SCA?

[FreelancerJericho]

Eh. I like the sound of it though. The one with the highest combat skill is the ruler.

[Eva de Carduus Weald]

But why should someone who doesn't do combat but who might do a fantastic job filling that role be precluded simply due to not being a fighter? Why should fighters be the only ones allowed to rule? What makes a good fighter a good ruler?

By the way this is for simple discourse, I am by no means seeking an argument, this is pure curiosity.

[FreelancerJericho]

Well I see your point and I'm little confused about it too now.

[Thorsteinn]

Name me another contest that is fair. That shows the person is willing to sacrifice time, money, and body to prove they are worthy. That shows they are willing and able to defend the Kingdom or Principality if need be. Who is willing to prove, not just boast, that they are good, and one that has no judges and no politics in the achieving of the Crown (or at least aught not to).

There is a reason why the 100 Meter Dash is more respected & valued than Rhythmic Gymnastics after all.

[Eva de Carduus Weald]

To me what will prove willingness to devote time, money, and body to prove they are worthy is devoting just that to your local barony/canton/kingdom for x length of time. To go through certain requirements like running events, donating time to serve at events, putting money into going to every one you can.

Combat is great but it is on very small aspect to the entire game. There are so very many ways to show dedication than just whacking each other with sticks. Politics will always play some part, big or small. The reason for this is that however much one might try not to, people are human. There are politics in combat, I can't tell you how many times in just the time I have been part of the SCA that I have heard this king was accused of Rhinoing and that is how he won, or that fighter should have won this because he was so much better. It happens.

It is just my personal opinion but honestly I think time and effort could be spent to figure out how to make it so that you there are more options for rulers, people who could do a great job if given half a chance but who simply can't under the current system simply because they can't/ don't wish to fight.

[Thorsteinn]

one of the Rulers duties is to take the field with their army. Would you have the Army of Ansteorra led by a weakling or coward?

Why should we fight for a ruler who is unwilling to fight for us?

Do I think that having the most prestigious tourney in many Kingdoms be either Crown or Coronet and that being one of only two real ways to win renown be a right thing? No. However whenever I hear an alternative way of determining the next Ruler it's always said by a person not seeking a better ruler, but a way to put themselves on the throne.

[Aiden of Oreland]

Joan of Arc was a great leader and never took part in combat.

[Sir Rodney]

Mercenary band? This greatly interests me.

The SCA divides up the “Known World” into:
Kingdoms – Large multi-state / multi-national areas (e.g. Northshield = ND, SD, MN, WI, UP of MI, Manitoba, and NW Ontario)
Barony – Large local groups, usually metropolitan areas (e.g. Nordskogen = St. Paul, Minneapolis, and suburbs)
Canton / Shire / Village – Smaller local groups outside large metropolitan areas
College – Just that, a college campus
These groups are usually mapped along USPS zip code lines.

There are also (officially unrecognized) groups of like-minded people, most often called Households.  These households can consist of a Knight and his close group of friends / followers, a group of artisans, a group of fighters, etc.  Some Households are small and some are quite large covering many states / countries.  They go by many names from households to guilds to hoards to companies.  The variety is endless and ever changing.

My local group of friends is called The Mercenary Company Nevermore.  We all started out as a group of single 20-something males that liked to travel all over the Midwest hitting people with rattan sticks.  We bristled at the idea of being a household and thus called ourselves a mercenary company (potato / potato’). At one point we fielded nearly 20 fighters in pickle barrel armour and bad great helms.  Many stories from this youthful era are not PG rated.   

Eventually guys moved on to other hobbies, got married, had kids, got divorced, moved to other states, got broken, got old, got sick, or all the above.  No we have a core group of 7 who fight (4 with any regularity), our spouses and children.  We’ve naturally transitioned to more historically accurate kits, clothing, tents, camps, etc.  While far from a living history level of detail, we do present a nice encampment.  We still enjoy the camaraderie and evening gatherings, but no longer carry our company bar (complete with blender & brass rail) with us from camp to camp.   

[Eva de Carduus Weald]

Okay yes, if your ruler is supposed to be on the front lines they yeah I can see that but most rulers, while trained to fight, typically did mostly tactics and strategy and sent others off to fight so your ruler should should competence and the ability to lead, not necessarily just be able to pummel really good.

Second I have no interest in being Queen, I don't have the finances nor the time to devote to it, but you mentioned fair and sorry but fair isn't leaving the spot for ruler for fighters alone. By the by just because one doesn't fight armored combat does not make them a coward nor a weakling. And I am no coward nor am I a weakling. Granted I likely would not be able to win against you, but I sure as hell would try.

[FreelancerJericho]

Getting fiesty there Eva? XD I'm fine with the way it is, however I like the idea of a king that could pummel my enemies with me.

[Eva de Carduus Weald]

Not feisty so much as wanting to make it clear that it isn't a simple matter of if you don't fight you are weak or a coward, if you fight you obviously will make a good king. I understand it is a simple metric to work from however, it is a little too simple in my opinion and leaves a huge chunk of people out. If we are going to talk fair, this is not.

As far as people wanting to be king/queen who aren't fighters, why wouldn't they? Again, a war or battle is about more than people hitting each other, if that were all it took why do we need generals? It is about planning and strategy, it is about looking beyond the immediate. Granted I have never been to an SCA war but honestly how different is it? If it is just two sides smashing into each other then that is a very small war, and rather overly simple.

As I said, I will never have the funds nor the time to be Queen. I have no interest in the job as I see it as a responsibility and one that takes a lot to do well. Saying that, I personally know some people who would make awesome rulers but who simply do not wish to fight. Note I said do not wish to, I doubt very much that choice is always going to based in weakness or cowardliness.

[Ian]

I think what's going on here is that you guys are looking at this issue from wildly different perspectives.  A king and queen in the SCA aren't really analogous in responsibility to a real king or queen in a real monarchy.  Eva and Jericho, it seems like you're both looking at this from a realistic perspective of Kings and Queens.

Within the context of the SCA, their system works and makes sense.  There are plenty of opportunities to reach high level positions in the SCA without fighting.  The Orders of the Laurel and Pelican for example.

The titles within the SCA are confusing for someone used to the terms as they are used in the real world.  A duke in real life is subordinate to a king.  In the SCA a duke is just the title used to denote a person who has been king more than once. 

You have to look at their system within the context of the SCA and its culture, not by comparing it to the real world requirements for good leaders or combatants.  It will just confuse the issue.

[Eva de Carduus Weald]

Ah you might be right. I suppose my perspective might also be highly biased purely based on ignorance. If the whole purpose of the King is dealing with being seen, being seen fighting, and dealing with the fighters then yes it makes sense.

I completely agree that there are other groups as you mentioned, the Laurels and the Pelicans. There are also the Storms in my own Barony. All are very high ranking members. I think more I just figured the King/Queen had a purpose outside of fighting, and helped actually manage the entire Kingdom.

Thank you for explaining this Sir Ian, that helps.

[Ian]

I think more I just figured the King/Queen had a purpose outside of fighting, and helped actually manage the entire Kingdom.

They do do that to an extent as far as I know.  They are also responsible for a lot of ceremonial aspects in the kingdom.  But you have to understand, the SCA is largely a combat-centric society.  While the SCA offers tons of opportunity for non-combatants, the fighting is just a huge portion of the SCA culture.  A bulk of the events, while supporting the other features and outlets within the SCA usually revolve around a war, or skirmish etc.  Because of that cultural paradigm, the SCA as chosen to draw it's leadership from its central activity.  It doesn't mean they are the best leaders, or even good ones in the real-world sense of the word.  They may be, but what they all are, are good SCA fighters, and that's how the SCA has chosen to go about it.

[Sir William]

Sometimes the SCA reminds me of WoW - large amounts of people role-playing, interacting w/one another at events and going on quests, dressing up and adopting a different style.  A really huge game w/a lot of participants that can get complex at times.