Stefan's Florilegium

tourn-ideas-msg

This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

tourn-ideas-msg - 6/2/99

Ideas for SCA tournaments.

NOTE: See also the files: tournaments-art, tournaments-msg, marshalling-msg,
b-battles-art, jousting-msg.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that
I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some
messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefanąs Florilegium.
These files are available on the Internet at:
http://lg_photo.home.texas.net/florilegium/index.html

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with
seperate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes
extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were
removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I
make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the
individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these
messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this
time. If information is published from these messages, please give
credit to the orignator(s).

Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: Lord Stefan li Rous
RSVE60@email.sps.mot.com stefan@texas.net
************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: cassie@worf.nas.nasa.gov (Cassandra L. Baldassano)
Subject: Re: Lists alternatives-challenges
Organization: NAS/NASA-Ames Research Center
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 16:51:00 GMT

Greetings from Euriol,

Joy_DAY/ADMIN/UA@hpdesk.utc.EDU (Joy DAY) writes:
|> ...I have served as MOL for the past few years here,
|> and I would welcome any innovation in the way things are done.
|> I think MOL's are not intentionally inflexible, it's just that
|> when you invest that much pre-event time in working out fight
|> schedules for any number of participants, and you are expected
|> to use a certain format, it FREAKS YOU OUT when somebody requests
|> a change at the last minute. I would be all for a more flexible
|> system than the double-elimination or round robin used here, and
|> challenges would certainly give a face lift to the old tourney.
|> Shoot, I'd like to see a whole tourney done on the basis of
|> challenges-then I could goof off for the WHOLE tourney.
|> Madelena de Luna

I am also the Lists Officer for my local group and deputy to the kingdom Lists
Officer. And yes I agree, It could really annoy the hell out of me if someone
wanted to change the lists at the last minute. But if you determine the type
of lists before hand, you can have a variety of choices.

I have done the double-elim and the round robin. For the West's Crown tourney's,
you can't do anything but a double-elim because if you tried one of the others,
it might take 2-3 days to run the lists.

But for smaller lists you can do a swiss or mad dog list.

The swiss list is where all fighters fight a preset number of rounds, usually
5-6, trying to match people with the same number of wins (or losses) against
each other. After the 5-6 rounds, eliminate all fighters with 2 or more losses
and continue from there in the same style or in a double-elim.

The mad dog is where you let the fighters challenge each other. All they have
to do is after the fight tell you who they fought and who won. Give each fighter
a point for fighting, and an extra point to the winner. The person with the most
points at the end wins. (I have seen a variation on this were if you beat a
knight, you get 2 points extra; a count, 3 points extra; a duke, 4 points extra;
and reigning royalty 5 points extra).

Both of these styles of lists can be a lot of fun.

Euriol

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: ransom tourney idea
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:51:00 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval! Fujimoto offered:

> Anyone want to run a "real" ransom tourney, more like the Wars of the
> Middle Ages? I have the following ideas for rules:

I have some suggestions. In general, I think we should try to make our
tournaments educational as well as fun, and I think we can do that by
designing the rules to be as close as possible to the historical model.

>
> 1) Head or Body shots still count as kills. Your opponent must
> surrender to be "captured". (An armless, legless fighter
> will count as a de facto surrender...) You may choose to
> kill your opponent, or you may simply kill him: it's up to
> you, and you can decide at any time.

I would prefer to think of our "killing blows" as stunning or disabling the
opponent, making capture automatic. Killing one's opponent was not part of
the goal of the 12th century tourneyer; it was counter-productive. Thus,
there should be two ways to be captured: By agreeing to it, or by being
subdued.

> 2) The captor must make arrangements to guard the captive. Yes,
> the captive can give his Word of Honor (WoH) not to escape,
> but if he is not watched he may freely assume, without Loss
> of Honor (LoH) that his Captor no longer wants to keep him
> captive.

I think this would be contrary to the contemporary ideal of chivalry: The
notion that a captive has a duty to try to escape is modern. In the
medieval tournament, once a knight had surrendered and accepted capture, he
was bound by honor not only to refrain from trying to escape, but to refuse
rescue and ensure that his ransom was properly paid. A fighter who is
sudbued ("killed") obviously cannot escape.

> 3) Ransom to be determined between what the Captor is willing
> to pay and what the Captive is willing to demand. Ransom
> may include other captives, or even service.

I don't think any further guidelines are needed; let them work it out on
their own. If the captor makes unreasonable demands, then he will get
nothing out of the deal and the captive can hire a minstrel to spread the
word that other fighters should not accept capture by him. If the captive
makes unreasonable demands, then he remains captive, out of the fighting
until he agrees to something fair. Arbitors might be an interesting touch,
but they should be free agents, not official judges.

> 4) If the Captor is "killed" during the day, all his captives
> are assumed to be freed.

I think that would be a mistake, in that it is historically inaccurate. Of
course, since I'd make "killed" mean "subdued", the question would turn
into this: What happens when a captor is himself captured? He could
certainly use some or all of his captives to ransom himself. I don't see
an advantage to any automatic forfeit.

Once everyone gets the idea of how things work, I think ransom tourneys
work best with the minimum organizational overhead.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@watson.ibm.com

From: mabr@sweden.hp.com (Morgan "the Dreamer" Broman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Tournaments
Date: 24 May 1994 09:38:55 GMT
Organization: HP/SCA/SKA/FSTS/AMTS/SLRP/ETC Sweden

Arval d'Espas Nord (mittle@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: Greetings from Arval! Cairbre wrote:

: The first suggestion is probably the most imporant: The judged tournaments
: I've attended have had about four judges each, who awarded two or three
: prizes of moderate value, but I have never seen any evidence that their
: judgements were unjust or considered unjust.

At Magna Carta II I ran a "Kings Prize Tourney", it went as
follows :

1) You fought over a low fence. (At the barriers)
This kept the fighting in close...;)
2) Before the tournament started the helmets and shields
of the contestants were put up on display. The Ladies
then went over and had a look. If they found the coat-
of-arms of someone who had insulted them they would
tell the Herald, who would then remove the helmet and
shield from the display. Thereby eliminating that fighter.
3) Each match consisted of best out of three matches
same opponent, same weaponform.
4) First round was sword and shield.
Second round was greatweapon (polearm, greatsword etc)
Third round was spear.
5) The contestants were drawn by lot before each round.
Though you could not meet the same person twice in the
tournament.
6) The King and the Ladies were the judges.
7) Judgement was based on three things :
Courtesy (behaviour)
Prowess (skill in battle)
Heraldic display (shields, armour, tabard)
8) There was a fine prize, a pair of Cups, one for the Lord
and one for his Lady.
9) Special seats were set up for the Ladies who had fighters in
the tournament, so that they had a good view and could follow
their champions.

It came off very well, both the crowd and the fighters liked it..;)
The shields and helmets were on display all the time the fighters did not
fight. This kept them (the helmets and shields that is) in one place...;)

Ciao
Morgan//
...who likes this sort of tournament better than tennis....;)
--
HP : Morgan Broman mabr@sweden.hp.com

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mchance@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Michael Chance)
Subject: Re: Alternative Tournament Formats
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 18:55:57 GMT

Tristan writes:

>1.) A greatsword or "wacky weapons" tournament. If you're not authorized in
>greatsword, you can fight sword and dagger, or one one-handed sword, or
>sword and buckler. Polearms optional. This gives the weirder fighting styles
>a chance to do something, plus gives variety. As a "just for fun" tournament,
>it's more laid back than a "let's kill everyone and be one step closer to a
>Peerage"-type tourney.

Calontir currently has two similar type tourneys: Valor Tourney,
hosted by the Barony of Vatavia, which is for bastard sword and
greatsword; and The Gathering of Chieftains, hosted by the Barony of
Three Rivers, for one-handed mass weapons and round shields. Both have
a travelling prize given to the winner.

>2.) A tournament with the winner determined not by a single-elimination or
>"most kills," but rather by a panel of judges, or, if preferred, all ladies
>present (or all non-combattants. Or all attending). Those who vote get a
>favor to hand to their favorite fighter at the end of the tournament.
>Criteria include chivalry, honor, style, spretzaturra (that's Yiddish
>Castiglione), humor, fair play, effort put forth, etc. This is more in
>keeping with period practice, as well as more fun, a better show, and leads
>more to honorable combat than cutthroat competition.

Since this seems to be a common medieval practice, it's unfortunate
that the concept is almost non-existant in the SCA. I, for one, would
like to see a lot more of this type of format used to determine
tourney winners.

> The format of such a tournament can be challenges (ideal), bear pit
>(much les ideally), or melees (where fighters are singled out for teamwork,
>sportsmanship, and tactical sense, not just flash. This is also a period
>practice).

Any of these suggestions would be better than the typical progressive
elimination format that is used most now. Can anyone document the
single elimination or double elimination formats to prior to the 19th
century?

Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc307a@sw1sta.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: ab899@freenet.hsc.colorado.edu
mchance@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: Alternative Tournament Formats
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 22:02:05 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval (who would really much rather spend time discussing
tournament formats)!

> While experiencing my daily hallucination/calculus class today, I
> came up with some ideas for tournaments. As this is an "informal medium"
> to discuss such things, let me spit them out here and get your responses:

Great! I should warn you in advance that my criteria for such things are
about equally how well it recreates medieval tournaments and how likely it
is that the fighters and others will enjoy it.

I recall this sort of tournament from my first years in the Society; it was
called a "Weapons Proficiency Tournament" or a "Funny Weapons Tournament".
There are period examples of tournaments held in particular weapons forms,
though the ones that I can recall required the two combattants in any joust
to use matched weapons. Many passage of arms specified that each comers
would meet a defender in a particular number of passes with each of several
weapons. Others allowed the comer to choose weapons and be met by one of
the defenders.

According to my research, this is how the prizes were awarded at every
period tournament that awarded prizes. I have yet to find a single
exception.

> Those who vote get a favor to hand to their favorite fighter at the end
> of the tournament.

That could make a nice ceremony if they did it all at the same time. I
don't know a period precedent, but it strikes me as compatible with the
romantic view of the tournament.

> Criteria include chivalry, honor, style, spretzaturra (that's Yiddish
> Castiglione), humor, fair play, effort put forth, etc.

I do not know period evidence of awarding different prizes on different
criteria, but it is deeply-ingrained tradition in the Society.

> The format of such a tournament can be challenges (ideal), bear pit
> (much les ideally), or melees (where fighters are singled out for teamwork,
> sportsmanship, and tactical sense, not just flash. This is also a period
> practice).

These choices are among the most authentic organizations for _any_
tournament, regardless of other decision. Challenges were found in very
early tournaments as a prelude to the melee, especially in romances and
probably considerly less often in reality. The "bear pit" (holding the
field) has not been shown to have happened in reality, but it is described
in literature in the late 15th century. The melee, of course, is the
earliest form of tournament. If one construes "being killed" as "being
captured", then a resurrection melee is even closer to early historical
models.

> The only problem is, I'd want to fight in it, too! Can you autocrat and
> fight?

Why on Earth not? It's not like you'll be incommunicado for hours at a time.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@watson.ibm.com

From: pwelliso@mtu.edu (PETER W. ELLISON)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Alternative Tournament Formats
Date: 22 Mar 1994 18:38:49 -0500
Organization: Michigan Technological University

TRISTAN CLAIR DE LUNE/KEN MONDSCHEIN (v081lu33@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
:
: While experiencing my daily hallucination/calculus class today, I
: came up with some ideas for tournaments. As this is an "informal medium"
: to discuss such things, let me spit them out here and get your responses:

Our local group did a "Highlander" tournament. Rules fairly simple, edged
weapons only, lost limbs recover between rounds and only side head shots kill.
We debated allowing thrusts, not for killing but causeing the opponent
to go to thier knees (since well even immortals don't like chest wounds :)

Another way to spice up another wise dull day, have the tourney off hand
single sword, or just single sword (it been a long time since many have needed
those skills :) This also gives new fighters a slightly better chance.

We also have a "Best Death" award for most local tournaments. Another
incentive to accept death "gracefully" :) (Is it bad to win this award ? :)

While none of these suggestions are period, they can spice up the day.

Peter Petrovich ...

/ pwelliso@major.cs.mtu.edu
*####*----------------------------------------------
\ All flames etc. to /dev/null. --=}:)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: Medieval Tournament Style
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 20:50:27 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval! Robert FitzMorgan wrote:

> Could someone please post a good source or sources on period
> tournament styles?

The best single book on the tournament is:

Barber, Richard and Juliet Barker. 1989. Tournaments: jousts, chivalry and
pageants in the Middle Ages. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
ISBN 1-55584-400-6.

It is readable, thorough, heavily illustrated, and scholarly. If you need
a one chapter introduction to the subject, I recommend:

Keen, Maurice. 1984. Chivalry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
ISBN 0-300-03150-5.

In the SCA, you can get some excellent material by subscribing to (and
buying back issues of) Chronique, a journal of medieval chivalry editted by
Brion Thornbird and available from:

Ann-Marie Storz
1134 Tamalpais Place
Hayward, CA
USA 94542

You can also obtain a translation of the Tournament Book of King Rene'
d'Anjou by Elizabeth Bennet (Mistress Aliss Gardenere), who is presently
editor of Tournaments Illuminated.

If you want a more thorough bibliography, drop me a line direct.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@watson.ibm.com

From: Philip - Tuley (7/14/94)
To: Mark Harris
tourney ideas

On Thu, 14 Jul 1994, Mark Harris wrote:
> What's a "scorpion" melee?

A scorpion melee is one where there are two fighters up front armed each
with a sword, and one shield to work between them, and a polearmsman in
the back. The rules are that the group must stay together, and if one
dies, they are stuck where they are at.

From: asamplas@indiana.edu (Vlad the Purple)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Polycarp-style tourney format
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:39:45
Organization: Indiana University

Gentles, reading in the Medieval News of the Day for 26 Jan., I saw that it
was the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp. This prompts me to tell
of an alternative tourney format we developed in Myrkfaelinn some eleven
years ago, which people in upstate NY have found very enjoyable and which
should be fun for others.

The St. Polycarp Memorial Tournament happened about 1984 C.E. Myrkfaelinn
has had a long history of trying to find some way of fighting other than
"oh, god, another double elim...", and Maestra Niccola having found this
obscure but interestingly-named saint in a book of saint's lives (I believe
he was burned, nothing particularly striking in the way of martyrdom), we
came up with a format involving two 'orders' of knights having a tourney in
commemoration of his death.

The fighters are separated into two teams of equal numbers and equal
strengths - the latter is very important. Each team then determines a ranking
amongst its members by having them do three pickup fights with other team
members; it doesn't matter who fights who, just do three bouts. You're left
with four pools of fighters within each team who've won 3, 2, 1, and 0 fights
respectively, and they order themselves within each pool. The final round
then takes place between the two teams - the number-one ranked fighters of
each fight, then the number-twos, etc. Whichever *team* wins the most bouts
of the final round wins the tourney; there is no one individual who wins (we
typically gave out a best novice prize, however, decided by consensus among
the most experienced fighters present both within and without the group).

This format has a number of advantages over a double elim. One, everybody is
guaranteed four bouts, even if they just qualified that morning. Two, there
is no "not another 60-minute final bout between Sir Blartfart and Count
Duckplucker again!" syndrome - probably such individuals will indeed meet
in the final round and have a long bout, but there's no emotional pump of
"My God, I'm in the finals and I've got to win" to stimulate rhino-hiding, so
the fighting is much more laid-back and cleaner. Three (and most important),
if the teams were initially picked to be equal in strength, then the outcome
of the tourney will depend on the last few bouts, between the _Least
Experienced_ fighters, and they will feel really great being cheered on
by everyone because *their* bout is the Important One. At the Polycarp event
itself the outcome was decided by the last bout, and at an event using this
format three years later, if the next-to-last bout had not gone the way it
did then the deciding bout would have been between two young ladies who
had only provisionally qualified that day. Like I say, a great positive
ego stroke for new fighters.

I encourage other groups to try out the Polycarp format; I think you'll
agree with Myrkfaelinn that it's a lot of fun.

-purple

Artie Samplaski Vlad the Purple
Indiana U. School of Music Myrkfaelinn Midrealm Accounts Rep.
asamplas@indiana.edu

From: ansteorra@eden.com (3/9/95)
To: ansteorra@eden.com
RE>Tourney Query

Diarmuit Ui Dhuinn asks:

>In Tourneys, what *exactly* is a "Swiss Five", and are there different
>styles of even that use the same name?

In a word, Yes. I have been list mistress at several Guardian Tourneys,
and the most basic definition of a "Swiss Five" is that each fighter will
get to fight 5 rounds. After that basic definition is where it gets more
complex. Each round can use a completely different type of weapon style
from the one previous (ie: Sword & Shield; Single Sword; Polearm; Mass
Weapon & Shield; Florentine), or it's been done where the fighters
alternate weapon styles (ie: Sword & Shield; Mass Weapon; Sword & Shield;
Single Sword; Sword & Shield). The list can be run very structured where
everyone in round 2 uses Polearms (for example). Or it can be run very
flexible where each fighter decides what style he/she will use in each
round (and sometimes the list mistress is expected to keep track of the
style used).

Anyway that's how Swiss Five's are run up here. :-)

Estrill Swet

From: ansteorra@eden.com (3/20/95)
To: ansteorra@eden.com
RE>tourney query

Viscount Galen writes:

> Paradoxically, my biggest problems come in judged lists, which are
> probably the most authentic sort we see. Particularly those lists
> judged by non-fighters (and I am not aware of any period examples
> of non-fighters judging tournaments).

Actually, I believe that there is evidence to support non-combattant
tourney "judges". I seem to recall that Barber and Barker's book
_Tournaments_ makes mention of several tourneys which had a "ladies'
gallery" comprised (usually) of the ladies of the knights competing
and perhaps some other high-ranking noble ladies in attendance, who
watched the tourney and awarded various prizes to the contestants, for
such things as "most exciting", "most chivalrous", "most romantic",
"most noble", etc.

[ BTW, Barber and Barker's book is a must for anyone serious about
looking into actual medieval tournaments. A "coffe table" book in
size and style of prose, yet containing some of the best research
available on the subject of medieval and Renaissance tournaments in the
popular press, with an impressive bibliography. If people would like, I
can look up the publisher and ISBN info and post it here. ]

> Most judges in my experience
> have great difficulty separating those they like from those they
> don't like or don't know.

Agreed, though this very style of subjective criteria also seems to be
a strong feature of medieval tournaments which employed judges to
award prizes, and even when the prizes were awarded by the
constestants themselves. Primarily, it runs counter to the modern
American notions of "fair play", where skill alone determines the
outcome of a contest. Adjusting to this type of judging criteria for
what would seem to be a contest of skills can often be very difficult,
though I believe it to be a crucial adjustment to really understand
what it felt like to participate in a medieval tourney.

A first step is to get away from a single "grand" winner of a tourney.
Set up several smaller prizes: one from the ladies, one from the Royal
peers present, one from the Chivalry for the best non-Chivalry
entrant, one from the non-Chivalry for the best member of the Chivalry,
one from the heralds for the best heraldic display, one from the
fighters in the hosting group for the best visiting fighter, one for
the most dramatic fight, etc. If you must have a prize for the
"winner" of the tourney (be it the winner of a single/double elim style
tourney, or the person with the most/highest percentage of wins in
other styles), then just give that person a modest scroll
commemorating the event. This, coupled with the nicer prizes for other
categories, begins to de-emphasis "winning" as the most important goal
of the tournament.

There were many tournaments that had no "winners" at all, but were set
up for a knight or a group of knight to meet a challenge of some sort.
Two recent SCA examples of this type come to mind. The first was a
couple of years ago at Pennsic, then the Company of St. Michael (a
group mostly based in the East Kingdom, dedicated to better tourney
re-creations), held a pas d'armes in which they had set themselves to
meet, as a Company, a total of 50 challengers in one day. Records
were kept of who fought who, but not of who won or lost each
challenge. In the end, the company met their challenge, and, by all
accounts, everyone who participated had a great time. And there were
no "winners" declared.

The second happened just a few weeks ago in the Midrealm. King
Brannos held a "Tournament of Chivlary", similar to the one I just
described, in which the members of the Chivalry of the Midrealm stood
challenges from those who were not. Anyone could go out and challenge
any member of the Chivalry who stood ready to accept challenges, and
the Chivalry had to accept the challenge of any who approached them.
It provided an excellent venue for "rising stars" to test their skills
against the Chivalry in a less competitive environment than a "normal"
tourney, and gave the Chivalry an opportunity to observe prospective
candidates outside of the normal confines of a tourney or fighting
practice, and against a higher caliber of opponent that they might
otherwise normally face. (For you non-Chivalry fighter, consider: when
was the last time you spent an entire tourmey facing nothing but
Knights and Master-at-Arms?) Again, while I wasn't at that particular
tourney, I've yet to hear of any "winners" that were declared that day
(though I supposed the fighters that get elevated to the Chivalry
partly as a result of their efforts that day could be considered
"winners" in a sense). I understand that more of these "Tournaments of
Chivlary" are planned to be held in various parts of the Midrealm in
the future.

Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc307a@sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: mchance@crl.com

From: ansteorra@eden.com (7/17/95)
To: ansteorra@eden.com
RE>A question on War

Earl Kein writes:

> Tournaments are to test individual prowess. Wars are to test
> leadership, cooperation, and strategy.

It is possible to devise a tournament that test those qualities and
abilities, as well. For instance, my brother, Baron Eirik Dweorgax,
is sponsoring and co-ordinating a series of 5-man melee tourneys in
the Middle Kingdom, partly in order to help develop small unit skills.
By adjusting the size of the teams (from 2-man teams all the way to
the perhaps 100-200 man teams that might be possible at Pennsic or
Estrella), differing combinations of qualities and abilities could be
tested. While there are skills which are necessary regardless of the
size of the team, different tactics and skill are needed for 2-man,
3-man, 5-man, 10-man, 25-man and larger sized teams. Directing the
weapons mix as part of the tourney could also be used to "force" the
appearance of certain traits you wish to observe or develop. For
example, at a recent 5-man melee tourney here sponsored by Calontir's
Iren Hirth (Huscarls - Calontir's GoA level fighting order), all of
the huscarls had to fight with four-foot axes (it being the symbol of
the order). This radically change the expected outcomes in many
cases.

A purely martial version of the Calontir Carousel (hosted here in Three
Rivers - next one this Sept. - write for more info!), which involves a
series of tests and challenges for teams of competitors (and is based,
loosely, on an actual medieval tourney format) would be another good
tournament to test "team skills".

And, of course, there's the ever popular "warlord" or progressive melee
style tourney.

> There is also nothing like the
> rush that you get when you can feel the ground rumble under the feet of
> a thousand fighters who are charging across the field.

On this, we both agree!

Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc307a@sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: mchance@crl.com

From: ansteorra@eden.com (7/19/95)
To: ansteorra@eden.com
RE>Type of Tourney Question

>Could someone please explain the format of a Prize Tourney?
>
>Fionna
>Katherine Roberts
>robertsk@tamu.edu

A prize tourney can be any format, it just means that there is a prize
offered, usually several, by the group(s) sponsoring the tournament. In
the case of the Laurels' Prize tourney, the Laurels sponsored the event and
gave prizes which they had made to those who won or pleased them in some
way on the field. Very often this typ of tournament is judged.

Catherine

To: 'ansteorra'
From: KochKA@gvl.esys.com (Koch, KA Kimberly 4384)
Organization: Raytheon E-Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:58:02 -0500
Subject: FW: Tournaments

Amra "corrected" Earl Sir Kein by saying the good knight was redundant in
stating he liked "snowball lists and melees". Well to speak on behalf of my
brother it is Amra who needs the correction. A "snowball melee" is a tourney
wherein the first round has two fighters with the winner of that fight
becoming the captain of that team. The next round those two fighters face
another team of two fighters, the losers join the winners....and on and on
until there are just two teams to fight a grand melee at the end.

A "melee" is any number of more than two all fighting at once. A "snowball"
is just one type and a fairly unique type of melee hence the separate use of
the term.

Gunthar

Subject: ANST - PENNSIC-Squire's Tourney
Date: Tue, 26 May 98 05:12:56 MST
From: jhartel <jhartel@net-link.net>
To: ansteorra@Ansteorra.ORG

This just came across the Middle Bridge and since it involves
squires/students who may wish to fight in the tourney at Pennsic I
thought I'd foreward it on.

Moriel***

Ree Moorhead Pruehs wrote:
> Einarr wrote to His Grace Duke Sir Logan Ebonwoulfe, asking for more
> details on how an Atlantean speed tournament was set up (this is the format
> for the Pennsic Squires' Tournament) and (for the benefit of a friend who
> is not on the Bridge) how a Knight/Master at Arms who may not be attending
> Pennsic may sponsor his/her squires to the Tournament. For the benefit of
> those who might have similar questions, His Grace's reply follows.
>
> Rhiannon Ottersdale
>
> =========================================
> First, all fighters line up in a single file line. The first and last
> fighters in line are paired off as are the second and next to last, and so on.
> All pairings meet at the same time, on the field, and a lay-on is called. The
> winners report to one side and the "not-so-winners" report to the other side.
>
> The loser of each bout must report to the MoL. We then do the line up thing
> again with the winners side and losers side. Eventually you will have a
> single representative from each side (winners and losers, or undefeated and
> defeated as we like to call it) and thus begins your final round with all
> losses erased. I am planning a best 3 of 5 with no weapons form being
> repeated more than once for the finals. We do this style (speed style) at
> most of our larger events were we have more than 50 fighters showing up for
> the list. We did this at Pennsic a couple of years ago with 120+ fighters and
> were in our finals in about 40 minutes. The advantage is that the tourney
> itself goes fast, leaving plenty of energy for pick-ups and small melee type
> stuff.
>
> As far as Knights/Masters that can't make it but have students/Squires that
> want to enter all I need is a letter/e-mail from the Chivalry member stating
> it is their desire to have their Squire enter. I have already received 6 of
> those.

[Submitted by: rmhowe <magnusm@ncsu.edu>]
Subject: OK what is a Roman Melee? (Womans Tourney at Pennsic)
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 10:40:08 EDT
From: Svanhildr@aol.com
To: ironrose@webmaster.com, sca-east@indra.com, atlantia@atlantia.sca.org,
sca-aethelmearc@andrew.cmu.edu

OK a Roman Melee starts out with all fighters in a Circle...
layon is called...

And it is basically every person for them selves. You can team up
(temporarily) to beet the tougher Fighters.. But in the end only one person
can win.

After fighting a few rounds of this style Melee you can then run a finals
such as is done in Double elim to determine the winner of the over all tourney.
Winners of each Melee and the overall Victor will receive a prize. ( The
prizes will be on display at the beginning of the tourney.

Basically it is different then what has been done. Roman Melee's are not
frequently done in the SCA (at least in this region) Thought it would be good
to take away some of the Tourney Anxiety that some feel in Double elims etc.,
in hopes to draw more people out to fight. Also cuts down on choosing your
own bouts as happens in the William marshal style tourney's

<the end>