What's the Deal with Combat Archery, ect?

[Clinker]

So the writers on this thread would be happy with Golfball-tipped siloflex arrows and bolts because they make a "Dink" and hit hard. Make Combat archers take the blow and not yield would satisfy the others.
That, and buttpad armor for CA to ameliorate being clubbed like baby seals, and uniform Kettle helmets with expanded steel-visors for marshals would solve most problems with CA. (Also must have no whining about being shot on unarmored areas, you know the risks. This goes for marshals too).

See, problem solved.

[William Lee]

So the writers on this thread would be happy with Golfball-tipped siloflex arrows and bolts because they make a "Dink" and hit hard. Make Combat archers take the blow and not yield would satisfy the others.
That, and buttpad armor for CA to ameliorate being clubbed like baby seals, and uniform Kettle helmets with expanded steel-visors for marshals would solve most problems with CA. (Also must have no whining about being shot on unarmored areas, you know the risks. This goes for marshals too).

See, problem solved.

I would think that CA armour would (and should) be as good as (if not better than that) of the people they target. With of course, the obvious allowances to make CA with a bow posssible (say, a finger gaunt for the shooting hand). One could also have a program to raise companies of combat archers, trained in volley-fire and targeted shooting.

The one real snag is the idea of having to remove the bows completely from the field in order to engage an opponent hand-to-hand. With the current rules set, there's no way to get rid of the bows and engage an attacking unit without disrupting the flow of battle. I question whether it's even practical to call a hold to allow the bows to be taken off the field so that the combat archers could properly (and honorably) defend themselves.

[Richard Blackmoore]

So the writers on this thread would be happy with Golfball-tipped siloflex arrows and bolts because they make a "Dink" and hit hard. Make Combat archers take the blow and not yield would satisfy the others.
That, and buttpad armor for CA to ameliorate being clubbed like baby seals, and uniform Kettle helmets with expanded steel-visors for marshals would solve most problems with CA. (Also must have no whining about being shot on unarmored areas, you know the risks. This goes for marshals too).

See, problem solved.

I would think that CA armour would (and should) be as good as (if not better than that) of the people they target. With of course, the obvious allowances to make CA with a bow posssible (say, a finger gaunt for the shooting hand). One could also have a program to raise companies of combat archers, trained in volley-fire and targeted shooting.

The one real snag is the idea of having to remove the bows completely from the field in order to engage an opponent hand-to-hand. With the current rules set, there's no way to get rid of the bows and engage an attacking unit without disrupting the flow of battle. I question whether it's even practical to call a hold to allow the bows to be taken off the field so that the combat archers could properly (and honorably) defend themselves.

You do NOT have to remove the bows completely from the field in order to engage an opponent hand to hand. That has been made clear in the new society rules (Nov 2, 2008 revision date online in the Marshal's Handbook) and SCAM Siegfried confirmed that is not required. Now some Kingdoms have that restriction on a kingdom level, check with your kingdom's archery rules and/or marshal.

This has been discussed in much detail on the known world SCA CA list (sca-missilecombat yahoo group).

Richard Blackmoore
KSCA East

[Bob H]

I really wonder about this idea some of us have that medieval archers only fired en masse. While that describes the opening moments of certain medieval battles, mostly by English archers, I am not convinced that it was the norm. In fact, the apparent shock the French experienced upon being met with such use of archers indicates to me that it was an aberration to the expected use of these troops.

The Norse, for instance, were unquestionably snipers, if you put any faith in the sagas. Some battles used many archers (including Norse "royalty" in that role), but they were each "snipers", i.e. they had specific targets in mind, in many cases the enemy leaders. Byzantine forces were heavy in archers, both mounted and foot, but I can find no reference in their tactical manuals of massed fire. There are many references to archer-kataphracts harrying the massed enemy or chasing down enemies in retreats, but those manuals specify that the foot archers be formed within and slightly behind the front ranks. That pretty much describes the "sniping archer" descriptions of SCA combat (the videos of the Pennsic woods battle for instance) so many are against.

If someone could show me reasonable documentation that medieval archers were only used en masse, I would be grateful for the lesson.

[St. George]

I really wonder about this idea some of us have that medieval archers only fired en masse.

If someone could show me reasonable documentation that medieval archers were only used en masse, I would be grateful for the lesson.

Frankly, why does this even matter in the SCA context? Here are the only questions that should matter.

Does CA make the game more fun?

Does it in it's current form keep the game balanced?

Is it in its current form safe?

Our wars are a-historic and otherwise games/sports. So any application of CA would be as well.

We do not simulate battles. We do not realistically simulate fighting. We have a great time sporting at medieval combat though. Any arguments about "the armor" or "en masse" or "anything else" are all BS for our context. People will hopefully understand that one day. The SCA is our own thing, not history, not re-creation, and for me CA fails on all above counts.

YMWV.

g-

[Bob H]

I really wonder about this idea some of us have that medieval archers only fired en masse.

If someone could show me reasonable documentation that medieval archers were only used en masse, I would be grateful for the lesson.

Frankly, why does this even matter in the SCA context? Here are the only questions that should matter.

Does CA make the game more fun?

Does it in it's current form keep the game balanced?

Is it in its current form safe?

Our wars are a-historic and otherwise games/sports. So any application of CA would be as well.

We do not simulate battles. We do not realistically simulate fighting. We have a great time sporting at medieval combat though. Any arguments about "the armor" or "en masse" or "anything else" are all BS for our context. People will hopefully understand that one day. The SCA is our own thing, not history, not re-creation, and for me CA fails on all above counts.

YMWV.

g-

OK, that's fair enough, thank you. I just kept hearing the argument that CA as practiced is bad because period archers only fired en masse, and I couldn't buy it.

[brewer]

You do NOT have to remove the bows completely from the field in order to engage an opponent hand to hand. That has been made clear in the new society rules (Nov 2, 2008 revision date online in the Marshal's Handbook) and SCAM Siegfried confirmed that is not required. Now some Kingdoms have that restriction on a kingdom level, check with your kingdom's archery rules and/or marshal.

This has been discussed in much detail on the known world SCA CA list (sca-missilecombat yahoo group).

Sir Richard,

As an aspiring combat archer in the East - the plan is to authorize before Pennsic, fingers crossed - could you explain how this is to be done, practically speaking? While I've joined the Yahoo! Group, I think it worth describing for the folks on AA.

I'm trying to envision different scenarios where I could discard bow, draw sword/buckler and trade hearty blows in joy, but can't really see it happening if I'm being run down. If I'm furiously backpedaling, I just can't wrap my head round discarding my bow in a safe manner. As that seems one of the most often-voiced complaints about combat archers - try and run 'em down and they just yield - I'd like to be able to give my proposed slayers a bit of a scrap. But if I can't just drop the bow and draw without violating the safety rules, it's a complete Catch-22.

Part of me is screaming, 'Build a pavise, dummy!' Gives one a rather convenient place to hide - er - stuff. But I'm interested to hear your thoughts, as well as some of the thoughts from the Yahoo! Group.

Cheers,

[Hrolfr]

I'm trying to envision different scenarios where I could discard bow, draw sword/buckler and trade hearty blows in joy, but can't really see it happening if I'm being run down. If I'm furiously backpedaling, I just can't wrap my head round discarding my bow in a safe manner. As that seems one of the most often-voiced complaints about combat archers - try and run 'em down and they just yield - I'd like to be able to give my proposed slayers a bit of a scrap. But if I can't just drop the bow and draw without violating the safety rules, it's a complete Catch-22.

Cheers,

brewer, as someone who fights melee with a pole arm and a secondry weapon (a seax or dagger), it takes practice. If my pole is lost or tied up, out comes my seax. It gets practiced. I MAKE a point of prcticing it, until it is second nature, no different than throwing a snap or a wrap.

Odds are, if as an archer you are furiously backpedalling and cannot fire you bow, (which you should also practice until it's second nature), you already have a serious problem, not knowing where your friends are.

[brewer]

brewer, as someone who fights melee with a pole arm and a secondry weapon (a seax or dagger), it takes practice. If my pole is lost or tied up, out comes my seax. It gets practiced. I MAKE a point of prcticing it, until it is second nature, no different than throwing a snap or a wrap.

While I understand this - and am familiar with the practice, being authorized myself in multiple weapons forms - it is not the same. I do not refer to my primary weapon being 'lost' or 'tied up'. I refer to the rules which state specifically that, should I wish to fight with rattan, I must "discard their bow/crossbow in a safe manner and switch to their secondary weapon."

What defines a safe manner? One doesn't want one's bow to be stepped on and broken, certainly; neither does one wish one's foe(s) to have their feet and legs tangled in a bowstring, possibly causing injury.

I'm sure you can see that's different than simply drawing a seax.

As I read the rules, simply tossing the bow to one side while drawing my sword and donning my buckler isn't an option. What I'm looking for are options.

Odds are, if as an archer you are furiously backpedalling and cannot fire you bow, (which you should also practice until it's second nature), you already have a serious problem, not knowing where your friends are.

True, and good information to keep in mind.

Bob

[talaananthes]

Unless there's some sort of safe manner to discard your bow, though, just drawing your seax and going at it is just plain stupid, and unsafe. A polearm is one thing, it's not under tension and if it breaks, well, it's replaceable. A bow is an expensive piece of equipment that is under a high degree of tension and could be very dangerous if broken and very expensive to replace.

Just dropping it in the grass on a field with armoured contestants isn't a safe or practical option . . . so what ARE you supposed to do with it? The only answer I see (although, it must be pointed out, I don't fight in the SCA) is yield so that you, your opponent, and your expensive and fragile equipment all remain safe.

One good solution I see to this problem is setting up a few barrels around the field, maybe with a 10' no-fighting ring around them. Archers could retreat to them, discard their bows into the barrel to keep them safe, and pick up heavy equipment to continue fighting, or yield. Perhaps allow archers to stash melee gear at the barrel, but not allow archery equipment to be returned to the battle after it has gone into the barrel?

That seems safe, fair/chivalrous, and allows one of the major complaints (ie, archers don't stand and fight) against CA to be dealt with in a manner that doesn't endanger anyone.

EDIT--Oh, and if such a safety zone were implemented, it makes sense to disallow lurking there. You can't go in to hide, and are only allowed to remain for a reasonable period in which to rearm as a melee combatant. No going in, waiting for the danger to pass or your team to regain control of the situation, and then come back out still as an archer.

[Hrolfr]

Unless there's some sort of safe manner to discard your bow, though, just drawing your seax and going at it is just plain stupid, and unsafe. A polearm is one thing, it's not under tension and if it breaks, well, it's replaceable. A bow is an expensive piece of equipment that is under a high degree of tension and could be very dangerous if broken and very expensive to replace.

Just dropping it in the grass on a field with armoured contestants isn't a safe or practical option . . . so what ARE you supposed to do with it? The only answer I see (although, it must be pointed out, I don't fight in the SCA) is yield so that you, your opponent, and your expensive and fragile equipment all remain safe.

One good solution I see to this problem is setting up a few barrels around the field, maybe with a 10' no-fighting ring around them. Archers could retreat to them, discard their bows into the barrel to keep them safe, and pick up heavy equipment to continue fighting, or yield. Perhaps allow archers to stash melee gear at the barrel, but not allow archery equipment to be returned to the battle after it has gone into the barrel?

That seems safe, fair/chivalrous, and allows one of the major complaints (ie, archers don't stand and fight) against CA to be dealt with in a manner that doesn't endanger anyone.

EDIT--Oh, and if such a safety zone were implemented, it makes sense to disallow lurking there. You can't go in to hide, and are only allowed to remain for a reasonable period in which to rearm as a melee combatant. No going in, waiting for the danger to pass or your team to regain control of the situation, and then come back out still as an archer.

My point was you must make a point of PRACTICING it. Just like pell work.

Most of the bows I have seen on melee field are about the same price as I pay for a couple good sticks of rattan, the type on can pick up at garage sales. Most CA'ers I know have more money into their ammo than their bows

One option to dropping it is several CA'ers handing their bows/xbows off to one person to remove them safely. Archers need to had proper hand protection to swing a stick.

As for the 'archer safe' area, I believe this would cause even MORE difficulties for CA to be accepted. They can leave the field to drop off weapons, pick up armor, ANY time they wish, so this is redundant.

The point in your edit area is EXACTLY why they shouldn't be implemented.

But them again, the CA'ers I know best are UNITS and not lone snipers
I leave it to them to explain more, I guess.

[William Lee]

Unless there's some sort of safe manner to discard your bow, though, just drawing your seax and going at it is just plain stupid, and unsafe. A polearm is one thing, it's not under tension and if it breaks, well, it's replaceable. A bow is an expensive piece of equipment that is under a high degree of tension and could be very dangerous if broken and very expensive to replace.

Just dropping it in the grass on a field with armoured contestants isn't a safe or practical option . . . so what ARE you supposed to do with it? The only answer I see (although, it must be pointed out, I don't fight in the SCA) is yield so that you, your opponent, and your expensive and fragile equipment all remain safe.

One good solution I see to this problem is setting up a few barrels around the field, maybe with a 10' no-fighting ring around them. Archers could retreat to them, discard their bows into the barrel to keep them safe, and pick up heavy equipment to continue fighting, or yield. Perhaps allow archers to stash melee gear at the barrel, but not allow archery equipment to be returned to the battle after it has gone into the barrel?

That seems safe, fair/chivalrous, and allows one of the major complaints (ie, archers don't stand and fight) against CA to be dealt with in a manner that doesn't endanger anyone.

EDIT--Oh, and if such a safety zone were implemented, it makes sense to disallow lurking there. You can't go in to hide, and are only allowed to remain for a reasonable period in which to rearm as a melee combatant. No going in, waiting for the danger to pass or your team to regain control of the situation, and then come back out still as an archer.

My point was you must make a point of PRACTICING it. Just like pell work.

Most of the bows I have seen on melee field are about the same price as I pay for a couple good sticks of rattan, the type on can pick up at garage sales. Most CA'ers I know have more money into their ammo than their bows

One option to dropping it is several CA'ers handing their bows/xbows off to one person to remove them safely. Archers need to had proper hand protection to swing a stick.

As for the 'archer safe' area, I believe this would cause even MORE difficulties for CA to be accepted. They can leave the field to drop off weapons, pick up armor, ANY time they wish, so this is redundant.

The point in your edit area is EXACTLY why they shouldn't be implemented.

But them again, the CA'ers I know best are UNITS and not lone snipers
I leave it to them to explain more, I guess.

Perhaps assigning scouts to an archer (or a unit of the same) with that purpose in mind? The archers perform their intended task, and the scouts keeps an eye out for flankers and imminent attacks? When an attack appears imminent, hand the bows to the scout, draw weapon and shield, and set to?

[Hrolfr]

Perhaps assigning scouts to an archer (or a unit of the same) with that purpose in mind? The archers perform their intended task, and the scouts keeps an eye out for flankers and imminent attacks? When an attack appears imminent, hand the bows to the scout, draw weapon and shield, and set to?

Why not have one of the unit (so all are armed and available to participate in combat) rather than someone unarmed do this?

Of course this would take practice and unit conhesion

[Bob H]

...
I'm sure you can see that's different than simply drawing a seax.

As I read the rules, simply tossing the bow to one side while drawing my sword and donning my buckler isn't an option. What I'm looking for are options.
Bob

There's also this problem in the Society rules:

F. A combat archer may carry and use shield or pavise; however, as long as they are carrying it, they cannot span nor fire their weapon.

So, to carry a sword either it must be a baskethilt, or you must carry full gauntlets on your person - and, you cannot carry a buckler unless you lay it down while you shoot.

[Owyn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 'carry' there refers to carry in one's hand... I think that a buckler with a hook or loop arrangement hung from a belt would be legal. Almost certain I've seen that done, but you'd want to check with the local marshals.

Another option would be two swords, of course.

Being able to swap *rapidly* is the key though. It would no doubt require both some creativity and some practice.

[brewer]

There's also this problem in the Society rules:

F. A combat archer may carry and use shield or pavise; however, as long as they are carrying it, they cannot span nor fire their weapon.

So, to carry a sword either it must be a baskethilt, or you must carry full gauntlets on your person - and, you cannot carry a buckler unless you lay it down while you shoot.

I already have a basket-hilt sword, so that's not a problem.

I do appear to have a problem with toting a buckler on my belt (or over my sword hilts).

Rats! This shouldn't be so complicated!

Bob

[FrauHirsch]

Now many clamor for the old SCA days of wooden shafted arrows with bird blunts. Good range, good accuracy and they look like arrows because, well, they ARE real arrows. The problem is then you have possible broken wooden shaft issues and also you need to go with helm based protection for the eyes and face which the majority of fighters are against (not all, but most).

A brief history of CA in Caid:

Ii remember the bird blunts and unarmored CA. After enough field tips punched through the bird blunts, and even through the screen covering our eyeslots, we finally said "enough!". I think it was Duke Heinrick der Jaeger of Atenveldt (what ever happened to him?) who was shot in the armpit by one of those at a Burro Creek war. And then the final straw was the Santa Barbara Caid-West war where a couple of us decided to check arrows as the archers took the field and ended up with over a dozen with raw field tips. Then one guy ended up going on the field around us ended up shooting about a dozen field tips at one fighter who was trying to signal him to stop shooting. We were all watching it take place on the hill above us. Scary.

Then the issue of why should all the fighters have to deal with buying and installing screen on helmets not made for it, thus making the battle field environment look like a bunch of bug-eyed aliens with the screen duct-taped on. As people got more and more complex helmet shapes, and spent more money on a beautiful period kit, they got more and more frustrated dealing with the then unarmored archers and their snotty "entitled" attitudes.

And then we were also dealing with water bearers being held back from the field and the difficulty in watering through the wire mesh and it was just a mess.

Caid is a "what we are doing is war" kingdom and we do allow "death from behind" and "on the ground", so we did not have an overt objection to CA (except for the sniping and the arrows counting as much more than historically realistic), but the main thing was safety. So initially we tested having archers in full armor, then they used the golf tube arrows and felt that was ok. Then we went on to the crossbows and fellwalker style blunts. These were ok to.

Recently we had some people really tune up their 1000 lb crossbows and we had a few complaints. I know one Knight was hit in the elbow through armor and could not fight for a few weeks, and someone said it hit them so hard through a normal COP that it felt like his heart stopped. This is too hard, so we reallly should reevalutate poundage.

Recently we allowed someone to try out some Baldar blunts at our practice, but found them to be too hard for the most part, with the exception of some which were found to be softer due to air bubbles in their construction (imperfections).

Handing out fully screened helmets to marshals is not realistic. We always need more marshals as it is. The cost of coming up with them in large numbers is too high. The fighters who are in the "don't really care" segment of the fighting population start to get pretty annoyed when water bearers cannot be available and they cannot be easily watered.

[Murdock]

As for the arrows hitting"too hard"


Anyone remember thistel missels??? (piece of wooden dowel with 1 layer of camp foam on an arrow shaft)


I was at GulfWars (like maybe GW 6???)

I was already dead

I stood over under the trees off the side of the field, across from where the fried bacon and PB&J is now, and took off my helmet. I was on the rope watching people fight and the CA guy with a cross bow fell or something.

Anyway the bow went off and i got shot....

in the forehead.


Now it hurt


It hurt alot.

I had a small knot and everything. But i was ok, i went to camp and put ice on it and i was fine. I think i even went back and fought some more that day

I have yet to get shot with a bow that produced anywhere near the force or even a sinlgle handed sword blow, much less an unpadded pole or a spear thrust.

I got my own reasons for my distaste of CA, but the arrows hitting to hard aint one of em.

[Balin50]

I really wonder about this idea some of us have that medieval archers only fired en masse.

If someone could show me reasonable documentation that medieval archers were only used en masse, I would be grateful for the lesson.

Frankly, why does this even matter in the SCA context? Here are the only questions that should matter.

Does CA make the game more fun?

Does it in it's current form keep the game balanced?

Is it in its current form safe?

Our wars are a-historic and otherwise games/sports. So any application of CA would be as well.

We do not simulate battles. We do not realistically simulate fighting. We have a great time sporting at medieval combat though. Any arguments about "the armor" or "en masse" or "anything else" are all BS for our context. People will hopefully understand that one day. The SCA is our own thing, not history, not re-creation, and for me CA fails on all above counts.

YMWV.

g-

Well said i agree.

Ban it.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

[Balin50]

Unless there's some sort of safe manner to discard your bow, though, just drawing your seax and going at it is just plain stupid, and unsafe. A polearm is one thing, it's not under tension and if it breaks, well, it's replaceable. A bow is an expensive piece of equipment that is under a high degree of tension and could be very dangerous if broken and very expensive to replace.

Just dropping it in the grass on a field with armoured contestants isn't a safe or practical option . . . so what ARE you supposed to do with it? The only answer I see (although, it must be pointed out, I don't fight in the SCA) is yield so that you, your opponent, and your expensive and fragile equipment all remain safe.

One good solution I see to this problem is setting up a few barrels around the field, maybe with a 10' no-fighting ring around them. Archers could retreat to them, discard their bows into the barrel to keep them safe, and pick up heavy equipment to continue fighting, or yield. Perhaps allow archers to stash melee gear at the barrel, but not allow archery equipment to be returned to the battle after it has gone into the barrel?

That seems safe, fair/chivalrous, and allows one of the major complaints (ie, archers don't stand and fight) against CA to be dealt with in a manner that doesn't endanger anyone.

EDIT--Oh, and if such a safety zone were implemented, it makes sense to disallow lurking there. You can't go in to hide, and are only allowed to remain for a reasonable period in which to rearm as a melee combatant. No going in, waiting for the danger to pass or your team to regain control of the situation, and then come back out still as an archer.

If they are dangerous they should not be on the field.

Expensive...tough that is like signing up for a demolition derby and asking for special rules so you can play a different game....Oh wait you do DO that.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

[Dmitriy]

Carry a bow case that can stand a hit or two?
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/ ... 2_1854.jpg
http://www.kreml.ru/img/uploaded/%7B08F ... 0706-b.jpg
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tbar/ ... 344a-c.htm

[Richard Blackmoore]

You do NOT have to remove the bows completely from the field in order to engage an opponent hand to hand. That has been made clear in the new society rules (Nov 2, 2008 revision date online in the Marshal's Handbook) and SCAM Siegfried confirmed that is not required. Now some Kingdoms have that restriction on a kingdom level, check with your kingdom's archery rules and/or marshal.

This has been discussed in much detail on the known world SCA CA list (sca-missilecombat yahoo group).

Sir Richard,

As an aspiring combat archer in the East - the plan is to authorize before Pennsic, fingers crossed - could you explain how this is to be done, practically speaking? While I've joined the Yahoo! Group, I think it worth describing for the folks on AA.

I'm trying to envision different scenarios where I could discard bow, draw sword/buckler and trade hearty blows in joy, but can't really see it happening if I'm being run down. If I'm furiously backpedaling, I just can't wrap my head round discarding my bow in a safe manner. As that seems one of the most often-voiced complaints about combat archers - try and run 'em down and they just yield - I'd like to be able to give my proposed slayers a bit of a scrap. But if I can't just drop the bow and draw without violating the safety rules, it's a complete Catch-22.

Part of me is screaming, 'Build a pavise, dummy!' Gives one a rather convenient place to hide - er - stuff. But I'm interested to hear your thoughts, as well as some of the thoughts from the Yahoo! Group.

Cheers,

Hi.

Feel free to talk to me at coronation or Balfar's challenge.

There are many options, but they vary by kingdom.

Here you options include (unless KEM Padraig rules otherwise, some of this was discussed at a Birka CA/HW marshals meeting without any formal rules being created yet disallowing any of these):

Take your bow off the field.

Hang it on your freestanding pavise.

Hang it or place it on a terrain feature where it does not pose risk to other fighters (tree, bush, a lovely shrubbery, a big rock, fence, pavillion, wall, barrel, whatever).

Put it in a container (box, wagon, cart, crate, etc.).

Sling it over your back (some suggest adding tip protectors, but frankly they are not required in the East when the bows/xbows are being fired when they are more dangerous as they are in front at eye level, but still a good idea).

Hand it off to a companion, minion, squire, rent-a-serf, loader, spotter, whatever.

Put it in a 'low traffic area' per society recommendations (we find defining this a little difficult, especially for crossbows which can be tripping hazards).

By the way, the trick to having time to do this, is to not wait until the heavy fighters were on top of you ready to hit you. This is not a problem if you are alert and working with other archers or fighters, where they can help you be aware of incoming enemies. It is much harder for those that choose to shoot up close and personal in the second or first rank, in which case you may simply not have time.

Real archers back in the day, would typically not fire at 'clear the bow range' without fighter support, unless they had no choice. Before the opponents got that close they would strategically retreat, flee for their lives OR draw a secondary weapon and possibly a buckler or shield of some kind. Many would avoid yielding or trying to yield, for fear of being badly treated if not slain outright as people that would not be able to be ransomed. So part of my frustration with archers, is that if you are a lone archer and you see four fighters closing on you, why would you wait until they are right in your face to decide to yield, retreat or switch weapons? Just like a spearman caught out in the open on his own, you need to allow yourself more time to make those decisions and be able to act on them, it is the same principle.

Anyway, good luck with your CA aspirations. I suggest you work with KEM East Padraig, KCAM Liam to get more ideas and inspiration. Liam's CA deputy Tobyn and former KCAM Richard Woodenbridge are also good folks to get advice from. Also Duke Lucan & Duchess Yana can give you advice on the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of CA (he brought CA into the East, knows the pros and cons well and Her Grace is an experienced CA archer).

Good luck and good fighting.

Richard Blackmoore

[Bob H]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 'carry' there refers to carry in one's hand... I think that a buckler with a hook or loop arrangement hung from a belt would be legal. Almost certain I've seen that done, but you'd want to check with the local marshals.

When I started combat archery, that situation was covered by this from the general heavy combat rules:

E. Shields must be controlled by the hand; use of passive shields (not controlled by the hand) will be treated as
decorative armor and subject to effective blow acknowledgment.

but now we have the additional requirement I quoted above from the CA-specific rules. I don't remember when that was added.

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

safety issues:

Interesting comments here, from usually reliable sources. I have personally seen a Duke walk back to rez point with an arrow sticking out of his eyeslot at Pennsic.

I am generally in favor of CA, because I am in favor of "more people playing".

What if archers were treated more like siege engines? Minimum firing distance. "Back of the field" - basically "OFF" the field, forcing massed fire to have any effectiveness. This would allow higher power bows, and no "sniping" since you could not just blast someone point blank.

We still would have the problem of spectators - but perhaps with controlled fields of fire and/or netting this would be OK.

I don't know how to handle helm penetrations, but it cannot be that hard can it? This is also handled to some extent by the range minimum (because the velocity falls off a bit with range).

[brewer]

Feel free to talk to me at coronation or Balfar's challenge.

Should I have a spare moment at Coronation, I'll seek you out. I know you by face and armoury if nothing else. As I'm a herald, time will be tight (lots of courts as well as a tournament), but I'll make the effort.

Here you options include

(snip of valuable ideas. Thanks!)

By the way, the trick to having time to do this, is to not wait until the heavy fighters were on top of you ready to hit you.

Yes, this was suggested above. Situational awareness is something one needs in melee, that's for sure!

One of the reasons I asked about this is that I don't want to be one of the archers who cause complaints about "little wuss didn't want to stand and fight". I flatter myself that I can (after considerable practice) land a solid blow and receive one (no practice needed! ) as well.

Before the opponents got that close they would strategically retreat, flee for their lives OR draw a secondary weapon and possibly a buckler or shield of some kind.

Too true! There's a reason why C15 archers were to carry a mallet. It was to pound in sharp stakes so they had something to shoot over.

The historical record is replete with examples of armoured cavalry running roughshod over lightly-armed troops such as archers.

So part of my frustration with archers, is that if you are a lone archer and you see four fighters closing on you, why would you wait until they are right in your face to decide to yield, retreat or switch weapons?

Lack of experience leads to lack of situational awareness, I should think. A man can get so dialed-in on his target that tunnel vision of the sight picture prevents the pickup of threats approaching on an oblique axis. That's classic sniper effect right there. Suddenly, you either fire and turn around and the enemy is RIGHT THERE, or the enemy is within melee range and your peripheral vision starts screaming. Either way, it's brown-trousers time.

I wish to point out the same sort of thing happens to regular heavy fighters, too. It happened to me all the time when I was new to the melee field - so much to think about, so much to focus on, who's the guy in front of me, is he on my side, he threw a shot, guess not, holy CRAP, where did HE come from!?, why did Balfar pitch me like a hay bale, etc.

My point is, the problem is not unique to combat archers.

Just like a spearman caught out in the open on his own, you need to allow yourself more time to make those decisions and be able to act on them, it is the same principle.

Noted. Practice and experience will ameliorate my concerns.

[quoted]Anyway, good luck with your CA aspirations. I suggest you work with KEM East Padraig, KCAM Liam to get more ideas and inspiration. Liam's CA deputy Tobyn and former KCAM Richard Woodenbridge are also good folks to get advice from. Also Duke Lucan & Duchess Yana can give you advice on the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of CA (he brought CA into the East, knows the pros and cons well and Her Grace is an experienced CA archer).[/quote]

Wilco! Multiple emails will be sent anon.

Thanks ever so much!

Bob

(SCA: Robert Fairfax)

[Richard Blackmoore]

Comments inserted with # prefixs.

Richard

safety issues:

Interesting comments here, from usually reliable sources. I have personally seen a Duke walk back to rez point with an arrow sticking out of his eyeslot at Pennsic.

#The number one complaint against CA, including from me, has been safety.

I am generally in favor of CA, because I am in favor of "more people playing".

#This is one of the main arguments in favor of it. Personally I think it is a poor argument for the current SCA, either it makes sense to have archery or it does not. Not just because we want to pad the battlefield with more combattants. If you read postings from Duke Henrik who was involved in starting CA, getting more people to play back in the early days of SCA wars was indeed the main reason for adding CA or one of them. Now we have enough people to fight wars.

What if archers were treated more like siege engines? Minimum firing distance. "Back of the field" - basically "OFF" the field, forcing massed fire to have any effectiveness. This would allow higher power bows, and no "sniping" since you could not just blast someone point blank.

# It has been suggested many times. The archers as a community hate it. They want to be effective and involved. Many like being up close and personal. And they will argue from a historical perspective that direct fire was just as important and authentic a practice as volley fire.

We still would have the problem of spectators - but perhaps with controlled fields of fire and/or netting this would be OK.

# Yes it would be better in many ways, but the archers don't want it. Also many will argue that that type of combat isn't 'fun'. Perceptions that CA often is set up in such a way as to heavily unbalance the combat from a historical point of view and with reduced requirements for skill and training (unlike a bow, you can become very effective under SCA rules with a light draw crossbow very quickly, especially under the old rules that allowed for nuclear arrows that killed with a light glancing touch, sometimes even to an illegal target, shooting in the back from cover etc.) on top of CA safety issues however are the counter argument from many heavies getting shot. When the scenarios are better balanced and the archers are not being jerks (don't have 4 archers posted at a res point and shoot the same guy over and over when he tries to ressurect over two hours so he never, ever gets to swing a sword. one good example), CA is likely to be more tolerated.

I don't know how to handle helm penetrations, but it cannot be that hard can it? This is also handled to some extent by the range minimum (because the velocity falls off a bit with range).

# It should not be hard. But it has been hard because to have ammo that absolutely can't penetrate a helm, you have to control the type of ammunition and also control quality of assembly and inspection. It has been hard to get CA to do that as it is balkanized by kingdoms and ammo and weapons did not evolve on a society wide basis. So there were as of last year, approximately 160 combinations of allowed ammo types/construction methods. After last years rewrite we are down to approximatley 20 types (6 types with 20 combinations really according to the archers). Also we used to allow real arrows with blunts, moron archers would forget (unless it was on purpose) to take the REAL tips off and they would be under the blunts or fired without them, at least that can't happen anymore. At least with last year's rewrite, while I personally still think we should just have ONE type of ammo period, we are down to 20 max types and they have been modified to have such large heads or heads constructed in such a way that they are far less likely to penetrate a helm. We do still have shafted ammo, so if a head comes off there could be a catastrophic helm penetration with eye loss or death, but coupled with better marshalling and inspection requirements and suggestions, it is far less likely to happen. Also in the East Kingdom we are considering steps such as requiring constructors to pass a certification class showing they know how to safely and properly assemble the ammo type they want to build and/or sell and we have banned ALL gleaning on the field. We've also implemented Eastern field setup and spectator safety guidelines that are going to be examined and refined to improve safety. Our CA marshals have agreed to become heavy weapons marshals and joined the EK marshals list, so they will be more aware of fighter practices and concerns. And the fighters, archers, marshals and chivalry have been meeting together both to find common ground, solutions to issues as well as dispelling rumours and myths, etc. There is much more of a sense of 'us' than the former sense of 'us' vs. 'them'. A good thing.

#There is more to this, see the CA list for details. But while I still have issues with CA, in my personal opinion it is far more safe after last year's society rules changes and the East Kingdom changes. Is it perfect? No. Shafted ammo built by joe newbie still worries the crap out of me. If I was making the decisions, the rules and ammo would be far different, but it is measurably better and safer. The only way to truly eliminate helm penetrations 100% for sure, is to go to helms that simply won't let anything in (screen, mesh, pierced plate, closed face helms with special occulariums, etc.) but most fighters are unwilling to do that so it isn't an option, CA would be shut down before that happened. But that is what we had back in the early days, so the CA folks have a valid point that helm penetrations did not used to be an issue, they became an issue when enough fighters protested that solution and got their way. Then alternate ammo had to be developed and anything that worked like a real arrow or bolt, either hit too hard according to some fighters so padding was added or was safe but did not work like an arrow/bolt (reduced range, poor flight characteristics, hard to fire from a bow due to APD's at the nock end, looked really stupid, etc.). This lead to hundreds of different ammo types being fired from a variety of poundages of bows and powers (now measured in the SCA inch pound) of crossbows. Very different from kingdom to kingdom.

#Some kingdoms like the East, never wanted any part of it. So we did not add it until well into our history, during one of Duke Lucan's earlier reigns after it became very common society wide. It wasn't just that the East has written into its rules that we have no wish to recreate a real medieval battle and that the rules of chivalry are extended to melee/battle fields, it was concerns for safety. Most kingdoms don't have this 'we don't really want to recreate war' rule, so they did not have the qualms we did in that respect. But safety was still a concern as from time to time some moron would fire a headless arrow or worse one with a field tip on it under a blunt or as is (see other posts on the archive or the CA list for details, it is amazing CA wasn't banned outright or the perpetrators tossed in jail for criminal assault with a deadly weapon, but apparently being a moron used to be a good defense in the SCA. "OOops, I did not mean to leave the field tip on the real arrow and shoot it at you. Sorry").

# Personally I'd be happier in an SCA without CA. I don't think it adds more to the game than it takes away. But others disagree. So I've decided that working to make it safe, trying to make it more historically accurate, trying to find ways to make it fit better into our SCA social construct and trying to help people get along without CA ruining their war, makes more sense than working to ban it. We could probably after last year's insanity with penetrations and injuries, gotten rid of it in one or two kingdoms temporarily if not permanently OR forced people to go to supersafe ammo like Calontir's tennis ball and tube (but many archers hate that and would have quit, also forcing repeated expensive changes on the archers has been a legitimate complaint of theirs). But it would still have existed in a majority of kingdoms if we took the ban it approach, which was my first inclination. Learning more about what has been going on and that the archers were in the middle of a two year rewrite of the CA rules which were, unfortunately not implemented prior to the Pennsic CA helm penetrations and injuries, made us realize that many archers actually were willing to make substantial changes. So a lot of us decided to reach out to the archers, try to work with them and see if once and for all we could make society wide changes to CA based on common ground and mutual understanding. This was for the greater good, not for my personal preference which was ban CA. So far it seems to have had good results, on top of the changes the CA community, SEM & senior marshals had already planned to implement late last year. Things are better.

# We still need better spectator safety, better control of ammo methods, the high IP crossbows and some ammo is still a concern to some, but we have made progress. I think if everybody continues to work together, safety will cease to be a major issue. But only if we continue to work on it and be vigilant. One kid shot in the eye is going to be a problem, possibly a CA ender. As it should be. So I and others continue to push for improvements on the safety front. So saving CA may have been a mistake on the part of some of us, but we looked at it and said that if realistically we can't get rid of it society wide, it makes more sense to make it safe society wide than to work to ban or heavily restrict it in a limited number of kingdoms. So we took that route.

# Safety isn't just spectator and helm penetrations though. We still have for example concerns about high ip crossbows hitting APD first for example. We had three reports of this from Estrella where bruising or worse occured, Sir Elias may have broken his ribs (at least got badly bruised). This is being looked into. Heaven forbid that happens to an unarmoured spectator, especially if it hits them in the eye. Yikes. And some people will simply never feel safe with shafted ammunition, unless perhaps it is built only by qualified people. For example Duke Baldar gave me one of his new prototype Baldar blunts at Gulf Wars and we discussed many of the issues. The blunt is UHMW core with a rubbery substance bonded over the entire thing. And if you hammer a shaft in, it just should not come out. But we've had idiots decide in the past that shafts go in too hard, so something must be wrong, so they drill a bigger hole in the head. Sigh. So if we controlled the manufacture better, that could be eliminated, but the SCA archers mostly want to be able to build their own arrows, so we have not made progress on that front. But there is hope.

[Malcolm_Mor]

My thoughts?

Pennsic, about three years ago. We had a broken field type battle, and I wound up in temporary command of an area. As the East was massing for a charge, I grabbed about half a dozen combat archers, and asked them to do some volley fire into the unit forming up and delay them.

Their response was to look at me and say "We aren't wasting our arrows on a bunch of unbelts."

Put whatever lipstick on that pig you wish, but that says very plainly "We're hunting belts and hats." That's not a warrior mentality. That's not even a sniper mentality. It's an Assassin mentality. And to me, that has zero place in a game based in honor. I don't care how "effective" it is; in fact, when you won't do something tactically effective in favor of sniping at a coronet or a belt, that puts the lie to that argument out of the gate.

What has really cheesed me off about it, though, is that I will get nine out of ten CA's or CA proponents making weak and lame excuses for them when that story is told to them.

Until the CA community as a whole begins to roundly condemn such actions, AND POLICE THEMSELVES, I have no use for them as a whole, and only respect those individual combat archers who say "That's dishonorable, and I would never do it, even if ordered to." No qualifications. No "buts." Like an apology, any condemnation with the word "but" in it is not a condemnation.

I know of no combat archer who wouldn't feel themselves ill-used if they got hunted just for carrying bows, but for some reason they feel fully justified in hunting someone because they wear crowns, coronets, or belts. And it is crap.

nd I catch any archer in my command doing it, I will kill them myself. Where they stand.

[Blackoak]

While there are many aspects of CA that do add to our game, it is this type of behavior that sours it to many. I remember one vividly.

A few years ago at a Gulf Wars (when Gleann Abhann was still a Principality) we were doing the fort battle. A knight from inside the fort (I believe it was Sir Cona of Meridies came out and challenged Sir Seth (current Meridian king) to a spear duel. They fought and Sir Cona won the bout. As his side cheered and we also enjoyed this feat, a crossbow bolt shot out and killed Sir Cona before he even turned around to walk back. It took something away from a lot of us, and that type of behavior takes away an element of this game that I have found in no other hobby or martial art I have done. It was sad.

I don't want to hear what is 'realistic'. I have to deal with the realistic downward spiral of our civilization every day. This is the one place I want to see feats of honor. If the CA community can embrace that then they will have my support as a knight of the SCA. If they can't get this simple concept, then they will have me as a opponent.

Uric

[Richard Blackmoore]

My thoughts?

Pennsic, about three years ago. We had a broken field type battle, and I wound up in temporary command of an area. As the East was massing for a charge, I grabbed about half a dozen combat archers, and asked them to do some volley fire into the unit forming up and delay them.

Their response was to look at me and say "We aren't wasting our arrows on a bunch of unbelts."

Put whatever lipstick on that pig you wish, but that says very plainly "We're hunting belts and hats." That's not a warrior mentality. That's not even a sniper mentality. It's an Assassin mentality. And to me, that has zero place in a game based in honor. I don't care how "effective" it is; in fact, when you won't do something tactically effective in favor of sniping at a coronet or a belt, that puts the lie to that argument out of the gate.

What has really cheesed me off about it, though, is that I will get nine out of ten CA's or CA proponents making weak and lame excuses for them when that story is told to them.

Until the CA community as a whole begins to roundly condemn such actions, AND POLICE THEMSELVES, I have no use for them as a whole, and only respect those individual combat archers who say "That's dishonorable, and I would never do it, even if ordered to." No qualifications. No "buts." Like an apology, any condemnation with the word "but" in it is not a condemnation.

I know of no combat archer who wouldn't feel themselves ill-used if they got hunted just for carrying bows, but for some reason they feel fully justified in hunting someone because they wear crowns, coronets, or belts. And it is crap.

nd I catch any archer in my command doing it, I will kill them myself. Where they stand.

Yes, there was a lot of that kind of crap in CA, which is one of the reasons I hated it with a passion. A lot of it seems to have gone away now that we have done away with combat lights and changed the rules quite a bit. Also leaders like Sir Jon, Tessa the Huntress, Lady Inga and others have helped to try to stomp out those sorts of attitudes. It is not completely gone, but it is improving. Calontir does not seem to have this problem, their solution was to integrate archers into the Calon army, no us vs. them.

[Paul the Small]

While there are many aspects of CA that do add to our game, it is this type of behavior that sours it to many. I remember one vividly.

A few years ago at a Gulf Wars (when Gleann Abhann was still a Principality) we were doing the fort battle. A knight from inside the fort (I believe it was Sir Cona of Meridies came out and challenged Sir Seth (current Meridian king) to a spear duel. They fought and Sir Cona won the bout. As his side cheered and we also enjoyed this feat, a crossbow bolt shot out and killed Sir Cona before he even turned around to walk back. It took something away from a lot of us, and that type of behavior takes away an element of this game that I have found in no other hobby or martial art I have done. It was sad.

I don't want to hear what is 'realistic'. I have to deal with the realistic downward spiral of our civilization every day. This is the one place I want to see feats of honor. If the CA community can embrace that then they will have my support as a knight of the SCA. If they can't get this simple concept, then they will have me as a opponent.

Uric

I would have loved to be in that archer's unit just so I could club him with "friendly fire."

There are dicks everywhere who fight with every weapon style. It's just that CA has more range and is therefore more noticable. I don't want to eliminate CA from the game, I want to eliminate dishonorable dickweeds.

[Richard Blackmoore]

While there are many aspects of CA that do add to our game, it is this type of behavior that sours it to many. I remember one vividly.

A few years ago at a Gulf Wars (when Gleann Abhann was still a Principality) we were doing the fort battle. A knight from inside the fort (I believe it was Sir Cona of Meridies came out and challenged Sir Seth (current Meridian king) to a spear duel. They fought and Sir Cona won the bout. As his side cheered and we also enjoyed this feat, a crossbow bolt shot out and killed Sir Cona before he even turned around to walk back. It took something away from a lot of us, and that type of behavior takes away an element of this game that I have found in no other hobby or martial art I have done. It was sad.

I don't want to hear what is 'realistic'. I have to deal with the realistic downward spiral of our civilization every day. This is the one place I want to see feats of honor. If the CA community can embrace that then they will have my support as a knight of the SCA. If they can't get this simple concept, then they will have me as a opponent.

Uric

Yup. That is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy.

Here is the thing on realism. I like realism to a degree. It does not mean we can't be idealistic about what we want to achieve with combat.

For instance tournament combat in particular allows us to focus on idealistic chivalric behavior, while still striving to emulate authentic medieval practices and techniques, within the self-imposed limitations we place on ourselves for safety given the level of armour available to the average participant and types of rattan weaponry allowed by the society.

Their main claim to belonging on the SCA battlefield is to point out that for realism's sake, many medieval battles had archery as an important component. And to be used realistically and effectively, it must needs be practiced very differently, mostly out of their target's weapon range and often where possible with surprise (pop up shooting from behind others, shooting from cover, embedded strategically in the second or third row) OR overwhelming massed volley fire which we rarely have the numbers for, to be effective against sword and shield given our armour, shield and combat rules.

So unless realism is your focus, combat archery is completely unjustifiable. Siege to a certain extent falls into the exact same category.

Oh, I forgot. Both are fun for some people. And they justify CA and siege based on the fun levels. Now frankly, I find no reference to 'fun' in corpora, so even if it exists it certainly is not a reason do add CA or siege.

To be serious, I actually think shooting people with CA and firing siege weaopns is great fun. I liked doing it. I just felt it was wrong for my personna and did more harm than good to the SCA, as it is just so very, very hard to logically add it to scenarios where it both makes sense, works well in a historically realistic way while being safe, does not unbalance the game and does not prevent many from engaging in hand to hand combat with edged weapons or lances up close and personal, where knightly prowess can be demonstrated, honor won, preux proven and renoun spread. But others disagree, so I try to find ways to help them achieve that and not annoy the crap out of everyone.

Gulf Wars seemed to have good balance this year. Enough CA in some of the battles so that the archers had fun without ruining the fighting for the participants. Enough battles without CA and siege that fighters got a chance to fight another fighter. No horrible CA ammo failures or injuries. Good relations between archers and the fighters.

I thought that in the open field, ravine and first castle battle, the archery did not diminish my enjoyment (even though I died to it a number of times in the ravine, not at all in the others). In the second castle battle, I thought it was a long, drawn out, torturous and boring process where the CA and siege seemed to last forever before hand to hand started, I can't imagine how anyone thought it was fun up to that point standing in the sun baking while doing nothing. Enough people seemed to feel that way that Gunther was about to lead us into a charge of some kind to break the monotony and slow death of a thousand boring pinpricks, when the other side obligingly charged in finally. I did not hate the archers or siege guys in that battle, I just thought it was an incredibly boring engagement that did not make a lot of sense to be part of after driving 20 hours; I don't see why anyone except perhaps the archers enjoyed that portion of the battle. I wanted to jump out of the castle and try to run Baldar down who was shooting our guys through the castle crennelations, but I probably could not have caught him anyway. Though it would have provided comic relief...

By the way Uric, I'm sorry we did not get to sit down at Gulf Wars and chat for a goodly amount of time. I got so busy and was having so much fun, that by the end of the week when the war seemed to suddenly end (hoped it would go on forever), I realized I had missed getting in touch with a number of the fine folks on the archive & chiv list. Hopefully we can spend some time at Pennsic.

The combat archers however have a problem. They can't fit into the tournament model or even the grand melee model, they only fit into the war/battle model. And if we toss out realism as a goal, then they don't really have a good argument for being there.

[William Lee]

A few years ago at a Gulf Wars (when Gleann Abhann was still a Principality) we were doing the fort battle. A knight from inside the fort (I believe it was Sir Cona of Meridies came out and challenged Sir Seth (current Meridian king) to a spear duel. They fought and Sir Cona won the bout. As his side cheered and we also enjoyed this feat, a crossbow bolt shot out and killed Sir Cona before he even turned around to walk back. It took something away from a lot of us, and that type of behavior takes away an element of this game that I have found in no other hobby or martial art I have done. It was sad.

I don't want to hear what is 'realistic'.....

I have to say...If I were Sir Seth (or even the commander of that particular group of archers, that archer would have been treated like Mercadier treated the archer that killed Richard Lionheart (within the strictures of the game). That would have been a "realistic" wake-up call that archer would have found hard to forget.

[Malek]

I have read several threads on the likes / dislikes of combat archery in the SCA.

I come from Amtgard and am crossing to SCA. I have my CA equipment on order. I have done combat archery in Amtgard for about 10 years and here are my thoughts:

Volley fire is near impossible to coordinate effectively.

As a combat archer I have been run down (and over), also had an entire line cower against a wall when I drew my bow.

I don't much care what color your belt is - if you are a threat to my side - you get shot. - no fanfare, no happy dance or gloating. My next arrow is nocked and ready for it's target. Yes I target leaders (for me, that's anyone barking orders), but the spears and even those on the shield wall also get attention (and arrows).

If I shoot someone and the shot is not acknowledged - well, I still have more in my quiver, and I'll just shoot them again. If they still don't acknowledge getting shot - I'll shoot someone else and not bother anymore - plenty of targets on the war field.

When I am shot, hit, stabbed or otherwise dealt a proper blow - I accept the blow as good and take my death. - Again, no fanfare, griping or protest. I march back to the res point and get back into the fray.

**

I do have a few observations regarding SCA combat archery and the attitudes surrounding it:
"Happy dancing" seems to be interpreted as rude and gloating.

The melee fighters want to get into and be in the fray, throwing and receiving blows. Getting nailed in the grill with an arrow seems to take away from that.

Melee fighters not being able to throw blows directly on the archers. The yielding seems to be interpreted as either cowardly or "sissified".

The archers wanting to seek the "glory targets" - knights, crowns and coronets over and above strategic targets. This seems to make the archers appear more as assassins, not combatants on the war field.

The "nuclear arrow" assumption - that an arrow shot, no matter how light must be acknowledged as a killing blow. This seems to be interpreted as unrealistic as to how the archery and arrows worked.

**

In reading over the current rules and the An-Tir Book of Combat, there are no "light archers" although yielding is still acceptable.

Also the heavies are "supposed" to give the archer a chance to discard his cross/bow and take up stick and shield to engage in hand-hand. However, I have been told by those in the game longer than me that this is not likely to happen, and just be prepared to get hit - with 20+ years of prejudice behind the blow.

So far as I can tell, the arrows are supposed to be judged per a sword or spear blow - meaning if it hits with sufficient authority it should be acknowledged. Let's face it - if the arrow glances, in the middle of a heated battle, it's not likely to be felt at all, much less acknowledged. I also think this means that arm and leg shots are to be taken as any other limb shot, not as killing.

**

Sorry if the post was too long. These are the thoughts of someone doing combat archery in a different game for a long time and coming in to the SCA with some outside observer perspective. Although salt is universally preferred when offering ideas and opinions, my ideas tend to go better with garlic.

-- Malek

[Malcolm_Mor]

Also the heavies are "supposed" to give the archer a chance to discard his cross/bow and take up stick and shield to engage in hand-hand. However, I have been told by those in the game longer than me that this is not likely to happen, and just be prepared to get hit - with 20+ years of prejudice behind the blow.

Archers who have raised their hands when someone got within ten feet and then shooting them once they moved away ("I never *said* I yielded...") earned that.

Again, best solution: Police your own.

[audax]

While there are many aspects of CA that do add to our game, it is this type of behavior that sours it to many. I remember one vividly.

A few years ago at a Gulf Wars (when Gleann Abhann was still a Principality) we were doing the fort battle. A knight from inside the fort (I believe it was Sir Cona of Meridies came out and challenged Sir Seth (current Meridian king) to a spear duel. They fought and Sir Cona won the bout. As his side cheered and we also enjoyed this feat, a crossbow bolt shot out and killed Sir Cona before he even turned around to walk back. It took something away from a lot of us, and that type of behavior takes away an element of this game that I have found in no other hobby or martial art I have done. It was sad.

I don't want to hear what is 'realistic'. I have to deal with the realistic downward spiral of our civilization every day. This is the one place I want to see feats of honor. If the CA community can embrace that then they will have my support as a knight of the SCA. If they can't get this simple concept, then they will have me as a opponent.

Uric

I owe you many beers, Sir Uric. I hope to meet you in the near future.