Archery and Knightly Combat

Auto · Post by **Auto** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:13 am

Rhys
While I have been in many tournaments at pensic, I havn't been to "the pensic tounament" it is "war" after all. I pressed hard for combat archery when it was being considered years ago, and I stand by it. The medieval knight was just as arrogant about weather a peasant with a bow could take them down, so in this case rhys is being absolutly authentic

Auto

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:23 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
I will stand there, switch to my spear or greatsword and run you through or disemhalf you. Fair enough? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well your welcome to try at least.

seriously, its fair enough, I've much less of a problem with yomen (heavy fighters that arch until the battle gets to them) than I do with archers I cant hit. its like the lesser of two evils.

Ulrich

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 02-22-2002).]

hobbitsage · Post by **hobbitsage** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:48 am

Here in Meridies archers are heavies. Yes, that means you get to whump ... errr hit them. But most of the archers that I know or know of also carry an auxillary weapon. Charge within the legal range and be prepared to face a sword, axe, mace, etc.

Another question to those that don't care for CA. What do you fel of Seige engines and other Machines of War?

olaf haraldson · Post by **olaf haraldson** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:46 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
If you can't fight like a knight, get off the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not a knight. My persona is not a knight. I'm not currently entertaining any plans to be sent on vigil and become a knight. The rules say that I fight chivalrously... I do so. Nowhere do they say that I fight like a knight...

They say that I'm a minor noble. To my persona, all that means is that I get nicer armour and weapons, and would have a small group who call me Boss that would go and fight with me when my Boss calls me up to go stomp the shit outta somebody he tells me to.
Our war has rules for safety. Like all our combat. Thats the way it is. If people don't like it... get in a position to change it. I'm not going to say find another group... thats not what I want. I like to hit people... I'm not really picky about who they are.

I am not an archer. But I like the added threat in a war situation.

Olaf Haraldson inn orvi
Northern Army, East Kingdom

william · Post by **william** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:51 am

Greetings all,

After reading all the arguments in favor or dislike of CA I'm just thinking about *one* single question: How can we end the uncertainty?

I mean, as a beginning combat archer I do have the impression that my not-irrelevant investment into proper equipment could be useless pretty soon. This is not a motivation to go on. To be honest, I'd rather get over with it and learn that CA is banned for now and ever after rather than having the impression that it is

a)disliked by a group that has the most impact on how mass combat is done in the SCA

b)therefore not supported which makes it rather useless to spend time on practice

c) could be banned every day so all money spent would be down the drain.

In any case I would like to ask everyone to promot such a "final" decision: Should CA as it exists today be a part of future SCA combat?

If yes, learn to live with it. If no, please let the combat archers know asap to give them a fair chance to pursue other tasks.

Do we have something like society-wide surveys?

Will

P.S.: I'm an authorized S/W fighter and will only fight as a heavy archer. As soon as my skills improve I will carry a secondary weapon. However, as long as I carry my bow I will *yield* for safety reasons. Any fighter hitting me deliberately after this just because "if they can shoot at me I want to hith them" does not have my respect.

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:00 pm

In the intitial flanking French cav charge of seven score men at arms at Agincourt led by Sir William of Saveuse only three men were lost to archers (including William). They were not killed by arrows but were beaten to death as they lay on the ground after their mounts hit stakes and they were tossed. Sounds like archery was really effective, huh. The archers did, however, madden the horses so that they fled into the advancing french troops causing quite a bit of problems.

Aelric

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:02 pm

I wish they'd make up their minds, too. I have the helm, the gambeson, the pads and cups, and the bow. I have what I need to make the arrows. I have the raw material to make the extra armor that my over-protective (and God bless him for it) husband insists I should wear because of wild-eyed club weilding anti-archery thugs. Thing is, am I wasting my money to go further and wasting my time to get into shape and train? If so, tell me now, and I'll go back to my needle and pots, firmly put back into my place.

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:25 pm

Will,
first off I dont think anyone ever said anything about hitting someone after they yield. your right if someone does they not only should they not have your respect, you should snatch them up and haul them to the Marshal in charge.

now to answer your question,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 
Should CA as it exists today be a part of future SCA combat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it depends if were re-creating a war, yes, if were doing a big melee tounament, no. that answers the should. (I'd go with the tournament stance personally)

the big question I think your asking (and I could be wrong) is Are they going to kill off Combat archery?

the answer to that is a Resounding NO (much to many peoples chagrin) currently the BoD and the SEM have made changes in an attempt to make CA more safe for the people who are being targeted. They made the best decsion they could effecting the least amount of people while still allowing wooden shafted arrows. it was not an attempt to try and kill of CA. it was an attempt to keep someone from loosing an eye (like for example Her Royal Highness Ariel (sp) from Calontir.

Ulrich
(given that CA isnt going anywhere, If I had my way, CA would be done with golftubes only.)

Vermin · Post by **Vermin** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:07 pm

And I'm of the opinion that if you want to go shoot people, go play paintball.

But that's just me.....(grin)
VvS

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:14 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
Rhys: "Our "wars" are not tournaments."

Are you sure this is what you meant to say? Are you really ready to get on my Bad Side *tm* over this one, too *g*???

-cheval-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Thanks, my friend, I was typing faster than I was thinking. Yes, you got it right, I mis-typed.

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

[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-22-2002).]

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:22 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ulrich:

(given that CA isnt going anywhere, If I had my way, CA would be done with golftubes only.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO SCUDS
no scuds
no scuds
I hate golf tubes arrows. You can't tell the difference between them and javelins.
One gulf wars I grab a javelin from the field in the tunnel. Threw before I saw it was not a javelin.
they ugly
they ugly
they really really ugly.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:23 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Auto:
Rhys
While I have been in many tournaments at pensic, I havn't been to "the pensic tounament" it is "war" after all. I pressed hard for combat archery when it was being considered years ago, and I stand by it. The medieval knight was just as arrogant about weather a peasant with a bow could take them down, so in this case rhys is being absolutly authentic

Auto<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calling a thing by a name doesn't make it that. At Pennsic we disallow full-running charges, more than 4 on 1, hitting from behind, hitting people on the ground. All of those are things you'd typically expect to see in tournament, not war. You need to do more research.

Also, I didn't say anything about the effectiveness of arrows, so your snide crack about my arrogance "missed the mark". My point was that it was *innappropriate*, not that it was ineffective. Read what I write.

Having said that, it's pretty clear from the evidence that arrows *were* fairly ineffective against heavily-armed men at arms wearing plate (although effective against those in just mail). The English men at arms killed the frogs at Agincourt, not the archers. Tests have shown that even a good bodkin point fired from a heavy war bow can't pierce any realisitc quantity of plate. I have videos of the tests. Archers kill horses, damage morale, and cause occasional kills or wounds with lucky shots. That's it.

------------------
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** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Olaf MacBrome:
I'm not a knight. My persona is not a knight. I'm not currently entertaining any plans to be sent on vigil and become a knight. The rules say that I fight chivalrously... I do so. Nowhere do they say that I fight like a knight... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. The SCAs rules of combat specifically say that everyone shall fight in a "knightly and chivalrous manner". Read them. I never said you had to *be* a knight, I said you had to fight like one.

I am not an archer. But I like the added threat in a war situation.

So would I, if we were fighting wars. See my previous posts. It's a good thing there are so many desirous of being nothing but peasants; maybe we *can* do my war scenarios after all.

------------------
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** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:31 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by william:
Greetings all,

After reading all the arguments in favor or dislike of CA I'm just thinking about *one* single question: How can we end the uncertainty?

I mean, as a beginning combat archer I do have the impression that my not-irrelevant investment into proper equipment could be useless pretty soon. This is not a motivation to go on. To be honest, I'd rather get over with it and learn that CA is banned for now and ever after rather than having the impression that it is

a)disliked by a group that has the most impact on how mass combat is done in the SCA

b)therefore not supported which makes it rather useless to spend time on practice

c) could be banned every day so all money spent would be down the drain.

In any case I would like to ask everyone to promot such a "final" decision: Should CA as it exists today be a part of future SCA combat?

If yes, learn to live with it. If no, please let the combat archers know asap to give them a fair chance to pursue other tasks.

Do we have something like society-wide surveys?

Will

P.S.: I'm an authorized S/W fighter and will only fight as a heavy archer. As soon as my skills improve I will carry a secondary weapon. However, as long as I carry my bow I will *yield* for safety reasons. Any fighter hitting me deliberately after this just because "if they can shoot at me I want to hith them" does not have my respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you live? I would be happy to help you learn to fight and design an authentic harness to allow you to take the field like a gentleman where you have the chance to defeat your foes in honorable combat instead of sniping at them from the other side of the field like a peasant.

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

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:51 pm

I, however, **am** a peasant, and proud of it.

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:03 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
 Pennsic is even less of a war than many other SCA melees: We're not allowed to hit from behind, we're not allowed to do full running charges, we're not allowed to attack more than four on one... the list goes on. Calling it a war doesn't make it so; look at what it *is*, not what it's *called*.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our war rules out here in Caid and Atenveld are very different, perhaps that is where we are having some of the differences of opinion. Our rules here are WAR rules, not tournament rules. We aren't allowed to hit from behind, but we are allowed to "kill" from behind, (which is mean to simulate the effect of being able to hit from behind). We are allowed to do full charges. We are allowed to attack more than 4 on 1. We can kill someone who has fallen down and don't have to let them up with a "you are dead on the ground".

Our archers are armored. We can hit them. They can pull a secondary and hit us back. They must be authorized in armored combat and CA is an extra authorization. We have many full units organized as WAR units, not tournament companies.

Obviously we have a different culture here. Don't paint all "SCA wars" with the same brush.

Two Estrellas ago our unit spent all afternoon playing at variations of column charges through a side entrance to a castle we knew was impossible to take, but we figured we'd keep them busy :-)

It was a res battle. Full out charges. No holds bar. Hell, at one Caid/Aten war there were earthwork castles and some crazies were jumping off the walls onto people below.

We have whole units who do nothing but war fighting and are VERY VERY good at it. Many don't consider themselves "knights" at all, but foot solder grunts working for pay.

We do pulse charges, face thrusts, and all sorts of wild stuff. Its been like that for as long as I can remember -- 24 yrs (though the killing from behind is maybe only 20 yrs old or so). It's lots o' fun.

Josh W · Post by **Josh W** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:13 pm

I am glad that Jasper isn't the emperor of the SCA.

The only time I pick up my big heater is when there are archers about.

-Joaquin, no fan of combat archery

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:15 pm

FrauHirsch

That sounds like fun.

[This message has been edited by flonzy (edited 02-22-2002).]

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:28 pm

I personally don't mind CA, even though I don't shoot (I am a LOUSY shot) - I don't see the big deal, as long as the archers are heavy combatants (can be hit), there are archery and no archery version of all battles (That way, if you don't like it, you can sit out those battles), and/or CA is used in res battles.

Diolun
Midrealm

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:07 pm

I wouldnt worry...

I do not think C/A is going anywhere....if anything I see its role being expanded in the big Wars like Pennsic, Gulf Wars and Estrella.

I for one will enjoy it.

I enjoy shooting and enjoy fighting in a C/A enviroment.
It's a great deal of fun....as long as they are heavies...

NO LIGHT ARCHERS!!

muttman · Post by **muttman** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:22 pm

Combat archery came to the East after I got out of the SCA some time ago, and I havn`t had the opprotunity to see it in action since I`ve been back. That being said, and admiting that my opinion is based on a lack of firsthand experience, I have no problem with it and was all for it when I was last active. I, like most with the East Kingdoms Norhern Region mindset, like to think of melees as battles, and we take them very seriously up here. I like the idea of the added realism, and I like that it gives people who may not want to activly fight heavy a place to participate on the battlefield. I also like the idea of siege weapons and thrown weapons. I also prefer battles to singles, but I gladly fight in both.
I actualy look foward to facing and working with all of the above and feel it will add another facet to what we do. As I said, I have never looked at melees as tournaments, at least not the larger ones, but always as battles. Thats my part of the dream and I will be sticking to it.
For the record, I do not shoot. I am a piss poor shot with a bow, and though I have a crossbow being made for me now, it is too heavy to be used in combat archery. I got it for target shooting and varmint control.
John

[This message has been edited by muttman (edited 02-22-2002).]

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:32 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by FrauHirsch:
Obviously we have a different culture here. Don't paint all "SCA wars" with the same brush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't; note that I carefully restricted those comments to Pennsic, since the person who asked was an Easterner and specifically mentioned Pennsic.

I haven't had the opportunity to fight in other large melees, but they sound like fun. It still doesn't sound enjoyable to have someone take out a gentleman with a toy bow instead of learning to stand and fight him, but there will always be people who enjoy such things.

I think the only way I would truly enjoy combat archery would be if we could use the West's rule that plate is invulnerable. After all, it's true in real life, too.

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

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:52 pm

Originally posted by SyrRhys:

It still doesn't sound enjoyable to have someone take out a gentleman with a toy bow instead of learning to stand and fight him, but there will always be people who enjoy such things.

Crossbows are the prevalent missile weapon here and they really hit solidly. Because EVERYONE in the engagement is fully armored, the power can be much stronger. They fly almost straight. The combat crossbow we own (I have tried it a couple times, but really prefer to fight) shoots 70 yds with some accuracy and at the typical 20 yd shot is quite spot on.

 I think the only way I would truly enjoy combat archery would be if we could use the West's rule that plate is invulnerable. After all, it's true in real life, too.


That would be fine by me. It certainly has the potential to encourage nicer armor.

I just wish more people would read the rules in general at any war. Sometimes plate invulnerable is the rule and sometimes not. Sometimes it is only body and face so limbs and the side of helms don't count.

Juliana

[This message has been edited by FrauHirsch (edited 02-22-2002).]

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:58 pm

I think archers should be in tournies but as a seperate event shooting steel points at targets not people.Same with javlin throwers.Call it an archery meet if you like,and award prizes to the best shot. I believe this was done in the mideaval period. Just dont have archers shooting at armoured combatants. That would be crazy in a tournament.....Otto

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:02 pm

When plate is ruled proof in Markland, we aim for the occularium! It's a hard shot, but very satisfying.

And would it be OK if the local King or Queen nailed with an arrow or bolt, and not just a common barbarian like me? You're just as dead.

Drop by a Markland war some time. It has some good points and some bad points, but hey, it can be fun. Come to the dark side!

------------------
Full time civil servant, part time blacksmith, and seasonal Viking ship captain.

Visit your National Parks: www.nps.gov

Go viking: www.wam.umd.edu/~eowyn/Longship/

Hit hot iron: www.anvilfire.com

Christian de Westborn · Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:28 pm

Wow. Everytime someone brings up the subject of combat archers around here, everyone grabs a lance and mounts his high horse. I always hear the same things: "Archers aren't nobles" "knights don't fight with bows". Sure, in the SCA we are all assumed to be lesser nobility (however you choose to define that...) and thus would be part of that class in period who would disdain the use of a bow in war. But if some of us didn't pick up the bow to play at wars, what would we do for missile combatants? (I know, the whole argument is against missile fighting...let me exaggerate a bit to illustrate part of my objection to these arguments) Nab people off the street, drop them in a burlap tunic with a bow and point them in the right direction?
Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way-
I've fought my whole (albeit short yet) career as a heavy fighter here in the West, only going out-of-kingdom once. Our War Rules are much like those that Frau Hirsch mentioned for Caid save that our archers are not heavy/lights. While I would like to see the archers on each side work as a unit instead of being "guerillas in the midst" (pardon the pun, I couldn't help myself) I think overall they increase the experience of war fighting in a positive way. I certainly pay a lot more attention to what's around me when I know there are bowmen who are lurking about.
We do play with the "plate-is-proof" rule, and since I started using a great helm this last year I have turned into a sort of walking tank. I still take any arrow hit that knocks me in the dome - if for no other reason than the archer deserves a little credit for making the shot. Some of the rules for combat archery limit the effectiveness of their skill.
If we could just get them all in a group, I think it would work out fine. They could get some nice kill numbers with volley fire, and the heavies could kill them all in one assault without having to chase them all over the field.

------------------
Long live the Prince and Princess of Cynagua!

Hushgirl · Post by **Hushgirl** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:58 pm

One suggestion was that CA be limited to seiges.

corbin skarlocke · Post by **corbin skarlocke** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:15 pm

1) Archers should be "heavy". The argument that light archers allow people to participate who couldnt or wouldnt otherwise doesnt hold water. Heavies invest a lot of time and sweat in training in addition to money in their kit. Allowing lights with minimal armour and training to negate that isnt fair to the heavies.
2) Plate should be proof. By the end of the HYW when we are beginning to see complete plate harnesses the longbow was becoming in-effective. It can be argued that they were in-effective even before that. ( I would disagree though)
3) Pennesic, estrella, GW are "wars". Tourney melees were never held at the scale of these events. Tourney melees never included seiges or seige equipment. Nor to the best of my knowledge bridge battles. If they did then they would certainly be the exception and not the rule. Additionally I beleive that rules like not killing from behind and no more than 3 on 1 are for safety NOT to make combat more like tournaments. Please correct me if Im wrong.
Regards

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by corbin skarlocke:
3) Pennesic, estrella, GW are "wars". Tourney melees were never held at the scale of these events. Tourney melees never included seiges or seige equipment. Nor to the best of my knowledge bridge battles. If they did then they would certainly be the exception and not the rule. Additionally I beleive that rules like not killing from behind and no more than 3 on 1 are for safety NOT to make combat more like tournaments. Please correct me if Im wrong.
Regards[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll happily correct you. There were 12th-13th century tournaments *were* that big, sometimes the fighting fields were the entire distance between two villages; besides, what does size have to do with it? The defining difference between tournaments and war isn't the number of participants, it's the rules of engagement.

As for the rules being for safety, that's exactly the point!!!! Why do you think medieval tournaments had those rules? It's the same thing! Thank you for so elegantly making my point.

We fight tournaments, not wars. Arrows have *no* place on the field.

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

IvarH · Post by **IvarH** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:01 pm

Ivar here,

Syr Rhys wrote:
"I'll happily correct you. There were 12th-13th century tournaments *were* that big, sometimes the fighting fields were the entire distance between two villages; besides, what does size have to do with it?
The defining difference between tournaments and war isn't the number of participants, it's the rules of engagement."

But was it not these very same 12th-13th C. tournaments ala Wm. Marshall in which archers and others on foot were occassionally included?

Ivar Hakonason
Crosston, West.

Lodhur · Post by **Lodhur** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:36 pm

Having had this discussion many times, with many individuals, I have begun to think that most of the people who truly dislike CA also do not have the ability to clearly separate their SCA persona from their mundane one. In other words, they are unable to distinguish the thoughts & feelings of the (insert number here)th century (insert nationality) noble whom they portray from those of the person whom they really are.

If I were a 14th century french horseman, I probably wouldn't like CA much; but I'm not. I'm a 21st century american computer technician. I think CA adds to the fun & helps me to suspend my disbelief on the SCA battle field.

I'm in the back of the group trying to pound through the side palisade at Estrella. I'm waaaay in back, though - just standing there waiting for a chance to squeeze through the crush. Getting pretty bored in the heat & sun, I consider taking a seat on a hillock, or going for water.

Then, I see the guy next to me take a square hit, & those hackles on the back of my neck rise. Momentarily forgetting that I drove a car to get here; suddenly I realize I'm being targetted & I'm not sure from where. The guy in front of me goes down. Holy CRAP! I duck, run right up to the palisade where there's no-one above, & hide around a curve in the wall as a shaft whizzes past me.

I wait a while, then stick my neck out. There he is, right on top of the wall. Protected by spears, he is out of range & has an open shot on everyone in our column. Just like shooting fish in a barrel.

I know he can't hit me, but I know he saw me. An arrow flies where my head was, & hits the guy 2 feet to my right.

I know I can't hit him, & if I poke my head out again I know there'll be an arrowhead to meet me. Hmm... what if I just held out my shield, above the heads of my fellows? As close as I am, I could reduce the available trajectories, & protect a significant length of the line behind me.

Anyway, my point it that CA really adds to the fun & period feel of the game. It makes you _think_ strategically in a manner accurate to a real medieval warrior. I think that people who mundanely dislike it so much are just a little too competitive for historical re-creation. Winning, or even having a _chance_ to win doesn't have much to do with our *wars. Tournaments, perhaps, but even so what you really win is the feeling that you had a good time with your friends. What your persona would have thought in either instance really doesn't mean a damned thing. We _pretend_ that it does. The same way I _pretend_ not to like archers.

Also, archery & other 'ranged weapons' were not so vilified by nobility in all times or places covered by the SCA's period 'the european middle ages & rennaissance'. I believe most scholars would say the middle ages began in the 7th century. Not the 12th.

In the 7th century, mounted archery was was being used heavily by the byzantines. The franks copied it from the avars. That may have been the inception of the western distaste for archery - it was associated with the greeks or the filthy heathen. It still continued to be used in battle by norse men of every status through out the viking age.

So don't go saying that there were no noble archers. Maybe not in 1420, but not all of us are portraying that period. Nor does the 'well, you're playing a classic medieval tournament, no matter what period you say you are' argument hold any water. Before it was called a 'tourney', it was called a 'holmgang', & the tradition was carried over. Just like 'knights' weren't always called 'knights' - 'huscarl' or 'duguÃ°' had the equivalent meaning.

& the fact is, be it Estrella WAR, Gulf WAR, Great Western WAR, or Pennsic WAR; we _are_ re-creating medieval WARfare, regardless of the technicalities. & yes, the official rules need to be adjusted to reflect that. Not that we should lose all honor & instill a sense of meanness.

That 'win at all costs' mentality that everyone is so afraid of happens when people think of this as a competetive sport. Adding authenticity to the game can only _reduce_ the sport factor. As much as our disbelief is suspended, we still get to go home friends at the end.

I do like the 'plate as proof' policy, but I distinctly dislike the unrealistic limitations people like cheval would put on archery; primarily out of their persona's supposedly 'pretend' prejudice. That prejudice should not leak over into decisions on *how* the game is played - but then that's half the problems in the SCA right there. It comes with the joy of 'Living the Dream'.

As a side note; I am not an archer, & the only visible 'plate' I have is my helm.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by IvarH:
Ivar here,

Syr Rhys wrote:
"I'll happily correct you. There were 12th-13th century tournaments *were* that big, sometimes the fighting fields were the entire distance between two villages; besides, what does size have to do with it?
The defining difference between tournaments and war isn't the number of participants, it's the rules of engagement."

But was it not these very same 12th-13th C. tournaments ala Wm. Marshall in which archers and others on foot were occassionally included?

Ivar Hakonason
Crosston, West.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's true, but my point is that these weren't really tournaments. I'll quote from Barber and Barker, page 30:

"Gilbert Marshall, Robert de Say, and numerous other knights were killed at an ill-named 'foruniam' ... which appears to hve simply been a tournament under another name in order to evade the prohibitions..."

And on page 44:

"when the Duke siezed Edward round the neck ... tempers flared and the tournament turned into a full-scale battle involving the use of footsoldiers and crossbows".

As you can see, these things only occurred when things got out of hand; they had no place in the tournament proper; that's why the regulations had to be written. so these were no more tournaments than the Pennsic War is a war. Again, calling a thing by a name doesn't make it so.

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

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:39 pm

True story

I was at an event up in TN. This combat archer is one of the few guys alive after we breach the door of the "fort"

I run up to him and he starts back peddling and notching an arrow. I say something like "buddy i'm gonna have to whack ya!", he shoots at me at about 3 feet, then draws another arrow! well he tripped and fell down before i could pop him, then he yeilded. Archers that don't yield had better expect to get hit.

Obviouly i have no great love for CA personally, but I think there are many people who just don't want to get killed by an archer so they want it banned. In lieu of that they want it made as ineffective as possibe.

At least Rhys is being honest and says he wants it gone.

I hate scuds too Jasper. yick

corbin skarlocke · Post by **corbin skarlocke** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 1:05 am

I'll happily correct you. There were 12th-13th century tournaments *were* that big, sometimes the fighting fields were the entire distance between two villages; besides, what does size have to do with it? The defining difference between tournaments and war isn't the number of participants, it's the rules of engagement.

As for the rules being for safety, that's exactly the point!!!! Why do you think medieval tournaments had those rules? It's the same thing! Thank you for so elegantly making my point.

>Respectfully, I think you are arguing semantics here. Is your point that because there are safety rules our melee's cant SIMULATE wars? Because really that is what we are doing, simulating tournaments and simulating wars.
Regards

Winterfell · Post by **Winterfell** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 1:41 am

First off I would like to say "wow!" I had not expected so many responses to my question. Lots of great thoughts and ideas both for and against.
One year at Pennsic I was talking with a delightful knight and we started talking about combat archery, his view was that he thought it was unmanly and that it had no place in the SCA at all. He went on to state that when he saw an arrow on a field he made a point to step on it and snap it in half. To this I replied, "How French of you."
My general feeling is that if your gonna have a war, go all the way and have the archers, if you think it is just a tourney well I can see your point of not wanting arrows there. I have been in combat with crossbow bolts flying and had a great time, even after taking a hit in the hind quarters. Knight though I may be, I prefer to use any weapons and tactics at my disposal.

SyrRyhs wrote:
"Having said that, it's pretty clear from the evidence that arrows *were* fairly ineffective against heavily-armed men at arms wearing plate (although effective against those in just mail). The English men at arms killed the frogs at Agincourt, not the archers. Tests have shown that even a good bodkin point fired from a heavy war bow can't pierce any realisitc quantity of plate. I have videos of the tests. Archers kill horses, damage morale, and cause occasional kills or wounds with lucky shots. That's it."

SyrRhys,
While visiting Warwick castle I saw live tests that have shown the exact opposite. An archer carried several different types of bodkins including ones that cut between horses legs and the long needle ones that I have seen go through plate armour at long range. The average English Longbow had a draw weight between 80 and 120 pounds compared to modern bows of 45 to 60 pounds.
Now of course as the range increases, archers have to fire in an arc and so the power greatly dimishes, but at a hundred plus yards the archer I was watching placed his arrow through a steel plate rather nicely.
Besides if archers and their weapons were so ineffective, than why were they used for so long, even in conjunction with firearms? Makes one think doesn't it.

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