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.
Archery and Knightly Combat
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
First -
This "delightful Knight" needed to get thrown off the field, and purchase replacement arrows for those he broke. NOBODY has the right to deliberately destroy someone else's equipment.
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.
4) Try to get the Society EM to accept the "plate as proof" rule. Again, good luck.
5) Perhaps limit archers to a set number of bolts/arrows available? Or have them in only res battles?
Diolun
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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."</font>
This "delightful Knight" needed to get thrown off the field, and purchase replacement arrows for those he broke. NOBODY has the right to deliberately destroy someone else's equipment.
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.
4) Try to get the Society EM to accept the "plate as proof" rule. Again, good luck.
5) Perhaps limit archers to a set number of bolts/arrows available? Or have them in only res battles?
Diolun
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by corbin skarlocke:
>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. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, that's not it at all: My point isn't that we can't simulate wars becasue we have safety rules, after all, some of those rules are ignored other places with no increase in danger. My only point was to draw a *parrallel* between our use of rules purportedly instituted for safety with the medieval practice of doing the same thing. Trying to do so is the hallmark of a tournament.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
>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. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, that's not it at all: My point isn't that we can't simulate wars becasue we have safety rules, after all, some of those rules are ignored other places with no increase in danger. My only point was to draw a *parrallel* between our use of rules purportedly instituted for safety with the medieval practice of doing the same thing. Trying to do so is the hallmark of a tournament.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>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. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's interesting, because I have the test of which I spoke on video. I suggest that one or the other of them was flawed in some way, either the steel was wrong or something. The bows in the tests I saw (an abbreviated version of the test was shown on the discovery channel) were quite butch; they never said the exact poundage, but they looked like full-power longbows to me.
And archers and their weapons weren't completely ineffective; they just couldn't do much to a well-armored man. Actually, the same was true of firearms: There exist quite a few harnesses that have a mark where a bullet was fired into the armor to prove it was proof against bullets.
But archers had a lot of effect: The dismounted the enemy, they killed the lightly-armored troops, they forced the men at arms into tight formations (as I said, there were always lucky shots, so knights would bunch up to offer less opportunity for that; that the real reason the french came in at the English in a tight column at Agincourt), and they're hell on morale. So no great thought is necessary, their use is easily explainable. All I said was that the real *killing* at Agincourt (and other battles) was done by the English men at arms, I didn't say the archers were ineffective.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>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. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's interesting, because I have the test of which I spoke on video. I suggest that one or the other of them was flawed in some way, either the steel was wrong or something. The bows in the tests I saw (an abbreviated version of the test was shown on the discovery channel) were quite butch; they never said the exact poundage, but they looked like full-power longbows to me.
And archers and their weapons weren't completely ineffective; they just couldn't do much to a well-armored man. Actually, the same was true of firearms: There exist quite a few harnesses that have a mark where a bullet was fired into the armor to prove it was proof against bullets.
But archers had a lot of effect: The dismounted the enemy, they killed the lightly-armored troops, they forced the men at arms into tight formations (as I said, there were always lucky shots, so knights would bunch up to offer less opportunity for that; that the real reason the french came in at the English in a tight column at Agincourt), and they're hell on morale. So no great thought is necessary, their use is easily explainable. All I said was that the real *killing* at Agincourt (and other battles) was done by the English men at arms, I didn't say the archers were ineffective.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by White Mountain Armoury:
<B>we can all argue till were blue in the face as to if its a tourney or a war, but it realy does come down to location, you can tell me a million times its a tourney but that wont change the general perception of it in regards to location, Most easterners will tell you its a war, so in their mind it is.
There seem to be endless interpritations of what we do, what is correct an what is not, its all a matter of perspective.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, and lots of doctors thought that Semmelweis was nuts too, and that disease couldn't be transmitted by unsterilized instruments. A lot of people died beause of that lack of understanding (not that I think this is of similar importance). Just because a lot of people believe a thing to be valid 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"
<B>we can all argue till were blue in the face as to if its a tourney or a war, but it realy does come down to location, you can tell me a million times its a tourney but that wont change the general perception of it in regards to location, Most easterners will tell you its a war, so in their mind it is.
There seem to be endless interpritations of what we do, what is correct an what is not, its all a matter of perspective.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, and lots of doctors thought that Semmelweis was nuts too, and that disease couldn't be transmitted by unsterilized instruments. A lot of people died beause of that lack of understanding (not that I think this is of similar importance). Just because a lot of people believe a thing to be valid 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"
Diolun: "Like it or not, CA is in the SCA, and not likely to go away."
With a 'tude like this, you're probably right. The real question is, is it -RIGHT-?
Think about where archery came from. It was not led by the knights; it was added to our game to accommodate a minority of newer players who, while pursuing a valid "medieval" practice, misguidedly introduced it into a very inappropriate venue. And ever since, we have been saddled with the unavoidable friction between fighting like "knights at tournament" and fighting "wars".
Now, I am not talking about the contradiction of terms between "tournament" and "war" that some like to throw up -- although the lack of scholarship and reliance on the SCA-centric perspective is often frustrating. I am talking about the difference between striking an opponent in a time and place when they can likely strike you back, and striking them at a range from where no counter-attack is possible. All of our hand-to-hand weapons allow for the former, and out of this scenario rises a chivalric exchange unachievable through any other endeavor I know. With archery, however, the playing field is slanted so far in one direction that there is no opportunity for one of the participants to be anything more than a target. As I was taught, there is no honor to be gained where there is no risk, and the archer is practically inviolate in most situations. Even the longest spear is at danger from me when he takes his shot; I cannot say the same about the man with the bow standing ten yards away.
No matter how safe we can make it, no matter how many people WANT to use it, it remains the responsibility of the senior participants to guide the fighting community to a common goal of enjoyable recreation. And despite its medieval reference, archery is not consistent with that goal – the practice of war between combatants of like estate. While I hate to keep harping on the example of this Forum, this is no different than our focus on improving the standards of armor used in our game. We know that archery was not used in tournament, we know it was not as effective against the armor standard we proclaim, and we know that archers did not range about the skirmish line sniping from short range at the opposing army. We know many things today we may not have fully understood when archery was first introduced. But just because we have it now in the face of this new information does not mean we have to throw up our hands and sigh, “oh, wellâ€
With a 'tude like this, you're probably right. The real question is, is it -RIGHT-?
Think about where archery came from. It was not led by the knights; it was added to our game to accommodate a minority of newer players who, while pursuing a valid "medieval" practice, misguidedly introduced it into a very inappropriate venue. And ever since, we have been saddled with the unavoidable friction between fighting like "knights at tournament" and fighting "wars".
Now, I am not talking about the contradiction of terms between "tournament" and "war" that some like to throw up -- although the lack of scholarship and reliance on the SCA-centric perspective is often frustrating. I am talking about the difference between striking an opponent in a time and place when they can likely strike you back, and striking them at a range from where no counter-attack is possible. All of our hand-to-hand weapons allow for the former, and out of this scenario rises a chivalric exchange unachievable through any other endeavor I know. With archery, however, the playing field is slanted so far in one direction that there is no opportunity for one of the participants to be anything more than a target. As I was taught, there is no honor to be gained where there is no risk, and the archer is practically inviolate in most situations. Even the longest spear is at danger from me when he takes his shot; I cannot say the same about the man with the bow standing ten yards away.
No matter how safe we can make it, no matter how many people WANT to use it, it remains the responsibility of the senior participants to guide the fighting community to a common goal of enjoyable recreation. And despite its medieval reference, archery is not consistent with that goal – the practice of war between combatants of like estate. While I hate to keep harping on the example of this Forum, this is no different than our focus on improving the standards of armor used in our game. We know that archery was not used in tournament, we know it was not as effective against the armor standard we proclaim, and we know that archers did not range about the skirmish line sniping from short range at the opposing army. We know many things today we may not have fully understood when archery was first introduced. But just because we have it now in the face of this new information does not mean we have to throw up our hands and sigh, “oh, wellâ€
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Irish:
<B>Like it or not, CA is in the SCA, and not likely to go away. This leaves everyone with a few options. <snip>
Diolun</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you left out one option:
6.) Attempt to teach people why CA is completely inappropriate for SCA melee combat and encourage them to act in a manner more consistent with the both the nature of the combat we're doing and with the gentlemen we're supposed to be.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Like it or not, CA is in the SCA, and not likely to go away. This leaves everyone with a few options. <snip>
Diolun</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you left out one option:
6.) Attempt to teach people why CA is completely inappropriate for SCA melee combat and encourage them to act in a manner more consistent with the both the nature of the combat we're doing and with the gentlemen we're supposed to be.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>Just a few thoughts *grin*.... <snip>
-cheval-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! My friend, it never ceases to amaze me how, as you have pointed out, we can come from two very different starting points (you, the romantic idealization of knighthood, and me, the stark reality of it) and end up at almost exactly the same place.
Very well said!
I 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.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Just a few thoughts *grin*.... <snip>
-cheval-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! My friend, it never ceases to amaze me how, as you have pointed out, we can come from two very different starting points (you, the romantic idealization of knighthood, and me, the stark reality of it) and end up at almost exactly the same place.
Very well said!
I 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.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Rhys: "...option 6.) Attempt to teach people why CA is completely inappropriate for SCA melee combat and encourage them to act in a manner more consistent with the both the nature of the combat we're doing and with the gentlemen we're supposed to be."
Geez, Rhys. You said it better in one sentence what took me four paragraphs of blathering to get across. How'ld you do that??
[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-23-2002).]
Geez, Rhys. You said it better in one sentence what took me four paragraphs of blathering to get across. How'ld you do that??
[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-23-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
Geez, Rhys. You said it better in one sentence what took me four paragraphs of blathering to get across. How'ld you do that??</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! Which sentence? Actually, I suspect it's because you're so much more patient with this than I. I actually consider this to be one of the *major* fialings of the SCA today, even worse than the artificial combat system, and I tend to lose patience easily with those who simply don't get it. It's a failing I'm working hard to correct, and your example is good for this.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Geez, Rhys. You said it better in one sentence what took me four paragraphs of blathering to get across. How'ld you do that??
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Which sentence? Actually, I suspect it's because you're so much more patient with this than I. I actually consider this to be one of the *major* fialings of the SCA today, even worse than the artificial combat system, and I tend to lose patience easily with those who simply don't get it. It's a failing I'm working hard to correct, and your example is good for this.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
)Just a quick comment on this "plate is proof" thing --
As far as I know, this is a purely Western practice introduced specifically to address problems with calibration/registration. Fighters in plate were having a problem feeling the bird-blunted arrows of the day, so to clear up the confusion, they were instructed they could ignore the shot. Hence, plate is "proof". It did not come from some great understanding of medieval archery; it was a modern answer to a modern construct. Later, when javelins and hand-thrown "axes" were added, plate was not invulnerable. Again, not because there was evidence to this fact, but simply because the missiles had greater mass and could be more easily felt through the armor.
What is of great interest to me is the suggestion that, according to the evidence I have seen to date, mail over a gambeson -was- proof against the archery of its day. For this reason, I would suggest that we do not expand the current "standard", but recognize its effectiveness and accept that mail is "proof". Since everyone is presumed to be fighting to this standard regardless of their actual kit, everyone would be invulnerable to archery in all but the face -- at least, for those kingdoms that do not "fight the helm" for calling thrusts and the like *grin*... -c-
As far as I know, this is a purely Western practice introduced specifically to address problems with calibration/registration. Fighters in plate were having a problem feeling the bird-blunted arrows of the day, so to clear up the confusion, they were instructed they could ignore the shot. Hence, plate is "proof". It did not come from some great understanding of medieval archery; it was a modern answer to a modern construct. Later, when javelins and hand-thrown "axes" were added, plate was not invulnerable. Again, not because there was evidence to this fact, but simply because the missiles had greater mass and could be more easily felt through the armor.
What is of great interest to me is the suggestion that, according to the evidence I have seen to date, mail over a gambeson -was- proof against the archery of its day. For this reason, I would suggest that we do not expand the current "standard", but recognize its effectiveness and accept that mail is "proof". Since everyone is presumed to be fighting to this standard regardless of their actual kit, everyone would be invulnerable to archery in all but the face -- at least, for those kingdoms that do not "fight the helm" for calling thrusts and the like *grin*... -c-
-
corbin skarlocke
- Archive Member
- Posts: 803
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, TX
"What is of great interest to me is the suggestion that, according to the evidence I have seen to date, mail over a gambeson -was- proof against the archery of its day. For this reason, I would suggest that we do not expand the current "standard", but recognize its effectiveness and accept that mail is "proof". Since everyone is presumed to be fighting to this standard regardless of their actual kit, everyone would be invulnerable to archery in all but the face -- at least, for those kingdoms that do not "fight the helm" for calling thrusts and the like *grin*... -c-"
History doesnt support your theory, the english adopted the longbow from the welsh because it was so deadly. Why would they adopt a ineffective weapon? What armour were the english wearing? Mail.
The english army during crecy poiters and agincourt was composed of two thirds archers. They paid more archers more than the average soldier. Why do this for an ineffective soldier?
The french armies in all of those battles significantly outnumber the english in totality and had a larger percentage of men at arms. What armour were the french wearing? Mail, which was increasing supplemented with plate.
How could an army that significantly outnumbered its enemy, armoured so that most of its enemies weapons were ineffective, lose not once but repeatedly?
It is during the War of the Roses, were we see complete harnesses of plate that we also see the demise of the longbow.
Thus we draw the conclusion - plate is proof.
Regards.
History doesnt support your theory, the english adopted the longbow from the welsh because it was so deadly. Why would they adopt a ineffective weapon? What armour were the english wearing? Mail.
The english army during crecy poiters and agincourt was composed of two thirds archers. They paid more archers more than the average soldier. Why do this for an ineffective soldier?
The french armies in all of those battles significantly outnumber the english in totality and had a larger percentage of men at arms. What armour were the french wearing? Mail, which was increasing supplemented with plate.
How could an army that significantly outnumbered its enemy, armoured so that most of its enemies weapons were ineffective, lose not once but repeatedly?
It is during the War of the Roses, were we see complete harnesses of plate that we also see the demise of the longbow.
Thus we draw the conclusion - plate is proof.
Regards.
-
Guest
I had always understood that one of the conventions of Scadian combat was that all fighters were assumed to be wearing full mail and an open-faced helm. Has that changed? If so, I'm curious when it changed or in what kingdoms it changed, and if not, then the whole "plate is proof" argument is somewhat moot.
Marklandic armor always counted for what it was- If you enjoy the protection, you bear the weight.
------------------
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
Marklandic armor always counted for what it was- If you enjoy the protection, you bear the weight.
------------------
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
-
Lodhur
- Archive Member
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: al-Barran, Outlands, Scadia
- Contact:
cheval wrote
"Where is this coming from? Name-calling won’t accomplish anything, Lodhur. Just because I play my game as a romantic medieval noble does not mean I can’t separate the real from the pretend."
Cheval, while it is true that your name was the only one I mentioned in my post, the statement was;
"I distinctly dislike the unrealistic limitations people like cheval would put on archery; primarily out of their persona's supposedly 'pretend' prejudice."
I apologize that you were offended by this overly broad sentence. I chose to sacrifice clarity for the sake of brevity, & did not intend to pass judgement on you specifically. Let me be a bit more clear:
I distinctly dislike the unrealistic limitations put on archery. The realistic ones, however, I think you should be lauded for. Just what _is_ realistic is the central debate.
Now, if my insinuation that the "romantic medieval noble" has begun to integrate with your mundane life strikes a bit close to home; that is not necessarily a negative development. Just realize, if that is the case, that it may impair your objectivity. I am certainly not immune. An aquarian like myself struggles constantly to stay grounded in this world.
If, as you say, you are _not_ "against CA primarily out of [your] persona's supposedly 'pretend' prejudice", then I apologize for my erroneous & unintended judgement. Whether or not you are the exception, I still maintain my first statement in its original context:
"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."
If you have that ability, then you need not think I am 'name calling'. I could just as well have used the name of Syr Rhys, Richard Blackmoore, etc. Nor did I intend that the 'many individuals' were necessarily bad. Those method actors enliven the spirit of the SCA, & make it a richer experience for all of us. It does have its down sides, of which we as re-creationists must be wary.
I really like the 'plate as proof' idea, not only because I believe it (though very broadly) closer to historical reality. I think it could provide an excellent backdoor for the acceptence of an honor based 'armour as worn' standard. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone!
I disagree with 'forcing archers into a certain area', but I like the historically accurate effect it had.
I live in a kingdom where comabat archery is still limited to 'golf tube' scuds. I think the real reason that is so is due to the prejudices of persona which I described. Its the reverse of the 'If they'd had it, they'd have used it.' concept. If you WERE a medieval man at arms, & any old archer COULD take you down from 10 feet away, & you couldn't hit him; well I expect that you would do everything in your power to make the bow inaccessible, outlawed, banned, laughably impractical, or just a Very Bad Thing altogether. This WAS historically done with the crossbow, which COULD take down knights in plate.
This is just what I see many individuals doing with the rules of the SCA. This is inherently misguided, & can only lead us *away* from historical authenticity, & towards LARP fantasy. Its like if the olympics havd the competing ice skaters also be the judges at the same events. Hence my point: 'That prejudice should not leak over into decisions on *how* the game is played'
"Where is this coming from? Name-calling won’t accomplish anything, Lodhur. Just because I play my game as a romantic medieval noble does not mean I can’t separate the real from the pretend."
Cheval, while it is true that your name was the only one I mentioned in my post, the statement was;
"I distinctly dislike the unrealistic limitations people like cheval would put on archery; primarily out of their persona's supposedly 'pretend' prejudice."
I apologize that you were offended by this overly broad sentence. I chose to sacrifice clarity for the sake of brevity, & did not intend to pass judgement on you specifically. Let me be a bit more clear:
I distinctly dislike the unrealistic limitations put on archery. The realistic ones, however, I think you should be lauded for. Just what _is_ realistic is the central debate.
Now, if my insinuation that the "romantic medieval noble" has begun to integrate with your mundane life strikes a bit close to home; that is not necessarily a negative development. Just realize, if that is the case, that it may impair your objectivity. I am certainly not immune. An aquarian like myself struggles constantly to stay grounded in this world.
If, as you say, you are _not_ "against CA primarily out of [your] persona's supposedly 'pretend' prejudice", then I apologize for my erroneous & unintended judgement. Whether or not you are the exception, I still maintain my first statement in its original context:
"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."
If you have that ability, then you need not think I am 'name calling'. I could just as well have used the name of Syr Rhys, Richard Blackmoore, etc. Nor did I intend that the 'many individuals' were necessarily bad. Those method actors enliven the spirit of the SCA, & make it a richer experience for all of us. It does have its down sides, of which we as re-creationists must be wary.
I really like the 'plate as proof' idea, not only because I believe it (though very broadly) closer to historical reality. I think it could provide an excellent backdoor for the acceptence of an honor based 'armour as worn' standard. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone!
I disagree with 'forcing archers into a certain area', but I like the historically accurate effect it had.
I live in a kingdom where comabat archery is still limited to 'golf tube' scuds. I think the real reason that is so is due to the prejudices of persona which I described. Its the reverse of the 'If they'd had it, they'd have used it.' concept. If you WERE a medieval man at arms, & any old archer COULD take you down from 10 feet away, & you couldn't hit him; well I expect that you would do everything in your power to make the bow inaccessible, outlawed, banned, laughably impractical, or just a Very Bad Thing altogether. This WAS historically done with the crossbow, which COULD take down knights in plate.
This is just what I see many individuals doing with the rules of the SCA. This is inherently misguided, & can only lead us *away* from historical authenticity, & towards LARP fantasy. Its like if the olympics havd the competing ice skaters also be the judges at the same events. Hence my point: 'That prejudice should not leak over into decisions on *how* the game is played'
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
Gawds, I can kick myself for not keeping copies of the earlier threads. Galon, where the heck are the archives of the Archives *grin*??
Corbin: “…the english adopted the longbow from the welsh because it was so deadly…. What armour were the english wearing? Mail…. The english army during crecy poiters and agincourt was composed of two thirds archers…. What armour were the french wearing? Mail, which was increasing supplemented with plate.â€
Corbin: “…the english adopted the longbow from the welsh because it was so deadly…. What armour were the english wearing? Mail…. The english army during crecy poiters and agincourt was composed of two thirds archers…. What armour were the french wearing? Mail, which was increasing supplemented with plate.â€
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 overly concerned when they found it necessary to "break the rules".
This is simply not comparable to our game's restrictions on how many opponents you can face at one time, hitting from behind, striking an opponent on the ground, etc.
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".
It's not a question of agreeing to disagree -- you appear to be mixing concepts just because they have similar names. It would be like saying that American football and European football (soccer) are the same thing despite all evidence to the contrary, simply because they share a common name.
Similarly, the fact that the word "tournament" is used to describe a wide range of medieval practices is likewise misleading, but certainly not incomprehensible. Early Medieval tournaments looked amazingly like our melees and battles. Our popular double-elimination "tournaments", on the other hand, look nothing like a period affair, no matter the era.
The fact that we mislabelled things early on is no reason to cling blindly to this misunderstanding. Calling something by a name does not make it so (our "wars" are not war), and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet (our "wars" are tournaments). While I admit it can be hard for us old dogs to learn new tricks, it is possible. Why don't you give it a try *grin*??
With respect,
-cheval-
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 overly concerned when they found it necessary to "break the rules".
This is simply not comparable to our game's restrictions on how many opponents you can face at one time, hitting from behind, striking an opponent on the ground, etc.
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".
It's not a question of agreeing to disagree -- you appear to be mixing concepts just because they have similar names. It would be like saying that American football and European football (soccer) are the same thing despite all evidence to the contrary, simply because they share a common name.
Similarly, the fact that the word "tournament" is used to describe a wide range of medieval practices is likewise misleading, but certainly not incomprehensible. Early Medieval tournaments looked amazingly like our melees and battles. Our popular double-elimination "tournaments", on the other hand, look nothing like a period affair, no matter the era.
The fact that we mislabelled things early on is no reason to cling blindly to this misunderstanding. Calling something by a name does not make it so (our "wars" are not war), and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet (our "wars" are tournaments). While I admit it can be hard for us old dogs to learn new tricks, it is possible. Why don't you give it a try *grin*??
With respect,
-cheval-
So we all seem to have issues with CA. I understand how most of us knightly types feeling being the target of snipers you can't catch. To me the biggest problem with CA is that we aren't on horse back. Tradionally a knight or noble would own a horse, ride a horse into battle. The average archer had to walk. This single fact to my mind makes our system of CA unbalanced. On foot the lightly armored archer runs better than the mail and plate clad warriors we are. Historically a small number of knights would easily ride down any archers they came across.
I personally like to see combat archers. I thinks it's a great way to involve more people in what we do. Hushgirl no one should be discouraging you from this pursuit if it that's what you want to do. I don't agree with light archers though. I also don't agree that I should have to chase an archer all day just so I can NOT hit him. I won't bother to get on the is this tournament or war discussion as it seems to me to a pointless debate and has no bearing on the original topic. Just my thoughts.
Ulfbjorn
I personally like to see combat archers. I thinks it's a great way to involve more people in what we do. Hushgirl no one should be discouraging you from this pursuit if it that's what you want to do. I don't agree with light archers though. I also don't agree that I should have to chase an archer all day just so I can NOT hit him. I won't bother to get on the is this tournament or war discussion as it seems to me to a pointless debate and has no bearing on the original topic. Just my thoughts.
Ulfbjorn
Ulfbjorn: "I won't bother to get on the is this tournament or war discussion as it seems to me to a pointless debate and has no bearing on the original topic."
But this is the central point -- without it, all else is moot.
Those who support archery in our recreation argue that we are simulating war, and war included archery. The counter argument is that, when medieval nobles simulated war, they only did it among members of their own estate and they did not use archery.
If we are medieval nobles (per our rules), then should we not conduct ourselves as they would?
Shouldn't our war practice be modelled on what was done in period?
If not, then who will be the non-nobles to pull the bows?
And once you’ve identified them, then how do we incorporate theme in such a way as to more accurately simulate their use and effectiveness (for, as you point out, there is a significant disconnect between what is practiced today and what governed their deployment historically)?
With respect,
-cheval-
But this is the central point -- without it, all else is moot.
Those who support archery in our recreation argue that we are simulating war, and war included archery. The counter argument is that, when medieval nobles simulated war, they only did it among members of their own estate and they did not use archery.
If we are medieval nobles (per our rules), then should we not conduct ourselves as they would?
Shouldn't our war practice be modelled on what was done in period?
If not, then who will be the non-nobles to pull the bows?
And once you’ve identified them, then how do we incorporate theme in such a way as to more accurately simulate their use and effectiveness (for, as you point out, there is a significant disconnect between what is practiced today and what governed their deployment historically)?
With respect,
-cheval-
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Cheval,
A point you miss. The reason the bow was ineffective earlier, and became effective later for a span, is not the power of the bow. The answer lies in how the bow is tactically applied on the battlefield.
While the Welsh had some successes, do to terrain & tactics with the bow used individually, as a direct fire weapon, when they attempted to employ it on the open battlefield, the end result was usually a resounding defeat for them, and victory for the Marcher Lords.
What made the English effective with thew bow as a battlefield weapon was the development of it an an indirect fire weapon, employed en-masse as an area denial weapon. The end effect of employing arhcers as a primitive artillery battery was twofold - the 'beaten ground' was a deathtrap for lightly armed troops, with the end effect much the same as the British at the Somme in 1916. The better armoured troops it forced to dismount, either through the effect of killing their mount, or their dismounting in wisdom knowing the likely effect of their barrage on their mounts. I would wager good money that had they been deployed against a contingent of equally well armoured horses and men of the last third of the 15th, to first quarter of the 16th century, the end result would not be so devestating to the cavalry as it was their great great grandsires.
The better armed men dismounted, who were little effected by the bow were effected by it's psychological impact (most likely - current thinking based on examination of course of battles) by bunching together and steering away from the fire, ands in essence attacking frontally a prepared position on a narrow front, negating their advantage in numbers.
Hope this helps.
------------------
Bob R.
A point you miss. The reason the bow was ineffective earlier, and became effective later for a span, is not the power of the bow. The answer lies in how the bow is tactically applied on the battlefield.
While the Welsh had some successes, do to terrain & tactics with the bow used individually, as a direct fire weapon, when they attempted to employ it on the open battlefield, the end result was usually a resounding defeat for them, and victory for the Marcher Lords.
What made the English effective with thew bow as a battlefield weapon was the development of it an an indirect fire weapon, employed en-masse as an area denial weapon. The end effect of employing arhcers as a primitive artillery battery was twofold - the 'beaten ground' was a deathtrap for lightly armed troops, with the end effect much the same as the British at the Somme in 1916. The better armoured troops it forced to dismount, either through the effect of killing their mount, or their dismounting in wisdom knowing the likely effect of their barrage on their mounts. I would wager good money that had they been deployed against a contingent of equally well armoured horses and men of the last third of the 15th, to first quarter of the 16th century, the end result would not be so devestating to the cavalry as it was their great great grandsires.
The better armed men dismounted, who were little effected by the bow were effected by it's psychological impact (most likely - current thinking based on examination of course of battles) by bunching together and steering away from the fire, ands in essence attacking frontally a prepared position on a narrow front, negating their advantage in numbers.
Hope this helps.
------------------
Bob R.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ulfbjorn:
<B>To me the biggest problem with CA is that we aren't on horse back. Tradionally a knight or noble would own a horse, ride a horse into battle. The average archer had to walk. This single fact to my mind makes our system of CA unbalanced. On foot the lightly armored archer runs better than the mail and plate clad warriors we are. Historically a small number of knights would easily ride down any archers they came across. <snip> I won't bother to get on the is this tournament or war discussion as it seems to me to a pointless debate and has no bearing on the original topic. Just my thoughts.
Ulfbjorn</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, for the majority of the middle ages the majority of knights fought battles on *foot* (even when they were still riding in tournament, but that has no relevance because there weren't any archers in a tournament). The main body of French troops at both Poitiers and Agincourt (among other battles, but those are better known) had to walk into the English lines; only small bodies of mounted troops were kept, and they didn't "ride down" the archers because their valuable horse would have been slaughtered by arrows. Again, the modern notion that archers weren't worthy to fight isn't right, it's just that on foot they could largely be ignored, and if you fought them on horseback you'd soon be on foot.
As for your comment about the tournament vs. war issue, I think you should re-examine it. It's key to all of this. If we fought a war we should allow archery (with some of the restriction people have brought up), but since we aren't, it should be banned. It's the center of the whole discussion!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>To me the biggest problem with CA is that we aren't on horse back. Tradionally a knight or noble would own a horse, ride a horse into battle. The average archer had to walk. This single fact to my mind makes our system of CA unbalanced. On foot the lightly armored archer runs better than the mail and plate clad warriors we are. Historically a small number of knights would easily ride down any archers they came across. <snip> I won't bother to get on the is this tournament or war discussion as it seems to me to a pointless debate and has no bearing on the original topic. Just my thoughts.
Ulfbjorn</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, for the majority of the middle ages the majority of knights fought battles on *foot* (even when they were still riding in tournament, but that has no relevance because there weren't any archers in a tournament). The main body of French troops at both Poitiers and Agincourt (among other battles, but those are better known) had to walk into the English lines; only small bodies of mounted troops were kept, and they didn't "ride down" the archers because their valuable horse would have been slaughtered by arrows. Again, the modern notion that archers weren't worthy to fight isn't right, it's just that on foot they could largely be ignored, and if you fought them on horseback you'd soon be on foot.
As for your comment about the tournament vs. war issue, I think you should re-examine it. It's key to all of this. If we fought a war we should allow archery (with some of the restriction people have brought up), but since we aren't, it should be banned. It's the center of the whole discussion!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Chef and Rhys: Thanks to both of you for the lessons on the tactical use of archery in period battles. I am intrigued by this interpretation and am interested in learning more about this over time (not that what you have offered is inadequate; only that more is always better *grin*)...
And while I will admit that archery may not have been deployed to its best effect prior to the late 13th C., this does not refute my assertion that it did not directly contribute substantially to the rolls of the dead when it was used correctly. Even if the heavily-armored knights and men-at-arms of the mail era were "guided" into frontal assaults through denial of terrain, the fact remains that they were defeated by similarly armed and armored opponents, and not slain by the arrows themselves. It may have taken a military genius like Longshanks or Chandos to realize this tactic, but it does not take a lot of research to conclude that, individually, mail was still proof against the bows used at that time, or that "longbows" are not contemporary with the age of mail.
With respect,
-cheval-
[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-24-2002).]
And while I will admit that archery may not have been deployed to its best effect prior to the late 13th C., this does not refute my assertion that it did not directly contribute substantially to the rolls of the dead when it was used correctly. Even if the heavily-armored knights and men-at-arms of the mail era were "guided" into frontal assaults through denial of terrain, the fact remains that they were defeated by similarly armed and armored opponents, and not slain by the arrows themselves. It may have taken a military genius like Longshanks or Chandos to realize this tactic, but it does not take a lot of research to conclude that, individually, mail was still proof against the bows used at that time, or that "longbows" are not contemporary with the age of mail.
With respect,
-cheval-
[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-24-2002).]
-
Steve S.
- Archive Member
- Posts: 13327
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Huntsville, AL
- Contact:
My two cents:
I don't believe in the "tournament" subscription to our "wars". I can see a definite arguement for saying they are some rich nobleman's replication of war in tournament style, but I like to pretend I'm actually in a life-or-death battle. It's fun. In either case, whether it is a War or a Tournament representation of war, it should have archery. If it's War, then they are "real" arrows that we have dumbed up to make safe. If they are arrows as part of some nobleman's grand tournament, then they should be dumbed up because, well, it's a tournament.
I LOVE archers shooting at me. I just wish I felt the arrows more. I've been hit more than a few times and told later I shrugged them off. I truly didn't feel them under my 14th century plate armour. (coat of plates and 16GA stainless Red Falcon arms and legs)
I wish they would up the poundages so that they carried some more oopmh!
Owen:
"In battles, sure. I'd like an occasional "plate is proof" battle, like we have in Markland."
I agree, that would be way cool. Plus it would encourage plate armour.
Steve
------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!
I don't believe in the "tournament" subscription to our "wars". I can see a definite arguement for saying they are some rich nobleman's replication of war in tournament style, but I like to pretend I'm actually in a life-or-death battle. It's fun. In either case, whether it is a War or a Tournament representation of war, it should have archery. If it's War, then they are "real" arrows that we have dumbed up to make safe. If they are arrows as part of some nobleman's grand tournament, then they should be dumbed up because, well, it's a tournament.
I LOVE archers shooting at me. I just wish I felt the arrows more. I've been hit more than a few times and told later I shrugged them off. I truly didn't feel them under my 14th century plate armour. (coat of plates and 16GA stainless Red Falcon arms and legs)
I wish they would up the poundages so that they carried some more oopmh!
Owen:
"In battles, sure. I'd like an occasional "plate is proof" battle, like we have in Markland."
I agree, that would be way cool. Plus it would encourage plate armour.
Steve
------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Sir Rhys,
Here, I have one point of (friendly)contention.
Not so, from the 11th century to the mid 14th century, mounted combat was the principle endevour of the knight. Then, there is an abberation in this development for approximately 70 years, between Cressy & Agincourt, in the arena solely consisting of France, the massed use of the longbow proved a counter to the horse - it's "paper" to the mounted man at arms "rock".
Several technical developments undo the longbows "paper" on the battlefield in the mid 15th century. Better armour, better metalurgy, more effective horse armour make the mounted man at arms a little more viable, combined with a field artillery that while not 'lively' in movement or deployment, will seldom have as good a target in history as the tactical formation bowmen are required to form up in to be effective.
The English won battles by taking up a fixed prepared defence, and forcing their enemies to attack them. The French being able to bombard them out of range forced them out of their fixed positions, to the attack, and to their massacre.
Then, on the continent, the mounted man at arms takes up a new role of importance - potentially more effective then ever in their role of shock cavalry when employed judiciously during the course of a continental battle, in concert with a more effective infantry, and in auxiliary to them. From the 1470's to the 1520's, the Gendarme never dismounted to fight, and had reasonable succes when reasonably employed.
England is a seperate case. The English could not develop or use effectively the mounted man at arms . This is due to a serieds of factors. Psychologicaly, the English were wedded to their traditional tactics of the Hundred Years War. Of great importance, the Royal and private studs that had previously supplied suitable cavalry horses tom the fully armed man were in a ruinous state. They hadn't been required for the war in France, and were expensive to maintain, and so were allowed to degrade - end result, suitable mounts for the fully armoured man at arms weren't available on a large scale. A Spaniard noted of an English contingent to the 'Crusade' against Granada in 1482 "That the English men at arms would ride any sort of horse or sorry nag, for they all dismounted to fight on foot with their axes when battle ws immenant....".
In addition the armour to make the horse reasonably effective was expensive, not readily available, and made the option all the less attractive to a man-at-arms with 5 generations of fighting on foot as a tradition behind him.
The bow was used in vast numbers by either side during the Wars of the Roses, but armour was now effective enough that the large battles were invariably ended with a slugging fest at close quarters on foot.
When Henry VIII went to pursue his ambitions on the continent, in order to be able to compete with his opponents successfully, he was forced to hire large numbers of fully armoured men-at-arms, as he had so few available to him in England, with the heaviest cavalry being a 'demilance' inadequate to the challenge of the continental battlefield.
The end of the Armoured, mounted man-at-arms on the European battlefield in found in the 1560's, not the 1360's.
As we are primarily Anglophones, we tend to look at history through English eyes, and I think we forget who actually won France in the end, and also ignore the history of the continent.
------------------
Bob R.
Here, I have one point of (friendly)contention.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Actually, for the majority of the middle ages the majority of knights fought battles on *foot* (even when they were still riding in tournament, but that has no relevance because there weren't any archers in a tournament). </font>
Not so, from the 11th century to the mid 14th century, mounted combat was the principle endevour of the knight. Then, there is an abberation in this development for approximately 70 years, between Cressy & Agincourt, in the arena solely consisting of France, the massed use of the longbow proved a counter to the horse - it's "paper" to the mounted man at arms "rock".
Several technical developments undo the longbows "paper" on the battlefield in the mid 15th century. Better armour, better metalurgy, more effective horse armour make the mounted man at arms a little more viable, combined with a field artillery that while not 'lively' in movement or deployment, will seldom have as good a target in history as the tactical formation bowmen are required to form up in to be effective.
The English won battles by taking up a fixed prepared defence, and forcing their enemies to attack them. The French being able to bombard them out of range forced them out of their fixed positions, to the attack, and to their massacre.
Then, on the continent, the mounted man at arms takes up a new role of importance - potentially more effective then ever in their role of shock cavalry when employed judiciously during the course of a continental battle, in concert with a more effective infantry, and in auxiliary to them. From the 1470's to the 1520's, the Gendarme never dismounted to fight, and had reasonable succes when reasonably employed.
England is a seperate case. The English could not develop or use effectively the mounted man at arms . This is due to a serieds of factors. Psychologicaly, the English were wedded to their traditional tactics of the Hundred Years War. Of great importance, the Royal and private studs that had previously supplied suitable cavalry horses tom the fully armed man were in a ruinous state. They hadn't been required for the war in France, and were expensive to maintain, and so were allowed to degrade - end result, suitable mounts for the fully armoured man at arms weren't available on a large scale. A Spaniard noted of an English contingent to the 'Crusade' against Granada in 1482 "That the English men at arms would ride any sort of horse or sorry nag, for they all dismounted to fight on foot with their axes when battle ws immenant....".
In addition the armour to make the horse reasonably effective was expensive, not readily available, and made the option all the less attractive to a man-at-arms with 5 generations of fighting on foot as a tradition behind him.
The bow was used in vast numbers by either side during the Wars of the Roses, but armour was now effective enough that the large battles were invariably ended with a slugging fest at close quarters on foot.
When Henry VIII went to pursue his ambitions on the continent, in order to be able to compete with his opponents successfully, he was forced to hire large numbers of fully armoured men-at-arms, as he had so few available to him in England, with the heaviest cavalry being a 'demilance' inadequate to the challenge of the continental battlefield.
The end of the Armoured, mounted man-at-arms on the European battlefield in found in the 1560's, not the 1360's.
As we are primarily Anglophones, we tend to look at history through English eyes, and I think we forget who actually won France in the end, and also ignore the history of the continent.
------------------
Bob R.
SoFC: "I like to pretend I'm actually in a life-or-death battle."
So did the medievals, but they called it "tournament".
SoFC: "It's fun."
And in the case of our forebears, potentially profitable *grin*...
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? For some, it's fun to fight in a spuntop with a grill and blue plastic legs. But for those here on the Archive, this is inconsistent with the spirit of why we're here, if not the actual rules (an attempt at pre-17th C. garb). "Fun" by itself is not sufficient, and you have failed to provide a consistent context for this position.
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?
SoFC: "I wish they would up the poundages so that they carried some more oopmh!"
Sounds like you're siding with Rhys' argument that we don't hit hard enough *grin*.
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)?
With respect (and wondering if you ever found the lost shipment of loose rings)...
-cheval-
[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-24-2002).]
So did the medievals, but they called it "tournament".
SoFC: "It's fun."
And in the case of our forebears, potentially profitable *grin*...
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? For some, it's fun to fight in a spuntop with a grill and blue plastic legs. But for those here on the Archive, this is inconsistent with the spirit of why we're here, if not the actual rules (an attempt at pre-17th C. garb). "Fun" by itself is not sufficient, and you have failed to provide a consistent context for this position.
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?
SoFC: "I wish they would up the poundages so that they carried some more oopmh!"
Sounds like you're siding with Rhys' argument that we don't hit hard enough *grin*.
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)?
With respect (and wondering if you ever found the lost shipment of loose rings)...
-cheval-
[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-24-2002).]
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
-
Diglach Mac Cein
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14071
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 1:01 am
Problem with "Plate is Proof" is that we aren't under a plate standard, right?
We are all supposed to accept blows under a mail shirt standard, not plate.
I would think, like a sword blow, it is your responsibility to learn to judge a shot from an arrow.
BTW, at least where I'm fighting, the crossbow carry MORE than enough "oomph"! Mostpeople build them to the maximum legal SCA standards for power....
We are all supposed to accept blows under a mail shirt standard, not plate.
I would think, like a sword blow, it is your responsibility to learn to judge a shot from an arrow.
BTW, at least where I'm fighting, the crossbow carry MORE than enough "oomph"! Mostpeople build them to the maximum legal SCA standards for power....
-
Guest
Ummmm, yes. As stated above (to thunderous silence) does anybody want to address this point? Wouldn't this render most of this debate moot, except for glancing projectile strikes?
Also, "plate is proof" does not extend to all Marklandic scenarios. It can be adjusted to the historical period in which the combat takes place. It can also be adjusted to the weaponry. For instance plate was NOT proof to cannon shot (usually indirect fire onions: "Eat vegatative death!") in our siege scenarios. Likewise heavy crossbows might be ruled effective against plate at close range. Much depends on the Battlemaster, the period setting and the whims and/or knowledge of the participants.
------------------
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
[This message has been edited by Cap'n Atli (edited 02-24-2002).]
Also, "plate is proof" does not extend to all Marklandic scenarios. It can be adjusted to the historical period in which the combat takes place. It can also be adjusted to the weaponry. For instance plate was NOT proof to cannon shot (usually indirect fire onions: "Eat vegatative death!") in our siege scenarios. Likewise heavy crossbows might be ruled effective against plate at close range. Much depends on the Battlemaster, the period setting and the whims and/or knowledge of the participants.
------------------
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
[This message has been edited by Cap'n Atli (edited 02-24-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B> Not so, from the 11th century to the mid 14th century, mounted combat was the principle endevour of the knight. Then, there is an abberation in this development for approximately 70 years, between Cressy & Agincourt, in the arena solely consisting of France, the massed use of the longbow proved a counter to the horse - it's "paper" to the mounted man at arms "rock".
Several technical developments undo the longbows "paper" on the battlefield in the mid 15th century. Better armour, better metalurgy, more effective horse armour make the mounted man at arms a little more viable, combined with a field artillery that while not 'lively' in movement or deployment, will seldom have as good a target in history as the tactical formation bowmen are required to form up in to be effective.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All very true. But Bob Charron has done some research suggesting that dismounted combat was more common prior to the 14th century than I would have believed (we had a big discussion about this on the Tournament Company list a while ago), and it has been my understanding that even after the 14th century and in places *other* than England that the main bodies of troops were *dismounted* (to fight at least), even though the use of cavalry increased relative to the HYW. The largest precentage of troops in continental wars were *still* dismounted, albeit supported by slightly larger units of cavalry. More to the point, most of them weren't even knights!
So if we allow that the middle ages ran from the 10th-15th centuries (and I know those dates are highly debateable), then the 13th-15th centuries saw a huge proportion of dismounted combat in war.
Well, what really happend was that Fastolf got stupid. Why he chose to attack those fixed fortifications at Chatillon is simply beyond me. He should have known better; I suppose he simply got to believing that since Englishmen were tougher and more manly then the Frogs they would always win, and it just wasn't so; it also took the better organization and tactical sense that the English had displayed. When he lost that, it was over. It was a terrible blow to the English people (on top of other, smaller failures along the way), and added to a king (Henry VI) who was certifiable (Henry V should *never* have married in to that family, not even to secure the crown!) and who didn't have the spine to carry on the fight, and the war was lost. It's sad. God was still an Englishman, but now the king wasn't...
No, the gendarme didn't dismount to fight, and yes, cavalry began playing a bigger role, but the *main* troops were dismounted infantry. The heyday of the mounted knight was really over before Agincourt.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>The end of the Armoured, mounted man-at-arms on the European battlefield in found in the 1560's, not the 1360's.
As we are primarily Anglophones, we tend to look at history through English eyes, and I think we forget who actually won France in the end, and also ignore the history of the continent.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, come now, I'm not your average SCAdian who doesn't understand that England wasn't the whole world (just the best part of it...).
The armored horseman's existance as the *primary* battlefield factor actually phased out rather gradually, but I would argue that it happened *before* 1360; Crecy wasn't the death knell of the mounted knight, that had happened long before, and the French just didn't seem to hear it (probably because the sound of Flemish hammers hitting their bascinets had blocked out the sound... <grin>). Can you name a *major* battle fought after 1345 in which the *majority* of the troops on the field were mounted on both sides?
And yes, the French won the HYW, but only after the true men leading the HYW were dead. Had Henry V lived things would have worked out very diffierently, I think. His marriage to that french git would have cemented his claim to the throne (which was never a really part of what the English expected before this; even E III just used that as an excuse to claim more land), and he might have been able to prop up his weak and mentally-defective son long enough to have managed to make things permenant. Heck, maybe H VI could have died before assuming the throne and a true Englishman could have taken over.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B> Not so, from the 11th century to the mid 14th century, mounted combat was the principle endevour of the knight. Then, there is an abberation in this development for approximately 70 years, between Cressy & Agincourt, in the arena solely consisting of France, the massed use of the longbow proved a counter to the horse - it's "paper" to the mounted man at arms "rock".
Several technical developments undo the longbows "paper" on the battlefield in the mid 15th century. Better armour, better metalurgy, more effective horse armour make the mounted man at arms a little more viable, combined with a field artillery that while not 'lively' in movement or deployment, will seldom have as good a target in history as the tactical formation bowmen are required to form up in to be effective.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All very true. But Bob Charron has done some research suggesting that dismounted combat was more common prior to the 14th century than I would have believed (we had a big discussion about this on the Tournament Company list a while ago), and it has been my understanding that even after the 14th century and in places *other* than England that the main bodies of troops were *dismounted* (to fight at least), even though the use of cavalry increased relative to the HYW. The largest precentage of troops in continental wars were *still* dismounted, albeit supported by slightly larger units of cavalry. More to the point, most of them weren't even knights!
So if we allow that the middle ages ran from the 10th-15th centuries (and I know those dates are highly debateable), then the 13th-15th centuries saw a huge proportion of dismounted combat in war.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The English won battles by taking up a fixed prepared defence, and forcing their enemies to attack them. The French being able to bombard them out of range forced them out of their fixed positions, to the attack, and to their massacre.</font>
Well, what really happend was that Fastolf got stupid. Why he chose to attack those fixed fortifications at Chatillon is simply beyond me. He should have known better; I suppose he simply got to believing that since Englishmen were tougher and more manly then the Frogs they would always win, and it just wasn't so; it also took the better organization and tactical sense that the English had displayed. When he lost that, it was over. It was a terrible blow to the English people (on top of other, smaller failures along the way), and added to a king (Henry VI) who was certifiable (Henry V should *never* have married in to that family, not even to secure the crown!) and who didn't have the spine to carry on the fight, and the war was lost. It's sad. God was still an Englishman, but now the king wasn't...
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Then, on the continent, the mounted man at arms takes up a new role of importance - potentially more effective then ever in their role of shock cavalry when employed judiciously during the course of a continental battle, in concert with a more effective infantry, and in auxiliary to them. From the 1470's to the 1520's, the Gendarme never dismounted to fight, and had reasonable succes when reasonably employed.</font>
No, the gendarme didn't dismount to fight, and yes, cavalry began playing a bigger role, but the *main* troops were dismounted infantry. The heyday of the mounted knight was really over before Agincourt.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>The end of the Armoured, mounted man-at-arms on the European battlefield in found in the 1560's, not the 1360's.
As we are primarily Anglophones, we tend to look at history through English eyes, and I think we forget who actually won France in the end, and also ignore the history of the continent.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, come now, I'm not your average SCAdian who doesn't understand that England wasn't the whole world (just the best part of it...).
The armored horseman's existance as the *primary* battlefield factor actually phased out rather gradually, but I would argue that it happened *before* 1360; Crecy wasn't the death knell of the mounted knight, that had happened long before, and the French just didn't seem to hear it (probably because the sound of Flemish hammers hitting their bascinets had blocked out the sound... <grin>). Can you name a *major* battle fought after 1345 in which the *majority* of the troops on the field were mounted on both sides?
And yes, the French won the HYW, but only after the true men leading the HYW were dead. Had Henry V lived things would have worked out very diffierently, I think. His marriage to that french git would have cemented his claim to the throne (which was never a really part of what the English expected before this; even E III just used that as an excuse to claim more land), and he might have been able to prop up his weak and mentally-defective son long enough to have managed to make things permenant. Heck, maybe H VI could have died before assuming the throne and a true Englishman could have taken over.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
Sorry to veer again but I gotta yell at Rhys again.
Rhys wrote above-
"LOL! My friend, it never ceases to amaze me how, as you have pointed out, we can come from two very different starting points (you, the romantic idealization of knighthood, and me, the stark reality of it) and end up at almost exactly the same place."
Rhys-
All scholarly evidence suggests that the blending of romantic idealization and what you call "stark reality" has existed as long as the word "chivalry" has been in use. It is impossible to divide the chivalric imagination -with all it's pipe dreams of christian service and perfection- from the reality of knightly life.
If period knights tried to apply the lessons learned through folk tales, arthurian literature, and dramatic scenes witnessed on the field, how is that different than today? In the Middle Ages you probably would have had quite a taste for romantic idealism- it was a *central part* of knightly culture. Edward III read about Lancelot quite a bit, and you can see how it influenced his very less-than pragmatic approach to re-claiming his Continental property and the long-term financial interests of his family. Romance and Reality are intertwined and nothing can unravel them- you are influenced by the Romantic side of the chivalric time-line whether you like it or not. Think about it, dude.
-Your pal
Vitus
Rhys wrote above-
"LOL! My friend, it never ceases to amaze me how, as you have pointed out, we can come from two very different starting points (you, the romantic idealization of knighthood, and me, the stark reality of it) and end up at almost exactly the same place."
Rhys-
All scholarly evidence suggests that the blending of romantic idealization and what you call "stark reality" has existed as long as the word "chivalry" has been in use. It is impossible to divide the chivalric imagination -with all it's pipe dreams of christian service and perfection- from the reality of knightly life.
If period knights tried to apply the lessons learned through folk tales, arthurian literature, and dramatic scenes witnessed on the field, how is that different than today? In the Middle Ages you probably would have had quite a taste for romantic idealism- it was a *central part* of knightly culture. Edward III read about Lancelot quite a bit, and you can see how it influenced his very less-than pragmatic approach to re-claiming his Continental property and the long-term financial interests of his family. Romance and Reality are intertwined and nothing can unravel them- you are influenced by the Romantic side of the chivalric time-line whether you like it or not. Think about it, dude.
-Your pal
Vitus
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>All scholarly evidence suggests that the blending of romantic idealization and what you call "stark reality" has existed as long as the word "chivalry" has been in use. It is impossible to divide the chivalric imagination -with all it's pipe dreams of christian service and perfection- from the reality of knightly life.
If period knights tried to apply the lessons learned through folk tales, arthurian literature, and dramatic scenes witnessed on the field, how is that different than today? In the Middle Ages you probably would have had quite a taste for romantic idealism- it was a *central part* of knightly culture. Edward III read about Lancelot quite a bit, and you can see how it influenced his very less-than pragmatic approach to re-claiming his Continental property and the long-term financial interests of his family. Romance and Reality are intertwined and nothing can unravel them- you are influenced by the Romantic side of the chivalric time-line whether you like it or not. Think about it, dude.
-Your pal
Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're talking about apples and oranges, my friend. When I say Cheval is inspired by romantic images of chivalry I mean more than just by romances from the period; he's largely influenced by *modern* romances. And yes, Rhys would have been influenced by the romances of the period, much as a new recruit in today's army is influenced by John Wayne movies. Such influences are real, and they're important, but you put them into their proper place or you die. That's the difference about which I'm talking.
Talking about the fact that the literature of the day effected the knights of the day as justification for the inauthentic conceptions people have today for knighthood is just obfuscation; mere rhetorical device.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>All scholarly evidence suggests that the blending of romantic idealization and what you call "stark reality" has existed as long as the word "chivalry" has been in use. It is impossible to divide the chivalric imagination -with all it's pipe dreams of christian service and perfection- from the reality of knightly life.
If period knights tried to apply the lessons learned through folk tales, arthurian literature, and dramatic scenes witnessed on the field, how is that different than today? In the Middle Ages you probably would have had quite a taste for romantic idealism- it was a *central part* of knightly culture. Edward III read about Lancelot quite a bit, and you can see how it influenced his very less-than pragmatic approach to re-claiming his Continental property and the long-term financial interests of his family. Romance and Reality are intertwined and nothing can unravel them- you are influenced by the Romantic side of the chivalric time-line whether you like it or not. Think about it, dude.
-Your pal
Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're talking about apples and oranges, my friend. When I say Cheval is inspired by romantic images of chivalry I mean more than just by romances from the period; he's largely influenced by *modern* romances. And yes, Rhys would have been influenced by the romances of the period, much as a new recruit in today's army is influenced by John Wayne movies. Such influences are real, and they're important, but you put them into their proper place or you die. That's the difference about which I'm talking.
Talking about the fact that the literature of the day effected the knights of the day as justification for the inauthentic conceptions people have today for knighthood is just obfuscation; mere rhetorical device.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Khann:
<B>Perhaps plate should be the standard?(HAHAHAHAH)Or armour as worn (again hahah)
I favor armour as worn. I can not learn to take a shot that I can not FEEL or hear.
Khann</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Perhaps plate should be the standard?(HAHAHAHAH)Or armour as worn (again hahah)
I favor armour as worn. I can not learn to take a shot that I can not FEEL or hear.
Khann</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"