The Armour Archive

SyrRhys wrote:But to do so ignores history, and if we're not studying history we might as well quit fighting and roll twenty-sided dice to see who wins a fight. I don't want to play D&D, I want to learn about medieval history, and so should everyone else in a supposedly medieval organization.

Generally I am agreeing with you *I am nodding my head as I read*. However, lets be realistic with our goals here.

I have always heard "We recreate medieval times as they SHOULD have been". Also, if looking back at our roots, I could EASILY see the SCA being started with the victorian ideal of "A knight in shining armour". AND the Victorian ideal of chivalry IS historically based, just a later ideal than most of the SCA time period.

Is CA ever going away? NO, there are to many who like it and want it kept. Hell we have knights and kings and queens that actively shoot CA. Its hard to ban something when the people who are supposed to be banning it are doing it.

I am more for changing the current system to more acurately portray archery historically. Do I like CA? NO, in a perfect world I would not have CA on the field. But I also know that once pandora's box was opened there is no closing it.

The SCA is a medievally themed costume party LARP. We pick our favorite arch-type character from history and recreate it. We dress up in funny clothes and get together and play LARP. I don't think the SCA ever was intended to re-live the middle ages. It is just not that type of crowd. I DO think we could go along way by raising our standards though.

SyrRhys wrote:Hi,

Very well written. I have one little quibble with what you wrote, however: How is hitting from behind unchivalrous? Nothing in the literature suggests medieval knights would have seen anything unchivalrous about it, and they have to be our guides to what is and isn't chivalrous.

I believe that, in the context of the SCA, striking from behind is unchivalrous. This is because we do have examples of various tournaments where there were limits to weapons or target areas (plaisance vs. outrance, barriers, etc.) Combat within the SCA has some similar rules (I believe it to be a different discussion as to whether or not the rules are as they should be). This is not materially different that the period strictures. Becuase the 'sponsor' of the combat (in this case the SCA) has specified rules, they ought to be followed.

Was there a period tournament in which striking from behind was not allowed? I don't know. Was there a period tournament with restrictions? Certainly. Were the combatants in those tournaments expected to follow those restrictions? Yes.

there have been a lot of different opinions against combat archery as it is currently done in the sca. several people have spoken reams about their opposition to it. this has not been a real debate since very little point/counterpoint has occurred. and several of us have been lumped into a one mind one thought group. to that end i must say that the reasoning for my stance against the current manifestation of combat archery in our sport differs from many of the ones expressed here. to me the two communities, fighters and combat archers (including siege) are so vastly different it makes no sense to me that they be one the same field. there are a few requirements of fighters (listed below) that i would like to comment on. i hope that this will better express my opposition:


courage – you have to test your mettle any time you try to strike someone. entering a fray or entering a list takes a ton of courage. the melee field forces you to push yourself into a situation in which you are being tested against others in a deed of violence. the list adds to that being watched by your friends and peers. CA does not require any courage. firing, sight unseen, from range at men that can not defend themselves can be done by anyone regardless of how much backbone they have.

skill – skill is required to strike someone with a weapon under your control. greater skill is required to strike someone with a powerful blow with a weapon under your control. simply controlling your weapon takes great skill both in tourney and melee. CA requires no skill since a man can be bested by simply lobbing an arrow into a scrum filled by the courageous . ive suggested combat archery only being effective if shots hit the face (something close to realistic as well). this would, at least, require skill. for that ive been called a whiner, and elitist, and someone that wants to be too exclusionary. strange mentality the combat archer community has.

strength – weak people can not throw powerful blows. non-powerful blows are to be ignored. non-powerful blows can not defeat men. CA requires no strength. its missiles are magical and destroy on contact (totally unrealistic to a baffling degree).

sacrifice – my body is broken. my wallet is lighter. every time we fight we sacrifice our own comfort. every hour we train we sacrifice our free time. we do so for the love of this sport. every bruise, every cut, every bump we receive causes us to sacrifice of ourselves. that sacrifice comes by way of money to treat these wounds, time to heal these wounds, pride to suffer the scars, comfort to deal with the aches and pains often permanent as a result. CA does not require training or sacrifice. crossbows can be made from a 2â€

InsaneIrish wrote:The SCA is a medievally themed costume party LARP. We pick our favorite arch-type character from history and recreate it. We dress up in funny clothes and get together and play LARP. I don't think the SCA ever was intended to re-live the middle ages. It is just not that type of crowd. I DO think we could go along way by raising our standards though.

Sorry, but that's not good enough. By settling for a LARP we keep out the serious people who could help us to raise the bar of what we're doing.

raito wrote:I believe that, in the context of the SCA, striking from behind is unchivalrous. This is because we do have examples of various tournaments where there were limits to weapons or target areas (plaisance vs. outrance, barriers, etc.) Combat within the SCA has some similar rules (I believe it to be a different discussion as to whether or not the rules are as they should be). This is not materially different that the period strictures. Becuase the 'sponsor' of the combat (in this case the SCA) has specified rules, they ought to be followed.

Was there a period tournament in which striking from behind was not allowed? I don't know. Was there a period tournament with restrictions? Certainly. Were the combatants in those tournaments expected to follow those restrictions? Yes.

Obeying the rules of a given deed of arms is, in fact, unchivalrous, but only because you're breaking the specific rule, not because the act itself is necessarily unchivalrous. But out rules should reflect those actually used in period, not whims based on Victorian notions of sportsmanship.

What you're doing is saying, "Hey, they had rules, right? Well, there's this thing I don't like? And, you know, we should make it against the rules."

Nonsense. Show me a real rule from a real deed of arms and I'll be all for it. Show me a rule we have to apply for safety's sake (and that doesn't include hitting from behind--they use that lots of places with no problems) and I'll be OK with that--maybe (the way we fight is pretty panty=waisted). But don't apply your modern notions of fair play and pretend they're related to chivalry, because they aren't. That's the same thing the CA people are doing to pretend to justify what they're doing.

For His Excellency Rhys, "Chivalry" was a social/political class in his time and place. Archers were not in the social class of chivalry; archers were employees of the chivalry in his retinue (if he had one) and those retinues of the higher classes (knights bannertte, earls, barons,counts, dukes, kings, etc...). The 14th century had rather rigid idea concerning social class and social mobility--something that would seem foreign to us.

Mord.

Cet wrote:While combat archery was indisputably practice wealy on in the West it was not so in other Kingdoms. It was introduced in the East in 1995 or a little later.

Ah, but this event predates *all* other kingdoms. The first event in the East wouldn't be for nearly a year (and even then, apparently it was rained out).

This was my point in saying that the early history of the West is the history of the SCA itself.

[Announcer mode]
See the poster that started it all!
Read the first knighting cermony!
Marvel at the first award in the SCA - The Muckin' Great Clubbe!
[Announcer mode off]

Really, it's a facinating read.

- Scott

dukelogan wrote:crap i missed that comma. good call!

the honor though would be mine. tostand in front of you, to test you, to challenge you, to strike you, to be struck, to be tested, to be challenged by you, to have a chance to be your better. hells yes. to be shot by you sight unseen with no chance to defend myself to be bested by no skill magic bullets. screw that, no thanks.

see you at pennsic?

logan

audax wrote:Logan only eats evil babies. I feel better now.

Damn, but it would be an honor to fight you.

I hate the magic bullet and I hate the whole killing from afar thing. I could live with face shots only or archers only battles. As it is now, it's just chickenshit.

If i can get the time off from work I'll be at Pennsic.

If you gotta eat babies, it may as well be the evil ones. I hear they taste better anyway. The other other white meat.

[quote="dukelogan"]CA does not require training or sacrifice. crossbows can be made from a 2â€

Maeryk, dude, you make less and less sense as this debate goes on.

Mord wrote:For His Excellency Rhys, "Chivalry" was a social/political class in his time and place. Archers were not in the social class of chivalry; archers were employees of the chivalry in his retinue (if he had one) and those retinues of the higher classes (knights bannertte, earls, barons,counts, dukes, kings, etc...). The 14th century had rather rigid idea concerning social class and social mobility--something that would seem foreign to us.

Exactly!!! That's been my point all along. *That's* why being an archer is non-knightly and unchivalrous!! Thank you, thank you!!

Well, one small quibble: Sir Robert Knolles was one of the premier captains of the English army in France in spite of the fact that hsi father was a baker; I would argue that the rigidity of class in the 14th century was not as bad as it became in the 15th century when the very ideas of chivalry were being shaken by the rise of the common footsoldiers who could beat belted knights in war which caused the chivalry to more firmly entrench their class and station.

Ah, but this event predates *all* other kingdoms. The first event in the East wouldn't be for nearly a year (and even then, apparently it was rained out).

This is true but the history of the SCA is more than the history of the West.

SyrRhys wrote:Sorry, but that's not good enough. By settling for a LARP we keep out the serious people who could help us to raise the bar of what we're doing.

By restricting what "knightly" refers to, otoh, one does the same. The Cult of Chivalry is its own, highly peculiar product, and exists within very narrow timeframes and locations...

Russ, it's notworth the time or effort. Rhys is adamant that for the SCA to do it's job of providinga creative outlet for tose wo wish to pursue historical whimsy, you need to pursue that historical whismy in an absolutely rigid way. That the SCa's combat convetionsare based o nthe 12th century, a time when tournaments were scarcely removed from war themselves is proof enough to me that the SCA should seek to emulate as many aspects as possible, rather than rigidly sticking to a specific genre. Overspecilization leads to extinction.

Then again, what do I know. I'm only a youngprospective member whose questioningwhether it's worth his time to try to join the SCA.

Verjigorm -

Sure it is - While you will find rabid people at every end of every spectrum in the SCA (Combat Archery isn't the only point of psychosis for some people, trust me), the vast majority of people in the SCA are much more moderate.

Heck, the vast majority aren't on AA.

Go, play, enjoy, grow. You'll find the people and activity level you are comfortable with.


Dilan

Yep, I would seriously doubt that 1% of actual SCA fighters freguent this board.

Yeah, you see some big names here, but this is a very, and I mean very small proportion of actual SCA fighters.

Take what anyone says here with a grain of salt. Cause I can guarantee, for every big name person or low name person on this board, I can find an even bigger name most likely that does not have the same view.

Plus like you have mentioned, technically you are not playing yet, not sure if you have ever gone to an event. So its hard to understand one view or another, till you experience it yourself.

Russ Mitchell wrote:

SyrRhys wrote:Sorry, but that's not good enough. By settling for a LARP we keep out the serious people who could help us to raise the bar of what we're doing.

By restricting what "knightly" refers to, otoh, one does the same. The Cult of Chivalry is its own, highly peculiar product, and exists within very narrow timeframes and locations...

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that it's wrong to limit the term "knightly" to those applications which actually were knightly in the period and region covered by the SCA?? You're saying that I'm in error by limiting the term "knightly" to its actual definition?

So we should call bread bakers knightly? And gong farmers (those were the people who cleaned the filth out of toilets)? And prostitutes? All of these people were outside the "knightly" class in every period and culture of which I'm aware--so if we call cowardly archers knightly why not use it for these other folks, too?

Hey, and we can broaden that, too, right? Actual definitions don't count, so we could call doctors plumbers, and plumbers pilots, right?

My god, I've heard some pretty "out there" ways of trying to make one's point, but that really takes the cake.

Verjigorm wrote:Russ, it's notworth the time or effort. Rhys is adamant that for the SCA to do it's job of providinga creative outlet for tose wo wish to pursue historical whimsy, you need to pursue that historical whismy in an absolutely rigid way. That the SCa's combat convetionsare based o nthe 12th century, a time when tournaments were scarcely removed from war themselves is proof enough to me that the SCA should seek to emulate as many aspects as possible, rather than rigidly sticking to a specific genre. Overspecilization leads to extinction.

Then again, what do I know. I'm only a youngprospective member whose questioningwhether it's worth his time to try to join the SCA.

I don't know who you are, but you're making what's called a "straw man" argument. That means (in this case--there are a couple different ways to do this) that you're defining your terms in an arbitrary way that allows you to make your point. The problem with doing that is that someone can easily call you on your terminology--as I plan to--and then your whole argument crumbles like a... well, a house of straw.

I'm not interested in "historical whimsy", as you put it, nor do I think that's what the SCA is about. I'm interested in learning about the middle ages. That requires not a rigid interpretation but one that's a rigid as can reasonably be done. If I was being rigid I'd argue that the entire SCA should represent just one single deed of arms at one single event that we repeat endlessly over and over. Instead, I prefer a more free-form approach that allows as broad a level of contribution and participation as possible without obviously ludicrous mistakes.

CA is an example of that: As I've proven pretty conclusively, you can't simulate what archery really did in battle the way it's done in the SCA (or in any really likely scenario, for that matter). And since we can't do anything like a reasonable interpretation--not a rigidly perfect one, a *reasonable* one--then we shouldn't use it.

(In case you missed it, I rejected your use of "whimsy" and "rigid" as my rebuttal.)

And, as a newcomer who obviously knows little about the SCA or about medieval history (or such trifles as spelling and grammar, for that matter), you should take time to learn about your subject before passing judgement on it.

Way to encourage there Rhys!


Yeah, CA needs "fixed". Doubt it will ever be eliminated from the SCA, but most fighters (even those who don't mind it's presence) feel it is over-powered.

I imagine that fixing it is going to be a looong painful process, given the people at both extremes of the subject.

And I doubt the fix will come from this forum...

Dilan

Cet wrote:This is true but the history of the SCA is more than the history of the West.

>GASP<

Heresy!! Apostasy!! Delusionary thingamabobbywhatsit!! That cannot be!!


Michael
Knight of the WEST.

Dilan wrote:I imagine that fixing it is going to be a looong painful process, given the people at both extremes of the subject.

That's because the CA folks are ignoring the Arthurian button that might get them mainstream acceptance.

M.

LOL!!!

That took longer than I thought it would!

Dilan

Saint-Sever wrote:

Cet wrote:This is true but the history of the SCA is more than the history of the West.

>GASP<

Heresy!! Apostasy!! Delusionary thingamabobbywhatsit!! That cannot be!!


Michael
Knight of the WEST.

Dilan wrote:Way to encourage there Rhys!

Hey, slap at me, get slapped back. I have always felt the newcomer in a group should tread softly until he learns his way around; if not, he can't expect the kid glove treatment.

When I read Rhys' comments, I often imagine Rush Limbagh delivering them. How close am I coming to the real guy behind the keyboard when I conjure this mental image (having never met the man)?



Tim

---sorry, edited for typos <sigh>

Cet wrote:Ah, but this event predates *all* other kingdoms. The first event in the East wouldn't be for nearly a year (and even then, apparently it was rained out).

This is true but the history of the SCA is more than the history of the West.

Sigh. That's why I said, "The early history of the West..." When the SCA was composed of only the area that became the West Kingdom, then by definition, their early histories are one and the same. Once the other Kingdoms came into being and developed their own cultures and customs, they added to the history of the SCA. At the time of the event in question, there were no kingdoms. There was just the SCA. There was no reason to have a West Kingdom until the SCA sprung up on the east coast. The description of the event in AS 2 talks about the first war and experiments with CA. How can you deny that this is, in fact, part of the history of the SCA? Obviously, each kingdom has its own history. But just as the history of Drachenwald includes the history of the East Kingdom, and Northshield shares history with its parent kingdom, the history of the SCA itself can be found in the descriptions written by the founders and early members of our society about events that transpired before, during, and shortly after the birth of our society.

- Scott

T. Finkas wrote:When I read Rhys' comments, I often imagine Rush Limbagh delivering them. How close am I coming to the real guy behind the keyboard when I conjure this mental image (having never met the man)?

Well, I am fat, damned bright, well educated and right about most things, but I share neither his superstition nor his drug addiction. I'll give you a four out of six.

And thank you, that was quite a compliment.

and your're good at turning a deaf ear?

SyrRhys wrote:

T. Finkas wrote:When I read Rhys' comments, I often imagine Rush Limbagh delivering them. How close am I coming to the real guy behind the keyboard when I conjure this mental image (having never met the man)?

Well, I am fat, damned bright, well educated and right about most things, but I share neither his superstition nor his drug addiction. I'll give you a four out of six.

And thank you, that was quite a compliment.

You're WAY more fun in a stick-fight. Rush would pretty much just curl up in a little ball and whimper...

SyrRhys wrote:So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that it's wrong to limit the term "knightly" to those applications which actually were knightly in the period and region covered by the SCA?? You're saying that I'm in error by limiting the term "knightly" to its actual definition?

Reading comprehension, Rhys: you're being pointedly obtuse by cherry-picking what 'knightly' means to an accurate definition restricted to those loci under the influence of the cult of chivalry. Your organization purports to represent medieval Europe, with a strong bias to western Europe. I have already provided examples of knights who both used missile weapons and fought at close quarters, without raising so much as an eyebrow. Knights and nobles, of course, fight at close quarters and gain prestige because nobody else can do so. They can't obtain the armor (and by extension, the training) to let them survive the job in set-piece battle.

In other parts of Europe where that's not the case, your definition of knightly fails, as well. And I'm not simply talking about Hungary or places where nobles intentionally served as light cavalry (and were, indeed esteemed precisely because of their ability to perform that very difficult role). There is no cult of chivalry in 9th-century Wales. There is no cult of chivalry in 11th-century Naples. Nor in significant stretches of Iberia throughout the middle ages, where the commoners are every bit as bellicose (and competent, both on foot and mounted) as the nobles. It's hard to use a crossbow on horseback from under a shield, but if these guys can hurl a mace or a javelin and get the job done... they're going to do so.

Now, I can offer distinct examples where it was much, MUCH more dangerous for me to participate in combat as an archer than as a close fighter... but that's not really material. I'm not SCA, so that end of the argument doesn't apply to me: it literally doesn't have an effect on my life. And it really does sound like CA is run like a total mess.

But when you lament that other people's disagreement with you "keeps out serious people who could help you raise the bar for what you're doing," ... well, I hate to say it, but I'm one of those people, and your argument is every inch as ... (what's a good word for repellent without the moral/emotional overtones?) .... repelling as what you criticize.

OK this is an interesting conversation. I tend to way in against archers. However less chivalrous than an Archer, are those who make personal attacks behind the safety of a keyboard.
Thanks,
Brennainn

Russ Mitchell wrote:Reading comprehension, Rhys: you're being pointedly obtuse by cherry-picking what 'knightly' means to an accurate definition restricted to those loci under the influence of the cult of chivalry. Your organization purports to represent medieval Europe, with a strong bias to western Europe. I have already provided examples of knights who both used missile weapons and fought at close quarters, without raising so much as an eyebrow. Knights and nobles, of course, fight at close quarters and gain prestige because nobody else can do so. They can't obtain the armor (and by extension, the training) to let them survive the job in set-piece battle.

In other parts of Europe where that's not the case, your definition of knightly fails, as well. And I'm not simply talking about Hungary or places where nobles intentionally served as light cavalry (and were, indeed esteemed precisely because of their ability to perform that very difficult role). There is no cult of chivalry in 9th-century Wales. There is no cult of chivalry in 11th-century Naples. Nor in significant stretches of Iberia throughout the middle ages, where the commoners are every bit as bellicose (and competent, both on foot and mounted) as the nobles. It's hard to use a crossbow on horseback from under a shield, but if these guys can hurl a mace or a javelin and get the job done... they're going to do so.

Now, I can offer distinct examples where it was much, MUCH more dangerous for me to participate in combat as an archer than as a close fighter... but that's not really material. I'm not SCA, so that end of the argument doesn't apply to me: it literally doesn't have an effect on my life. And it really does sound like CA is run like a total mess.

But when you lament that other people's disagreement with you "keeps out serious people who could help you raise the bar for what you're doing," ... well, I hate to say it, but I'm one of those people, and your argument is every inch as ... (what's a good word for repellent without the moral/emotional overtones?) .... repelling as what you criticize.

Sorry, bud, but Western European is what our charter says, and Western European knights didn't engage in combat archery. Period.

If you're repelled by that, so be it.

Brennainn wrote:OK this is an interesting conversation. I tend to way in against archers. However less chivalrous than an Archer, are those who make personal attacks behind the safety of a keyboard.
Thanks,
Brennainn

Well, let me weigh in on the question by asking what chivalry has to do with keyboards?

Would there be less complaints if arrows were held to standard calibration, like a normal sword shot?

As it is, most hit fairly softly and wouldnt be taken if delivered by a sword. I dont have any problem upping the poundage on bows.....

SyrRhys wrote:Sorry, bud, but Western European is what our charter says, and Western European knights didn't engage in combat archery. Period.

If you're repelled by that, so be it.

Thank you for the honest reply. I assume you'll be referring all the Spaniards, Imperials, and Italians to a different organization?

SirAngus wrote:Would there be less complaints if arrows were held to standard calibration, like a normal sword shot?

I honestly think you'd hear more complaints. Given that the kinetic energy of a combat arrow drops very fast, to get a telling blow at 20 yards I expect the poundage of combat bows would need to be overcranked so that at minimum range you'd have issues with excessive force.

The best solution I've heard to date would be to limit the target areas (face shot, face and chest only etc.), which would require a greater level of skill to land a shot and limit the effect of the magic arrow.