Essentialy, the idea was to formulate some basic guidelines so that if (for example) The Company of the Wolf Argent (based in NH) wanted to travel to a Red Company event in CA, everybody would be on the same page and know what to expect when they got there.

The guidelines cover things like clothing, armour and combat standards, safety, etc.

Previously, there was a small group of folks who put their heads together and set down some thoughts about how a nationwide organization should be run. We've got a nice bunch here now, and I suggested to She Who Must Be Obeyed™ that maybe 50 people thinking about this would be better than 4 or 6.

Maybe if you all help us make the rules, you'll want to come out and play.

The posts are months old, and once they go back up we'll look them over and try to explain anything that isn't self evident.

Gwen

I think the "T" was to be "times, as in

"Association of Reenactors of Medieval European Times"

Though the name is very general (so we could find a suitable acronym), the period is limited to approximately 1450 to 1485 or so. We want to be chronologicaly consistent so we don't end up with too wide a time span.

There has been discussion amongst Bob, Gwen and myself that we might want to include the slightly earlier "late 14th to early 15th century" crowd, but my opinion is to keep it "Wars of the Roses"/"Burgundian wars" specific both in period and geography. This is mostly to foster more reenactment of the period we like and concentrate on.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeffrey

I don't see to much participation from members of other 15th c, or even 14th c groups in this forum.

It would be good to have input from other groups in the US so this is seen as cooperative and not dictatorial by two groups. Otherwise, we continue to bandy these ideas with no progress.

It would also be nice to have a European section to the guidelines so that US re-enactors can know what to expect when they go over and participate in an event hosted by a European group. Like the battle of Tewkesbury.

What's allowed in way of swords coming through customs, a suggested packing list, do they have equipment that they can loan to visitors like tents or should one pack their own, POCs for arrivals, directions to the event, or to offer suggestions for lodging and/or to introduce people around so that they can fall in with a group instead of going solo. I kind of view it somewhat like a foreign exchange student.

What do you all think, suggestions?

Jenn, my shooting partner (Dan) received the info packet. It's really interesting!

MSS website http://www.pomian.demon.co.uk/index.htm

Peter

That may be my fault. In the previously mentioned correspondence with Jennifer Glover of MOW, I stated that RedCo. does not allow women to fight or assume men's roles. It seems that that is not the case with MOW, and she said "I wouldn't participate with a group that does not allow women to fight". On MOW's first page, there is a photo of a woman dressed as a man, and I believe Eric's wife does dual duty as the Captain's Lady and also as his Page.

Eric and I have discussed authenticity standards, and he has said that he doesn't want to get "too crazy" or too strict about authenticity, lest noone play. His primary concern is having a big camp and if that means they have to round the corners a bit, that's OK.

I think (my opinion ONLY here folks) is that MOW thinks RedCo. it too anal and maybe even snobbish, based on conversations with EL. There are NO hard feelings that I am aware of, just an acknowledgment of a difference in point of view on how to approach reenactment. For example, MOW wear modern clothes after hours, RedCo. is 15th C. 24/7, and the aforementioned women in men's roles.

MOW may not be using this forum simply because it doesn't interest them. The only way to know for sure is to invite them again, now that things have been up and running for a while.

my 2˘

Bob and I were associate members of the White Company for a year. I think AM joined them too, I don't know if she is still a member or whether she let her membership lapse. They were doing a lot of cool things, unfortunately, we were on the opposite side of the Atlantic to partake.

Now that we have more equipment and many travel agencies have come online with decent fares to Europe, it might be easier for us to participate. Who knows, maybe even do a charter trip. Now THAT would be fun. So I thought a subset or at least an info page would be cool.

We will send out another invitation and see what happens.

Are the ARMET Standards the same as group standards or should it be more embracing (looser) and let each company have a higher standard if they choose, but at least have an agreed upon minimum with a sponsoring group clause as your milage may vary?

WA does mostly what is common with an occasional exception. As part museum education/demonstration team, part living history group we tend to allow for the one issue that shall not be mentioned.

I know Gwen mentioned this before and we should probably start listing out the guidelines. I think it should be in the form of a simple numerical list. Then see what everyone thinks.

Refine the list based on the input -- post it again. Following the K.I.S. format, keeping it simple: no paragraph forms. Just a few short sentences then move on. I am assuming that we want guidelines that are simple and quick to read, not something the size of the NYC phone book.

Maybe I can look through all of this stuff tonight and put it into sections with what has been put forward already.

This might be a dead issue, but I think the best way to go in an umbrella organization such as this is all out or very minimal.

On one hand, you can keep things very loose and easy to maintain simply by stating minimum standards that member groups are expected to maintain (and are encouraged to beat). The problem with this though, is that you will encounter two major road-blocks. The first is that some people will have a defensible minimum standard that could become the "norm". The other is that differences between groups such as whether women can fight will be a constant aggravation and there needs to be ways to resolve these differences as fairly as possible. Unless you keep the standards pretty loose, you'll eventually end up with an over-regulated system that people will shy away from. Not enough standards and you'll have the SCA without rattan combat.

The second method would be to create an umbrella corporation with a BOD that runs the group. Think of it as an SCA with really high standards. This is more expensive and more time intensive, but the economies of scale could prove beneficial.

The "no women participating in combat" is a prickly topic for most groups; anti or pro. Emotions tend to run high and nothing is usually accomplished because neither side of the topic can sufficiently convince the other that it should be allowed or disallowed. So we tend not to discuss this one.

Personally, I don't think an umbrella organization as it exists for the SCA would work for us at this moment in time. "Baby steps" is a good way to start. If it blossoms into idea two, the all the better. I don't think ARMET can spring fully formed from the head of Zeus from the get go. You have to set a "bar", but it should be attainable. The same principles that we are discussing in reaching out to potential members should apply to reaching out to other LH/Re-enactment/Demo groups. A lot of groups are comfy where they are, others want to push the envelope, and some want to remain inbetween. We all have different reasons for doing so.

Perhaps something like what AM has with "La Mais" (shortened here cause I don't want to butcher the name ) where the group elects to make one captial improvement per year. Maybe with ARMET, we could step it up to quarterly or bi-annual improvements to kit.

Not many groups collect membership dues, though members contribute to group projects. One problem I see with the BoD is a lot of groups fear losing their autonomy. So they will choose not to participate and continue as always.

The standards have to be attractive to other groups. If they have to make too many improvements too soon, they won't bother. Why tip the apple cart when it is rolling along? There has to be some compromise without degradation of the "chosen" minimum, but all need to help chose that minimum, even if it might fall short in some aspects of other groups' standards. As I said above, all groups are not going to see eye to eye on all topics and that alone can often be enough for them to decide to not bother.

How do we get other Medieval groups to participate in discussions?

I know we can start by proffering an invite or we can take some of this to the boards where they hang out.

Must go forage...

------------------
The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at a tempting moment.

It's something that those of us involved in SCA equestrian activities have been taking "issue" with for awhile. (Why do I always feel compelled to apologize when I mention my membership in that group??? )You have a group of people that want completely period saddles, brides, caparisons, etc. (Which tends to get iffy with the incredibly broad time span allowed by the SCA.) Then you have a group of people who just really don't care and show up with an odd assortment of nylon tack/saddles and no caparisons. Then we have folks in the middle (like me ) who genuinely enjoy bringing their horses to events, try hard to make time/persona appropriate caparisons and bards but don't have the expertise/money/time to have truly correct tack. Many of us in that group show our horses in the real world and the expense of having a completely different set of tack is beyond us if we also want to make it at shows. However, many people like me have tried very hard to improve a bit over time, so maybe the ones on the low side will see our improvements and take them to heart and the ones on the high side forgive us since we really are trying.

I would LOVE to have a saddle like Jeffrey's but I don't have the skills to make one and I can't afford to have one made for me. (I've been quoted $1300 to start) I do have a very nice bridle made by a friend who does leather working based on one from the Duc d'Berry's Tres Riches Heures, a helm and crest correct for the 14th Century Pas D'Armes style tournies we recreate at Gulf Wars and appropriate hooded caparison for my mount. Maybe my leather working friend will branch out into saddle making and I can trade him riding lessons and clothing for it

Okay, this was kind of rambling, but what I guess I was really trying to say was that often gentle but consistent prodding with achievable goals works very well to bring up standards within a group. Those of you who do it, keep it up--it lights the way for the rest of us!

You could tackle this problem by breaking down your goals into some different phases.

For instance, I think the first step is to get people interested in ARMET. Get them talking about it.

The second would be to have groups start discussing the standards.

The third would be to set the standards.

From a project management standpoint, I think the first thing that should be decided upon is a vision and a "scope or work". By reading through these posts, I see a semblance of such, but nothing appears to have been hard-coded. You might want to dedicate some web space to this. Draft up some documents, and get people to read them. If your group and the red company and other interested parties start linking to this site, it will get some attention.

Once everyone has agreed to where y'all are going, then you can decide how to get there.

The "no women participating in combat" is a prickly topic for most groups; anti or pro. Emotions tend to run high and nothing is usually accomplished because neither side of the topic can sufficiently convince the other that it should be allowed or disallowed. So we tend not to discuss this one.

Perhaps it would be well suited allow groups to make their own decisions on this one. Or allow a group sponsoring an event to make this decision.

For instance, a group could host an event and make the following proclomation:

Women will not be allowed to participate in combat at all.

-or-

women will be allowed to participate in combat only when dressed as men in massed battles where the public will not be able to discerne their femininity.

-or-

We don't care what you do, we're just glad to have you there.

This way, the event rules are laid out in advance, and people can then decide if they wish to attend the event or not based upon those criteria. It will also serve to not alienate groups with differing opinions on this issue.

Another benefit of taking such a tact, you could increase the timeline and let event hosts set those standards as well. This might encourage earlier or later groups to join up or participate.

You have to set a "bar", but it should be attainable. The same principles that we are discussing in reaching out to potential members should apply to reaching out to other LH/Re-enactment/Demo groups. A lot of groups are comfy where they are, others want to push the envelope, and some want to remain inbetween. We all have different reasons for doing so.

Since events are the crux of the matter, and ARMET's purpose is so different groups can participate with each other at events, I have no problem with groups of different periods adhering to the guidelines set forth by ARMET, once decided.

HOWEVER, I personally won't attend any reenactment event where the period isn't very strictly limited and defined, timeline events being the only exception.

I've always felt that a mish mash of periods destroys the atmosphere for me, and that's what I do reenactment for. Having an event where the scenario is "1400-1500" goes completely against my grain. That's why our reenactments have a theme limited to a few days or weeks of history, like "the Aftermath of Tewkesbury" meaning May 5-7, 1471. It gives us all a strong focus, which HELPS us with our research, as opposed to limiting us. It's also cool that we can say to public visiting the camp that "yesterday we fought the Lancastrians" and we know that 500 years ago, our ancestors REALLY DID. (I'm just tickled that our event scheduling worked out that way. I've never understood why the Europen "Tewkesbury" happens in July....)

Many folks think that restricting time period hinders, but it actually sharpens your area of focus and encourages you to concentrate on real nitty gritty details of life during that time. You have more direction to the research that covering a large time span seems to dilute. Since we narrowed our focus, our group has gotten better and above all, more enthusiastic.

------------------
Cheers,

Allowing host groups to set the timeline could potentially increase participatrion from other groups.

For instance, a 14th century group like La Belle could be interested in joining you in your Tewkesbury event. While not all of their kit would be transferrable to a 1471 re-enactment, portions of it would. If they were so inclined, they could get the necessary components to get them to your specs and participate. Just as I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could back-date people in your group to 1385. It might mean that your men-at-arms impressions would have to be left behind and those people become dirt farmers for a day...

I have to agree with Jeff on this one. When I do a field event, I want to be re-enacting a specific event in history, be it the battle of Tewkesbury, The Aftermath of Tewkesbury, The day before Barnet, or just being run down in the snow by a Swiss halberdier at Nancy...... Agincourt or Crecy too. The events themselves need that narrow focus, and the groups participating shoul be focused on the specific event for it's duration. The day I see a French knight of 1340 facing off with me at a specific re-enactment of Bosworth instead of Henry Tudor is the day I hang up my spurs.

That said, Geoff is quite right. I don't think any one of us - Jeffrey especially - would tell a member of La Belle or Novo Milites, that they can't come to our event and participate. When they participate of course, they must conform to the time and place of the event, and visa - versa. This means that if I want to be trudging through the dust of Palastine with the bretheren Knights, I won't be doing it in my spiffy 1460-ish Milanese export harness, and I'll probably have to do it as an infantryman or seargent as I couldent afford multiple upper class portrayals.

I don't see this as a problem at all. Knowing most re-enactors, they are clothing/uniform/weapon/armour/object sluts (if you will pardon the expression) with ethusisim for a number of different Historical periods and itching to try out a new portrayal.

If I am advertising an event as 1467 ARMET, its up to all of you as informed consumers to decide if you want to come play or not. Mark and Linnet,for example, being the dapper 14th century types they are, can call me and ask if their 14th century clothing is ok, and being grownups, we easily come to an agreement.

Set the standard where you like. Raise it as often as you like. (that's part of the fun, making your kit better and better ). But be sure that the term ARMET stands for what you want the group to be. Its easier to go forward than backwards....

(hows that for philosophy )

--AM

I have to disagree here. I've participated at MTA (a timeline event) with La Belle a couple of years ago. I had Gwen specifically make me a separate outfit for wearing in the La Belle camp. I also took my 1471 getup, but stayed out of their camp when I had it on. I wore the 1382 stuff Saturday and hung out in La Belle's camp and ate with them, then Sunday I wore the later stuff and ambled about the rest of the site talking to other reenactors.

I did this for several reasons, among them was respect for what La Belle was doing, and although they didn't compete that year, I knew it dilutes their presentation by having anachronisms in their camp.

Furthermore, virtually no clothing and only limited gear translates between our two groups. Clothing and especially armour is very different from 1382 to 1471. I don't even like to have things outside a 25 year distance from our group. We rarely pay attention to stuff from periods after us, so I'm pretty certain La Belle would take a similar viewpoint. Using earlier artifacts as reference is less troublesome, but you can't usually go back more than 40 years without a large change in style/methodology behind the item.

Having different, clearly delineated areas at an event is an interesting concept, but that would essentially come under the "timeline" type of event in my mind. If you stay in your camp all the time, you can maintain your mindset and framework, but if you decide to visit the other "time" your illusion is compromised.

I vote for all the same time period per event. It's a purer experience, and I'm in it for the idea of atmosphere and capturing a moment in time.

Remember, ARMET is NOT intended to be a club or an organization. Just a philosophy. It's a state of mind, man...........;}

------------------
Cheers,

Perhaps it is a misunderstanding on my part, but I originally thought the whole idea about establishing ARMET was to provide a "recognized set of minimum standards" for 15th century medieval groups to get together and participate with each other. This is what it means to me... your mileage may very.

1) A specific snapshot in time is chosen by the host group

2) The event is advertised as an ARMET event.

3) All groups/people that wish to participate recognize and understand that the "published" event is playing by ARMET guidelines can participate if they wish, if they meet the established minimum.

This assumes of course that some minimum standard has been created by consensus.

Is it a standard or a philosophy? I mean if it is just a philosophy with no substance other than an "ideal", then why are we bothering? We might as well continue as we always have. I mean, do we want something that is subject to interpretation, or do we want something that states specifically what is expected?

I thought it was the latter.

On a side note:

I no longer think that ARMET should reserve itself for just the 15th Century. I think it should allow other groups to participate, however, I think that an event should be a single snapshot in time be it 1382 in which all participates on a site meet the minimum standard/time specs for that event, or 1485 in which nothing outside the scope of 1450-1485 will be accepted on the field/camp/what have you. Though you could have an ARMET timeline event.

So what is ARMET?

As one of the founders of ARMET, I thought I should get my two cents in regarding the tack this little ship of a thread has taken.

Coming from the perspective of a re-enactor, and having delt with multiple re-enactment eras, the first thing I must say is that ARMET cannot and should not be "all things to all eras" to paraphrase. It's concept always was and always has been to have a mutually understood minimum standard of authenticity to -

1. Allow existing WoR era groups to participate with one another with a mutually understood minimum standard of authenticity (just like every other time period re-enacted but us Medieval types in the US have trouble with this one due to the infuence of other outside Medieval-ish societies and or RennFairs)

2. Have an existing framework/association/alliance of these groups to encourage new WoR groups to join with us.

3. Have a mutually understood simplistic system of military interaction allowing skirmishes between these groups when practical. Please note, this in no way is to be construed as competative martial sport, but rather the mechanisim for acting out events with known results as in following the script of a play. We all know who won the Battle of Tewkesbury, and none of our groups have a social system set up based on competative martial prowess so there is nothing to be gained or lost save for a visual glimpse of a Medieval battle sans bloodshed.

This is not intended to be exclusionary of other Medieval groups from other eras. If a group portraying the 12th c. wants to use the ideas incorporated in the ARMET minimum standard to form their own, they are welcome to - more power to them. If a group wishes to depict the Hundred Years War, unless they are depicting the very last stage of it, they would be better served by having their own alliance that specifically fits their needs and timeframe. The only time we could all interact together is at a timeline event - which I (and every other group in ARMET to my knowledge) has no problem with.

It would be Hubris in the extreme for ARMET to seek to be some sort of yardstick for these other eras. It is tough enough doing the reasearch to figure out what most probably is authentic (always due to revision at the next find dug up) for a span of 20 years, nevermind covering centuries outside ones area of primary study. Those groups from other eras must come up with and maintain their own standards, and would most probably find it offensive for some coalition of groups outside their era to even consider doing so (I know I would).

The hopeful end of all this is to see WoR era re-enactment flourish in this country Considering the interest in the later half of the 15th c., I don't think this is a pipe dream at all. More so if we have groups existing dedicated to a high standard - then people can look and say WOW ! COOL! I want to do that!

The task is more difficult if we fumble around in the dark and do not seek to cooperate with each other as groups - which is Why Red Company and Wolfe Argent have been discussing ARMET since the latter part of 1997. What we are agreed on is we do not want it to be some monolithic entity like other Medievally themed groups have (and there are at least a half dozen in this country). This is not our intent or desire in any way.

Red Company has it's high authenticity precisely because it is a small clearly defined group with concrete goals and standards. It compares well to other good re-enactment/living history groups in other periods of re-enactment - precisely because these other periods are "done" by small groups or units like this, and agree to co-operate together at events. It is the basic principle of re-enactment to have coalitions of indpendently run groups that get together for specific clearly defined events operating at a known, declared minimum standard of authenticity. To my understanding, this is the ultimate goal of ARMET - to be the cooperative standard we as WoR era groups use to interact with each other at specific events. The other founders can clarify this point if I am mistaken.

I hope this helps to clear the air and define our purpose.

You've got it pegged.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeffrey Hedgecock http://www.historicenterprises.com

Good grief, I have blue jeans and t-shirts that are 25 years old that I still wear! My late '60s Hendrix concert t-shirt is over 30 years old, and still is "fashionable" in the right situations. Why would it have been so different then? We mass produce this stuff now, they held on to things until they wore out. I think only the rich "followed" fashions, the rest did the best they could. And if you had a 100 year old sword, you'd take it with you rather than do without.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seigneur de Leon:

I think only the rich "followed" fashions, the rest did the best they could.

---

Guild records call for a new suit of clothes every year. While I doubt that mr Joe Average guy would get the newest fanciest stuff, they would still represent the current trends. Even if the "new" clothes were handmedowns from their betters, THOSE clothes would represent newer trends, even if a year or two out of date.

If you wear a garment all day every day, it lasts about a year (if you're lucky), even with todays artificial fibers, gentle mechanical washing and gentler modern soaps.

Setting a window for clothing and other "consumables" (metal items would tend to wear out slower, no?) taht is even, say, 10 years wide, seems appropriate to me.