Good reply, I've been making this argument for years in Chiv meetings ( both
formal and informal) in another Kingdom ever since I was that Kingdom's KEO.
And, believe it or not I made some in roads for proposing that candidates
who did regular heavy combat  ( just had to be good but not great) and were
superior in skill at both heavy mounted combat AND jousting might be
considered for the Accolade.  Being a relative new comer here in Calontir I
have not discussed this much with my fellow Knights.  However, being a
member of the OL as well I cannot see putting either an equestrian, archer
or cut-and -thrust person in to the Order of the Laurel IF that candidate's
main focus is doing  the martial activity and NOT researching the activity.
This make the OL nothing better than a "dumping ground" for activates that
"don't fit" in the eyes of the existing Peerages.   I shall now put on my
nomex braies and await replies.

Take care,

Aleander Caithnes, Viscount, KSCA,OL , OP , etc.



From: Historical Recreation in the Kingdom of Calontir
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward de Kent
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Proposed Peerage for Masters of Defense




In your effort to distinguish equestrian activities from cut-and-thrust and
armored combat you neglected to mention mounted combat, which is virtually
identical to armored combat in terms of weapons, armor, and rules, except
that it is done while mounted on a horse.  The fact that two major
equestrian activities are "martial art[s] where two combatants (or more, in
melee) face off directly against one another" kind of throws a wrench into
your argument.  


And that is to say nothing, of course, of the historical fact that one of
the key distinguishing features of a knight was being a mounted combatant.
For obvious reasons of practicality that was not made a requirement of the
Chivalry, but if one is to propose creating additional branches of the
Chivalry, then surely equestrians who attain the appropriate level of
prowess in mounted combat and jousting would be at least as good a fit as a
cut-and-thrust branch.


Let me be clear: I'm not necessarily taking a position for or against the
'new branch' proposal in general, but it is difficult to argue that it makes
more sense for cut-and-thrust than (combatant) equestrians.


-Edward de Kent

-- Manage your subscription at
lists do not accept incoming email from, or
due to their DMARC policies. 

Manage your subscription at lists do not accept incoming email from, or due to their DMARC policies.