Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

KCM

-

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I would suggest the entire article should be reduced to a stub that is sourced from secondary references. Addhoc


 * After reading the article I felt as if I may as well have been reading some sort of super market tabloid because the Wikipedia SCA page mainly addresses what is pretended by many people involved with the SCA rather than facts. In the first section of the article "Weasel words" have been used to define what the SCA is. The terms "re-creation" and "historical" contradict one another in the way in which they are used by the SCA as an organization and also by the person who created the Wikipedia article on the SCA. I see no point in creating an entire article on the SCA when they have not yet defined what they are talking about. The term "re-create" is a fantasy term meaning to make anew in the imagination. This definition of the word "re-create" can be verified by looking in most any college dictionary. When one studies a certain time period and dresses up in costumes it does not create some sort of time warp where the past is somehow started over. When people come on wikipedia.org to read about the SCA they want to know what the SCA actually is and what they do instead of what they pretend to do. The so called "kingdoms" which this article claims have been created by the SCA are not recognized by people outside of their organization so clearly there is a biased view point being made in that regard. The wording about the SCA's so called kingdoms is intentionally misleading because it does not make clear that they are talking about pretend kingdoms. Clearly the use of the phrase "historical re-creation" is indeed an example of "weasel wording". According to Wikipedia's own definition of terms "weasel words" are deliberately misleading or ambiguous language used to avoid making a straightforward statement while giving the appearance that such has been made." In my opinion the use of the word "re-creation" as used by the person who wrote the introductory section about what the SCA fits the description perfectly of the use of "Weasel Wording". Midiman Alex (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I'd say Cunnan is the place for that. Actually, can we put the little "asides" in Cunnan too? We can't explain everything at the same time. Let it wait until it's section, link to the section if you need.
 * The article is getting to a size where it needs to break into pieces. I'm not sure we should document the whole of the SCA experience in an encyclopedia so I'm suggesting the SCA wiki, Cunnan.    Otherwise, we're going to need pages in wikipedia for 'Kingdom of the East (SCA)', 'Heavy Weapons Fighting' and 'Cooking (SCA)' to name a few. TomCerul 14:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

The anno is correct, I think, but I would have to check the genetive of society to be sure of the total translation.85.20.106.187 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Societatis" is, I believe, the correct genitive of "societas". And "anno societatis" is the only form I've ever heard the phrase used in in my 8 years in the SCA. For once, the SCA got its Latin right. :) --71.246.183.235 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * I've tried to find the source of this. It's a neat-sounding "fact," but is sounds anecdotal/apocryphal, and I couldn't find anything substantial. If anyone can find a verifiable reference source, please add link to the source. Otherwise, this should be deleted, or altered so it is not reported as fact. The closest thing I've been able to find is a somewhat anecdotal account, []. The account, supposedly from a member of the SCA, mentions he asked for documentation from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act in the 80's. The upshot of the somewhat underwhelming response was a few papers that assessed "that the SCA was a nonprofit educational association." Durty Willy
 * I'm not the member cited above, but I did such a Freedom of Information Act request around 1990 and got the same results. Most of the documents were related to individuals (whose names were blacked out) applying for security clearances; I didn't see the famous phrase "a harmless group of pseudo-monarchists" (which is the way I first heard the legend in the early 1980's).  -- SBloch 7 July 2007.
 * As far as "non-militant," it probably refers to the fact that this particular "military" force does not intentionally kill or injure combatants, but is organized like an army. This could be better described as "paramilitant,", used for any group that is organized like an army; combat is not relevant, it's how it's organized that's important to this definition. Boy Scouts of America, Hitler Youth, and US Civil Air Patrol are all non-combat paramilitary organizations, for example. Private security forces and mercenary groups, revolutionary and guerilla forces, and the fictional Fight Club are examples of combatant paramilitary. Durty Willy 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt the SCA is bigger than the Salvation Army. From the SA article "Its membership includes more than 17,000 active and more than 8,700 retired officers, around 100,000 other employees and more than 4.5 million volunteers." Applejuicefool 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the "world's largest non-militant army" thing is an urban legend. It was even debunked on Snopes. There is no official military training, no modern training at all, and it would take a grand feat of imagination to turn a mock army with rattan sticks into an effective modern fighting force (or even a paramilitary group).Digital Oni 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although The Onion did a nice job on that hypothetical scenario; see http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29464

-- SBloch, 7 July 2007.

Reputation?
From my experience (well, roughly a year) as a medieval combat reenactor in Germany and especially in South England, the SCA is generally regarded as a joke, probably due to the rule system and the fantasy flair.
 * Elitist, much? --NRen2k5 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Aye. So it's really less about reenactment and more about creative extrapolation?
 * As I said I'm doing medieval combat reenactment by a ruleset pretty similar to the semi-contact ruleset of the Early Medieval Alliance, which is a larger group (incidentally there don't seem to be "good" large groups at all, just larger and smaller ones) in Southern England. That is, we have a stronger focus on safe fun fighting which looks authentic from a few meters away.
 * We try to look and act somewhat authentic (no smoking on the battlefield, no truely offensive insults -- especially too-modern ones that are not directly derived from Monty Python sketches), but we don't try to emulate historical languages or restrict the materials our clothes and weapons are made of to those that have been around at the time we are reenacting (unlike many true reenactment groups in Germany). But the "looks authentic from a distance" rule rules (heh) out stuff like plastic weapons and the like, which seem to be okay for the SCA (although we DO restrict training with children under 16 to LARP swords for legal reasons, but they don't participate in battles, displays or similar events for the same reasons and the fact they can't fight with LARP swords at such an event).
 * I suppose it's because the SCA's rules are so loose that they are frequently thrown into the same bin of disrespect as LARPers. The odd combat rules may add to that. --Ashmodai 19:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still learning wiki, apologies if I do this wrong *g*
 * (ashmodai said) "Aye. So it's really less about reenactment and more about creative extrapolation?"
 * Yeah, thats fair. I've heard it described as a "medievally themed social club", which about sums it up.  You get everything from folks who like to dress up in funny clothes and drink alot, to weekend warriors, some folks are leading scholars in their fields, and some just wanna have fun.  The SCA is very open like that, something for everybody.  The SCA gets bagged on alot by folks that like to look down on us... I don't know why, I don't think we're trying to pretend to be anything that we're not (in general, anyway *g*).
 * (ashmodai said)"... rules (heh) out stuff like plastic weapons and the like ..."
 * I can't think of a single allowable "plastic" weapon in SCA combat. The armored folks use rattan and sometimes fiberglass or shaped rubber(for poll-arms), the rapier folks use commercially available sword simulators made of steel (see www.darkwoodarmory.com, for one example).  Some folks will use plastic "armor" as protective gear, but they're encouraged to hide it. *g* Rapier42 29 June 2005 02:38 (UTC)

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

As far as Reputation goes I would agree that most SCA people don't care how they are perceived by reenactment groups and most also would not care if their combative techniques are seen as authentic or not. The focus of most of the fighters within the SCA is to win whatever tournament or SCA "war" they are going to next participate in and the authenticity of the techniques used would be considered irrelevant. There are a few people who fight at SCA practices or events however that are more interested in supplementing or further refining their martial arts skills such as some people involved in the FMA. If one reads FMA forums they will see evidence of this. Speaking for myself I fought for many years at SCA practices and events and never once cared if any of the technique I was using was authentic or not. In my opinion authentic technique is not necessarily more effective in actual combat. For example I once had to use an SCA "Wrap" strike against a much larger person who was trying to kill me at the time and despite what these so called reenactors are saying, the strike worked as intended. Members of the WMA seem to mainly advocate striking with the pommel or quillion of ones weapon in a close in fight. I don't agree that The WMA's teachers advise is that good since striking at an opponent with a pommel or quillion is more likely to provide the person one is fighting with any easy opportunity to do a disarm since the back of most weapons is almost always the easier part of a weapon to grab and hold on to. I have also seen WMA groups sparring with their blunted steel weapons and found their strikes simply are not as vigorous as those typical of SCA rattan sparring. In my opinion sparring with blunted steel mainly takes away from simulating sword combat rather than adds to it simply because the blows are not delivered of a force that would have been used against armored opponents in real battles. I have seen one so called  arming sword tournament put on by the WMA and I did not find the fighting or weapon weights to be particularly authentic. Apparently the technique they had learned in the WMA groups was not that useful in their sparring since throughout their entire tournament I didn't see points being awarded for the use of authentic fighting technique even though they were trying to award points for doing so.Midiman Alex (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Out of context bits
I'm pulling material out if it doesn't fit where it is and dumping it here. Put it where you think it belongs if you want. TomCerul 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (In SCA jargon, this era is called "Period", although some insist that "Period" only legitimately refers to the millennium of A.D. 600–1600. According to the founding documents of the SCA, Inc., there is no back date; however, they do state "Middle Ages" in one place, and simply "pre-17th-Century" in another. As a result, there is a large contingent of Roman Legionaries, and smaller groups of such cultures as Ptolemaic Egyptians.)
 * A blow to the head or body is considered a "killing blow", and the fighter so struck acknowledges the fact that s/he has lost the fight by falling to the ground. Fighters who refuse to call good blows quickly develop a reputation as "rhino hides" or "immortals".    Consistently unchivalrous fighters may find themselves unable to find opponents who are willing to face them.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For you SCA member editors
there is a new category to populate... Category:Wikipedia SCAdians feel free to add this category to your user pages... ALKIVAR &trade; 06:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism Lord Inali of Tanasi, GDH Orange Mike 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)