Archery and Knightly Combat

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 5:34 pm

Rhys: "...Cheval is ... largely influenced by *modern* romances."

Whoa! Take that back!!

If I were to summarize my own pursuit, it would be to achieve an understanding of medieval romantic inspiration and find a common ground for application in our modern culture. It's not the details of the life of William Marshal that interests me; it's the myth and legend that grew up around and after him (though I accept it is impossible to gain an understanding of the latter without a command of the former). For example, why was Edward I so bloody interested in Arthur that he went out of his way to grant Royal recognition of the graves uncovered at Glastonbury? And what was the point of Edward III's fascination with a discarded garter such that he formed an entire order of knighthood around its symbolism?

While I may not be strict in my academic application, I am working from primary and contemporary secondary sources as much as possible -- or at least the modern, scholarly interpretations of same. I donâ€™t need Hollywood to interpret The Cid for me (though you have to admit that fighting with a saddle is an interesting idea), and while I may enjoy Conan Doyle, I read him for correlation, not for inspiration.

Modern romances, my eye. Geez, the least you could have done is ask meâ€¦ -c-

Khann · Post by **Khann** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 5:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
 You can both feel and hear good solid shots when you're wearing plate if the plate is fit correctly. More SCAdian misinformation, I'm afraid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you can feel ca shots all the time? There are problems with basic callibration. When you bring ca in this causes more problems.

Khann

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 7:14 pm

Good answers all around!
It is so difficult to even begin understanding medieval people...the only thing we can be sure of is that somewhere there has always been a Chivalric Reform movement raging and ranting. There is one thing I know for sure- our "discussions" would surely be recognized by medieval knights as part of the Life. I am reminded of the time that DuGuesclin burst into Chandos' tent over a breach in chivalric conduct. What was that imbroglio about again?
-V

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 7:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
Rhys: "...Cheval is ... largely influenced by *modern* romances."

Whoa! Take that back!!

If I were to summarize my own pursuit, it would be to achieve an understanding of medieval romantic inspiration and find a common ground for application in our modern culture. It's not the details of the life of William Marshal that interests me; it's the myth and legend that grew up around and after him (though I accept it is impossible to gain an understanding of the latter without a command of the former). For example, why was Edward I so bloody interested in Arthur that he went out of his way to grant Royal recognition of the graves uncovered at Glastonbury? And what was the point of Edward III's fascination with a discarded garter such that he formed an entire order of knighthood around its symbolism?

While I may not be strict in my academic application, I am working from primary and contemporary secondary sources as much as possible -- or at least the modern, scholarly interpretations of same. I donâ€™t need Hollywood to interpret The Cid for me (though you have to admit that fighting with a saddle is an interesting idea), and while I may enjoy Conan Doyle, I read him for correlation, not for inspiration.

Modern romances, my eye. Geez, the least you could have done is ask meâ€¦ -c-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry; I honestly did not mean to offend, and I apologize if I have. But I've read other things you've written, I think, in which you've referenced purely modern influences, e.g., Tolkien. I didn't mean to imply you were *only* influenced by modern sources, I was merely pointing out the difference between us. Since I, too, acknowledge the importance of the influence of medieval romantic sources, that part we have in common, and I didn't feel it necessary to point that out.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 10:15 pm

Hi Syr Rhys,

Here is a list of battle post 1364 fought primarily by mounted men at arms, in which they were a decisive factor. Note, it is only a partial list - by no means exhaustive, and spread across the 15th century to give a good sampling. I think it validates my previous posts regarding the topic.

Bauge 1421

English vs. French, principly notable in that the English force commanded by Thomas, Duke of Clarence (younger brother to Henry V) was entirely composed of mounted men at arms who fought mounted. (English lost)

Patay 1429 (French mounted, English force partly dismounted)

San Romano 1436 - almost exclusively a cavalry action

Montlehery 1465

Neusse (battle of) 1475

Fornovo 1495

Now, can you find me a list of battles where the knights and mounted men at arms fought nearly, or entirely dismounted prior to Homidon Hill? I will give you a hint - you will find one during the Franco/Plantagenet conflict to control the Angevin empire.

As an aside, you are confusing the battle of the Herrings (1429) where John Fastolf commanded (and the reason for him temporarily losing his Garter), with Castillon, 1451, Where John Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury lost Englands final foothold in Gascony.

------------------
Bob R.

[This message has been edited by chef de chambre (edited 02-24-2002).]

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:06 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
As an aside, you are confusing the battle of the Herrings (1429) where John Fastolf commanded (and the reason for him temporarily losing his Garter), with Castillon, 1451, Where John Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury lost Englands final foothold in Gascony.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops... you're right, sorry, it was Talbot, but it was 1453 I think, not 1451.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have a bit more time, buI just wanted to apoligize for the mistake.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Cedric · Post by **Cedric** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:08 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Irish:
Like it or not, CA is in the SCA, and not likely to go away. This leaves everyone with a few options.

1) Play anyway.

2) Stay out of battles with CA.

3) Run events with no CA - good luck trying to get them out of GW, Pennsic, or Estrella.
(snip)

Diolun<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the record, Estrella this year did not allow CA at all on Friday. Saturday had it, dont know about Sunday (cause I took the day off after the Thunder/Drafn battle)

Cedric

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:21 pm

No Problemo,

You were working off memory, as was I, and none of us are perfect!

------------------
Bob R.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:25 pm

There are quite a few examples of early battles where the knights dismounted in Delbruck.
-V

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 2:32 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
[BI would quibble with you on one small point, however: I believe that medieval knights avoided attacking archers not because, as is commonly believed, they thought them beneath their station or as unworthy foes, but because they were of relatively little danger on the field. The danger lay in the men at arms, so best to kill them first, then butcher the filthy peasants at your leisure. And there are plenty of references to it happening in just that way.

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was reading an account of part of the hundred years war, when it was very common on the English side to take the field with archer to men-at-arms & knights ratios of 4:1. This was just one of the small independent skirmishes that took place in France.

They were attacking an area near a small castle. I think the numbers were about 4k archers, and 1k maa&knights. Knights met knights, and the English knights were driven from the field. No big deal, it happens. French knights attack English archers. The group of archers being attacked break and run. Which is understandable, a ton or so of steel and flesh is coming at you, on foot. Those that break and run, are executed.

Why, are these archers, who are of much lower station, and less well armored than their attackers, executed if they are using a weapon that merely annoys? The knights were apparently not punished, and they do have the armor to protect them, and the weapons to do harm.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 3:00 am

I posted last month, I think about the tests conducted at Warwick Castle, and described in Primitive Archer. After some complained that it wasn't "the proper sort of steel" (to quote you, although I don't recall the exact quotes or who) I listed the strength values given for wrought iron and several types of mild steel. The values listed in the 26th edition of The Machinery's Handbook seemed to indicate that the mild steels could equal or exceed the strengths for wrought iron (as I recall). When I specifically asked what they wanted to use, there was no answer. Which I could only assume meant that "they did it wrong, but I don't know how to do it right."

If you test something, under ideal conditions, and it fails, then it may not work. If you test something under ideal conditions, and it works, it is at least possible, which the critics didn't seem to want to admit.

It may not have been as good as the best armor, but it was probably as good as some armor- and it did penetrate. They did not claim a 100% success rate, but they had a significant number of successes.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joaquin:
I think I heard about those tests, Winterfell. IIRC, the armour was definitely not the proper sort of steel that period armour was constructed from. Ias far as I am concerned, that alone invalidates the tests. Moreover, I believe they merely propped the piece up against something, and placed a sandbag in it. Hardly a decent way of simulating a human body.

If the longbow was so freaking effective, why did people continue to wear armour? What about armour of proof?

No. I'd wager plate-armoured man had little to fear from a longbowman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 5:22 am

Rhys: "I've read other things you've written, I think, in which you've referenced purely modern influences, e.g., Tolkien."

Nope. Not me. Well, maybe "Sir Nigel", but like I said, only for correlation *grin*... -c-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-25-2002).]

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 8:56 am

What about crossbows? Longbows were slowly being replaced by the crossbow in the later eras, and crossbows did go through plate. Crossbows created far more energy that longbows did at the same pull weight and cross bows went over 150 pounds. They were so strong they needed cranks to cock them. Also there are no simulations for firearms on the field and they most defiantly punched thought plate. But for the longbow argument I have read they could go through plate, but not how effectively that they did. Plate had other advantages than arrow deflection.

Flonzy

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:26 am

You know, after reading all of this, I saw this one quote from SoFC, and it made me chuckle.

"I wish they would up the poundages so that they carried some more oopmh!"

You know......

That is the one use I can find for sport armored chivalry....(grin)
The guys out there with belts, a helm and bodybracelet....and not much else.
Start nailing THOSE guys with powerful bows and crossbows......once they start bitching, we've got an "in" to get rid CA.

You think I'm kidding?
(grin)

VvS

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:45 am

The advantage crossbows had over longbows were that it took far less training to use, and you could utilize mechanical advantages to have greater poundage than was available through human muscle power. Some crossbows, using cranks, went up to about 1200 pounds.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:53 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
[BWhy, are these archers, who are of much lower station, and less well armored than their attackers, executed if they are using a weapon that merely annoys? The knights were apparently not punished, and they do have the armor to protect them, and the weapons to do harm. [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, you shouldn't read "not able to kill armored knights very often" as the same thing as "merely annoying"

Of course the knights weren't punished; they're gentlemen! You don't slaughter gentlemen if you can help it. But the archers are both very useful to the English and nothing but peasants (actually not a very good term here, I'm using it as a collective for all non-noble peoples).

But archers were *very* effective, else the English wouldn't have been stupid enough to take them along!

First, they can kill horses (and contrary to what Chef says, even in the later 15th century I don't think complete horse armor was all that common... but I'm not an expert on that. Certainly the MS paintings show a *lot* of unarmored horses on the field). Horses were *expensive*. If you were a knight and some peasant (see above) had just killed your several-hundered-crown destrier, how would you feel about him? Moreover, by dismounting their knights, the archers forced the French to play into the English plan; without mobile troops the French had to pretty much just assault the English position. Second, the arrows were *very* effective against more lighlty-armored troops, such as the Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy. Third, they were hell on morale; after all, a lucky shot *could* hit an unprotected spot and cause a terrible wound from time to time, and just the constant iron rain must have effected morale.

Sorry, I know it's important in this egalitarian country to think the heroic English longbowmen won the battles of the HYW, but the fact is that the main battles were really wone by noble English men at arms.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
Rhys: "I've read other things you've written, I think, in which you've referenced purely modern influences, e.g., Tolkien."

Nope. Not me. Well, maybe "Sir Nigel", but like I said, only for correlation *grin*... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I have both mis-remembered what you wrote and wronged you by that error. I humbly apologize and ask your forgiveness.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:42 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
[B]and you could utilize mechanical advantages to have greater poundage than was available through human muscle power.[B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's almost certainly why the Iron Lords (a group drawn up of the squires of the Vltava district of southern Bohemia) used the crossbow. The Taborite chronicler detailing Zizka's fight with them didn't seem to find it unusual.

Edit: but perhaps since armour penetration is being discussed, I should describe the chronicle reference. The Iron lords are attacking the heretic peasants, who pull their wagons up around a pond, and as night falls, the Iron Lords are unable, in the dark, to tell who is who, and often inadvertently attack each other, saying "my sword does not cut, my crossbow does not shoot!"

That's point-blank range, so you can imagine that plate was pretty effective.

[This message has been edited by Russ Mitchell (edited 02-25-2002).]

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 3:48 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
[BIf you were a knight and some peasant (see above) had just killed your several-hundered-crown destrier, how would you feel about him[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should say "Thank you, you ignorant smelly serf. I now know what I am having for dinner. Do you have any Grey Poupon? Red wine is the most appropriate for horse, don't you agree?"

[This message has been edited by Alcyoneus (edited 02-25-2002).]

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 3:57 pm

Okay so what is the armour 'standard" for SCA
I have heard lots of folks here say full plate but I have also heard SCA standard of "presumed mail, boiled leather limb armour and open-faced helmet",
Which is it and is there any specific documentation that supports it? Unfortunately I do not keep my SCA Handbook of the Knowne World with me at work.
If it is the later, than all combat archery is valid, if not, then let the debate continue!

------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 4:04 pm

"The guys out there with belts, a helm and bodybracelet....and not much else.
Start nailing THOSE guys with powerful bows and crossbows......once they start bitching, we've got an "in" to get rid CA."

Ya know they're already out there and they already do. No need to wish for more.

As for our bow weights being dangerous.

I was at Gulf wars a few years back, i was on the side line waiting for the battle to end. An archer misfired his cross bow or something and i got shot in the forhead with a baldar sans helmet. Now it didn't feel good, but it didn't really hurt. It was an accident and the guy was really apoligetic.

BUT if the bows we are using are as powerful and dangerous as somepeople seem to act, why do so many people ignore arow hits? I mean with the golf tubes you can sometimes catch the things out of the air, they suck.

My rule of thumb on most saftey things is; is the activity in question more dangerous than getting hit with a 6 ft bat in minimal armour?

besides killing archers is fun!

Rorik Galbraith · Post by **Rorik Galbraith** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 4:49 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Winterfell:
Okay so what is the armour 'standard" for SCA
I have heard lots of folks here say full plate but I have also heard SCA standard of "presumed mail, boiled leather limb armour and open-faced helmet",
Which is it and is there any specific documentation that supports it? Unfortunately I do not keep my SCA Handbook of the Knowne World with me at work.
If it is the later, than all combat archery is valid, if not, then let the debate continue!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before Sir Conn sees this post and 'adjusts' the thought patterns again....remember...the SCA standard is what you just said and that maille (rivited) is proof against arrows as they were used in combat of the times. Now if you get one in the face...you died..but in the body? It was very annoying to have to pluck a knight, but he still went back and kicked but. Maille is proof against arrow fire in all but point blank shooting. The only thing really capable of penitrating maille even a bit is a bodkin and they don't do well. Broad heads just bounce.

I have shot dummies (the stuffed kind, not the moble ones) which have had rivited maille on them using a long bow of 60lbs at 25, 50, and 75 yards and broad head arrows....they would not penitrate at anything greater than 25 yards. They did have a tendancy to explode into many little pieces of wood (lots of splinters in the body...looked like a hedghog) and a busted arrow head or two. That was with #29 spline weight arrows with standard broadhead (leaf shape) and a Fred Bear Grizzly recurve 60 lb pull.
We shot lots of arrows at this thing and broke most of the arrows. In all the shots, only three rings even broke so I don't think your argument of SCA standard will hold water. When we tried this with butted maille, there were quite a few 'fletchings' that would have just been bad for the person in the maille, but I doubt if any would have been fatal.

And besides, if we are doing this properly even that little backyard exibition was done dead wrong. The arrows should have been 'clout' shot and since we did not have anyone good enough to shoot that way and even come close to the target and we did not have a few hundred extra archers...the test is really not indicative of the arrow proofness of maille. But it sure was fun watching the arrows shred.

Of course when it comes to Combat archery...this subject of shooting peoples instead of meeting them on the field nose to nose, we do not follow even our own SCA armour standard...every thing kills except if you hit on top of the pot.

Ok, back to regularly scheduled Combat Archery bashing.

------------------
An oath, like an arrow, can not be recalled once loosed....think well before uttering such bindings and then stand fast to them.

[This message has been edited by Rorik Galbraith (edited 02-25-2002).]

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 5:10 pm

Rorik,
It sounds like you were using a modern bow that has a draw weight of half of what a period long bow was.

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:32 pm

Cheval wrote:
FrauHirsch: "There were rules/conventions of engagement in war in period just as there are in war today."

If you are comparing medieval warfare to modern warfare, the rules apply to protecting civilian populations and captured prisoners. And even these were not inviolate in period, as is evidenced by the execution of the English prisoners when Henry thought his flank had been overrun during Agincourt. I'm sure the English weren't overlyconcerned when they found it necessary to "break the rules".

And many of our participants in the SCA are not overly concerned about breaking the rules when it suits their needs or in the heat of the moment. Rules have always been there in wars and rules have been there in tournaments. I'd bet that rules were broken in their tournaments too. I don't believe the existance or non-existance of rules create a definition.

FrauHirsch: "What are we trying to simulate? I think we are trying to simulate warfare...."

As were the medievals. And when they did, they called it "tournament". 

But I don't believe that we are trying to simulate medievals "simulating" a war. We aren't trying to recreate a tournament, even a melee tournament.

I believe we are attempting to replicate a war and doing so in our own muddled modern fashion. We get to make whatever rules we like and call it whatever we like.

You may think its more like a tournament, especially for your persona. Sometimes I think we are closer to playing rounders and townball, also period ways to simulate warfare in a less dangerous fashion than real war.

We will just have to disagree here. Where I come from in Caid, we have a very military culture. We play army. A good 90% of the fighters in my area have personas that are Norse, Roman or just post Roman.

Some of other kingdoms have always had more of a tournament/individual fighter culture. Each person's perception of the SCA will be different based on their personal experience. Mine is that my local area behaves more like an army rather than nobles out for some excercise.

To use the argument that we are all supposed to behave chivalrously. I would argue that Chivalry in our context is about abiding by the rules that are laid down for a scenario. If the rules state CA is ok, then I don't believe archery is unchivalrous.

BTW, while I have tried it a couple of times, I am not a Combat Archer. Personally I find it more draining and much less fullfilling to cock a crossbow to shoot a plastic tipped projectile, than poking plastic clad people with long padded punching sticks or whacking them with rattan clubs.

I have played off and on as a "hard core" re-enactor for over 16 yrs outside of the SCA. I don't believe this conversation is really about authenticity at all. In our area, a much higher percentage of archers are wearing a nice looking authentic armor. I'll take Tim Finkas or 2/3 of the Solenarians in my visual any day of the week.

Juliana

Brennus · Post by **Brennus** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:46 pm

Just to stir the pot a little as I'm enjoying this thread I thought I would give a few period examples of knights fearing death by arrow.

"When they came to sir Walter, they found him engaged in assaulting another part of the castle; the sÃ©neschal addressed him,â€” "Sir Walter, I have opened a treaty with the captain of the castle, who is willing to surrender the place as it is, on condition that himself and garrison be spared and escorted to Lourde, and that they carry away everything but the provision: now, what do you say to this? We should lose more, if any of our knights and squires were killed by arrows or stones: and you would have more sorrow than profit, even should you win it and put all to death; but that is not yet done; it will cost us many lives; for it will not be so easily conquered as St. Forget."

Tales from Froissart book III ch 19

"Whence the besieged, outstanding in foolish bravery and obstinate prowess, manfully defended themselves and stood guard for a long time against the whole army of the king for eight weeks, many outside being wounded and killed with arrows and crossbows. In the same place Sir Richard de Argent' was severely injured in the stomach below the navel, although in armour, and six other energetic knights were killed, and more than two hundred of the serjeants and labourers around the machines, as some say."
(this I believe is even that elusive knight shot through body armour primary documentation.)
Rolls Ser vol.66, p.206: Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum: continuation in the hand of John Bale, bishop of Ossory.

"the sharp arrows ran into the men of arms and into their horses, an many fell, horse and men, among the Genoways, and when they were down, they could not relieve again, the press was so thick that on overthrew another. And also among the Englishmen there were certain rascals that went afoot with great knives, and they went in among the men of arms, and slew and murdered many as they lay on the ground, both earls, barons, knights, and squires, whereof the king of England was after displeased, for he had rather they had been taken prisoners."

Tales of Froissart "The Battle of Crecy"

these are just short examples not meant to sway in either way just to illuminate the point that while arrows may not have been perfect against the heavily armoured knight they were feared. I personally hate getting hit by the things but I respect what they could do without those blunts.

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 4:09 am

FrauHirsch: "And many of our participants in the SCA are not overly concerned about breaking the rules.... Rules have always been there in wars and rules have been there in tournaments."

This is a red herring. Cheats are cheats, and the minority that don't adhere to the rules of the game are irrelevent. Comparing "rules" of war to a game, however, is a fallacy. Nobody was going to pull Henry V's card and tell him he couldn't play again for killing the prisoners.

FrauHirsch: "I don't believe that we are trying to simulate medievals "simulating" a war.... I believe we are attempting to replicate a war.... We get to make whatever rules we like and call it whatever we like."

According to our own guidelines, we are playing at being medieval nobles. Whether our personas are "playing" at war or we are "playing at being nobles at war", we are still constrained to act as nobles of the period -- and that means fighting without archery.

FrauHirsch: "A good 90% of the fighters in my area have personas that are Norse, Roman or just post Roman."

As long as they are playing at the elite of their culture -- the "gentleman" equivelent for their time and place -- then there is no problem. In all but a very few instances, they would still not have taken a bow into battle -- and their romantic heroes even less so.

With respect,

-cheval-

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 4:12 am

Winterfell: "It sounds like you were using a modern bow that has a draw weight of half of what a period long bow was."

But the longbow is not contemporary with the age of mail, so your observation, while true, does not refute Rorik's findings... -c-

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:28 am

"SOFC: "...whether it is a War or a Tournament..., it should have archery."

OK, you've stated your thesis, but you fail to say -why-. Is it because it's fun"

Er, I did say why, and in fact you quoted me as follows:

"SoFC: "If they are arrows as part of some nobleman's grand tournament, then they should be dumbed up because, well, it's a tournament."

Couldn't have said it better myself. So, how do we play this? Who are the archers, and what rules govern there participation? The current set of guidelines have caused us nothing but heartache and misunderstanding for years. What could we do that would make this "fun" for everyone while maintaining a medieval context?"

Here's how it plays (to me anyway). If our "wars" are to be recreations of real wars (and I like that idea) then archery needs no excuse for being there. We are playing a game, with lots of safety rules of course, to simulate war.

If, on the other hand, we would like our "wars" to be grand-scale tournaments, like the mass tourney combats of old, then you can either get rid of combat archery, or you could allow it with the same technology that they did in period for their tournaments. Their "tournaments" were still pretty damn dangerous (especially the 12th century or earlier examples cited in this thread) but let's suppose some nobleman is hosting a grand melee tournament. All the weapons are rebated, or they use clubs. Likewise, they hypothetically would like to be simulating war and thus have archery. They wouldn't use real arrowheads in a tournament where all the other weapons are rebated or clubs - so we just dumb them up as they would have done.

My point is you can make a case for CA either way.

I'm bummed by the argument that went something like "Real gentlemen fight with swords, people that snipe with toy bows are just peasants without skill".

First of all, my being a gentleman or not doesn't have anything to do with what role I play in this game. Secondly I would say that being able to hit a moving man-sized target at 20 yards is at least as impressive to me in the skill department as a guy with a sword.

"SoFC: "I agree, that (an occasional "plate is proof" battle) would be way cool. Plus it would encourage plate armour."

Given that the SCA's scope covers centuries where plate does not exist, doesn't this sound inherently unfair to people with personas from "plateless" eras? In the face of the evidence that, for the most part, the complete, knightly panoply of any era was "proof" against contemporary archery (where archery was even employed), shouldn't we play that -all- armor is proof and that arrows are only effective when they hit unarmored targets (which, in our case, only applies to face shots)?"

Yes, it would be unfair to the non-plate era folks. However, I like it anyway because it would help get rid of the performance bias (in war anyway) away from plate.

"With respect (and wondering if you ever found the lost shipment of loose rings)...
-cheval-"

No, the shipment was never found. 200 pounds of chainmail disappeared like a fart in the wind. However, a replacement shipment is due to ship within a week. I hesitate to even say it as last time I let the cat out of the bag the damn thing got lost. At least this time the manufacturer is insuring the damn package. They get to eat the cost of the one they shipped without insurance and lost.

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 8:12 am

-c-: "OK, you've stated your thesis, but you fail to say -why-."

SoFC: "I did say why: 'If they are arrows as part of some nobleman's grand tournament, then they should be dumbed up because, well, it's a tournament.'"

Ah, I see where I missed. Since there were -no- "arrows as part of some noblemen's grand tournament", I didn't read that as a supporting argument, only as an extension of your theses -- or simple wishful thinking *grin*.

SoFC: "Their "tournaments" were still pretty damn dangerous.... All the weapons are rebated, or they use clubs. Likewise, they hypothetically would like to be simulating war and thus have archery. They wouldn't use real arrowheads in a tournament where all the other weapons are rebated or clubs - so we just dumb them up as they would have done."

I see where you are going, but I have a problem with the premise. The victory conditions under which they operated were to submission. Arrows are incable of delivering that kind of force, so now we'ld be making an allowance for a weapon's effect out of proportion with it's historical provenence. Yes, I realize you can argue that acted kills are unrealistic, but at least all the weapons are balanced (save the effect of the arrow again, which has been discussed in other posts). To bring it closer to home, if you support a counted blow format (ostensibly to better simulate a fight to submission from repeated strikes), would you also count arrows the same? As kills? Or what?

SoFC: "... my being a gentleman or not doesn't have anything to do with what role I play in this game."

Actually, central to my position is that you are playing a gentleman. This is not optional; it is a core concept in our game. Like my reply to FrauHirsch, whether you are playing a gentleman playing at war, or playing a gentleman at war, you must still strive to conduct yourself as a gentleman and restrict your use to knightly arms.

SoFC: "... being able to hit a moving man-sized target at 20 yards is at least as impressive to me in the skill department as a guy with a sword."

Except that, as used in period, archery was an indirect fire weapon at ranges far in excess of what you admire. If you want to incorporate archery, shouldn't we strive to represent it with the same enthusiasm that we are pushing for more realistic hand-weapons effects (counted blow, armor as worn)? Why is your archer exempt from this same guidelines?

Sorry to hear about the shipment. Please keep me in mind when the next one comes through.

With respect... -c-

Alexander · Post by **Alexander** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:40 am

Servus!

Like others, i have sat back and truly enjoyed the exchange of fact and opinion in this thread. I will keep my comments brief.

Brennus - You give good examples of soldiers in battle fearing the weapons of their enemy.
Completely normal reactions here. I just dont feel these passages are representative of the true "fear" of the archer.

Another point I want to make in regards to these passages is that none of them mention that archers were used in a medieval tournament - only battle. I think that topic is the one that is being currently debated.

Finally, this is like any bit of written history - it's open to interpretation. Who is to say that it is completely accurate? This is, after all, from the perspective of the author.

I would love to have archers that can be struck - it seems to be moving in that direction in Drachenwald. I am also in favor of accurately representing archers on the field of battle - line em up at a set distance, clout shots only, no gleaning.

------------------
Pax Vobiscum,

Herr Alexander

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:19 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Steve -SoFC-:
If, on the other hand, we would like our "wars" to be grand-scale tournaments, like the mass tourney combats of old, then you can either get rid of combat archery, or you could allow it with the same technology that they did in period for their tournaments. Their "tournaments" were still pretty damn dangerous (especially the 12th century or earlier examples cited in this thread) but let's suppose some nobleman is hosting a grand melee tournament. All the weapons are rebated, or they use clubs. Likewise, they hypothetically would like to be simulating war and thus have archery. They wouldn't use real arrowheads in a tournament where all the other weapons are rebated or clubs - so we just dumb them up as they would have done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except they didn't use blunted arrows in tournaments; I've shown that they didn't use arrows in tournaments at all except when they either got out of hand, or never were a tournament to begin with, they just called it that to have an excuse to settle a grudge. Asking for that is asking us to be both dishonorable (see below) and even *more* inauthentic, just so you can shoot people who can't hit back. No.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm bummed by the argument that went something like "Real gentlemen fight with swords, people that snipe with toy bows are just peasants without skill".

First of all, my being a gentleman or not doesn't have anything to do with what role I play in this game. Secondly I would say that being able to hit a moving man-sized target at 20 yards is at least as impressive to me in the skill department as a guy with a sword.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made that comment. The *rules* of the "game" require you to be a member of the nobility. Get with it. One of the prime tenents of the SCA is that "all combatants shall fight in a chivalrous and knightly fashion". Show me where it was normal for western European knights of the middle ages to shoot bows in war.

And your thought that shooting your toy bow requires as much skill as hand to hand combat is just not valid. They aren't even comparable. But that's not the point: It's not about which requires more skill, it's about the fact that you're hitting people who can't possibly hit you back; there's no honor in that. Get it? It's dishonorable. All of us are taught from day one that when you find a man on his knees you don't stand out of his range and attack him with a spear since he has no chance of hitting you back. What you're doing is worse.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:32 am

We don't need no stinking...archers
We don't need no stinking...unpadded polearms
We don't need no stinking...face thrusts
We don't need no stinking...lower leg shots
We don't need no stinking...counted blows
We don't need no stinking...plate is proof.

All these statements have been said at one time or another.

However if we are having THEME tourneys
With different RULES for the THEME tourneys
Can't we have a TOURNEY called Pennsic War with one of the rules being archers.
Or scouts.

------------------
If Hollywood did the 20th Century like the middle ages;
Pappy Boyington would be fighting the Red Baron, over the trenches of Iran.
Howard Cosell and Snoopy would be the ace reporters in the Gulf war.

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:39 am

I have several problems on the arrows can not penetrate chain and plate argument.

1)Rorik you preformed your test with my guess is 14 or 16 gauge rings and a modern 60-pound bow with my guess is pine, or balsa wood shafts. Those woods are soft. The problem is longbows were 150 pounds, and arrows made of hard wood such as oak. The other problem is we make our armor of thicker steel to withstand the hits from rattan. Medieval armor was thinner than SCA standard from all Iâ€™ve read.
2)The argument that arrows only have force at close range is flawed. That is true if I fire straight across a field, but when they are fired up, lobed at the enemy, the arrows gain velocity when the fall. There energy measured in joules increases not decreases.
3)We are arguing about different eras. SCA has no set era and so how is a Viking persona suppose to act when hit buy an arrow from a 15th century longbow men?

Just a few thoughts.

Flonzy

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:53 am

"One of the prime tenents of the SCA is that "all combatants shall fight in a chivalrous and knightly fashion". Show me where it was normal for western European knights of the middle ages to shoot bows in war."
So does this mean that I get to take your armour from you if you lose at the end of the day? And if in a knightly fashion would that mean that if anyone is not a christian we can hack them to bits?
And where does that put the Horde and TuChux in all of this?

------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jasper:
All these statements have been said at one time or another.

However if we are having THEME tourneys
With different RULES for the THEME tourneys
Can't we have a TOURNEY called Pennsic War with one of the rules being archers.
Or scouts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can, yes, if they did them in period when doing the kind of activity we're doing.
1.) They didn't use archery in tournaments
2.) All of our fighting is tournament combat because of the rule structure
4.) Even if they *did* use archery in tournaments, it would have been done by peasants, not bobles, but we're all supposed to be nobles; it's one of the basic concepts of the SCA
3.) It therefore follows that we can't use archery in combat. QED.

I'm sorry if this keep some of you from killing more skilled fighters with impunity, but those are the facts.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"