one leg, etc) tend to make it look a bit ridiculous, but "not looking ridiculous" is not a requirement for qualifying as a combat sport as far as I know. In my opinion Olympic fencing looks just as ridiculous, but that's only my personal opinion -- Ashmodai 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] branches of branches

Most of the Kingdoms began as principalities within other kingdoms, and I'd like to mention that in the list, though I can't find a concise wording that pleases me. Perhaps they could be listed as a tree:

• West
  • Atenveldt
    • Meridies
      • Trimaris
      • Gleann Abhann
    • Ansteorra
    • Outlands
      • Artemisia
  • Caid
  • An Tir
  • Lochac
• East
  • Middle
    • Calontir
    • Northshield
  • Drachenwald
  • Æthelmearc
  • Ealdormere

Anton Sherwood 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer a seperate article about the history of the SCA. This one's getting big and needs to be broken into pieces soon. I don't think the average, uninformed user is going to be looking for the family tree of the kingdoms. TomCerul 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The tree is also in error. Artemisia was a Principality of Atenveldt rather then the Outlands. A member 4 Jan 2006

"Artemisia" was a sparsely populated area technically within the Principality of Outlands, Kingdom of Atendveldt until AS 21 (1986). When Outlands got Kingdom status, Artemisia stayed with Atenveldt, and became the Principality of Artemisia in AS 22. Rapier42 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chop and tidy

Just did a big tidy-up on combat. The A&S section could do with similar trim of some of user:will-i-am's material, anyone keen? Snori

[edit] connection to sf fandom

It seems to me that the comments about the politicking and backbiting in the SCA having been carried over from science fiction fandom are either undeveloped in the article or unnecessary. I'm a para-member of both groups (moreso fandom, I think) so perhaps this is a common opinion in the SCA, but it sounds rather petty and is a poor way to dismiss a point of criticism. How could that passage be improved? --Cantara 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the next section in my sights for a hack and chop. Snori

[edit] Criticism

I've just rv'd "Will-I-Am"s changes for the second time. The tone and position of them was wrong, and they're generally covered in the "Criticism" section. Have added the 'killing head shots are inauthentic' point though. --Snori 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

SCA head shots are considered fatal, as the presumed armor worn by every combatant is chainmaille over a padded gambeson and an open faced iron helm with a nasal. SCA combatants are not considered to be wearing the armor they actually have on, but a standardized set of armor as defined by the Marshallate. Therefore, striking someone on the side of the head with a shortsword may very well be fatal. Ref: http://www.sca.org/officers/marshal/combat/armored/rules_of_the_list.pdf Please reconsider your rv. Kemkerj 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Known World A&S Directory" site listed under the "Arts and Sciences" header is not officially tied to the SCA and should probably not be listed here. --NRen2k5 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I'd like to invite SCA Wikipedians to upload images of their replica arms and armor. I've been expanding coverage of the subject for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. Wikimedia commons has a fairly good collection of images, much of which I've already looted for new and existing stubs. You can see the current state of things at Category:Medieval weapons and Category:Medieval armor. I'm particularly interested in specific components from different eras and geographic locations - my new article spangenhelm recently got highlighted on Wikipedia's main page. If you'd like to put your photographs on the Web, knowing it's all for the good of human knowledge, here's your chance. Cheers, Durova 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queens by their own hands?

Forgive me if this looks screwed up - first time I've ever tried to communicate via wiki's interface.

At any rate, I was under the impression there were more Queens and Princesses who won their own crowns by right of arms by 2005. I know for certain Duchess Sir Rowan did so at least once in Ansteorra prior to 2000. Was she really the only one? We've had over 35 years of women in heavy combat in the SCA, and iirc, all the kingdoms have at least 2 crowns a year. Given the timeline history, I think there's been upwards of... 500 crown tournaments total (aggregating across all kingdoms) in 40 years or so? And only one Queen/Princess by her own hand? I don't expect a lot of ladies to have accomplished the deed, but 1 out of 500 seems a little low to me. If the article author was thinking of someone other than Duchess Sir Rowan, than we know there's been at least 2...

Otoh, I'm also not sure where I'd go to get confirmation on the crown winners in a reasonable time period.

Boogieshoes 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)brigid

I believe that Her Grace is the only Queen. There has been at least one Princess (other than Crown Princess). I would have to look it up on the West Kingdom history, but if my memory is any good, it was HE Malean (of the Mists), when she won a Principality Pentathalon (SP?), that included other competitions than just fighting. This was circa 1977...TTFN Ralg

I believe the east has never had a queen by right of arms. --Lelek 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been several princesses (according to [2]:

• Maythen Gervaise, Princess (sovereign) of the Mists: 1981/05/09-1981/11/21
• Gwenllian Rhiannon of Dragon Keep, Princess (sovereign) of Drachenwald: 1988/01/??-1988/06/18
• Sir Elizabeth Mortimer, Princess (sovereign) of Ealdormere: 1996/09/21-1997/04/12
• Viresse de Lighthaven, Princess (sovereign) of Oertha: 1997/01/19-1997/07/20
• Bryne McClellan, Princess (sovereign) of the Mists: 2002/11/16-2003/05/10
• Richenza von Augsberg, Princess (sovereign) of Oertha: 1998/07/19-1999/01/17 and 2003/07/20-2004/01/18

but I cannot find any other references to Queens by right of arms. I guess it will just take time. -- nae'blis 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thrown weapons

Clearly steel weapons onto targets doesn't belong under "Armed combat" section. Probably belongs with non-combat archery - but there isn't any reference to this. Javelins as used in wars are "thrown weapons", but as I understand are not referred to as such. Someone more knowledgable like to clarify? --Snori 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up needed on Ext Links~*

Greetings one and all,

The External links are a mess! They need to be alphabetised and categorised at this point:

Alternative Societies & Resources:

SCA Photo Galleries:

SCA Sites:

War:

The uniformity can only enhance this section. Waes Haeil, AR~*

[edit] Copyright Infringement

The graphic of the "shield" being used is a copyrighted image and is being used in violation of the use statement on http://www.sca.org/sca.copy.html. More information can also be found on the talk page for the image.

Robin gallowglass 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editting other peoples talk page entries?

We just had an anon user go through and do some copy-editting. Thing is, they did it here on the talk page. I'm sorry, but that does not seem to be a polite corse of action. It seem sto me that the talk pages are for thoughts, not for exacting grammer and such. Donovan Ravenhull 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur: you typed it, it's yours for good. The pages are historical records (which is why I am irritated when somebody deletes anything that's put on his/her talk page).--Orange Mike 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

[edit] clean up links

I removed some links that we more appropriate for other pages or didn't seem to back up the content on this page. Unless a link adds something it shouldn't be here. We wouldn't want this to just grow into a list of links to every household, merchant, branch, annual event, .... If I was too heavy handed, perhaps a better comment that explained the relevance to this article would help. Cheers. --Jake 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Correctness Amok

"Knighted men are addressed as Sir, and Knighted women as Sir or Dame (as the Knight chooses)." Wow, I would have thought the SCA would be more politically correct than this. Why can't men choose to be addressed as "Dame"? Applejuicefool 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they could if they choose too. There is no 'law' saying that they can't. As it is, no male has decided to be 'Dame,' but a number (I believe a majority) of women knights prefer 'Sir.' In all, I don't see this as any way of being an example of 'Political Correctness Amok'. Donovan Ravenhull 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied on your user talk page - this isn't the right place for an ongoing discussion about this Applejuicefool 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)