Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

American?

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

Actually, it is an international society born in America. We have groups throughout Europe and Australia, enough that they have their own active kingdoms there. Also, there are local groups throughout the rest of the world, though admittedly most are centered on american military bases. So, I would not call it an American only group, though it is highly americanized. Donovan Ravenhull 11:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I am an American, but I am also formerly Seneschal of Drachenwald -- Europe (including Scandinavia, Iceland, UK and Ireland, Austria, Greece, Spain, and Romania), Middle East (local branch in Israel, formerly a branch in Turkey, but individuals throughout), and Africa (two branches in South Africa). Most members/participants in those areas are natives and events/meetings are normally held in their native languages. There is another SCA "Kingdom" for Australia and New Zealand as well. CsikosLo (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Me too —NRen2k5 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
'Nother Canadian SCAdian here - out west, in An Tir. Jackytar 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Martial Art

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

  1. The "our members" is 1st person or close to it
  2. Its not clear (to me at least) what this contrast between a "full-contact sport" and a "martial art" is all about. I'd be inclined to remove it completly.
You're right about the first person perspective -- that sentence was probably written by an SCA member who wanted to criticize his/her comrades' views regarding the practice, i.e.: strongly POV.
AFAIK the difference between a full contact sport and a martial art is that the full contact sport permits physical contact to reach the goal of the sport (IIRC American Football is a full-contact sport, whereas European Football ("Soccer") is a semi-contact (or non-contact? I've never been much of a ball sports person) sport -- just compare the maneuvers permitted/used in order to retrieve the ball from an opponent) and the martial art requires it.
i.e. in a martial art the goal is usually to "disable" your opponent in one way or another, in a full-contact sport the goal is usually not in the physical contact itself, this is usually only a means to archieve a different goal (e.g. "disable" the ball carrier in order to get the ball).
I could be wrong, though -- I'm not sure whether all combat sports are categorized as martial arts (modern sports fencing is usually not regarded as a martial art, although it originates from one).
I'd rather define SCA Heavy Weapons Fighting as a full-contact combat sport, which is true for several sports usually regarded as martial arts as well (Olympic fencing OTOH is definitely a semi-contact combat sport). This avoids the problem that not all martial arts are also practiced as sports (most martial arts practiced as competitive sport rely on a fixed subset of the actual martial art, thus excluding moves that would incapicate, permanently injure, or kill the opponent, martial arts that consist nearly entirely of such moves CANNOT be practiced as a sport in most countries).
Since it's a sport with a fixed ruleset and is based on two (or more) people hitting each other with weapon-like objects, it qualifies as a combat sport, which sounds a bit more serious than just "full-contact sport" (which may be a fitting description for several variations of the basic sport nevertheless -- Battle of the Flags (mostly identical to the Capture the Flags seen in some computer games) for example).
From what I've heard and read SCA Heavy Weapons Fighting tends to be a more abstracted than normal re-enactment combat (in regards to authentiticy, anyway) and the rules about non-lethal hits (jumping on one leg, etc) tend to make it look a bit ridiculous, but "not looking ridiculous" is not a requirement for qualifying as a combat sport as far as I know. In my opinion Olympic fencing looks just as ridiculous, but that's only my personal opinion -- Ashmodai 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The SCA does not make any official statement that defines what they think their heavy weapons or Rattan sparring is. If you don't believe me simply go to their main web-site and read everything. One foolish statement on their page even claims that the reason people in the SCA spar with rattan is "to feel what it like to get hit while wearing armor." I did sparring in the SCA for many years and never once heard anyone say that "wanting to know what it was like to be struck" was one of their motivations for wanting to learn the fighting technique. Midiman Alex (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

branches of branches

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

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

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

I think I'd prefer a seperate article about the history of the SCA. This one's getting big and needs to be broken into pieces soon. I don't think the average, uninformed user is going to be looking for the family tree of the kingdoms. TomCerul 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The tree is also in error. Artemisia was a Principality of Atenveldt rather then the Outlands. A member 4 Jan 2006
"Artemisia" was a sparsely populated area technically within the Principality of Outlands, Kingdom of Atendveldt until AS 21 (1986). When Outlands got Kingdom status, Artemisia stayed with Atenveldt, and became the Principality of Artemisia in AS 22. Rapier42 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Another correction: Ealdormere is a "child" Kingdom of the Middle, and is not descended directly from the East. Arianna 23:48, 30 Jan 2007
The tree is missing Atlantia, which came from the East Kingdom. 12.76.136.145 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The tree also needs to have all the other kingdoms except the West nudged over another level of indentation, too. YiS --Drieux 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

chop and tidy

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

connection to sf fandom

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

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

I think this has been generally addressed. I think it is a valid part of SCA culture, but needed to be labelled as such - or more properly, labelled as as sore point in SCA culture. Generally I think we're doing that. 192.18.101.5 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been in the SCA for around 30 years and over that time I have only seen a few times where people act as described. I believe that normal group dynamics are at work in the SCA and Scifi culture has nothing or little to do with how the SCA functions. In other words, the SCA does not need any help from SF people to screw things up, we can do it fine on our own just like other social groups. if this is the case, then we should stop blaming others for our actions and admit we are just like everyone else and address it in the article.Septagram 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's small group dynamics and has nothing to do with the fannish roots of the SCA. --Orange Mike 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

Criticism

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

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

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

Invitation

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


Queens by their own hands?

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

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

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

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

I believe that Her Grace is the only Queen. There has been at least one Princess (other than Crown Princess). I would have to look it up on the West Kingdom history, but if my memory is any good, it was HE Malean (of the Mists), when she won a Principality Pentathalon (SP?), that included other competitions than just fighting. This was circa 1977...TTFN Ralg
I believe the east has never had a queen by right of arms. --Lelek 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been several princesses (according to [1]:
  • Maythen Gervaise, Princess (sovereign) of the Mists: 1981/05/09-1981/11/21
  • Gwenllian Rhiannon of Dragon Keep, Princess (sovereign) of Drachenwald: 1988/01/??-1988/06/18
  • Sir Elizabeth Mortimer, Princess (sovereign) of Ealdormere: 1996/09/21-1997/04/12
  • Viresse de Lighthaven, Princess (sovereign) of Oertha: 1997/01/19-1997/07/20
  • Bryne McClellan, Princess (sovereign) of the Mists: 2002/11/16-2003/05/10
  • Richenza von Augsberg, Princess (sovereign) of Oertha: 1998/07/19-1999/01/17 and 2003/07/20-2004/01/18
but I cannot find any other references to Queens by right of arms. I guess it will just take time. -- nae'blis 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight correction to the above, in that Maythen is a KSCA, unless she resigned the Peerage since I saw her last. YiS--Drieux 08:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thrown weapons

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

Clean up needed on Ext Links~*

Greetings one and all,

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

Alternative Societies & Resources:

SCA Photo Galleries:

SCA Sites:

War:

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

Done - 3/29/07 - Guy 192.18.101.5 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

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

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

Copy-editting other peoples talk page entries?

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

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

clean up links

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

Political Correctness Amok

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

I'm sure they could if they choose too. There is no 'law' saying that they can't. As it is, no male has decided to be 'Dame,' but a number (I believe a majority) of women knights prefer 'Sir.' In all, I don't see this as any way of being an example of 'Political Correctness Amok'. Donovan Ravenhull 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied on your user talk page - this isn't the right place for an ongoing discussion about this Applejuicefool 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Length and Mass

This page is huge. As Per Wikipedia:Article size I'm splitting it up into a few sub articles linked to this one. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding redirects

Should there be redirect pages for each of the kingdoms to the SCA article? I haven't yet checked all the kingdom names, but I know An Tir, for instance, just comes back as a failed search. On the other hand, An Tir has its own Wiki; maybe there should be an An Tir page redirecting to it instead. Thoughts? Uilliam, aka Jackytar 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Be bold - if you think a particular redirect would be helpful to some readers, just go ahead and make one. (Redirects are cheap and easy to make.) Jonathunder 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Hmm... left this a while, didn't I?) Anyway, I went through and created/added a bunch of redirection links. Pretty much any search of the form <name of kingdom> or "Kingdom of <name of kingdom>" should either redirect here or have a redirecting link on a disambiguation page (East, West, Middle, and for some reason, Outlands and Atlantia). Note that Calontir, Outlands and Lochac all have their own Wiki entries and most of the content there seems to be stuff that is oriented toward those already in the Society. Maybe these pages should have their content merged/moved to the main article and their pages become redirects? Thoughts? Uilliam, aka Jackytar 06:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Next question

Why do we want a map at the top of the talk page? I could see a map in the article page, though. Uilliam, aka Jackytar 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This one would probably be best; but rights would have to be negotiated. --Orange Mike 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)
Or This one --SBloch 7 July 2007

We can have it all

I have tried to reorganize the page as follows: - SCA History (generally factual and from an outsider's POV) - SCA Culture (things the SCA does that an outsider might see that are not strictly historical but are quasi-historic, like fighting for the crown, etc. ) - SCA Criticism (again, from an outsider's POV, what they might see SCA members fussing about: Authenticity vs. Fun, Cat vs Dog, etc. etc.).

I think we can include many of the interesting musings, cultural observations etc, but remember this is a reference of worldwide scope. If it isn't useful info to people outside the SCA it doesn't belong here (post it to your kingdom list, if you must). 71.237.79.102 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find serendipity and quirky bits of information are interesting. A trivia section would be a nice catchall for the odd tidbits floating around.Septagram 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that's an example of WP:INTERESTING! Just because it's interesting, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic! --Orange Mike 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH, playing since A.S. VI)

Can we move to taking the NPOV problem tag off this article?

I dont think the article is a writeoff and by the NPOV guidelines seem to leave it up to us to make any needed changes (without getting into a revert war). I won't remove it right away, but if no one cares I may try to and see who squawks. Of course, a reasonable discussion would be better. Structurally I think the changes to differentiate between SCA being a historic organization and SCA being a cultural group are going down that road, but can people help drive this by adding to both sections. Of course, as an encyclopedia, I think the history of this conflict within the SCA might be useful to highlight (but it is a sore subject in the SCA to be sure, so it may start a war on this page). GuyWeknow 07:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag on the article is not because the tagger thought the article favored any faction within the SCA, but rather that the article is written by members (or at least fans) of the group, and lacks impartiality towards the group and what we do. (Yup, "we"; I've been in it since 1971.) --Orange Mike 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH)

I fully agree that the overall article is not written from a Neutral point of view. A neutral article would be Administerd by neutral persons who are not members of The SCA. The main definition given in the article does not match what is stated on their official Home page. <http://www.sca.org/sca-intro.html> "The Society for Creative Anachronism, or SCA, is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts, skills, and traditions of pre-17th-century Europe." Note that the SCA's own description doesn't claim to be a "living history group". Also they don't specifically say they are a " historical re-creation group". Since the term "re-create" refers to what is imagined as opposed to what is actually done the only thing that the SCA is being clear about is that they research "arts, skills, and traditions of pre-17th-century Europe." Anything else saying what the SCA is in the article should be considered original research or opinions.Midiman Alex (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I did a search for academic books and papers on the sca and found precious few (which I cite below, perhaps here). I'd suspect that mostly members will have to write about our group (I've been in since 1980 - Louis-Philippe Mitouard). Here are articles, mostly about other things but mention the SCA, sometimes just in passing. I hope this gets you thinking about 'outsiders' view of the SCA. GuyWeknow 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Knights Next Door: Everyday People Living Middle Ages Dreams By Patrick O'Donnell, Published 2004 ISBN 0595325300 [2]

Postmodern Medievalism: A Sociological Study of the Society for Creative Anachronism by Cary John Lenehan BA Department of Sociology University of Tasmania November 1994 [3]

SOCIAL IDENTITIES WITHIN THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM, A Thesis by ZANE GARDNER LEE [4]

ANTI MODERN PERFORMANCE IN THE SOCIETY FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM by Andrew Rodwell, Department of Anthropology Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, August 1998[5]

The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age By Allucqúaere Rosanne Stone Published 1995 MIT Press ISBN 0262691892 [6]

Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of Shakespeare Studies and Production edited by Peter Holland, Jonathan Bate, Margreta de Grazia, Michael Dobson, Inga-Stina Ewbank, R A Foakes, Andrew Gurr Published 2004 Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521841208 [7]

Investigating the Afterlife Concepts of the Norse Heathen: A Reconstructionist’s Approach Bil Linzie 20th December 2005 [8]

Hecate Does Harvard: Notes on Academic Criticism of Wiccan Practice P. Aaron Potter [9]

TRUST NO ONE: PARANOIA, CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND ALIEN INVASIONS Judith Grant Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Women's Studies Program Ohio University -

Games as Exchange: module 4 of RE:PLAY: Game Design + Game Culture AMY SCHOLDER & ERIC ZIMMERMAN (Eds) Eyebeam [10]

“Children of a Different Tribe - UU Young Adult Developmental Issues” by Sharon Hwang Colligan http://www.circlemaker.org/cdt/ChildrenOfaDifferentTribe.pdf]

Faking literature By K. K. Ruthven Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521669650 [11]

"True to Middle Earth Cultures": Creating Fighting Styles - an interview with Tony Wolf. Journal of Theatrical Combatives June 2002 Copyright 2002 Deborah Klens-Bigman, Ph.D. [12]

Reading by Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction By Damien Broderick Published 1995 Routledge ISBN 0415097886 [13]

Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet By Lorne &. Dawson, Douglas E. Cowan Published 2004 Routledge ISBN 0415970210 [14]

The Baby Train and Other Lusty Urban Legends By Jan Harold Brunvand Published 1993 W. W. Norton & Company 367 pages ISBN 0393312089 [15]

"Heavy" Combat

What's heavy combat? And if there's such a thing as heavy combat, does this group also have something called "light" combat?

Heavy fighters usually refer to those using the full ratan and padded weapons and full armor requirements therin. While not usually refered to as such, rapier fighters are often considered 'light fighters'. --Donovan Ravenhull 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it is a 'term of art' which should be excised (or properly defined) on the page. I'd prefer to say 'Armored combat' vs 'Rapier combat' Generally that captures it. If anyone can come up with a better term, please suggest it. 192.18.101.5 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ansteorra routed to SCA main?

There are other Kingdoms in the SCA that have their own page (Outlands, Calontir, etc...). However the Kingdom of Ansteorra is automatically routed to the main SCA page (others may do so as well). There should be a standard. All should route to the SCA page, or each should be allowed to have its own. (I would recommend the latter) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BobTheMad (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

If there is no article for a given realm, then it should redirect to the main SCA page until one is created. --Orange Mike 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Inali of Tanasi, GDH, playing since A.S. VII)
Should kingdoms have their own Wiki pages, though? Seems to me it would be more appropriate to have links to the kingdoms' websites or their own wiki (An Tir has one, f'rinstance), or the Cunan wiki. Uilliam, aka Jackytar 06:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My bad; I meant that if they didn't have their own homepage, then link to the SCA main page. I don't think the Kingdoms meet WP:NN. --Orange Mike 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern Medievalism

An interesting thought; but a B.A. thesis is not straightforwardly described as an academic paper, exactly; and this one is by a Scadian peer; whether Master of Arms or of the Laurel is not clear. This therefore has the problems of any self-referential source. An external link, perhaps; but not helpful to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that the number of non-SCA sources on the SCA is rather small (see the list I constructed). I think that a great amount of perspective on the SCA must necessarily come from in-SCA sources. Indeed, the current article relies, from what I can tell, entirely on SCA members' material, some not just from an official SCA document. If what you mean is that the thesis I referenced is not 'objective', please say so directly. GuyWeknow 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an internal opinion, without any real peer-review. It's an interesting idea, and if it catches on, even within the SCA, we should include it. But for now, an external link at most. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Hello I am interested in SCA, but I've got several questions that needs answering...

1. What's the minimum age range for teenager to join the training to be a warrior thing?

2. If you are really short not interested in time and also don't like those renting thing, and want to own my own armor/costume. How much would these armors be...? Any good sites I could buy these armor from? Nothing outragous but also reliable. I'd really love to buy armor even without SCA activity, seeing I'm one of those medieval fans from fictional medieval areas to nonfiction.

3. I've researched, and found the Kingdom of Caid as the closest place, in southern California. Does Caid have a different range in age for minimum requirement for at least the training?... I'd really like to get into the combat, but seeing I'm under 18 there's not much exceptions I guess.

That's all for now, but I truely hope there's going to be a very good answer so I can decide on whether on playing or not.

71.107.17.164 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Argoth'as the Impaling Knight

The best answer is to go to www.sca.org, follow the link to the kingdom of caid, thence to the link for the city nearest you. They will probably be able to answer questions for the specifics. In general, you can train before age 18 and you can buy armor from suppliers for $500 or thereabouts. 192.18.101.5 17:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Society_for_Creative_Anachronism/Archive_2&oldid=1137192395"