Modern Fencing: Yes or No?

It seems like there's a never-ending debate on whether or not modern Olympic fencing has any use to the SCA fencer. After all, fencing's fencing, right? And with the resurgence in Olympic, it's becoming easier and easier to find local fencing clubs to join, but is it a good idea for someone who wants the best rapier game they can get?

For the record, my start in fencing was in Olympic, some twenty years ago. I fenced mainly foil and epee, but did some sabre as well, so I am familiar with the sport. Olympic is a wonderful place to learn basic parrys and attacks as well as work on your tip control and speed, but it does have three major flaws: footwork, right of way and touches.

Olympic footwork is basically sound, except for the fact that it is designed for a 14-meter by 2-meter (roughly 46'x6') strip. Because of the narrow width, the only movement options for Olympic fencers are front/back and up/down. That's good, as far as it goes, but SCA fencing is usually done in the round and that extra dimension of side to side makes a real difference. When someone is advancing in Olympic, your only choices are to stand your ground or retreat, but in the SCA, you can side-step in just about any direction.

Another flaw in Olympic (as far as the SCA is concerned) is the idea of right of way. Basically, right of way is the idea that whoever attacks first, wins - no matter who lands their attack first. Now, don't get me wrong, right of way is a good idea, but in a style that scores body parts differently like the SCA, there are times when it is worth sacrificing an arm or a leg to get the head or torso.

The third major flaw in Olymic fencing is what constitutes a touch. Any touch that results in sufficient bend (or that will set off the scoring buzzers) is a good touch. Sounds pretty good, right? The touches might be heavier than we use, but the idea's sound. Well, sort of. You see, in Olympic, it doesn't matter how the touch lands -tip, flat or press - as long as there's sufficient bend. In a form that treats blades as having edges, you do suddenly have to worry about how the blade landed, not just how hard.

Of course, Olympic isn't all bad. Some years back, a visiting fencer from the Outlands commented on how incredible Artemisian fencers were at single-sword. The reason we were (are) so good at single-sword is that most fencers are tought a modified version of Olympic as their first style, complete with parrys, attacks, lunges and drills. Those drills, especially make their way into our psyches until we can't get rid of them. I know I've killed more than one person with a textbook lunge. And, as limited as Olympic is, it is a good way to keep your parry reflexes sharp and cut down on your double-kills.

So should an SCA fencer do Olympic? Not if they're just starting out. The differences in style are too great and they'll find their fencing suffers both on the strip and in the round. After they've gained a good feel for fencing and can separate the two styles, then yes, they can gain from the experience. With one caviat: stay away from sabre. Sabre offers no benefits to the SCA fencer and can lead to the bad habit of hacking.

GPS Review

I found this floating around. It’s a review of the Magellan Maestro 3100 I wrote after Uprising last summer, done in a period voice. Enjoy!

Throughout my travels, I had heard great and wondrous tales about how much easier it was to travel with the assistance of a navigator. Now, I was a bit dubious as to their usefulness travelling the King’s roads as I am familiar with the reading of maps and could usually get from one place to another without getting too lost, but I’d found a navigator by the name of Magellan who was willing to work cheap. So I hired him with my upcoming trip to Uprising in mind.

Now while this wasn’t my first trip to Uprising, I’d only traveled the road to its current site once without a driver and thought it would be good to have the reassurance of a navigator to guide my steps. We left Castelleone under clear and sunny skies, but by the time we approached the northern border of what was once Dun Braga, I could see storm clouds brewing on the horizon. For anyone who hasn’t traveled the King’s highway through region, the northern reaches of Dun Braga is a series of narrow, winding valleys that can be quite challenging in rough weather. Seeing the clouds and thinking not only of the roads ahead, but all of the gear sitting exposed to the elements in the back of my wagon, I decided on a detour that would skirt the eastern edge of Dun Braga before rejoining the King’s highway. Yes, the detour might have been five or ten miles longer, and the narrowness of the roads meant that I couldn’t travel quite as fast as on the King’s highway, but the roads were relatively straight and level – and not currently enjoying the attention of Thor.

So I turned off the King’s highway and almost immediately my navigator, Magellan, began telling me to turn around. And he continued to do so in his annoying sing-song voice every half-mile or so until we met up with another of the King’s highways that fed into Dun Braga from the east. Then his suggestion was to get on that highway and rejoin our original route at Dun Braga, some thirty miles away. And, like Magellan’s continual insistence that we turn around, I disregarded his advice. For I knew that if I used his route, it would be thirty miles over a winding mountain pass to Dun Braga and then another sixty miles to its southern edge, whereas if I continued on my current route, I’d reach that same southern edge in a mere seventy miles. So I continued on my detour and my navigator started up his petulant pleas to turn around once again.

We’d gotten to about halfway to Dun Braga’s southern edge before good Magellan finally decided to look at what was ahead instead of where we’d been and admitted that maybe, just perhaps, I knew what I was doing. By the time we rejoined the King’s highway, he had settled down and was even ready to admit that we’d lost a mere ten minutes in taking the detour.

All was good as we passed into the lands of One Thousand Eyes and left the King’s highway. But as we approached where my navigator said the road to Duke Alan’s lands were, I again had second thoughts about his veracity. As I said, while this was only my second time bringing my own wagon to these lands, I had ridden with others before and none of the landmarks I half remembered were present. So I pulled out the directions sent along with the invitation to visit the Duke’s lands and, sure enough, Magellan was telling me to turn far sooner than the Good Duke had recommended. We continued on, now following the written directions I had been given instead of my so far questionable navigator’s constant please to turn around or turn left and reached the Duke’s lands without incident.

Needless to say, I began my return trip leery of my discount navigator. But, while the Duke had been good enough to provide directions to his lands, he hadn’t provided the same from them and I was forced to rely on good, old Magellan’s advice. And, at first, his advice seemed sound enough until I realized that my navigator had me rejoining the King’s highway after passing through the heart of One Thousand Eyes instead of just cutting over the mile or so to rejoin it sooner.

And, I must admit that he figured things out much sooner this time, only giving me a pair of “turn around”s before realizing what I was up to and gave me no more trouble on the way home.

Whoops!

I got the opportunity to visit another group's rapier practice recently. It was nice to get out and face new people and try out new things. Well, okay, do a refresher on some not-so-new things. Specifically, the baton. I haven't really played with baton in years, even though it used to be one of my staples.

So I was out there, and doing pretty well with it until I faced a guy using cane. We were both fighting right handed and as we were fighting, he trapped my blade and tried to do a high attack to my right side. So there I was, staring at a completely exposed side and thinking, "I know what to do..."

I thrust.

About three-quarters of the way into my attack, I realized I wasn't holding a dagger. Luckily, my baton doesn't have much mass and I was able to pull my blow with only lightly tapping his side. I was chanting "Not a dagger, not a dagger..." as I reset and my opponent was pleasantly surprised to realize he didn't die. I wasn't sure if he got me or not, but after that big of a screw-up I considered myself dead. And figured it was time for a break.

This was one of those times where I got lucky. I was lucky that it was a practice and not a tourney. Core sample or no, if you gack someone with a baton in a tourney, odds are you're done - for anywhere from the day to six months, depending how hard you hit them. At practice, you get a talking to and are advised to practice some more with it before you take it into a tourney. Of course, that's why I was playing with it there, instead of at a tourney. I'm a firm believer that it's never a good idea to try something out for the first time at a tourney: if you're going to screw up, screw up at practice.

Life, the Universe and Everything

I've been working on a post for a while now and have had a hard time finishing it up, but I wasn't sure why. And today it hit me: I can't finish it because I know it won't work. Oh, all the steps are there and the all make sense, but the whole process just won't work in Artemisia right now. It would have worked 10 years ago and it might work some time in the future, but it won't work today.

The post was on how to have successful regional fighter's practices and while everything I said was valid, Artemisia is currently lacking the one thing it needs to make them work: infrastructure. Yes, we have the marshallate, but their primary concern is safety with education a distant second. And the Ministers of Arts and Sciences have their hands full enough with all of the other areas of study to try and commit to any real concerted effort to promote fencing. Sure, the armored fighters don't mind us tagging along with them, but again, we're a secondary concern to them.

What we need is a guild: a kingdom-wide organization dedicated to teaching and promoting fencing. That's why it was easier 10 years ago to have successful regional fighter's practices: we had Blackwing. Not only did that mean we had a group who could coordinate things across the kingdom, but we had a standardized book to work from, even when we worked at a local level. Yes, Blackwing had its problems, but it gave us an infrastructure that made it easier to spread knowledge throughout the group and the kingdom.

I'm not saying we need to bring back Blackwing. I know if I did, somebody 'd say, "Great! Thanks for volunteering!" And let me tell you, the quickest way to kill off a project like this would be to put me in charge. I mean, it helps if whoever you pick to lead something actually likes people. I also recognize that The Blackwing Company had a bad connotation to some people and if our goal is to promote fencing and learning, we don't want to start off alienating people. But I do think we need some sort of group that is dedicated to promoting fencing in Artemisia.

I'd love to see a fencing guild return to Artemisia, but despite my occasional fantasy, I have to be honest enough with myself to say I'm not the one to organize it. If someone does, though, I'll be right there.

Veterans Day 2009

It's no secret that SCAdians are a little... well... odd. In the SCA, we all look forward to war. For us, it's a chance to get together with old friends and meet new while spending the days fighting, knowing that even though we may be killed, we'll be back to fight again.

Outside the SCA, that's not true. In a real war, people are killed. For real. And quite often, the dead are the lucky ones. But still, there are those who answer the call, fighting for friends, family and country. They see and do things that most people just can't imagine, and what most people consider remarkable, they consider business as usual. Soldiers, sailors and airmen all do what needs to be done.

In the United States, there are two days each year dedicated to our fighting men and women. One, Memorial Day, is dedicated to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in service to their country. The other, Veterans Day - today - is the day to recognize and remember all who served their country, whether in peacetime or war.

Veterans are all around us. The old man down the street, the clean-cut kid in your English class, maybe even your English teacher. There is no easy way to spot them, but they are there. And if you do spot one, thank him or her.

And whether you do or not, I hope you'll join me in praying for peace. Praying for the end of war. Praying to no longer need rough men who stand ready in our defense. War may be human nature, but I, for one, pray that we can rise above it.

A Baker's Dozen

At Harvest Court, there was a minor scandal when it was discovered that there was a gentle present who'd never seen Boondock Saints (Gasp!). Now, true, Boondock Saints isn't a period movie and it doesn't really have any great moral message to be passed on, but if you're going to spend any time in the Brotherhood encampment, it's one of those movies you have to see. It seems just about everyone has a list of must-see movies and most of us in the Society have our own mini-list of must-see SCA movies. I'm no different, and I thought it might be fun to list some of my must-see movies. I've arranged these movies in the order I think they should be watched by new fencers. And you may notice that I've left out a lot of the usual must-see movies (Highlander, Monty Python's The Holy Grail, Braveheart, etc.), but that's because they are the usuals.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) - When most people thing of Robin Hood, they think of Errol Flynn.

The Three Musketeers, The Four Musketeers, Return of the Musketeers (1973,1974,1989) - These three movies have to be combined into one entry as not only do they have the same cast throughout, but all three were written and directed by the same people, giving the series a wonderful sense of continuity.

The Princess Bride (1987) - Well, duh. Not only is this movie fun and well written, it contains one of the best fencing scenes since Errol Flynn crossed swords with Basil Rathbone in The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Knight Riders (1981) - Yes, this one is slow and campy, but it gives a wonderful insight into the honor and fealty of the S.C.A. If nothing else, it's worth it for speech Alan gives Morgan after he splits off.

The Man Who Would Be King (1975) - If for no other reason than Sean Connery's crown is made of foil grips. This movie is based on a story by Rudyard Kipling and tells the story of an army deserter who sets himself up as a king and the results of his deception.

Ladyhawke (1985) - Most people focus on the story of Navarre and Isabeau, which is a pretty standard love story, but what I like is the story of Phillipe's (the Mouse's) and Father Imperius' redemption.

Henry V (1989) - Or just about any of Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeares. Great acting, great costuming, great locations, great sets, what more is there?

The History of the Word: Part I (1981) - Where else can you cover a couple thousand years worth of history. This movie's probably most famous for the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) - Really, you should see most of Mel Brooks' other movies first, as Mel unabashedly stole from them when he made this one. Like The History of the Word, this movie doesn't really contain any deep message, but it is a fun time killer and might just give you a line or two for your next event.

The Three Musketeers (1993) - The Disney version. Porthos is such a wonderful boor in this one, but the main reason I included it is that it makes a wonderful lead-in to The Man in the Iron Mask.

The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) - This is another redemption story, but unlike Ladyhawke, this is the redemption of lost glories.

Like I said, these are a few of my must-sees. What are some of yours, and why?

What's Wrong With Us?

It seems like the question of why there aren't any home-grown White Scarves in northern Artemisia is one that just keeps coming up. It even came up at Harvest Court this last weekend, but the answer I heard was a new one. It came from a knight who said, "You guys don't know how to be White Scarves." And this from a knight who is actually fairly fencer-friendly.

A bit of a Catch-22 there, I'll admit. At least for those of us who don't travel a lot. We don't have any White Scarves up here to teach us how to be White Scarves, so nobody earns their White Scarves, so we don't have anyone to teach us how to be White Scarves, and so on. The answer for those who have the time and money is, of course, to go to where the White Scarves are. Yes, it'd be nice if we could get them to come up here, but with the distances involved and the costs, I can completely understand why they can't make it up north more than maybe once or twice a year.

Which still leaves us in the position of being adrift in the White Scarf sea (and also helps explain why we tend to be a bunch of uncouth barbarians). And, quite frankly, it tends to leave us a little frustrated. We can see we're missing something, but we don't have any idea what. So we wind up fishing around, looking for help where we can. That's how some of us more experienced fencers have found ourselves in positions of authority. We're not White Scarves, but at least we know some. But we suffer from the same problem. After all, if we knew how to be White Scarves, we'd already be White Scarves. So we find ourselves copying the closest we have up here: the knights.

It's a start, at least. But an armored fighter isn't a fencer, and their priorities aren't the same as ours. If nothing else, they have a whole different sense of grace. Yes, a good armored fighter is graceful, but it's the grace of a main battle tank forging into the thick of combat: pure power, honed to a terrible perfection. That's not the grace of a fencer. The grace of a fencer is like the rapier itself: a sense of simplicity and beauty combined in elegant effectiveness.

Maybe that's also why we northerners tend to excel at melee - we can do effective, but elegance takes some work.

But none of this helps solve the problem we have here in the north of trying to learn how to be White Scarves. And I don't see any simple answer for those of us who must limit our travels. The most I can suggest is that our southern cousins be patient with us northern barbarians and, when possible, help teach us country bumpkins what it takes to be a White Scarf.

NGT&S

There was a time when the fencing community was known throughout the kingdom for its willingness to help out. It seemed like any time the Northern Garrison traveled, we'd show up on site and immediately be put to work, without any question of our willingness to help.

Now don't get me wrong, I still see plenty of fencers doing their part to help others, but I've also seen the occasional gaggle of fencers sit around and watch as a lady pulled a cart of water to the list fields. And yes, they received a spot correction.

It seems from my experience that it's the newer fencers (not necessarily the younger ones) that tend to ignore these opportunities for service. That suggests to me that the problem is one of education, and I don't mean mundane schooling. Rather that we more experienced members aren't taking the time to teach our newer members the value of helping out, except by example. Yes, teaching by example is a good start (it sure beats sitting around the camp fire, telling people what to do), but it's only part of the equation. Not only do we need to show them what to do, but we need to teach them when to do it. When the herald comes by announcing that they need help setting up for feast, or setting up the royal pavilion, don't just get up and go, tap the shoulders of your newer friends (or potential friends) and say, "Let's go." And when they're done, thank them. Maybe even offer them a beer (if they're of age). I, myself, will do amazing things for a simple cup of coffee.

Now we shouldn't expect to be rewarded for helping others, that's labor, not service. More often than not, I'll do my best to avoid any sort of reward for helping out - for me, service is a way of paying back what the Society has already given me - but if someone insists on rewarding me, I'll accept their offer graciously.

The ironic part of that is that I have cast tokens for the sole purpose of recognizing people who I either see going out of their way to help others, or who make exceptionally good passes while fencing. Yes, I who don't like to be recognized came up with a way to recognize others. They're nothing fancy. In fact, the best way to describe them would be crude, but they're my little way of encouraging others and helping ensure that the SCA continues to be a Society worthy of pride.

Retail Ramblings

I realized that it's the middle of the month and I haven't done a single post yet. All I can say is that I've been busy getting ready for Harvest Court next week. I realize that in the big scheme of things, it's a relatively minor event, but with Antoine stepping up as Baron, I want to make a good showing of myself. So I've been engaging in the usual pre-event madness of making new garb, both for myself and my youngest son. Needless to say, his garb was a lot quicker than mine: why waste a lot of effort on something that he'll outgrow in 6 months? The project for myself, on the other hand, was 6 hours work (not counting shopping for the "perfect" fabric before finally realizing that I had good stuff already) for a single coat. But it's (mostly) done: all I have to do now is get the frogs for the front.

I realize it may come as a shock to anyone who's seen me the past few years that I can sew my own garb. After all, my entire current kit (with the exception of one rather worn tunic and a jacket) is store-bought. But that's actually a new situation for me. It's only been the last couple of years that I could afford to actually buy pre-made garb. Before that, it was all home-made (and, in a few cases, hand-made), and usually made from scraps or treasures found at Goodwill. And towards the end there, I was actually getting pretty good at it, if I do say so myself. Not that anything I made would have won an Arts and Sciences competition, but I'd graduated beyond t-tunics and was doing actual, fitted garb.

But then I joined the Army and got muscles. Suddenly, all of my nice garb was too fitted. So I made do with what loose-fitting garb I still had, and it worked pretty well. What few events I made it to were of the day-tripping variety, so I only needed one or two outfits. And all was good until I got out of the Army. You see, when I first got out, we ended up having to stay with my brother-in-law for a few months, so the majority of our stuff was in storage. Now, I thought I was being smart when I made sure all of my fencing gear (blades, mask, gorget) traveled with me, but I'd made one small mistake: my fencing tunic was with my garb, in storage.

And that's where my foray into retail began: I bought myself a commercially-made tunic/doublet combo. And that worked great: it even doubled as regular garb. At least until Uprising. There was no way I'd be able to wear one outfit for the entire event - including fighting. By that time, my stuff was out of storage, and I was able to cobble together two or three outfits (all either old, too small or ugly), so I began adding to my kit, a piece at a time.

Now, here it is two Uprisings later and I've gotten a decent set-up: a couple good tunics, a couple not-so-good tunics, honest-to-God pants, even a good doublet for court. But Schola showed me that a nice, thick wool doublet, although good for evenings at Estrella, is not the best choice for warm-weather events. Thus the new jacket. Yes, it's still wool, but it's much lighter and a looser weave. And no, it's not nearly as fitted as the work I used to do, but for a first attempt in over five years, it'll do, and it'll allow me to layer up for those bitterly cold events like Twilight in Valhalla.

And it does leave me thinking about the $1.79/yard muslin, and how it'd be nice to have another tunic or two. And pants, I need more pants...

Plateaus

It happens to all of us: we keep getting better and better until all of a sudden, we just can't get any better. This doesn't mean we don't have anything more to learn, just that we've learned as much as we can by what we're doing. We've plateaued. And the sad fact is that this isn't something that happens once, but over and over again.

Usually, the first plateau happens fairly early in your career: you've learned the basics and have started doing pretty well for yourself locally, but then Bam! Your death becomes a common, oft-repeated part of fighter's practice and you begin feeling like the shire pin-cushion. The cause of this first plateau is that your fellow local fencers have learned all your tricks, all your patterns, and can counter them without even thinking about it.

For this first plateau, the solution is to travel. Go to other group's fighter's practices. Do pick-up fights when you go to events. And if you see someone do something really effective, ask them about it. This will expand your knowledge base and teach you new tricks that maybe didn't work for the other local fighters, haven't made their way to your local group, or maybe have been forgotten by your other local fighters.

This will get you going again and you'll start doing better and better at tourneys, maybe winning a few but definitely making a good showing for yourself. You're right on the edge of greatness, then Bam! Another plateau. You're still doing well, but you just can't get your head around those Gold Scarves. So, what do you do now?

You start teaching. You help out at fighter's practice with the brand new fencers, showing them the basics of footwork, parries and attacks. This slows you down and forces you to think about what you're doing and how. And it also starts to teach you how to watch other fighters and take apart their style. And after a while, you begin to make progress against those Gold Scarves who'd been your bane for the past few months.

And things are going great until the same thing happens again. This is when many fencers will begin doing research, either on period techniques or other martial arts, trying to find that certain something missing from their style. They'll start focusing on the why of fencing moves and begin adapting other arts to their needs.

And again, as you get deeper into your research, your skill will begin improving until you're the equal of all but the very best Gold Scarves, but then you hit another plateau. And it's time to change things up again. It's time to start "hunting Dons." You should be taking every chance you can get to fight with the White Scarves, both in tourneys and in practices. Ask them questions. Ask for their advice. Pump them for as much knowledge as you can: after all, many of them have forgotten more about fencing than most of us know.

And just like before, you'll start improving again. And, like before, you'll hit that plateau again. And this time it's back to teaching - but not focusing on the beginners. This time you're focusing on the intermediate or advanced fighters, teaching them your tricks and helping them through their plateaus.

But even after you get past this plateau (and hopefully earned your White Scarf), you're still not done. Every so often, you'll hit another plateau. And the fix for that plateau will always be to learn more or to teach.

As for myself, I've taught beginners, I've traveled, I've done research, and I'm definitely at a plateau. I guess that means I should start hunting Dons.

Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks

I went over to Bronzehelm for Schola this last weekend and was pleased to find a good chunk of time set aside for fighter's practice. It was wonderful to have a chance to play around with new people and it gave me a great opportunity to try out what I've been learning with my saber. I was even a good boy and warned them that I was trying out news stuff and apologized in advance for any oopses I might make.

And I apologized each time I made an oops.

And I apologized afterwards for all of the oopses.

You see, they style I'm studying with my saber is almost all sweeping tip cuts. And when they work, they work great, but when I'm off, it's a lot of hacks and hard slaps. And let me tell you, my control with the style is nowhere near ready for prime-time. And no, I didn't use they style during the serious fencing. After all, if I can't control it in practice, there's no way I can control it when the adrenaline is flowing.

The good part (for me, at least) was that after watching for a while, Don Adam took me aside and worked with me one-on-one to try and figure out a way to help take the force out of my attacks. And he came up with a couple of ideas that look very promising. The first is no more two-handing for a while: it just adds too much power to my swings. The second idea was to strike with the flat of the blade initially and then turn it edge-on for the draw. This not only spreads out the force over a broader area, but also uses the flexibility of the blade to absorb the force of the blow. And it worked great in practice, even with my current control level. I definitely still need to work on it, so it'll be a while until I can bring it out in a tournament, but at least I have a direction to go.

Did I mention it was a great event?

My Perfect Army

I've talked about the mixes of weapon styles as well as using RBG in melees and thought it might be a good idea to talk some about my favorite formations too.

The first is for a Star: a 3 person combat team. Ideally, you'll have 2 bucklers and 1 case in the group with the bucklers in front. Below is a basic diagram:

3 Fighter Formation

B B C

As you can see, the case fighter is stationed between and behind the two other fighters. This allows them to replace either of the front fighters or protect the sides in case they are flanked. I'm not using any gunners because 3-on-3 is really too small for their use.

That changes when you double your troops. You can see from the diagram below that I've added a gunner in front of the formation. Now, the gunner only stays in front of the formation until they approach to firing range of their opponents. When they're in range to fire, they stop and the rest of the formation flows around them.

6 Fighter Formation:
Initial: G B B B C C		Start of Pass: B G B B C C		End of Pass: B B B C G C		Final: B B B C G C

As you can see, the gunners wind up behind the line where they can still snipe the opposing forces or fill in as a reserve, if necessary.

When we double our troops again, you can see daggers being used for the first time. They aren't reserves, the same as the case fighters, but rather shock troops. Their job is to watch the battle, direct troops, repel any flanking attacks and take advantage of any weaknesses in the enemy formation.

12 Fighter Formation:
Initial:		Final:
G G B B B B B C C C C D		B B B B B C G C C G C D

Our final doubling brings us up to 24 fighters. And you may notice that while the reserves (the case fighters) have doubled each time, they are the only group that does. The front line of bucklers nearly does, but is always 1 less than double the previous size. And the shock troops have quadrupled in number while the gunners only increase by 1 each time. This is because I prefer a more conservative - a more defensive - formation. An example of this is when you compare my 24 fighter formation to the typical 24 fighter formation most people would use given the same mix of weapons:

Initial:

Mine

G G G B B B B B B B B B C C C C C C C C D D D D

Theirs

C B C B C B C B C B C B C D G D B B G B D G D C

Final:

Mine

B B B B B B B B B C C G C C G C C G C C D D D D

Their

C B C B C B C B C B C B C D G D B B G B D G D C

Head to Head

Mine

D D D D C C G C C G C C G C C B B B B B B B B B

C B C B C B C B C B C B C D G D B B G B D G D C

Theirs

As you can see, their line is wider than mine (12 to 9). This isn't as big of a problem as it might seem for a couple of reasons. The first is that the gunners in my formation will have hopefully thinned out their front ranks some, forcing them to drain some of their reserves to fill the holes in the line. The other reason is that while they have the troops to attempt a flank, my formation has the shock troops already in position to deal with them.

Unfortunately, I don't foresee the the chance to actually use the 24-fighter formation, or even the 12-fighter formation very often because of the sheer rarity of getting that many fencers on the melee field up here (let alone that many fencers willing to fight with bucklers), but I can always hope. And if anyone does get the chance to try these out, I'd love to hear how it goes.

Gunning for Melees

Ever since RBGs were first introduced, fencers have been trying to figure out the best way to use them. The probelm with determining the best use has always been the limitations placed on them. In many melees, RBGs are either not allowed or are limited in number of weapons or number of rounds (at Estrella War this past year, sides were limited to a total of 1 round for every 10 opponents). I can see why they do this: they're trying to keep the melees from being straight gun-battles.

And in our period, gun use was limited. Compared to swords, guns were expensive and slow to produce. In addition, they had a long list of disadvantages: theycouldn't match the accuracy of a crossbow or a longbow, they were incapable of firing in the rain (the Battle of Villalar was won because the rebel's arquebus' would not work in the rain), they were prone to blow up in the user's hand, and the amount of smoke they produced made it hard to even see the enemy after a few salvos. Of course, they did have a few advantages: they were easier to learn than the longbow, they were faster to reload than a crossbow, and a soldier could carry more ammunition than with either a longbow or a crossbow.

It was these advantages that did bring firearms to the field, but the severity of the limitations kept them from occupying a large percentage of the armies of the times arsenals.

I have to say that in the SCA, I do like the idea of limiting the number of guns (and the 1 in 10 ratio from Estrella works quite well), but I'm not so sure about limiting the number of rounds. The reality of a soldier is that he/she will carry as much ammo as they can (the standard load for a U.S. Army soldier is 210 rounds, but most carry more into combat). For myself, I try to carry at least five rounds for my RBG when I bring it on the melee field.

Of course, this still leaves the question of how to use our RBGs to their greatest effect in melees. Which means we have to look at the various types of melees we do.

Probably the most common type of melee we do is the open field battle. Currently we normally line up our gunmen behind the line in open field battles with instruction to shoot commanders and other high-value targets (HVTs). And this does work, but it has some weeknesses. The first is that it doesn't take full advantage of the RBG's range. A gunner can only reach the front line shortly before his/her own line can and can't reach behind the lines until the front lines engage. The other weakness is that going after HVTs doesn't generally do anything to relieve the pressure of the front line. Most HVTs (commanders, White Scarves, etc.) hang out behind the lines so that even if you do get them, your front line is still fully engaged.

The Swiss didn't use their gunmen this way. In fact, they did the exact opposite. Their gunmen were placed in front of the main line. Once the opposing army came into range, they would stop and begin firing at the enemy's front line, poking holes in it and taking away its momentum. As they'd fire, their own lines would pass through, engaging the enemy before they could reach the gunners. The Swiss infantry would then be facing a stalled, weakened line and the now-protected gunners could switch from volley-fire to the more traditional (for us) role of sniping and supporting.

We actually do pretty well in bridge battles. Our standard tactic is to set up the gunmen to the sides of the bridge where they can harry the enemy forces. We still focus too much on HVTs for my taste, but at least we've figured out how to give our gunners a good depth of range without interfering with our own lines.

Ressurection battles are probably the easiest to figure out: in all but a few situations, RBGs are useless. Because of the length of resurrection battles and their never-ending supply of reinforcements, it is pointless to waste ammo on thinning out the lines or eliminating HVTs: they'll just be back in 30 seconds or so. Their only use is in a capture-the-flag scenario to remove defenders from the objective from a distance or to kill an opponent who has captured your flag. Anything beyond that is a waste.

Keep battles are the opposite of the ressurection battle when it comes to RBGs: gunners are so useful and the field is so limited that it's hard to screw it up. A perfect example is the Defend the Baroness battle from this last Uprising. Even aside from the canon, the defenders did everything right. They had gunners in the door, punching holes in the attackers line, and gunners on the wall, draining their reserves. That was about as textbook as you could get. And with only the single point of contact and the limited number of visible targets, its hard for the attackers not to use their gunners effectively: if you've only got one or two gunners, have them snipe the kill pocket and if you've got four or five, a volley-fire can wipe out an entire rank of defenders.

Yes, I suppose RBGs take away from the fun of melees (at least for those who are shot), but when you think about it, so does getting legged and left. So I figure if we're going to use them, let's see what happens when we use them right.

Excessive Blows

Recently the problem of hitting with excessive force once again reared its ugly head. This, like day-glo Converse and decaffinated coffee is a problem that should never come up. Okay, I realize that there will always be the occasional train wreck, but short of that, there is no reason why hitting too hard should be a problem. As I see it, there are only two causes for hard hits: lack of training and blatant stupidity. And since we can't get rid of stupidity, we are forced to rely on training to minimize the problem. The training's even relatively easy: pracitce regularly, and when you practice, hit as light as possible, and take even the lightest hits.

Okay, hitting light can take some practice, but the basics are easy. To get a light hit requires three things: force, balance and range. Of these, force is the easiest to practice. Remember those tennis ball drills you hated so much? Well, if you can consistently hit a tennis ball on a string without causing it to swing more than six inches, you're hitting about right. Of course I realize hitting a tennis ball at speed is difficult, so try a kick ball, or even a piece of paper. Once you can do that at speed with a normal attack, move out a few inches at a time until your lunge barely moves the ball (or paper).

And balance is even easier to work on. In fact it's real easy. Don't lean. When you lean forward, you add your body's momentum to the attack which means - you guessed it - more force. And when you lean back, you take away both your mobility and your body's elasticity. In short, if you lean back to avoid a hit and it still lands, it's going to hit with more perceived force.

Which leads us to range. Hopefully, all those tennis ball drills will have taught you your range. So all you have to do now is only attack when your opponent is in range. If they're too far out, take a step forward. Likewise, if they're too close, take a step back (or if you really want to mess with their heads, take a step to the side).

Now, as with most fencing drills, it's best to start out slow and gradually build up to speed, but with practice it shouldn't be too hard to hit as light as you want. And believe it or not, your goal is to consistantly hit too light in practices. If your opponent at practice has to ask if you got anything, that's an ideal hit.

Why? Because there's this little thing called adrenaline that tends to kick in at tourneys and (especially) melees. And what adrenaline does is lessen your control. No matter how hard you try, you'll hit at least a little harder. That's why I say to train light: so that when you're in a furball and hitting twice as hard as normal, that just means your hitting like a grasshopper instead of a fly. Adrenaline also makes you less sensitive to hits you receive. So again, if your sensitivity is halved, your opponent won't have to leave marks for you to call it good.

That still leaves blatant stupidity to worry about, but if you train regularly, and train well, it lessens the chances of that as well.

We're Not That Different

One thing that I've noticed over my many years of fencing within the Society is the segregation of the fencers and the armored fighters. It isn't at all uncommon for fencers to think of their armored counterparts as big, dumb stickjocks, just as there are a fair share of armored fighters who see us as nothing more than wire weenies. Now, it's not as bad as it used to be: we're getting more armored fighters doing fencing as well as more fencers trying their hand at armored fighting, but the problem is still there. Especially among the newer fighters.

I wish I could say that our opinion was a reaction to the armored community's view of us ("They don't like us? Well, to heck with them!"), but no. Historically, it's the other way around. In the early days of fencing, we (yes, I'm including myself) looked at the differences between fencers and armored fighters. We saw that they wore metal and fought with sticks while we wore cloth and fought with steel. They were whack-heavy while we focused on the thrust. They were heavy, while we were light. And we saw that these things made fencing more difficult - after all, armored fighters don't have to dial down their hits to where their opponents barely feel it, they just bash each other as hard as they can.

Here's the thing: fighting's fighting. It doesn't matter what style you do, the basics are the same. You don't believe me? Let me tell you a story. Back when I was with the 163d, we were heading off to do a Combatives (hand-to-hand) class and to motivate us, our sergeant said that whoever did the worst would have to go clean weapons afterwards. He then began going through our section, weighing the odds for each of us. Now, even though S1 and S4 are usually considered REMFs, we weren't exactly the paper-pushers you might think. Out of the 7 of us, we had 3 11B , an 11C, and a scout. Leaving me as one of only two members of the group not in combat arms. Needless to say, odds were pretty good that I'd be the one cleaning weapons. When the sergeant mentioned that, I replied, "But I fence!"

I'm sure you can imagine the results: everyone started laughing. Well, we got to the class (my first Level II class), and I found myself helping the other members of my section. It wasn't because I was an expert in Combatives. It wasn't even because of some belt I earned (I know just enough Aikido to fall without killing myself). It was my fencing. You see, footwork is footwork. And what's a punch but a thrust without a sword?

Like I said: fighting's fighting. You want to know the difference between armored fighting and fencing? Armored fighters learn to put power into their attacks and fencers learn to take power out of theirs. The difference between a good armored shot and a tip cut? Six inches and power. Between a heavy hit and a draw cut? The power. That's it. Oh sure, there are some conventions that are different: they allow body contact, and their forearms and lower legs are off-limits, but the basics are the same.

So back when fencing started getting a toe-hold in Artemisia, we fencers were doing our best to shoot ourselves in the foot. It was bad enough that our failing to see the similarities kept us from going to the armored fighters for help, but our putting ourselves above them did an incredible job of alienating them. I mean, think about it: it's only within the last few years that we've started to see any real sort of crossover between the two fighting styles.

We're finally starting to get beyond the playground games which hampered our attempts to legitimize fencing, but we're not out of the woods yet. Armored fighting has been around in Artemisia for a lot longer than fencing. We need to learn to recognized not only the traditions of armored fighters, but also the immense wealth of knowledge stored in that great body. Yes, their ways are different, but we can still adapt them to our needs.

Sticky Questions

At Whipping Winds, I was asked why there aren't any northern White Scarves. Boy, talk about a loaded question. But you have to admit it's a very good question, even if it isn't entirely accurate. There is one White Scarf in Bronzehelm: Don Adam, a recent transplant from the Outlands.

So why hasn't Northern Artemisia produced any White Scarves? I mean, we have fencers. Fifty-two, going by the official rolls. That's out of 178 total authorized fencer. In other words, almost 30% of Artemisia's fencers live in Northern Artemisia, and yet only one of the 19 White Scarves lives north of One Thousand Eyes. Now if we average out the number of white scarves (19) to the number of fencers (178), you come out with about one out of every ten fencers being a white scarf. So we've apparently got the numbers to allow us to produce White Scarves, so it can't be our numbers.

Maybe we're just too new of fencers. There may be something to that. After all, when I came back from the Army, there were only a handful of fencers that I recognized from before, so the majority of fencers up here have been doing it for something less than 7 years. The thing is, I can think of three fencers besides myself who were fencing before I left that are still active: Cormac, Antoine, and Albion. Yes, Antoine and Albion took a hiatus around the same time I did and came back at about the same time, but even discounting those absences, they still have better than ten years fencing within the Society. So there is a pool of experienced fencers to look at for promotion (about the 1 in 10 we see in White Scarves, even) as well as a pretty good crop of up-and-comers in the making.

So it's not lack of fencers or lack of experienced fencers. So why aren't there any Northern White Scarves? The only reason I can come up with that might have any merit is visibility. Artemisia covers a huge area, about a thousand miles from our northernmost group to our southernmost. And, although One Thousand Eyes is closest to a geographical center, Loch Salaan has been our cultural center since our days as a principality. Just look at a map of our kingdom and you can see this: centered around Loch Salaan are three other groups, all of which are less than two hours driving time apart. Even expanding out, there's another half-dozen groups within about 4 hours of Loch Salaan. So, yes it makes sense that Loch Salaan would be the cultural center. The drawback to that is that the southern-most group in Northern Artemisia (the former shire of Dun Braga) is seven hours from Loch Salaan. And beyond them there's three groups within an additional two hours, and three more another three hours out and then two more past that.

For the most part, those of us in Northern Artemisia can manage about a 4-hour drive to make it to events without too much trouble. Unfortunately for most of us, the only groups within that four hour range are other groups in Northern Artemisia. I'll admit it: in my 20 years of playing, I've made it south of One Thousand Eyes a whopping 5 times.

And we get upset because more southern fencers don't make it up to our events. Hmmm. If we can't make it to events more than four hours away, how can we expect our southern brethren to do it?

If we, as Northern Artemisians, expect to receive the recognition we feel we deserve, we need to make it out of Montana - and not just to Uprising. We need to be willing to make the long pilgrimages into the heart of Artemisia. And not just to be seen, but to also show our southern friends that it is possible - and worthwhile - to make the long trek.

Don't Stick Your Neck Out

I've started to see a scary trend during armor inspections over the last few months: gorgets that don't pass. And it isn't even that they're failing because of a lack of padding, it's because they don't cover enough of the neck. If you read the regs, they're pretty clear:

For heavy rapier and cut and thrust rapier[Artemisia does heavy rapier], additional throat protection is required; it shall consist of rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one quarter inch (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert.

Like I said, it's pretty straight-forward: the neck has to be covered by a rigid material. The problem I've been seeing is gorgets that are way too short for the wearer. For those who don't know, they way marshals test gorget protection is to have the fencer lean their head back and then look under the mask's bib. Ideally, we won't see any skin. If we do, then it becomes a judgement call for the marshal. If the marshal can't fit a finger in the gap, it's probably good, if they can fit one or more fingers in, it's a bad thing. Now, last weekend at Whipping Winds, there was a guy with a gap that I could fit my entire hand in. Not only that, but he was tall (taller than me, in fact) so the odds of taking a shot to the gap was better than average.

Like I said: a bad thing.

Now, the best fix for this problem is to find a good armorer and have him custom-fit you a good gorget. Unfortunately, good armorers can be hard to find, and when you do, there's a good chance they will be busy. That leads to the next best thing: trying on a gorget before you buy it to make sure it fits. Yes, that means no buying off the Internet. But it also means that you won't have to fiddle with it to make it work.

Okay, so how do you know if it fits?

• Does it fit around your neck with enough space for padding?


• Can you turn your head and tilt it from side-to-side as well as nod it forward and back?


• Does it cover your adams apple?

If it meets those three criteria, go grab your mask and try it on with your gorget and have a friend look to see how many fingers they can fit between the gorget and the mask. If they can't fit a finger in there, you're good.

Those are the best ways to correct the problem, but there are those of us who can't afford a new gorget or whose neck is too big or too long and just can't find one that fits, which leaves you with trying to fix what you already have. Here are a couple of ways you can do this. The first is to get a piece of heavy leather that you can slide behind the front of your gorget to give you the necessary protection. The upside to this trick is that it fully meets our equipment standard, but it has the downside of being another piece of equipment to keep track of.

The other answer - and probably the least desirable - is get a coif that fits either over or under your mask that will cover your neck. This has the advantage of covering the armor requirements for the back of the head, but it's downside is fairly major: it doesn't really correct the problem, it hides it instead. All it does is keep the marshals from seeing the gap. And be warned: if you go with the coif and it covers your entire gorget, odds are that a marshal will try to choke you to make sure you are wearing it. But don't worry, as soon as they feel your gorget, they'll stop squeezing.

And since my solution to a slightly short gorget is to wear a coif, this is definitely one of those "do as I say, not as I do" moments.

What I meant to say was...

At Whipping Winds this past weekend, I taught a short class on Marshalling for Rapier where I covered field marshalling and weapon inspections before doing an open Q and A period. And whether because of the crud I was suffering from or just my natural absent-mindedness, there were a few things I forgot or I feel like expanding on.

The first omission (and probably the biggest) was on the subject of injuries. If you are the marshal in charge of an event or a practice and there is an injury requiring outside medical assistance (ambulance, EMTs, etc.), you need to contact both the Kingdom Rapier Marshal and the Earl Marshal (currently Don Azir and Duke Allan) as soon as possible with all of the details of the incident. In this case, as soon as possible means within twenty-four hours, but if you can send something up as soon as the EMTs have left the scene, that is better (make a trip into town if you need to). For some reason they get grumpy if they hear about stuff from Corporate before they hear about it from their guys in the field. Go figure.

The next thing I want to go into is rules vs. rumors. As many of you know, canes have been on the experimental list for quite some time. At the event, a couple of people brought them and I did the standard hold 'em up and ask if anyone had any problem facing them. One gentle, got rather upset, insisting that Don Azir had just approved them and was writing them into the rules. This was even corroborated by a marshal-at-large who was there. The gentle with the can was even more upset when I told him that I didn't care and that until I saw the written regs, I was treating it as a rumor. Here's the thing. It's not that I thought he was lying, even without the corroboration of the other marshal. The problem was that I have heard nothing from higher-ups about the subject, and I have seen no regulations about canes, so rather than trying to enforce rules I have never seen as to construction standards and such, I enforced the rules that I knew to be good. In my opinion, it is always better to enforce outdated rules that you know than to try and enforce new rules that you have never seen before. The flip side, of course, is that to have a responsibility to keep as up-to-date on the rules as possible.

We also spent a good chunk of time talking about drinking and fighting. The rules say that if you're impaired, you can't fight. Of course, they don't define impaired which leaves the decision up to the marshal in charge. So I told them my basic rules: if I can smell it, you can't fight and if you walk up with a beer in your hand, you're done (yes, I've had it happen). But probably the best way to handle it is for fencers to marshal themselves. If you have a drink, just don't fight. Likewise, if your cold medication leaves you fuzzy or your on prescription pain meds - or even if you just feel "off", don't fight. Remember, this isn't like deciding you don't need to wear a cup where you'll be the one hurt, this is an instance where your stupidity will hurt someone else.

The last thing I want to talk about is the authority and responsibility of the Marshal in Charge (BTW, who was the MIC for rapier at Whipping Winds, and where was he or she on Saturday?). The Marshal in Charge is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in his list field or on his melee field. Everything that happens is his fault. That is why the Marshal in Charge is the ultimate authority for his field. Whatever they say is law. The Marshal in Charge can tell the Society marshal what to do, and they must listen. Now this doesn't mean that being a MIC gives you the right to be a petty tyrant, even if it does give you the ability. Remember that every decision you make can be held up for review after the fact. Now both out kingdom Rapier Marshal and Earl Marshal are very supportive of their troops in the field and will probably stand behind your actions, whatever they are, but if that action was really stupid, you may find yourself with your warrant and authorization pulled.

Initial Impression: The Complete Taiji Dao: The Art of the Chinese Saber

As a birthday present for myself, I picked up a copy of The Complete Taiji Dao: The Art of the Chinese Saber (ISBN 1583942270), hoping it would help with my quest to make the Hockey Stick from Heck more than just a psychological weapon. I was even a good boy and waited until my birthday to open it. Unfortunately, between work and family, this only left me a half-hour or so to glance through it, and no time for any actual blade work. Even so, this was enough for me to form an opinion on the book.

I was a little leery when I ordered it because of the price: under $20 for a "fighting manual" usually means it's some guy talking about how great he is. That's not the case here. The entire book is written in third person, with absolutely no self-aggrandizement. And what's even better is that the pictures actually show the moves pretty well.

The book begins with a history of the style and the weapons, before going into the basics (hands, feet, blade) and then how to combine the basics. I will admit that I skipped over the history and went straight to the good stuff so I can't tell you much about the first part of it, but if you're a wire-weenie like me, you don't care about the history anyway.

The basics were covered quite well, but if you're looking to translate the style over for SCA fencing, I'd skip the footwork as it's designed for power and better suited for armored combat. The hand work (holding the blade and hand positions) is spot on for the strong hand, but I'll have to play around with the weak-hand stuff: it's weird. And the various attacks look good, although some of the defenses are questionable for our style. With the exception of two thrusts and a single draw, the attacks are entirely tip-cut variations. This will mean that you have to be careful of your power to avoid percussive hits, but it should give you good flow with a curved blade.

And the section on combining the parts looks to be designed to increase the flow inherent in the style, turning it into the ballet of blades we are used to seeing in Chinese martial arts movies.

All in all, I am pleased with the book so far and can't wait for the chance to play with the style with my sword in hand.

My Mom's Not Going to Like This

You see, my mother's a died-in-the-wool feminist, achieving more in her mumble-mumble years of living the belief that there is nothing a man can do that a women can't (when she did hit the glass ceiling, it was because of religion, not gender) than most people can imagine. So you'd think that the odds of my being a chauvenist would be pretty slim, right?

And you're right, mostly. The thing is, I recognize the fact that - in general - there are some things an average male is better at than an average female. The big example is physical strength. Your average male is stronger than your average female. But along those same lines, your average female has better balance and a higher tolerance for pain (yes, it's true) than your average male. One isn't better than the other, they just have different strengths.

So, why does this matter in fencing? The physical differences don't, really. The psychological differences do. At least to me they do. Okay, before you jump up on your soapbox and start haranguing me for being a sexist pig, let me explain. You see, women don't, in general, find going out and blowing stuff up a relaxing way to spend an afternoon. For them, agression is something that has to be cultivated, whereas it comes so naturally to men that, if anything, it has to be reigned in. And when you consider that half of fencing is proper use of agression, you can see where this becomes an issue.

In my experience, you can bring out the agressiveness in even the most timid male fencer by two simple steps. The first one is to go at him hard and heavy for about five minute (not quite club him like a seal, but along those lines). This gets him to understand instinctually that you're not really going to hurt him. The second step is to have him do the same to you. If you do it right after step 1, he'll be frustrated enough that he will come at you hard and heavy. This will not only make him understand that he's not going to hurt you, but it'll also flip a switch in his cave-man brain, and he'll know that it's okay to attack. Yes, sometimes it'll take a few tries, but if it takes over a half-hour to get him to attack instead of just defend, I'd be surprised.

This doesn't work with women. At least not in my experience. And neither does having them picture their brother/sister/mom/whatever, at least not anywhere close to consistently. The truth is, I have no idea how to bring out the agressiveness in women fencers. Let me tell you, I had fun trying to explain that to the mother of one of our local fencers. She was asking if I could help her daughter become a more agressive fencer and I told her no. When she asked why not, I tried to explain how women and men think differently. Needless to say, she didn't take to that too well. But when I asked her if she understood how men thought, she admitted that no, she didn't. I told her that the easiest way for her daughter to learn how to be agressive would be for her to talk to someone who wasn't suffering from testosterone poisoning (i.e. another woman).

I'm sure there are people who don't agree with me, who do see this as and admission of sexism, but I like to think they are wrong. Rather, this is an admission of a personal limitation. Just as I can't take apart an opponent's style by watching them fence, I do not know enough about women to bring out the agressiveness necessary for fencing. The mechanics of fencing, I can teach to anyone, but the mindset is beyond my capabilities.

Was I right?

In one of the posts over on Artemisia Militaris, someone asked the question of whether the new youth stickers affected how us old farts fought them. Basically, she wanted to know if we were taking it easy on the young fighters because they are young. Pretty unanimously the answer was no, but.... Later, I approached the fencer who'd posed the question and admitted that I had treated my fight with her in the Non-Don tourney differently, but it wasn't because she was young. It was because she was looking to become a cadet.

Okay, here's what happened. Yes, I gave her the best fight I could - she even commented on not being used to me being "all flowey and stuff" - but she's young, quick and not without skill whereas I'm old, slow and left relying on my skill and we ended in a double kill. Almost simultaneously, we head-shot each other. Her shot landed a fraction of a second before mine, but well after I'd started my shot. Now, if I'd been treating this as a serious tourney, I would have taken it as a double-kill and the call would have been beyond question. But I was in it for the fun (I'd make a lousy cadet, so there was no point in drawing attention to myself). She was, too, but I knew that the added visibility would do her quest good. So I gave her the bout, claiming (rightfully) that her touch landed first.

When I talked to her about it later, she said she didn't really need the extra exposure - and she's probably right: she's a good enough fencer that she'll go far without too much help - but she didn't mind what I'd done. After all, she'd had fun.

But looking back, I do have to ask if it was the right thing to do. At the time, I was sure of it. And, in this instance, no harm was done. But I've realized that if she wasn't such a confident young woman, it could have left her wondering if she'd have done so well if I hadn't "given" her the win.

Was this another one of those things I can add to my ever-growing list of ways not to become a Don?

The Archetypes of Fence

One factor in rapier fighting that is often overlooked is how we view our fighting. Do we view it as a martial art? As a sport? A chance to look good? A way to advance? For each of us, the reason is at least a little different, but that reason can be broken down into five basic archetypes:

• The Artist: This is the fighter who sees fencing as a way to explore how it was really done in period times. They're the ones who can quote Capo Ferro and are drawn to Cut-and-Thrust because it's "more accurate." Their garb is usually immaculate and their blades are sized and balanced to perfection. They look down (at least in private) on epee-guarded schlagers and modern fencing jackets.


• The Contender: This is the fighter who sees fencing as a sport. Their goal is to win! Their main reason for pick-ups before a tournament is so they can pick apart their opponent's style and their gear is the lightest, fastest gear they can find that still meets the SCA standards.


• The Dandy: The Dandy sees fencing as the ultimate expression of style. Their garb is awesome, their weapons, things of beauty and their deaths worth of an Oscar. For them, their performance comes a distant second to how good they look performing and the greatest insult you can give them is to tap your chest and call good when their thrust lands true.


• The Soldier: The soldier lives for melee. They see nothing funner than a target-rich environment and the chance to command troops. Quite often, the best compliment their garb receives is that it's servicable - and usually over-built - and the number of RBGs they can carry is astounding.


• The Suitor: The suitor sees fencing as a road for advancement within The Society. Their garb usually follows the trends of those of higher station than themselves and their equipment comes highly recommended by those In The Know. Much of their time off the field is spent in conversation with Peers and Defenders and they quite often feel disdain for those lesser fencers who are forced into their presence.

Yes, this list shows the purest, most distilled archetypes you can find among fencers. And yes, a fencer who personifies a single archetype is a bad thing. But all of the archetypes are necessary to form a good fencer. We need The Artist's quest for knowledge because the purpose of the SCA is to recreate the middle ages. And without The Contender, we'd never feel the drive to improve ourselves. Likewise, The Dandy teaches us to embrace the pageantry of a well-run tourney and The Soldier gives us the ability to lead, both on the field and off. And, although The Suitor may seem the least attractive of the five archetypes, it is The Suitor that lets us learn appropriate behavior to get along with those around us and, yes, perhaps get noticed for our accomplishments.

It is only when we combine these archetypes in equal measure that we truly move from rapier fighters to fencers.

Why I Wear What I Wear (or: Excuses, Excuses)

One of the few classes I attended at Uprising was on Elizabethan Men's Garb. It's the right time period for me, and even if I'm not English, the English and the Dutch were allies, so they'd have been an influence on us. I showed up in my just finished fighting, feeling lazy, it's not court yet garb and wound up being pointed out as an example of both what to do (garters on my tall boots) and what not to do (those self-same boots, big, floppy cavalier hat).

Now, as anyone who's read some of my earlier posts can no doubt guess, I'm a big proponent of appropriate garb, so you'd think I'd practice what I preach, and you're right, I should do better. A lot better, actually. In fact, my garb is pretty much late-period generic. But I'd like to think I'm making progress.

For example, the boots that got props and poo-pooed are, actually correct for me. Okay, maybe not for court (unless I was standing it as a champion). The instructor did have a point that they are meant as riding boots - which, as a dragoon, is spot-on for my every-day use - and nobody would wear them to court. So, I suppose I should be wearing my hose and shoes instead, it's just that my boots are far more comfortable than my shoes. And, with how screwed up my feet are (even the Army says I'm disabled because of them), comfort is very important. Now, if I can save up $150 for a pair of Birkenstock Londons, I'd probably start living in them, instead.

And I actually agree with the instructors about my hat, but for different reasons. For her, it was the fact that the hat was for every-day and not for special occasions like court. My reason for wanting a different hat is all together different. Another thing regular readers might have picked up on is that I'm not much of a pirate person, and what do most SCA pirates wear over their polyester paisley do-rags? That's right: big, floppy Cavalier hats with more feathers sticking out of them that a chicken farm. But I have the hat -and have had it since before Pirates of the Carribean (if I don't bathe for 6 months and start acting effiminant, does that make me sexy, too?). And, I have far less hair than I once did (at least on top of my head). So I wear the hat - at least until I can find one I like better. Which, I think I may have. Plate 40d of Braun & Schneider's History of Costume shows a man, wearing of all things, a fedora. I can do a fedora. Okay, so it's German instead of Dutch, but their Plate 47c show what looks remarkably like either a reservation hat or a classic slouch hat, which is also doable. It'll just be a matter of what I can find locally.

This may be one of those where, by going more period, I look less period (especially if I do up something like coat the man from the Isle of Sylt is wearing), but that's okay. I've always rather liked making people question their assumptions.