[MR] A Rapier King?

[David Wendelken]

> ...  I hope that idea that we are somehow in competition with each
> other is put to rest soon.  
 
 That would be nice, but is it true?  They do not want to feel 
 like second class citizens when it comes to martial 
 activities. Some rapier fighters also want the "prizes" that 
 heavy fighters take for granted as "their right". Those 
 prizes include not only awards and titles, but also the right 
 to rule.  
  
>But inevitably this discussion leads some down the trail to 
>a big sign post that says "RAPIER KING THIS WAY ---->".  
>At first glance, it seems like an good enough idea...why shouldn't I,
>as a rapier fighter, have as much opportunity to lead 
>this Kingdom as a talented heavy fighter?  The answer, for me is that
>the SCA tries to produce, with varying degrees of success,
>creations that in some way are representative of how things 
>worked in period.  
>In period, if there was no succession, in all likelihood war decided
>who would be King.  
 
True enough.
 
>Like it or not, heavy combat is what most people think of when they
>think of battle in period.  
>Because of [sic]the, if you want to be King, then you must 
>pick up the weapons of war, and go claim your crown. 
 
The argument is flawed on several counts.  First, there would 
be WAR, not a SINGLE-COMBAT TOURNAMENT. So, by your argument, 
the "status quo" is already hopelessly flawed. Your argument 
supports the idea of a War Crown, which is not where you 
might be wanting to go.  That, or the time-honoured 
historical methods of imprisoning, mutilating, or murdering 
rivals for the thrown.  
 
Second, the French during the Hundred Year's War time-period 
mostly thought of "heavy cavalry charges" when they thought 
of battle in period. English longbows and Swiss pikes showed 
them the errors of their ways. Our "covered period" is full 
of examples of new weapons and new tactics for using existing 
ones.  Rapiers are one, muskets, pistols and cannons are another.  
 
Our historical counterparts argued this same point, with the 
"traditional chivalry" arguing for their idealized version of 
the "status quo" as a way to conduct affairs, and with the 
reality of social power taking a different path.  I would 
hope that we would adapt to the needs of our society better 
than our historical counterparts did, and not become 
anachronistic WITHIN our society as they did.
 
The point is, the SCA has grown to become a vibrant group of 
people with wildly different talents and interests.  People 
all across that spectrum are beginning to question the status 
quo.  That process will continue. Each will in turn (quite 
rightly, I might add) make its case that it could field as 
good or better leaders than those chosen by their ability to 
hit people with sticks.
 
>Whether they decide it's a bad idea, or just that it isn't going to
>happen, most people decide that the Rapier King thing is a 
>long way off.

Probably true.  One never knows!  People are a continual 
surprise to me.
 
>Today, a new idea (at least to me...) was put forth.
>Let's have a prime minister...or an advisor.  
>An interesting new twist...but here is my take on that.  
>There can only be one set of rulers in a Kingdom.  
 
No disagreement here at all!
 
>Creating an artificial construct to make rapier fighters 
>feel like they have some sort of say in 
>what goes on in the Kingdom is a slight to the rapier community,
>and is unnecessary, because we already are an intrinsic part of the
Kingdom. ...
 
Then again, if they are a fully accepted part of the Kingdom, why do
they feel "unwanted" and "unrespected" by many of the 
"powers-that-be"?
I have assumed that many do, because this topic crops up 
again and again and again and again.
Perhaps it's only one or two that feel that way and they are 
very vocal about it?  
I confess I do not know.

Has anyone ever done a reasonably scientific survey to find out?
 
Andas Salamandra