I read that a while ago, I forget who recommended it to me, I think one of the GMU posse. I didn't even realize you were the author until just now. Thanks for writing that.
I’d love to read more about what myths about the past you learned, through SCA, are untrue. Also about other technologies they pulled off well (I’m thinking of the design of your bed), how it compares to today’s equivalent, and why you reckon it changed. Either of those would make great posts, I think.
I think there is a tendency to overestimate the weight of swords and armor. Period swords weighted about a pound/foot — I have an article on the subject in the _Miscellany_, based on published museum figures. With a (rattan) sword of about the weight and balance of a steel sword I could strike five full force blows in about three and a half seconds. Some fighters wear full plate and move just fine in it.
One thing I never bothered to do in the SCA was to create a persona. I was happy enough to be myself, since I was primarily interested in fighting. As I discovered later, no one in my local group knew that... I was filling out the sign up sheet for some event with one of my friends' fiancé running the table, and she helpfully pointed out I had put my persona name in the spot my legal name was supposed to go. This highlighted three funny things to me:
1: I had known this woman and her fiancé for 4 years, and they knew my fiancé-then-wife as well as my father, they had been to my house, and she had never once asked me my real name, despite not thinking they knew it.
2: She (and possibly he) had been assuming for 4 years that I was so committed to the bit that I had never once failed to respond to my alias, responded to my real name by accident, and that I even went so far as to have my wife and father(!) refer to me by my alias at all times.
3: None of that had seemed unusual enough to ask about in the SCA, until I wrote it in apparently the wrong spot on a form.
I can't quite decide if that more says something about me, them, or members of the SCA in general :D
People who interact within the Society generally do it using persona names, may not know each others' mundane name. If you were interacting with these people in a non-society context it is a little odd for them to assume you were using your Society name, but not that odd, possibly less odd than for you to use your mundane name in the Society context. .
Exactly. It hadn't really occurred to me since I had been introduced to the SCA by a college friend, and knew the real names of most of the people in the campus group (to the extent that I knew anyone's name; I am terrible with remembering names). When I moved after college and joined a local group, I just introduced myself as myself and learned the real names of most of the people I talked to on a regular basis. I just assumed everyone knew my name was my name. It was a good lesson in not assuming people know or presume the same things I do.
If the Hejira was on "June 21, 622 AD" then how can "the late fifth century [be] after the Hejira"?
EXISTENCE PROBLEM:
>>"I do not know what Mohammad [was] like but I have a reasonable idea of how [...] to see out of his eyes."
I guess you didn't see anything. There was no "Muhammad" – that "person" was conjured from the honorific "mkmd," which means "praised," centuries after that charlatan's supposed existence:
Your parsing is unsound. If David had written "the late fifth century, after the Hejira," that would be read as "the later fifth century" (presumably A.D., as that is what that means in the United States), "[which happened to be] after the Hejira" (which would be false in the way you discuss). This would be a nonrestrictive usage, in which "the late fifth century" by itself is an absolute identifier, and the phrase that follows is an additional fact, perhaps of interest. But David wrote "the late fifth century after the Hejira," which is a restrictive usage, in which the words "after the Hejira" specify the exact meaning of those preceding: in this case, fifth-century-after-the-Hejira, or fifth century A.H. (rather than fifth-century A.D.). The fifth century after the Hejira would naturally fall in the eleventh or early twelfth century A.D.
If the Hejira took place in Anno Domini 622, then "five centuries after the Hejira" is Anno Domini 1122. But "the fifth century after the Hejira" is Anno Domini 1023-1122. The first is a specific point in time; the second is a hundred-year interval that ends at that point. They are not synonymous.
If they base their year 0/1 on something different, it still makes sense to refer to late, early, mid, or any other adjective, just as with Christian centuries. There is nothing convoluted about it.
In AD time the persona is 1100s, but in the eyes of a Muslim at the time it would be the late 5th century after the Hejira, or 622 + 500 years.
Regarding Muhammad, Friedman was referring again to how his persona would have thought about Muhammad.
A good rule of thumb is to reread what people write when you think they are making mistakes, especially if the mistakes are or should be obvious, and ensure that you didn't misunderstand what they wrote. It helps avoid errors of this sort.
To get to your meaning, the phrase should have been "5 centuries after the Hejira." The phrase as written makes no sense.
Regarding Muhammad, Friedman says "I [as in David Friedman] have a reasonable idea." To get to your meaning the phrase should have been "My persona gives me a reasonable idea."
A good rule of thumb is to re-read before you make such mistakes.
You are entirely incorrect, on both counts, as another has also pointed out. It is perfectly understandable to say "I am in the fifth car after the large red truck", just as it makes perfect sense to say "The twentieth century after the birth of Christ."
Likewise it is perfectly understandable to say that "I have a reasonable idea how my kid views Santa Claus." It is not at all necessary to say "My kid gives me a reasonable idea how she views Santa Claus." In fact, you would sound a bit like an alien if you said it like that.
My father was athiest, my mother a devout Catholic. I had serious doubts about weather god was real when I entered university. Physics erased that doubt very soon. Living without a god has made my life a lot easier. My 85 years living on this earth
has allowed me to co-exist with both views. Because it just doesn't matter to me.
My corner of the SCA has an astonishing number of Dans.
It has become customary to refer to any couple containing a Dan as <her legal> & <his SCA> to avoid confusion. Otherwise you’d see Dan and Dan, Squires of Sir Dan, chatting with their Knight and Count Dan and Baron Dan, (squire to Count Dan) about how Jeff keeps winning Crown Tourney (8 times last I checked)
My analog of your historical re-creation is running tabletop roleplaying campaigns (a better fit both to my budget and to my predominantly verbal and quantitative mentality). That can involve thinking in terms of different cultures, and asking players to do so. In one of my current campaigns, my wife is playing a young women from a devout Methodist family who has acquired mysterious powers over static electricity and is unsure of their source; in a recent episode where she and a rival both took part in a field trip of their comparative religion class,
* Rose, midway through the sweat, gained a vivid sense of the presence of a powerful spirit. She asked it, silently, in her thoughts, “Who are you?” and sense the answer “I am who I am,” which she connected with God’s words to Moses on Mount Sinai. Awed, she whispered something that neither Cat nor Abram could understand, though they both knew she had spoken, and both of them felt a supernatural or spiritual presence in or around her. Abram found the experience awakening something in him that left him off balance; he was able to resist, but only by an exercise of self-discipline that closed off his supernatural gifts.
* Rose’s would-be social rival, Ashley, looked at Rose and apparently also sensed the spirit within her; she stared at Rose and her eyes got wide. That got the attention of both Emilia, who was there partly to keep an eye on the women, and Abram. Emilia moved closer and asked if Ashley was all right—and Ashley fainted, though Emilia was quick enough to catch her before she fell. Abram got up and, calling on his animal powers, enhanced his strength and carried Ashley out; Emilia started to follow, but turned back when Cat’s grandmother got up.
* When Ashley fainted, Rose realized that Ashley had been staring at her for a couple of minutes, though Rose hadn’t been consciously noticing. She asked her spirit what she should say to Ashley, and the spirit said, “Tell her not to be afraid.” Rose thought about what she had experienced and concluded that her visitor was in fact the Spirit—though it might also be identified as the Great Spirit of native American belief. Half an hour later, the sweat was brought to an end, and while the other women were changing, Rose sought out Ashley (disregarding Emilia’s asking what she was doing) and said to her, “Be not afraid”—and Ashley actually accepted that.
The ability to improvise a plausible narrative for a character and setting can lead to some interesting places. I certainly don't share Rose's religious perspective, but I can take it seriously for narrative purposes (as, conversely, Dorothy Sayers wrote that she could respect Peter Wimsey's nonreligious perspective in her writing).
How would your Islamic character view the world today? Would love to see that simulated perspective.
"Legal Systems Very Different from Ours"
I read that a while ago, I forget who recommended it to me, I think one of the GMU posse. I didn't even realize you were the author until just now. Thanks for writing that.
I'm the author of most of it. One chapter is written by Peter Leeson and one by David Skarbek, both at my request.
This was a cool post.
I’d love to read more about what myths about the past you learned, through SCA, are untrue. Also about other technologies they pulled off well (I’m thinking of the design of your bed), how it compares to today’s equivalent, and why you reckon it changed. Either of those would make great posts, I think.
I think there is a tendency to overestimate the weight of swords and armor. Period swords weighted about a pound/foot — I have an article on the subject in the _Miscellany_, based on published museum figures. With a (rattan) sword of about the weight and balance of a steel sword I could strike five full force blows in about three and a half seconds. Some fighters wear full plate and move just fine in it.
One thing I never bothered to do in the SCA was to create a persona. I was happy enough to be myself, since I was primarily interested in fighting. As I discovered later, no one in my local group knew that... I was filling out the sign up sheet for some event with one of my friends' fiancé running the table, and she helpfully pointed out I had put my persona name in the spot my legal name was supposed to go. This highlighted three funny things to me:
1: I had known this woman and her fiancé for 4 years, and they knew my fiancé-then-wife as well as my father, they had been to my house, and she had never once asked me my real name, despite not thinking they knew it.
2: She (and possibly he) had been assuming for 4 years that I was so committed to the bit that I had never once failed to respond to my alias, responded to my real name by accident, and that I even went so far as to have my wife and father(!) refer to me by my alias at all times.
3: None of that had seemed unusual enough to ask about in the SCA, until I wrote it in apparently the wrong spot on a form.
I can't quite decide if that more says something about me, them, or members of the SCA in general :D
People who interact within the Society generally do it using persona names, may not know each others' mundane name. If you were interacting with these people in a non-society context it is a little odd for them to assume you were using your Society name, but not that odd, possibly less odd than for you to use your mundane name in the Society context. .
Exactly. It hadn't really occurred to me since I had been introduced to the SCA by a college friend, and knew the real names of most of the people in the campus group (to the extent that I knew anyone's name; I am terrible with remembering names). When I moved after college and joined a local group, I just introduced myself as myself and learned the real names of most of the people I talked to on a regular basis. I just assumed everyone knew my name was my name. It was a good lesson in not assuming people know or presume the same things I do.
DATE PROBLEM?
If the Hejira was on "June 21, 622 AD" then how can "the late fifth century [be] after the Hejira"?
EXISTENCE PROBLEM:
>>"I do not know what Mohammad [was] like but I have a reasonable idea of how [...] to see out of his eyes."
I guess you didn't see anything. There was no "Muhammad" – that "person" was conjured from the honorific "mkmd," which means "praised," centuries after that charlatan's supposed existence:
https://youtu.be/eBOsrvShAwI?t=81
Your parsing is unsound. If David had written "the late fifth century, after the Hejira," that would be read as "the later fifth century" (presumably A.D., as that is what that means in the United States), "[which happened to be] after the Hejira" (which would be false in the way you discuss). This would be a nonrestrictive usage, in which "the late fifth century" by itself is an absolute identifier, and the phrase that follows is an additional fact, perhaps of interest. But David wrote "the late fifth century after the Hejira," which is a restrictive usage, in which the words "after the Hejira" specify the exact meaning of those preceding: in this case, fifth-century-after-the-Hejira, or fifth century A.H. (rather than fifth-century A.D.). The fifth century after the Hejira would naturally fall in the eleventh or early twelfth century A.D.
Good grief, what a convoluted mess! Why not just say "5 centuries after the Hejira"? This is straightforward, simple, and good English.
I'll leave this to DF to clarify, if he's so inclined.
William correctly reads my meaning.
One of my father's sayings was that someone who makes a mistake and won't admit it is only hurting himself twice.
You mean "correctly decodes my meaning."
"5 centuries after the Hejira" is clear English.
Your formulation is gibberish. Sorry about that!
And as my Texas father used to say:
"Never 'rassle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it."
If the Hejira took place in Anno Domini 622, then "five centuries after the Hejira" is Anno Domini 1122. But "the fifth century after the Hejira" is Anno Domini 1023-1122. The first is a specific point in time; the second is a hundred-year interval that ends at that point. They are not synonymous.
If they base their year 0/1 on something different, it still makes sense to refer to late, early, mid, or any other adjective, just as with Christian centuries. There is nothing convoluted about it.
Which is clearer and unmistakable?
"5 centuries after the Hejira."
Or:
Whatever gibberish you're slinging.
Try to be objective, if you can manage it.
Which is a better sign of being clear?
You confused and whining.
Three people telling you it’s clear.
Your reading comprehension is a bit off.
In AD time the persona is 1100s, but in the eyes of a Muslim at the time it would be the late 5th century after the Hejira, or 622 + 500 years.
Regarding Muhammad, Friedman was referring again to how his persona would have thought about Muhammad.
A good rule of thumb is to reread what people write when you think they are making mistakes, especially if the mistakes are or should be obvious, and ensure that you didn't misunderstand what they wrote. It helps avoid errors of this sort.
Not quite.
To get to your meaning, the phrase should have been "5 centuries after the Hejira." The phrase as written makes no sense.
Regarding Muhammad, Friedman says "I [as in David Friedman] have a reasonable idea." To get to your meaning the phrase should have been "My persona gives me a reasonable idea."
A good rule of thumb is to re-read before you make such mistakes.
You are entirely incorrect, on both counts, as another has also pointed out. It is perfectly understandable to say "I am in the fifth car after the large red truck", just as it makes perfect sense to say "The twentieth century after the birth of Christ."
Likewise it is perfectly understandable to say that "I have a reasonable idea how my kid views Santa Claus." It is not at all necessary to say "My kid gives me a reasonable idea how she views Santa Claus." In fact, you would sound a bit like an alien if you said it like that.
My father was athiest, my mother a devout Catholic. I had serious doubts about weather god was real when I entered university. Physics erased that doubt very soon. Living without a god has made my life a lot easier. My 85 years living on this earth
has allowed me to co-exist with both views. Because it just doesn't matter to me.
My corner of the SCA has an astonishing number of Dans.
It has become customary to refer to any couple containing a Dan as <her legal> & <his SCA> to avoid confusion. Otherwise you’d see Dan and Dan, Squires of Sir Dan, chatting with their Knight and Count Dan and Baron Dan, (squire to Count Dan) about how Jeff keeps winning Crown Tourney (8 times last I checked)
My analog of your historical re-creation is running tabletop roleplaying campaigns (a better fit both to my budget and to my predominantly verbal and quantitative mentality). That can involve thinking in terms of different cultures, and asking players to do so. In one of my current campaigns, my wife is playing a young women from a devout Methodist family who has acquired mysterious powers over static electricity and is unsure of their source; in a recent episode where she and a rival both took part in a field trip of their comparative religion class,
* Rose, midway through the sweat, gained a vivid sense of the presence of a powerful spirit. She asked it, silently, in her thoughts, “Who are you?” and sense the answer “I am who I am,” which she connected with God’s words to Moses on Mount Sinai. Awed, she whispered something that neither Cat nor Abram could understand, though they both knew she had spoken, and both of them felt a supernatural or spiritual presence in or around her. Abram found the experience awakening something in him that left him off balance; he was able to resist, but only by an exercise of self-discipline that closed off his supernatural gifts.
* Rose’s would-be social rival, Ashley, looked at Rose and apparently also sensed the spirit within her; she stared at Rose and her eyes got wide. That got the attention of both Emilia, who was there partly to keep an eye on the women, and Abram. Emilia moved closer and asked if Ashley was all right—and Ashley fainted, though Emilia was quick enough to catch her before she fell. Abram got up and, calling on his animal powers, enhanced his strength and carried Ashley out; Emilia started to follow, but turned back when Cat’s grandmother got up.
* When Ashley fainted, Rose realized that Ashley had been staring at her for a couple of minutes, though Rose hadn’t been consciously noticing. She asked her spirit what she should say to Ashley, and the spirit said, “Tell her not to be afraid.” Rose thought about what she had experienced and concluded that her visitor was in fact the Spirit—though it might also be identified as the Great Spirit of native American belief. Half an hour later, the sweat was brought to an end, and while the other women were changing, Rose sought out Ashley (disregarding Emilia’s asking what she was doing) and said to her, “Be not afraid”—and Ashley actually accepted that.
The ability to improvise a plausible narrative for a character and setting can lead to some interesting places. I certainly don't share Rose's religious perspective, but I can take it seriously for narrative purposes (as, conversely, Dorothy Sayers wrote that she could respect Peter Wimsey's nonreligious perspective in her writing).