An Argument Against Creating a Separate Fencing Peerage

Anyone who has been fencing in the SCA for more than a month or two has heard the debate over the creation of a separate peerage for fencing. My view on this is that if we were to create a peerage for fencers, it should be built upon fencing's strength: its authenticity. After all, we strive to dress authentically, we use the most authentic weapons safety allows and we strive to fight in a period style. Of course, it's also this quest for authenticity that gets in the way of our creation of a peerage for fencers.

To begin with, we have to ignore the inconsistencies between peers in the SCA and their period counterparts. After all, a knight was not the equivalent of a master artisan and if there was a period equivalent to the Pelican, I am not aware of it. Knights were considered nobility, but master artisans were not. They were - at best - the middle class. Did they interact? Yes, but that interaction was not that of equals. It was the interaction of a better and his subjects (as seen by the knight) and of a craftsman and his customers (as seen by the artisan). While it's true that in the SCA they are treated as equals, there is no reason to build new policy based on the mistakes of the old.

So if we want to create a more period structure to develop an awards system for fencers, we have to look at what fencers - and specifically fencing masters - were in period. In the most basic form, they were teachers. To use a modern equivalent, they were the Sensei and their salon the Dojo. And what they taught was self defense. While it was not uncommon for a fencing master to have nobles as students, the majority of their students were of the middle class.

As teachers, fencing masters were required to have two things: a reputation and some skill. And of the two, the reputation was probably the most important. It was the master's reputation that brought him the higher-born students, that allowed him to charge higher rates. His skills were actually secondary to his reputation. Even in period times, celebrity was often more important than competency. If a master of mediocre skills found himself the favorite of the court for whatever reason, he could find himself awash in hangers-on, hoping to curry favor in court.

And as a reward for all their hard work, fencing masters could expect some payment and a little notoriety. That was it. They did not, as a rule, receive lands or other grants in return for their teachings.

When you look at what fencing masters in period were, you can see that they were far closer to the artisans and master craftsmen than to the knights of the period who had to stand ready to defend their liege's policies on the battlefield. In fact, the closest of what we now call peers in the SCA to the fencing master was the minstrel or bard. Like the fencing master, they were expected to perform rather than make, but even they created new songs and stories.

Going by that, fencing falls under the category of an art (something very few fencers would argue over), which is the purview of the Laurel. But a Laurel is expected not only to know and teach, but to be able to create as well. Perhaps a fencer's devotion to teaching might earn them a Pelican, but without that creation aspect, a fencer cannot rise to the level of a Laurel.

There is no way to create a peerage for fencing when we combine the existing rank structure of the SCA with the period truths of the fencing master. And likewise, it is difficult to fit fencing into our existing peerages. The best answer for recognizing fencers in something close to a period fashion would actually be to take the Grant of Arms away from the White Scarf, and give only the scarf as a token of skills. But barring that, our current awards system is probably the closest to period we can get.

Pavilions

It seems like you can't be considered a serious player in the SCA unless you have a pavilion. After all, they are what gives an event that period feel. And the amount of room they give is just incredible. I mean, being able to stand up and change is just a wonderful thing. But there are some drawbacks to pavilions. They're not cheap, to begin with, but to me, that's only a minor consideration. To me, the main drawbacks of a pavilion are the storage space, the maintenance required, and the manpower necessary to set one up.

Even a large modern tent will fit in a duffle bag - poles and all - and might weigh as much as 20 pounds. When you compare that to a small pavilion (I'm using a GP-Small for reference - about the equivalent of a 10' round), you're looking at about a 3'x2'x1' tent that weighs 40 pounds plus poles plus stakes plus ropes. You're not going to fit that in a Kia.

Another issue is the maintenance requirements for a pavilion. Canvas rots. Now if you put away a modern tent wet, even though it's not advisable because of mildew problems, your tent won't dissolve if you forget and a little bleach will fix the problem. With a period pavilion, you have to make sure its stored dry, otherwise the canvas will start degrading. Which means you have to either wait for it to dry before you pack up or lay it out when you get home, and canvas doesn't dry nearly as fast as nylon.

The final issue I see is the manpower issue. There are very few pavilions that can be set up by a single person. For smaller pavilions, you need at least 2 people, and as anyone who's helped set up the royal pavilion can attest to, the really large ones require an army. Of course, this is the SCA and finding willing volunteers to set up a pavilion usually isn't a problem.

But in spite of these drawbacks, pavilions are still wonderful things. As I said earlier, nothing adds to the flavor of an event as much as rows of pavilions. And not only are they roomier than most modern tents, but they stay cooler as well. You won't see too many people sacked out in their nylon tumbleweed on an afternoon at Uprising, but it isn't all that rare to see a group of ladys escaping the heat of the day in a pavilion. And you won't asphyxiate if you run a tent heater in a pavilion.

All that being said, I probably won't ever get a pavilion. And for me, it's the manpower issue that's the deciding factor. A personal quirk of mine is that I don't like relying on other people. There's no good reason for it, I just don't. And since I usually don't take my family on events, I need something I can set up by myself. That's why I've got a tent I can set up by myself in about 15 minutes. At least that's what I've used for the last... forever.

My wife wants to do more mundane camping. And given the realities of camping in Montana, she wanted something she could heat so she doesn't have to worry about the kids. So we've been looking around and found ourselves a used camper. It's actually a little bit smaller than my big tent, but it's waterproof, windproof, and comes with a heater. Which leaves me wondering if I want to use it for Uprising. I'd be relegated to camping in the trailer park, but a stove, a real bed, a closet.
And it's almost a 1-person set-up camp. The only time I'd need someone else's help is when I hook it back up to the truck. If only it had an air conditioner or a shower...

It looks like I've got two months to decide...

CTT

In the Army, we have something called Common Task Tests (CTT). Basically, CTT is what every soldier should know (Land Navigation, How to Maintain Your Weapon, etc.) and we spend quite a bit of time training on our CTT skills. Which makes sense: you don't want to have to go to war with someone who doesn't know what they're supposed to do. But it got me thinking: what would be the CTT skills for the SCA.

In the Army, the skills are broken up into two categories: Common Core and MOS (job) Specific. Now the common core tasks are truly what everybody needs to know - how to maintain your weapon, basic first aid, that sort of thing - while the MOS specifics are the tasks only people in a certain job need - how to set up a mortar, how to drive a tank, and so on. And long those same lines, the Army further separates the tasks based on a soldier's skill level. After all, a private does not normally need to know how to lead troops. These separations would probably work in the SCA, too. After all, an artisan does not need to make a spear for armored fighting and a fighter doesn't really need to understand the differences between a minstrel and a bard.

So what would the common core tasks be for the SCA? Here's some ideas:

Skill Level 1 (Beginners and Occasional Players)

• Basic Garb Construction


• Basic Persona


• Bowing or Curtseying


• Camping Etiquette


• Court Etiquette


• Feasting Etiquette


• Field Etiquette


• Importance of Favors


• Office Identification


• Rank Identification and Proper forms of Address


• Weapon Etiquette

Skill Level 2 (Lord/Lady and Above)

• Field Heraldry


• How To Set Up/Tear Down a Pavilion


• Officer Identification


• Persona History


• Retinue Identification

Skill Level 3 (Lordship/Ladyship and Above)

• Care and Treatment of Royalty


• Coordinating Land Grabs for Local Groups/Households


• Setting up an Event/Serving as Head Cook

As you can see, these tasks aren't nearly as martial as most of the Army's CTT tasks. In fact, most of them fall under learning to play nice with each other. That changes when you get into job specific skills, at least for some of the jobs. Now, I'm not qualified to say what a budding artisan or herald should know, but I can come up with a list for fencers that should, actually, apply pretty well to armored fighters.

Fighter Skills, Level 1 (Authorized Fighters):

• Blow Calibration


• Combat Authorization


• Combatant Field Etiquette


• Fighting as Part of a Group


• Inspection and Maintenance of Armor


• Inspection and Maintenance of Weapons


• Rules of the List


• Salute


• Types of Marshals

Fighter Skills, Level 2 (Gold Scarves, Squires):

• Basic Melee Tactics


• Basic Period Fighting Techniques


• Duties of A Champion


• Field Marshalling


• Serving as a Team Leader


• Running A List

Fighter Skills, Level 3 (White Scarves, TANKs):

• Armored Combat/Rapier Marshal Authorization


• Intermediate Melee Tactics


• Intermediate Period Fighting Techniques


• Running a Tournament


• Small Group Leadership


• Teaching Fighter Skills

Fighter Skills, Level 4 (Laurels of Fence, Masters of Arms, Knights):

• Advanced Melee Tactics


• Advanced Period Fighting Techniques


• Large Group Leadership


• Knight Marshal/Rapier Marshal Requirements


• Running a Melee

Now I'm basing my skill levels off of awards received, even though I realize it is not a perfect indicator of a person's experience either as a fighter or in the SCA as a whole (who doesn't know somebody who'd been playing for 10 years before receiving the AoA?). The other thing to remember is that this list is of what people should know by the time they attain a certain level. So a newly authorized fencer not only needs to know all of the Level 1 fighting skills, but should also start working on the Level 2 skills.

So, how does my list look? Is there anything you can see that I missed?

Changes

I found an old picture of me the other day, taken at my very first Uprising. This was a while ago - at the American Falls site - and showed me with some other fencers. Aside from making me question the sanity of my wife for agreeing to marry me (did I really look like that?), it brought home the changes we've made in equipment requirements.

Aside from the epees we carried (I said it was a while ago), there were some other obvious difference. The first one I noticed was the gentle using a cervical brace as a gorget. Yes, it was legal then. I think I even used one for a while, until a hard shot to the neck convinced me that it's nice to have something hard between it and a sword.

The next thing I noticed was the fencing doublets my companions wore. They were fairly simple tabards that were simply wrapped around the sides - not sewn - and offering no armpit protection. While the protection was marginal even for the time, it was legal. In fact, I can remember when they first required armpit protection and how I thought it was a bit overkill. Sure, I knew that what deaths there'd been in Olympic fencing were from armpit shots, but it still seemed unnecessary.

The last thing I noticed were the masks. Now, you'd think that masks wouldn't have changed much in the 16 or so years since the picture was taken, but, well... There were no straps to hold the masks on and the closest thing to back-of-the-head protection you could see was a bandanna that I wore to keep the hair out of my eyes (yes, I had hair back then). And while I agree with the requirement for back-of-the-head coverage, I still think that requiring a strap across the back of the mask is a bit overkill.

But I want to fence, so I change my gear as the rules change.

Now even if my response to just about every change in armor requirements over the years has been "what were they thinking?" I've gone along with them with only a modicum of grousing. And I've groused less about the increases in safety than I have about the few instances when the requirements got laxer. And yes, safety requirements have lessened in two areas I can think of: the feet and the hands. Even though the current regulations say that cloth is sufficient to cover your feet and hands, I'm a firm believer in leather gloves and boots. Okay, I can see allowing cloth on the feet - this lets the new fencers continue to wear their Chuck Taylors until they can afford a pair of decent boots - but cloth gloves? You can get a cheap pair of welding gloves for under $10 and a good pair for about $20. And a decent pair of motorcycle gloves starts about where the welding gloves leave off. Let's face it: the majority of hard hits (hacks, especially) we're going to take are going to be to the hands and nomex flight gloves or canvas gardening gloves just aren't going to cut it. They offer no padding and only minimal protection against thrusts or cuts.

But I digress.

In all reality, armor requirements have actually remained pretty stable since the SCA adopted a Society-wide standard. Changes since then have been more tweaks than right-out rewriting. I think that says something about the rules we have. Better than 10 years without any major changes? We must have gotten something right.

Tradition

In my last post, I talked about the fact that there are cultural differences between Northern and Southern fencers. I think part of the reason for this is the difference in traditions between the two regions. Fencing in Artemisia began in the south, that's pretty well accepted. Looking back, the first Rapier Marshal's Handbook for (then) Atenveldt was published in AS XXX. Fencing was fairly well established in the south by then as rules had previously been incorporated into the Knight Marshal's Handbook. And it was also getting a toe-hold in the north then, too. I should know. I was there.

I cannot say that I was the first northern Artemisian to fence in the SCA (to my knowledge, that was Lord Christian la Sable, whom I met in AS XXIII), nor can I say I was the first northerner to be authorized to fence (that was His Lordship Albion), but I had the honor of being Christian's first student (beginning in AS XXV) and helping Christian introduce Albion to fencing within the Society (in AS XXVIII, I believe). So I've been around for a while and I've had ample opportunity to watch the fencing community grow.

Now back then, most people hadn't heard of the internet, and fencers could not get information as easily as today. So we had to make due with what we had: the Knight Marshal's Handbook and the first-person accounts of how our southern kin did things. Of course, the SCA was fairly new in the north as well - there were only 4 groups north of One Thousand Eyes - and most of the northern SCAdians were young, poor college students. So we were fairly inbred. Not completely, though. We did have some older members who could afford to - and did - travel south of Monida Pass.

And it didn't help that for several years, fencing in the north was almost exclusively done in one group - Dun Braga. While many northern groups were struggling to find three or four fencers, Dun Braga was boasting fifteen fencers at its practices. And if we had that many fencers, we had to know what we were doing, right? Well...

For the most part, we were trying to build up fencing based on what we knew: the Knight Marshal's Handbook and individual's yearly pilgrimage to Uprising. So, as seen by our southern cousins, some of what we came up with might seem slightly askew. Our focus on melees, for example. It was not uncommon for us to have visitors from the south come up once or twice a year (usually in January and May) to teach regional fighter's practices. They'd come up and we'd work on melee tactics to get ready for war. And we would assume that whatever was important enough to bring teachers up north must be very important. And since nobody ever came up to teach us how to fight in a tournament, melee must be more important. And besides, playing war is fun. So we became war fighters.

And then somebody got the idea that if shires had armored champions, they should have fencing champions, too. But this was back when fencers thought they were better than armored fighters, and vice versa, so we never thought to ask the armored fighters how to do a tournament. After all, there was no need: it was all spelled out in the Knight Marshal's Handbook. So we set up our champion tourneys. And since it was supposed to be the shire champion, only members of the shire were allowed. Well, only shire members were allowed to win - anyone could enter. And since it was pretty common for groups to be short on fencers, the previous champion was also allowed to fight. No problem, really. Although it was annoying when you'd take first, but still weren't allowed the victory. And let me tell you - after you've won your third or fourth champion's tourney in a row, things got a little boring.

And really, that's where fencing stood until about ten years ago, when our young fencers began to age and were able to travel more. It was that exposure to how things were done elsewhere that made us begin to reexamine how we were doing things. And we've been slowly trying to adjust our traditions to match those of our neighbors, but traditions are hard things to change and some may never go away.