![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Juliana - On the Fourth Peerage
Feb. 22nd, 2009 09:01 amI've read over the last few days a variety entries and comments saying that the Fourth Peerage isn't necessary because the activities can be rewarded with the Laurel and the Pelican. I think they're missing the point. One gets a Laurel for research and creating period "things" - whether those things are physical objects, intellectual works, or physical activities. One gets a Pelican for service to the Society, whether generally or for a specific community. But martial activities are neither service nor period "things" by their nature: they're sports.
Excellence in archery and fencing (the sports I'm most familiar with) is linked to period practice, but only in curious ways. The same is true of heavy fighting. In the 400 years since the end of our period, with the introduction of techniques and skills from cultures around our world, we've learned to be better archers, better fencers, and better sword-fighters than people in the Middle Ages. So, the kind of sport that we do is not really a period art. The ability to shoot stunningly good Royal Rounds is a fantastic skill, but not, I think, what I want a Laurel to be. It's also not itself a service - running archery is, but simply shooting is not.
Consider heavy weapons: if you make nifty equipment or do research on period tournaments, for example, you can get a Laurel; if you run lots of tournaments, you can get a Pelican. But no one would suggest that simply fighting well is a Laurel or Pelican worthy activity. That's because it's not an "art" in the Laurel sense; it's a sport. Instead, it has its own peerage. That same aspect of other sports is not rewarded at the peerage level.
Now, you may think that that excellence at sports is not significant enough to our game that it merits that sort of recognition. But you need to understand that right now, we don't have any useful way to recognize that kind of excellence. None of the existing peerages have or, I would argue, should have the appropriate "mission statement."
Excellence in archery and fencing (the sports I'm most familiar with) is linked to period practice, but only in curious ways. The same is true of heavy fighting. In the 400 years since the end of our period, with the introduction of techniques and skills from cultures around our world, we've learned to be better archers, better fencers, and better sword-fighters than people in the Middle Ages. So, the kind of sport that we do is not really a period art. The ability to shoot stunningly good Royal Rounds is a fantastic skill, but not, I think, what I want a Laurel to be. It's also not itself a service - running archery is, but simply shooting is not.
Consider heavy weapons: if you make nifty equipment or do research on period tournaments, for example, you can get a Laurel; if you run lots of tournaments, you can get a Pelican. But no one would suggest that simply fighting well is a Laurel or Pelican worthy activity. That's because it's not an "art" in the Laurel sense; it's a sport. Instead, it has its own peerage. That same aspect of other sports is not rewarded at the peerage level.
Now, you may think that that excellence at sports is not significant enough to our game that it merits that sort of recognition. But you need to understand that right now, we don't have any useful way to recognize that kind of excellence. None of the existing peerages have or, I would argue, should have the appropriate "mission statement."