|
Post by Ishikawa Yoshimasa on Mar 29, 2007 20:11:23 GMT -5
honorable conduct is viewed differently by different people. I know some who would be offended if you did not take advantage of an opprotunity. as one puts it "if you step back to allow me to regain my footijng, or if you offer me the sacrafice of my off hand instead of my sword arm, you insult me by saying you feel I need every advantage I can get to keep it a fair fight", on the other hand I have known those who think the only form of honorable combat is direct head to head, and if you flank them, or hit them on a pass you are fighting dishonorable because they have some misconception that real knights fought sword and shield face to face, and no other moves where honorable. I have even been told that it is dishonorable to press an oponant so close they can not use thier weapon against you. (if this is the case then a polearmist must be a god in honorable combat<G>, but in that case I had a short sword against a greatsword. I may as well have been fighting with a dagger)
if you make no effort to conceal the presence of the dagger, do you truely act dishonorable? I agree that pointing it out initialy is only fair, but once the fight has begun, is it not your oponants responcibility to know where your weapons are?
|
|
|
Post by Water_Tengu on Nov 5, 2007 20:52:40 GMT -5
i agree, depending on your persona
mine for instance is a shrine protector, and even in war and duel, we would carry a tanto at the back of the obi to be whipped out if we were up against the opponent, or were disarmed. it is a wonderful thing, and if they say you are being dishonorable, remind them you are nihonjin, we WERE dishonorable, except in duels
|
|
|
Post by Takeda Sanjuichiro on Nov 6, 2007 23:13:46 GMT -5
I should know better but I cannot resist commenting.
In most tournaments, the use of a weapon that is not blatantly declared to each and every opponent you face is inappropriate. (note: they should also not only acknowledge a secondary weapon but have the chance to refuse your using it)
This is especially true of high profile tournaments like Crown or Pas-style torunaments. (Look up some of the period literature on European tournaments like King Renee's book)
The only exceptions to this I can see are the more informal bear-pit tournaments, "melee" tournaments, and tournaments set up with rules that specifically allow the use of secondary weapons.
Now normally I am all about the "What-do-you-mean-we-are-not-in-Japan?!?" philosophy; but in something like this, I cannot be.
Like it or not the SCA is deeply rooted in some idealized version of the Western Europe Tournament cutlure and deeds of arms... as a matter of fact there is a grass-roots movement to move more in that direction. To step outside that existing framework, is disrespectful and incosiderate in my opinion... Sometimes you just have to "when-in-Rome".
/rant
-Takeda
|
|
|
Post by Imagawa Tadamori on Nov 7, 2007 16:47:28 GMT -5
In most tournaments, the use of a weapon that is not blatantly declared to each and every opponent you face is inappropriate. Ok, since I'm relatively new to the SCA and haven't fought yet, I have a question: Do you have to declare openly visible weapons, or is the declaration assumed? Say I fight Joe Schmoe and I'm wearing a katana and a wakazashi, with intent to use both in the fight. Do I have to tell him "yes, I intend to use both of these" even though he can plainly see them, or is it just assumed by him that I will because they are already on my person? (I realize that this is a common sense question, but since SCA semantics have conflicted with common sense answers in other things that I've learned thus far, I felt I should ask.) The only exceptions to this I can see are the more informal bear-pit tournaments, "melee" tournaments, and tournaments set up with rules that specifically allow the use of secondary weapons. Do tournaments not normally allow the use of secondary weapons? Or is it allowable only if both parties agree on it prior to fighting? Like it or not the SCA is deeply rooted in some idealized version of the Western Europe Tournament cutlure and deeds of arms... as a matter of fact there is a grass-roots movement to move more in that direction. To step outside that existing framework, is disrespectful and incosiderate in my opinion... Sometimes you just have to "when-in-Rome". Do you see that posing an issue for us in the future? - Rich
|
|
|
Post by roninpenguin on Nov 7, 2007 21:19:05 GMT -5
Ok, since I'm relatively new to the SCA and haven't fought yet, I have a question: Do you have to declare openly visible weapons, or is the declaration assumed? Say I fight Joe Schmoe and I'm wearing a katana and a wakazashi, with intent to use both in the fight. Do I have to tell him "yes, I intend to use both of these" even though he can plainly see them, or is it just assumed by him that I will because they are already on my person? (I realize that this is a common sense question, but since SCA semantics have conflicted with common sense answers in other things that I've learned thus far, I felt I should ask.) I will always mention every weapon I have in some way. Like I will point out that I have no thrusting tip on my tachi and have my uchigatana (sp) in my belt, even if I don't really intend on using it. That way I know that the fight was a fair as I can make it. Depends on the rules of the tournament that you are fighting. I would say that it posed a problem for us in the past. When I started playing ALL non-European persona were looked down on, with the exception of some Middle Eastern and Russian. Now-a-days the society is a lot more accepting of different cultures (of course this varies by kingdom and individual) then they were 10 years ago. You will still find the people who will use that idea of European Tournaments to try to exclude, but thankfully, they tend to be in the minority now.
|
|
bovil
New Member
Fnord. Moo.
Posts: 411
|
Post by bovil on Nov 8, 2007 2:57:55 GMT -5
I would say that it posed a problem for us in the past. When I started playing ALL non-European persona were looked down on, with the exception of some Middle Eastern and Russian. "So what part of Europe does <insert SCA kingdom here> correspond to? 'cuz, Russia is geographically part of Europe, and then there's all those Poles, and the Greek "Romans" of Constantinople, and Turkish Bulgars, and then there's all those North Africans who ruled much of Spain and the Ottoman Turks who ruled the Balkans and the and the Mongol Golden Horde who ruled Russia and eastern Europe..." Then again, there's always... "You're from Norway? And you're in <insert SCA kingdom here>? That must have been a major trip! How did you get here? Wow, you must have a pretty serious persona backstory..."
|
|
|
Post by roninpenguin on Nov 8, 2007 7:18:39 GMT -5
Its funny that you bring up Romans, because one of the things that started to break things loose in this kingdom was a very popular person who played Roman, and was Knighted within two years of joining the SCA. That really got people looking at personas outside the "normal" range.
|
|
bovil
New Member
Fnord. Moo.
Posts: 411
|
Post by bovil on Nov 8, 2007 14:03:07 GMT -5
Its funny that you bring up Romans, because one of the things that started to break things loose in this kingdom was a very popular person who played Roman, and was Knighted within two years of joining the SCA. That really got people looking at personas outside the "normal" range. Aah, but remember that the fall of "Rome" is a real question. It's really a matter of perspective. Emperor Constantine reunited the Roman Empire and moved his capitol to Constantinople. His kids split the Empire again, but the eastern empire (the Greek "Romans" of Constantinople) lasted a lot longer than the western empire (the Roman Romans of Rome). Though Rome fell in the 500's, "Rome" remained strong until the fourth crusade and struggled along after that until the Turks took over Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul in the 1400's. So we've got an empire (although not a really big one) that remained "Roman" in all but location well into the middle ages.
|
|
|
Post by roninpenguin on Nov 8, 2007 18:39:10 GMT -5
Yeah, but he plays a 300s Roman Gladiator, so it did stick out like a sore thumb among all of the Scotts that seemed to be playing at the time.
|
|
bovil
New Member
Fnord. Moo.
Posts: 411
|
Post by bovil on Nov 8, 2007 18:48:49 GMT -5
Yeah, but he plays a 300s Roman Gladiator, so it did stick out like a sore thumb among all of the Scotts that seemed to be playing at the time. I will not snark on Scots. I will not snark on Scots. I will not snark on Scots. ...although Romans fighting Scots sounds pretty traditional.
|
|
|
Post by roninpenguin on Nov 8, 2007 23:56:46 GMT -5
I can't believe the Gaul of that statement...
|
|