The Armour Archive

Personal feelings: I like the controlled chaos of Combat archery in battles. Battles weren't tourneys, different rules. Unfortunately, the underclasses WERE invited to battles, and WERE very commonly armed with missile weapons.

As AlvarCadiz and others have alluded, armor standards tame the "bad" effects of CA.

MAKE METAL ARMOR "PROOF", AND MOST CA PROBLEMS GO AWAY.

Armor-up like a noble and survive. Armor-down like a peasant levy, and die in droves. Don't snivel about the weight and inconvenience of "proof" armor, that is what was worn "in the day", and for exactly the same reasons.

Take your choice: armed like a noble, or armed like a villein. Results are predictable.

Other problems, ie, fast loading crossbows, can be solved by requiring loading devices; belt hooks, goat foot levers , cranks, etc. This stuff ain't hard.

The huffy attitude of "The non-chivalrous aren't invited to OUR battle" is more of a problem than any skewed rules system. I really think that we all can "Just get along."

I would have no problems going to a plate is proof way of dealing with things.

Granted, I have an early personna, so really doesnt help me much. I wear chainmail and have an open face helm. But I also fight with a normal size elliptical shield for my personna also, so I have a bit of a different cover than most.

This could be a happy medium, I would think, and is definetly something that might be mentioned to those that make the rules of engagement at pennsic. Give it a try and see how it goes.

Since the SCA operates on a "presumed armor" standard, I'd make it a blanket targetting restriction vs. armored fighters and armored archers: only a shot to the face is considered telling. Against archers who are not armored sufficiently to participate as armored combatants, the entire SCA target area is good.

As many others have pointed out here, the light bows and crossbows of 1100 AD are generally of little use against armored men of the knightly class. Limiting the target area to the face removes the rifle-like aspect of current CA, but still allows archers to be a threat on the field.

With such a targetting restriction, I'd think that limitations on ammunition and rate-of-fire would be inappropriate, since the bows they would be using in real life would be reasonable approximations of their 1100 AD counterparts. You shoot as fast as you want to shoot. When you're out of ammo, you're out.

I could accept that without grumbling.

M.

Clinker wrote:The huffy attitude of "The non-chivalrous aren't invited to OUR battle" is more of a problem than any skewed rules system. I really think that we all can "Just get along."

Except the non-chivalrous aren't invited to OUR battle because of

Corpora wrote:6. Combatants shall behave in a knightly and chivalrous manner, and shall fight according to the appropriate Society and Kingdom Conventions of Combat."

Also, as other have pointed out, everyone is assumed to be of lesser nobility, so we don't have underclasses.



As for Dante's question.

My opinion hasn't been changed at all by this 14 page thread. I've learned a few things about mounted archers in spain, but haven't really seen any swaying evidence that wasn't posted in the last huge combat archery thread, or the one before that, or the one before that. This one has alot of the same people (Rys, Logan, Vitus) arguing the same points they've made before.

"421 replies... wow.

I was wondering if, after 421 replies... I was wondering if anybody's opinion has been been altered either way at this point?

Has anybody been swayed? One way or the other? "

My opinion has been altered slightly-
I have been convinced that upping the poundage of bows to make them hit with sufficiant force is not a good idea.
I have heard a lot of ideas from fighters to make CA more balanced but have heard little counterpoint from CAs. I would be interested to hear from them on specific targeting.
For my part, I think its a great idea- It would make CAs demonstrate more skill than they currently have to and bring a more historical balance to the game. It would likely garner more respect towards archers from the fighter community than they currently have.
As to what those target should be? I think they should be in line with our presumed armor standards and as such should be in line with bows and arrows that are the historical counterpart of our standard. Shots to the face are a given. I`ve heard the inner thigh tossed out there too. I would be fine with that. As to the armpit, I`m not sure if that would be in keeping with period armor. More knowledgable heads than mine can debate that, but I would go along with what was decided either way.
I don`t think armor as worn is a good idea as it starts tinkering with our presumed standard for calibration.
I would like to see less yeilding from CAs in the face of actualy fighting it out when they are cornered, but given the rules about bows needing to be cleared from the field I can understand how it can be difficult.
I do think limited ammunition is a good idea.
I do think that poor sportsmanship and churlish behaviour should be tolerated no more from CAs than it is from fighters.
I would like to reiterate that I do like combat archery in concept. I have no interest in partaking in it personaly as (I like to think at least) i`m more valuable to my knight and king swinging a stick in the backfield and/or leading a unit than shooting a bow, but I think it can add a fun element our game, but it does need to be changed.
Again, I would like to hear some opinions from more CAs on how to make this more fun and fair for everyone.
Drefan Ravenson

I can't and will not try to speak for all the CA'ers but the reason I try to stay away from topics like this one are due to individuals such as Rhys who say "Ban CA, no exeptions, no excuses". Nothing I can say or do will change his mind or others like him. Not making a jab here but just pointing out my beliefs.

I believe that there are ways to make CA more acceptable to some, but others will never be happy until CA goes away. I truly believe that it comes down the whether or not you believe we have Grand Melee's or Wars. I'm of the "War" camp and the rules of the SCA tend to back that up. Some will argue that we can't approximate the actions of War well enough so we shouldn't do them and call them Grand Melee's instead. Well, there's a lot of things we can't do well enough historically speaking so where do you draw the line? First it will be CA for these individuals and some may actually stop it there having accomplished what they supposedly seek, while completely ignoring the vast other problems that surround them. Others will then go onto pushing out other issues that they find unacceptable to themselves. Where does it stop?

Some claim that Archers didn't wage war in the manner that it occurs within the SCA (i.e. roving snipers, non-mass volleys, etc...). Those people need to look over the entire period of history the the SCA covers and they will then realize that archery and archers evolved tactics and strategies throughtout this huge period of time and that all of those tactics were put to use one time or another.

I find it funny that Rhys states that any member of the Chivalry that participates in CA should turn in their spurs and crawl away with shame. I know of at least one Duke and multiple Knights here in Ansteorra that not only participate in CA but have also sponsered Combat Archers by helping them get equipment and such. Our current Queen is a Combat Archer. I'm thankful that I reside in such a Combat Archer friendly Kingdom.

As to whether or not what CA's do is chivalrous or knightly I would ask, which definition are we going to use? I would be willing to bet that the definition from say 1300's is going to be different from the definition in the 1500's and probably way different from the one we use today. If you truly believe what a CA'er does is not "Chivalrous and Knightly" then at the next event you attend, pull that CA'er off the field and go straight to the nearest marshal and demand that they be removed from the field and go straight to Marshals court as you believe that they have not complied with the rules of the list as put forth by the SCA Corpora.

When it comes right down to it, this is a "game" we all play. The rules are there and they allow CA. If you don't like it, work to change the rules from within the system. It behooves you nothing to denegrate and insult people that are playing the game by the rules set forth by the SCA. I understand that some just plain don't like CA, I don't hold that against you at all. I understand that some believe that it is unbalanced and unfair, let's work to change that then.

The last thing I have to say, and this has been burning me since I read it. The individual who knowingly struck another after he acknowledged that he yielded should have been removed from the field and taken to marshals court. I don't think you should have your card removed but at the very least your day should have been over. Talk about unchivalrous and unknightly.

SyrRhys wrote:I'm quoting from:

James F. Powers, A SOCIETY ORGANIZED FOR WAR: The Iberian Municipal Militias in the Central Middle Ages, 1000-1284

And, as you have noted, there seems to be some confusion about the definition of "knightly." All of which is much more easily solved if one accepts the notion that it can have multiple definitions depending on loci... for example, many of these guys were shooting crossbows and "good Turkish bows" (an expensive import item for somebody all the way in Iberia, btw) at siege during the Albigensian Crusade (I have a ton of grading to do, but you can find the source in Anonymous Continuator). Now, there's a historiographic quibble here:

If he's referring to them as knightly archers on his own, you're free to contradict him.

However, what he's said is, "numerous municipal charters refer to them as knightly archers" (emph. mine). I this case, you cannot disagree with him unless you can disprove his statement of fact: aka, raid his bibliography, check his sources, obtain them, and demonstrate that he has committed an error in translation. Latin and Spanish is not exactly mystery languages, and neither would it be difficult to check what "equites" or its equivalent means at that place and in that time.

I hope that's enough--very early medieval history in Spain isn't exactly my central area of research.

That would be an awesome parting shot for this... except insofar as 1000-1284 is the HIGH middle ages. I know that there are a lot of re-enactors and the like, especially Brits who like to believe that civilisation in the Isles begins at Hastings, who would like to argue otherwise. However, "very early medieval" would involve, say, the actual Hegira... a distinctly different kettle of fish.

I am completely cool with breaking this into a new topic so as not to distract from the biannual popcornfest.

AlvarCadiz wrote:As Sir Rhys pointed out it is from _A Society Organized for War_ by James Powers available online at:

http://libro.uca.edu/socwar/war.htm

Well, that was nice of him! I'll drop him a line and see what he says: if he has his primary source in a file somewhere, we may be able to obtain the exact language. Since I'm not an Iberianist, that'd save a LOT of time.

Though I'm distinctly skeptical of the old "sweep it away by calling it iconographic tradition" game. Over time, more and more chronicle and art depictions turn out to be not only generally, but specifically accurate depictions.

I think that the nature of Iberia and the England-Scotland border made mounted archers very attractive.

Of course: the terrain simply demands it. And of course, the attitudes were different: these militia were rivals to the nobles supported by royal power... ecorcheurs were simply useful scum. See Ch. 1, @ fn. 59, for Portugal. For similar reasons, you find the same in East-Central, SE, And E Europe: the terrain is simply so vast (and the bows simply more powerful - seriously, check Fn. 92 for an example in the same work cited) that knights do not necessarily mean "heavy-armored cavalry." Many of the Hungarians engaged at Durnkrut acquitted themselves well by all observers' standards, but only a tiny portion of them were in heavy armor... and for good, solid tactical reasoning.

If you lack sufficient armor, you die. But if you fight as heavy cavalry and are dependent on your horse for striking power, and said horse is exhausted, you die.

That's a real balancing act.

One SCA equivalent to this reasoning for CA might be SS guys who carry a bow and a half-dozen arrows the explicit purpose of clearing out any spearmen who are slowing things down bridge battles, so that the "real" battle can get started.

(Anyone have Hatto's article "Archery and Chivalry: A Noble Prejudice," from footnote 90 in Ch 5? It might enlighten us all.)

I have read it, but I don't think I have it to hand (it's *very* general, btw). It's possible that you can find it on the de re militari sources page.

jean paul, you clearly are confusing chivalric behavior with polite behavior. many in the sca do and its terribly confusing when people that understand that chivalry means "of and about the knightly class" and have to determine if what they mean is polite. use polite when thats what you mean and your comments will read much better and not put at odds what youre saying and what you mean. anyway, just some food for thought.

youve addressed, as a combat archer, what you feel are the complaints against ca as it is done today. i cant say i disagree with you too terribly much. but what about the vast majority of us that see the two communities as so very different? what about the fact that the demands and requirements of fighters and combat archers are ntohing alike? would you take a minute and comment on my post outlining those differneces a few pages back. if you do you will be the first combat archer to ever do so. ive offered that take as the core fo the problem but, like history, the combat archery community ignores it and homes in on the notion that everyone has a right to fight.

thanks!
logan

DeCalmont wrote:I can't and will not try to speak for all the CA'ers but the reason I try to stay away from topics like this one are due to individuals such as Rhys who say "Ban CA, no exeptions, no excuses". Nothing I can say or do will change his mind or others like him. Not making a jab here but just pointing out my beliefs.

I believe that there are ways to make CA more acceptable to some, but others will never be happy until CA goes away. I truly believe that it comes down the whether or not you believe we have Grand Melee's or Wars. I'm of the "War" camp and the rules of the SCA tend to back that up. Some will argue that we can't approximate the actions of War well enough so we shouldn't do them and call them Grand Melee's instead. Well, there's a lot of things we can't do well enough historically speaking so where do you draw the line? First it will be CA for these individuals and some may actually stop it there having accomplished what they supposedly seek, while completely ignoring the vast other problems that surround them. Others will then go onto pushing out other issues that they find unacceptable to themselves. Where does it stop?

Some claim that Archers didn't wage war in the manner that it occurs within the SCA (i.e. roving snipers, non-mass volleys, etc...). Those people need to look over the entire period of history the the SCA covers and they will then realize that archery and archers evolved tactics and strategies throughtout this huge period of time and that all of those tactics were put to use one time or another.

I find it funny that Rhys states that any member of the Chivalry that participates in CA should turn in their spurs and crawl away with shame. I know of at least one Duke and multiple Knights here in Ansteorra that not only participate in CA but have also sponsered Combat Archers by helping them get equipment and such. Our current Queen is a Combat Archer. I'm thankful that I reside in such a Combat Archer friendly Kingdom.

As to whether or not what CA's do is chivalrous or knightly I would ask, which definition are we going to use? I would be willing to bet that the definition from say 1300's is going to be different from the definition in the 1500's and probably way different from the one we use today. If you truly believe what a CA'er does is not "Chivalrous and Knightly" then at the next event you attend, pull that CA'er off the field and go straight to the nearest marshal and demand that they be removed from the field and go straight to Marshals court as you believe that they have not complied with the rules of the list as put forth by the SCA Corpora.

When it comes right down to it, this is a "game" we all play. The rules are there and they allow CA. If you don't like it, work to change the rules from within the system. It behooves you nothing to denegrate and insult people that are playing the game by the rules set forth by the SCA. I understand that some just plain don't like CA, I don't hold that against you at all. I understand that some believe that it is unbalanced and unfair, let's work to change that then.

The last thing I have to say, and this has been burning me since I read it. The individual who knowingly struck another after he acknowledged that he yielded should have been removed from the field and taken to marshals court. I don't think you should have your card removed but at the very least your day should have been over. Talk about unchivalrous and unknightly.

Chris G. wrote:...everyone is assumed to be of lesser nobility, so we don't have underclasses...

I keep hearing this but can't remeber ever actually reading it in a primary declaration. Anybody got a literal cite from the Corpora, or other appropriately influential document?

Thanks,
Tim

two sections from our charter. the first talks of the scope of the sca the second is a deffintion of terms. nowhere in the document does it discuss or even mention peasant or any other lower class:


We sponsor events such as tournaments and feasts where members dress in clothing styles worn in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and participate in activities based on the civil and martial skills of the period. These activities recreate aspects of the life and culture of the landed nobility in Europe prior to 1600 CE. The dress, pastimes, and above all the chivalric ideals of the period serve to unify our events and activities.

Period: The era used by the Society as the base for its re-creation activities. The Society is based on the life and culture of the landed nobility of pre-17th Century Western Europe, focusing on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

T. Finkas wrote:

Chris G. wrote:...everyone is assumed to be of lesser nobility, so we don't have underclasses...

I keep hearing this but can't remeber ever actually reading it in a primary declaration. Anybody got a literal cite from the Corpora, or other appropriately influential document?

Thanks,
Tim

T. Finkas wrote:I keep hearing this but can't remeber ever actually reading it in a primary declaration. Anybody got a literal cite from the Corpora, or other appropriately influential document?

From Corpora's Brief Introduction:

As a living history group, the Society provides an environment in which members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of the period, as well as doing more traditional historical research. We sponsor events such as tournaments and feasts where members dress in clothing styles worn in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and participate in activities based on the civil and martial skills of the period. These activities recreate aspects of the life and culture of the landed nobility in Europe prior to 1600 CE..

Not exactly written in what we'd think of as formal law, but I've always felt that's a bit like ignoring the preamble to the Constitution because it's not in the actual articles.

Just to throw a curve ball in the mix...

How do people feel about thrown weapons? That was a very important weapons form for many of the warrior aristocracy in western europe in the earlier periods.

Any problems there?

From Corpora's Brief Introduction:

As a living history group, the Society provides an environment in which members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of the period, as well as doing more traditional historical research. We sponsor events such as tournaments and feasts where members dress in clothing styles worn in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and participate in activities based on the civil and martial skills of the period. These activities recreate aspects of the life and culture of the landed nobility in Europe prior to 1600 CE..

Well, it's not much of a reach, in my mind, to say that the life and culture of landed nobility in Europe, pre 1600 by default included persons of lower social status. There were retainers, servants, various members of the household, soldiers, archers, etc.---and by slight extension, craftsmen, merchants and other non-nobles. Can any of you cite an instance, much less a common example, of a noble lifestyle tableau or scenario that would not include such personages?

You can say the focus is on the nobility but how can you say the overall portrayal is limited to nobility? I'm curious.

Thanks,
Tim

I got home early from work. I've just been sitting here and I have decided that plate-as-proof is what I want.
It would solve all of my bitching, because if I wanted to be arrow-proof I would have to take a notch out of my competitive mobility.
That seems fair.

Your Grace, I've copied your earlier post and inserted my comments within it.


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.

I believe it does take courage to step up to a line of combatants with nothing to defend yourself with other than the armour worn. I and other Combat archers routinely are either right in the line with the shield men or actually sometimes stepping forward of the shield wall in order to take a shot. With the current rule set I cannot block or strike with my weapon (which I completely agree with btw). I cannot set my crossbow down as it is a safety hazard. So yes, I think it does require courage to do the job of a Combat Archer.



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.

I believe skill should be involved as well. I believe that maybe some form of required targeting might be useful, I can tell you though I’ve seen more face shots blown off than I care to recount. There will be those who blow off shots no matter the source, be it a combat arrow/bolt or sword thrust, etc…

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).

As in all we do with the SCA, safety becomes paramount to everything else. We could surely inflate the poundage requirements for Combat Archery equipment to the level of making the projectiles hit with enough force to be equivalent to a shot thrown by any Uber Duke â„¢. Of course then the safety of everyone on the field would be in jeopardy. So, in order to be able to play this game we have to have compromises. The end result is that we have light poundage bows that hit with a modicum of force but are safe to play with. One of the issues that this sometimes brings up is the rate of fire of the crossbows on the field, I for one could see maybe requiring crossbowmen to utilize some form of cocking device in order to slow the rate down some. I think I may try this at Gulf War this year if I have time to produce something appropriate.


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€

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:I got home early from work. I've just been sitting here and I have decided that plate-as-proof is what I want.
It would solve all of my bitching, because if I wanted to be arrow-proof I would have to take a notch out of my competitive mobility.
That seems fair.

Plate as Proof, Sir? Or metal armour? Vast distinction when referring to periods before the 13th century. And no-one here can argue that maille makes you faster...or more competitive.

Sir Angus wrote:How do people feel about thrown weapons? That was a very important weapons form for many of the warrior aristocracy in western europe in the earlier periods.

Any problems there?

Yes, because the bloody things dont leave. I swear I saw the same 2 throwing axes/maces/knobby thingies for 2/3 of the Town battle at Pennsic. We were cursed, cause everytime we threw them away, they found their way back.

T. Finkas wrote:You can say the focus is on the nobility but how can you say the overall portrayal is limited to nobility? I'm curious.

The first answer I'd be inclined to give is invalid -- it's an opinion, based on early experiences in the SCA and nothing I'd qualify as "fact". It'd be more along the lines of claiming that a meme was a supportable argument (which I guess it could be, if I were making a sociologically-oriented argument).

However, from the "Forward into the Past" brochure (which is what we use to advertise and represent the SCA, at a corporate level):

The term "lord" or "lady" may refer to anyone in the Society if you do not know their rank, but the title "Lord" or "Lady" is reserved for those who have received an Award of Arms (AoA) from the Crown. This is often the first award granted to a person. It recognizes service to the kingdom or a local group and entitles the person to be called "Lord" or "Lady" (name) and to bear Arms.

While they make a distinction between Lord and lord, they still refer to lord (or m'lord) as an acceptable form of address for anyone in the SCA, which would indicate assumed nobility, even prior to your AoA.

Was going to agree with you there for a sec Tim, cause after reading it again in Corpora, it doesnt say we all are nobility, but that we are portraying times of the nobility, which would of also had servants and such.

But then Saritor pointed out the other part, and while yeah, the way what Logan posted could easily be used to say that being a servant, would be playing by the rules as read. But the fact that we all should be addressed as lord or lady, might also make it, that we all are assumed to be of some minor nobilty.

Then again, I think maybe a polite way to address anyone back then, might of been lord or lady, and not meaning they were of noble birth, just being polite. So I guess I kind of shot that down for myself.

Saritor wrote:While they make a distinction between Lord and lord, they still refer to lord (or m'lord) as an acceptable form of address for anyone in the SCA, which would indicate assumed nobility, even prior to your AoA.

IIRC don't they say this is just a default polite speaking convention? I don't think they say it actually confers some associated nobility. That's what I seem to remember reading.

I have the feeling this is the SCA trying to promote politeness and civil manner and not a definition of a default social position.

sorry, maybe i should have more clear. the lthings i listed are required from anyone entering the field as a fighter if they stand a chance of success. without all of these attributes a fighter will simply fail. to be a sucessful combat archer none, not one, of these things is required. sure, some combat archers might very well show one or two of these traits but again, none are required to garner a level (sometimes a great level) of success on the fighting field. that is the disconnect and that is the cause for the lack of balance. with that in mind can you disagree wtih any of my points and show how any of them are required of combat archers to be successful?

regards
logan


[quote="DeCalmont"]Your Grace, I've copied your earlier post and inserted my comments within it.


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.

I believe it does take courage to step up to a line of combatants with nothing to defend yourself with other than the armour worn. I and other Combat archers routinely are either right in the line with the shield men or actually sometimes stepping forward of the shield wall in order to take a shot. With the current rule set I cannot block or strike with my weapon (which I completely agree with btw). I cannot set my crossbow down as it is a safety hazard. So yes, I think it does require courage to do the job of a Combat Archer.



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.

I believe skill should be involved as well. I believe that maybe some form of required targeting might be useful, I can tell you though I’ve seen more face shots blown off than I care to recount. There will be those who blow off shots no matter the source, be it a combat arrow/bolt or sword thrust, etc…

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).

As in all we do with the SCA, safety becomes paramount to everything else. We could surely inflate the poundage requirements for Combat Archery equipment to the level of making the projectiles hit with enough force to be equivalent to a shot thrown by any Uber Duke â„¢. Of course then the safety of everyone on the field would be in jeopardy. So, in order to be able to play this game we have to have compromises. The end result is that we have light poundage bows that hit with a modicum of force but are safe to play with. One of the issues that this sometimes brings up is the rate of fire of the crossbows on the field, I for one could see maybe requiring crossbowmen to utilize some form of cocking device in order to slow the rate down some. I think I may try this at Gulf War this year if I have time to produce something appropriate.


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€

T. Finkas wrote:IIRC don't they say this is just a default polite speaking convention? I don't think they say it actually confers some associated nobility. That's what I seem to remember reading.

I have the feeling this is the SCA trying to promote politeness and civil manner and not a definition of a default social position.

It's under the discussion of rank and titles, and how to address people, but if we included peasantry in the mix, we'd have some different default titles or manner of address.

But that was part of what I didn't say earlier...I had always observed and been told that the default assumption of nobility for all members was the way of creating/forcing that standard level of politeness. We may have some "first among equals" set ups, but everyone is nobility and should be treated with the same common level of courtesy.

EDIT: Looking further into it, and I hate doing this particular type of research, I will pretty much have to withdraw from this as anything other than idle discussion. There's not going to be much that counts as clear and convincing, so I'll concede the point on the default status of members.

Once you get your AoA, however, I'd say you're pretty clearly defined as a member of the aristocracy of the period.

logan wrote

sorry, maybe i should have more clear. the lthings i listed are required from anyone entering the field as a fighter if they stand a chance of success. without all of these attributes a fighter will simply fail. to be a sucessful combat archer none, not one, of these things is required. sure, some combat archers might very well show one or two of these traits but again, none are required to garner a level (sometimes a great level) of success on the fighting field. that is the disconnect and that is the cause for the lack of balance. with that in mind can you disagree wtih any of my points and show how any of them are required of combat archers to be successful?

regards
logan

To answer your question I think it still comes down to two schools of thought;

a.) Grand Melee, i.e. a large Tournament or

b.) War

In a Tournament setting you are absolutly correct. To be success you would have to meet all of the criteria you mentioned.

In a War situation I think that any combatant would need to meet those requirements to be highly successful, but I also think that any fighter can and has entered the War field without a single one of those traits and been either mildly successful or at least mediocre. The reason why is that in a War setting there is simply a multitude of actions going on at any given time in any given direction that can and do provide serious openings for someone to take advantage of no matter their personal skill level. That is the very nature of war. (Ask Harold Hardrada)

I mentioned before, I do believe that steps can be made to make this fairer and more balanced for all involved.

whoa. ummmm no, there is no way a fighter can be successful without each and every one of the aspects i named. no way. but i already know that. what i need to know is if there is any way, in your mind, that an archer can be held to any single one of those requirements in order to be successful?

logan

DeCalmont wrote:logan wrote

sorry, maybe i should have more clear. the lthings i listed are required from anyone entering the field as a fighter if they stand a chance of success. without all of these attributes a fighter will simply fail. to be a sucessful combat archer none, not one, of these things is required. sure, some combat archers might very well show one or two of these traits but again, none are required to garner a level (sometimes a great level) of success on the fighting field. that is the disconnect and that is the cause for the lack of balance. with that in mind can you disagree wtih any of my points and show how any of them are required of combat archers to be successful?

regards
logan

To answer your question I think it still comes down to two schools of thought;

a.) Grand Melee, i.e. a large Tournament or

b.) War

In a Tournament setting you are absolutly correct. To be success you would have to meet all of the criteria you mentioned.

In a War situation I think that any combatant would need to meet those requirements to be highly successful, but I also think that any fighter can and has entered the War field without a single one of those traits and been either mildly successful or at least mediocre. The reason why is that in a War setting there is simply a multitude of actions going on at any given time in any given direction that can and do provide serious openings for someone to take advantage of no matter their personal skill level. That is the very nature of war. (Ask Harold Hardrada)

I mentioned before, I do believe that steps can be made to make this fairer and more balanced for all involved.

dukelogan wrote: what i need to know is if there is any way, in your mind, that an archer can be held to any single one of those requirements in order to be successful?

I’m probably going off into a gray zone here but I would say, far and few as they are, only a heavy fighter who dabbles in the evils of CA for whatever reason can meet those criteria… and I really wouldn’t consider them true archers because they spend most their time fighting heavy and carry hand to hand weapons with them (or in one case I know of has a caddie carry them for him) to fight with when ammo runs out or the enemy closes in too close.

So aside from those individuals I’d say no, archers don’t need to have all those requirements (the ones you listed) in order to be successful. And that is why, in my opinion, yielding archers (the subject of this message thread) are so aggravating to me/us.

Just my two cents worth, your change may very

My, what a medieval-sounding conversation this has been. This conversation has probably been had around campfires since the actual Middle Ages.

On the one side, "Hey, who invited these low-borns to OUR War? And they use such unchivalrous weapons like blocks of pikes, halberds, bows, xbows, and handgonnes too. Why it sets all our training and chivalry to naught! Can't to get a decent ransom from a peasant, and they KILL us rather than ask Ransom! No glory whatsoever. What a bother!"

On the other side,"What is with all the complaining from the Chivalry? It's a WAR, not a Grand Melee by invitation only. These are the weapons used in a WAR, and yes, it increases the danger without increasing the pleasure. But that is the cost of allowing anyone to attend. If they want Chivalrous Combat, let them fight at the barriers or go to a tournament. A war is about winning, methods be damned"

Yep, it is a partly a problem of definition of terms. What is "WAR" compared to a "Grand Melee"? Is victory due to methods other than glorious single combat even desireable?

If anyone can attend, a lot of folks will want to do something more effective than be spear fodder. If Archery can be more effective in WINNING, folks will gravitate to it. If some folk cannot participate in a single combat capacity, why not allow them to participate in a historically proper role? This, for example, is a niche that the average woman can fill, without the training necessary to compete one-on-one. Increases participation, more bodies on the field doing period things that can bring victory. I think that is a good thing.

As I have stated before, Armor Standards can reduce most all of the imbalances of Combat Archery. My personal preference is for Metal-Armor-is-Proof as it covers more time period than the more restrictive standard of Plate-is-Proof, and is as roughly correct for those earlier periods. I suppose the assumed default Armor Standard could be used in this manner, but I like the idea of people actually wearing metal armor on the field.

Arrow types, arrow restrictions, cocking devices on Xbows, non-nuclear arrows, can all be handled in rule writing. But that won't happen until it is accepted that combat archery is to be allowed on the field in wars.

The senior leadership( that is the Chivalry) is going to have to, however grudgingly, embrace Combat Archery as a part of War fighting for any positive changes to occur. They can essentialy write these rule sets to an acceptable standard. If they do nothing, it will continue to fester, with no real solution. Face it, nothing is going to happen unless the Chivalry is on board. I don't think CA is going to go away, not enough suport for that, but it isn't going to get any better either.

FWIW, I've never thought that clubbing archers like baby seals was a good idea, because you never know if that is some HUGE squire's girlfriend you just bruised, or perhaps the Baron's wife. These men WILL seek you out later.

hey guys, ummm..... we dont fight wars. people die in wars. what we do is invite people (our fighting is not, in fact, open to everyone. you must be authorized) to participate in sca sport combat. we have rules to these contests and, with the exception of combat archers, certain expectations (like the ones i list). but lets go beyond fooling ourselves into arguing that our melees are actual wars and then piecemeal the parts of wars that fit our needs and offering them as supportive argument.

regards
logan

This is the Undead Thread.

audax wrote:This is the Undead Thread.

That's because the issue is so important and most people believe whatever the last thing they heard to be true since they can't do analytical thinking.

THIS IS THE JOKE ALERT SYSTEM.....THIS IS ONLY A JOKE......

So, this is why you got to get the last owrd Rhys?



NOW RETURNING YOU TO YOUR PREVIOUS DEAD EQUINE PUMMELING

Dilan wrote:THIS IS THE JOKE ALERT SYSTEM.....THIS IS ONLY A JOKE......

So, this is why you got to get the last owrd Rhys?

NOW RETURNING YOU TO YOUR PREVIOUS DEAD EQUINE PUMMELING

Yes. All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

Evil?

OK.......

SCA Combat Archers might be misguided, not as "battle hard' as others maybe even a little lazy in some cases, but evil?

Unless you are talking about me...

SyrRhys wrote:

audax wrote:This is the Undead Thread.

That's because the issue is so important and most people believe whatever the last thing they heard to be true since they can't do analytical thinking.

I quite agree with you, Rhys. I'm simply amazed at the length of this thread.

dukelogan wrote:hey guys, ummm..... we dont fight wars. people die in wars. what we do is invite people (our fighting is not, in fact, open to everyone. you must be authorized) to participate in sca sport combat. we have rules to these contests and, with the exception of combat archers, certain expectations (like the ones i list). but lets go beyond fooling ourselves into arguing that our melees are actual wars and then piecemeal the parts of wars that fit our needs and offering them as supportive argument.

regards
logan

People died in melees, too. Combatants were injured and maimed, even in contests a pleasance (sp?). We have no real risk of serious or mortal injury. We are essentially pretending to engage in combat, just with good, solid blows. Why not pretend your opponent actually killed you, like in a war? It can and does change the dynamic on the field. For example:

Oct 2004, Kingdom Crusades (were you there?): I was on the left end of our (East's) line, with a friend, trying to cover a gap of about 20 feet between our lines and the edge of the field. We shifted left to face a column charge by Atlantia's king and his guard. My friend got hit so hard he flew backwards and fell. I held for a few seconds, but an enemy passing thru gave me a butt wrap and I took it as a kill. When I fell, three other Atlantians fell with me (they had been leaning on me). When they tried to get up, House Von Drakkenklaue (HRM Lucan's house, aka VDK) had come from their reserve position and had them bottled up. Atlantia's king ended up "dead" himself. (Maybe you have seen the video? I'm in the red tunic )

In short, acting dead changed the flow of the battle. If I had simply called, "Good!" and yielded, the royal guard would have passed unimpeded. Instead, they were slowed and ultimately stopped. Falling dead adds to the challenge by creating an obstacle on the field, and you don't disrupt your lines trying to back out. (If the line is static, that's different- just back out)

I know I said I wouldn't post further on this thread... but I have one more try at a solution.

IIRC all CA are now full contact or soon will be. Thus the red pheon previously used to indicate non-contact CA will no longer be in use.

Let those who wish no involvement with CA at all wear the red pheon (downward-pointing red arrowhead, previously worn by non-contact archers) on their helmets. (can be as simple as 3 pieces of red electrical tape.) For purposes of CA they don't exist. Any shot at them can be ignored. Of course, contrariwise, they cannot kill, interfere, or affect a CA or their equipment in any way. If this means that at the end of a battle there's one guy with a red pheon on his helmet and 100 combat archers standing there, guess what...a draw. Or the highest ranking CA can put down their bow, pick up weapons, and engage the remaining heavy in single combat, or whatever the opposing kings deem right and proper.

If the anti-CA movement is as large as some people want to think it is, there will be a plethora of red pheons very soon. And the CA community will have no one to shoot at. And the fighting populace of the SCA will have literally voted with their helmets, which is as close as you can get to voting with your feet. And the mandate will be obvious.

Hey, even if the rule is never enacted (probably too soon before gulf wars to get it set up), everybody that goes to GW that's anti-CA, wear a red pheon, and count up some real numbers! Do the same at Pennsic.

Then we'll have a better idea of how many people give so much of a damn against CA that they're willing to publicly state that they dislike it that much.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow