SyrRhys wrote:Sorry, bud, but Western European is what our charter says, and Western European knights didn't engage in combat archery. Period.
If you're repelled by that, so be it.
Thank you for the honest reply. I assume you'll be referring all the Spaniards, Imperials, and Italians to a different organization?
Thank you for your sarcasm--it will get you the same.
I know that lower-class Spaniards (would it be more accurate to say "Iberians"?) shot bows and were mounted; I know that some authors have called them "knights", but, in fact, they were just mounted bowmen like those used by England in her chevauches. I am not aware of any evidence for Italian knights shooting bows in combat.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
Rhys: The whole of the SCA is "historical whimsy". You've got amatuers playing at being professionals, and a few of them having such big-headed opinions of themselves,that it's especially laughable. Do I consider civil war re-enactment historical whimsy? Yup. It's a fantasy, propagated for fun and entertainment. Do I consider dressing up as archaic warriors, marching onto a field(after getting to the event via motor vehicle) and then pretending to be something you are clearly not, whimsy. Why yes, yes I do. If you think that "whimsy" is not
You can spout all the vitrol you would like, but in my opinion it's little more than all the air rushing forth from a punctured hot-air balloon. I don't have anythigna gainst you personally, other than the fact that you come off as an egotistical loud-mouth. You are an informed loud-mouth, that I wil ladmit. You knowa great deal more about your field of study than I do. That's fine. You don't have to be a dick about it, and then arrogantly state that people need to either know what the hell they're talking about or shut up.
That I disagree with you on what the goals of an orginization that seeks to emulate the middle-ages is obvious. You would apparantly prefer that the SCA's combat only consist of that which wouldqualify as a "tournament". Note I used the qoutations because I know that it's not exactly what a tournament is. So don't tilt at that windmill, Quixote. I however, think that if the SCA is going to emulate the the middle-ages, then it should probably try to emulate them as broadly as possible, rather than narrowly define itself.
Now, why exactly cant Combat Archery perform the same role in the SCA as it did in an actual battle? Iunderstand it can't dehorse knights. But can it not force men to cower behind shields to avoid being pierced by sharp pointy objects flying at high speeds towards them? Can it not demoralize bodies of men and force them not to fight? Can it not dominate sections of the battlefield, restricting the tactical options of one's enemy?
By the way, Rhys: you can reject my use of "rigid" or "whimsy", but that means little. I have rejected the United State's definitionsof "legal" and "illegal"repeatedly and vehemently. Doesn't mean I haven't gone to jail for it. And if that doesn't make sense, then look at the following:
rig·id /ˈrɪdʒɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rij-id]
–adjective
1. stiff or unyielding; not pliant or flexible; hard: a rigid strip of metal. 2. firmly fixed or set. 3. inflexible, strict, or severe: a rigid disciplinarian; rigid rules of social behavior. 4. exacting; thorough; rigorous: a rigid examination. 5. so as to meet precise standards; stringent: lenses ground to rigid specifications. 6. Mechanics. of, pertaining to, or noting a body in which the distance between any pair of points remains fixed under all forces; having infinite values for its shear modulus, bulk modulus, and Young's modulus.
7. Aeronautics.
a. (of an airship or dirigible) having a form maintained by a stiff, unyielding structure contained within the envelope.
b. pertaining to a helicopter rotor that is held fixedly at its root.
1-5 are all definitions that through-out this conversation you have shown. They are not all negative qualities. Rigid men can be useful men. But of those five definitions, all are applicable to you. This is summed up by your mantra: "No Tolerance, No Exceptions". That's pretty much as rigid as it gets.
As for whimsy?
whim·sy /ˈʰwɪmzi, ˈwɪm-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hwim-zee, wim-]
–noun, plural -sies.
1. capricious humor or disposition; extravagant, fanciful, or excessively playful expression: a play with lots of whimsy.
2. an odd or fanciful notion.
3. anything odd or fanciful; a product of playful or capricious fancy: a whimsy from an otherwise thoughtful writer.
I think all of these definitionsare applicable to the SCA. Again, not necessarily "bad'.
Now, you can take it that you don't participate in historical whimsy. And maybe you are an actual knight, and not just a modern man who(for whatever reasons) wants to pretend at being a knight. But I doubt it.
SyrRhys wrote:I know that lower-class Spaniards (would it be more accurate to say "Iberians"?) shot bows and were mounted; I know that some authors have called them "knights", but, in fact, they were just mounted bowmen like those used by England in her chevauches. I am not aware of any evidence for Italian knights shooting bows in combat.
That, as you have consistently dodged, depends on the type of combat. Missile weapons were regularly used at siege, and much as you may not care for it, siege was every bit as common as set-piece battle.
Regarding your assertion that the authors you've read are wrong, cites please. Which scholars are wrong, and on the basis of what evidence?
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?
I only ask, because I am an avid reader of this site... and I've seen very similar CA thread pop up every 5 months or so...
I'm thinking that posting about something you want changed in the SCA, on the Armour Archive, is like complaining at the post office that your taxes were too high this year...
Verjigorm wrote:Now, you can take it that you don't participate in historical whimsy. And maybe you are an actual knight, and not just a modern man who(for whatever reasons) wants to pretend at being a knight. But I doubt it.
Wow, I'm not even going to try to reply to that... diatribe.
But you know what the funny thing is? In every one of these debates someone finally gets around to telling me I'm not really a knight. Damn it, that really hurts my feelings.
LOL! I've never called myself a knight, nor do I pretend to be one. If you go back and read my posts, you'll find that at most I say I try to do an interpretation of a knight on the weekends. Unlike many people I have no trouble distinguishing the two. In fact, I'm one of the few people on here who signs his posts with his real, not SCAdian name. Hell, knights didn't even *have* e-mail!
So why is it that the *ultimate*, final, "Boy am I going to get him" thing that people finally come up with when they just can't take it any more is some variant on "you're not a real knight"?
And actually, you know, I *am* a knight... It's my real last name.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
Verjigorm wrote: That's fine. You don't have to be a dick about it, and then arrogantly state that people need to either know what the hell they're talking about or shut up.
Verjigorm, please keep the ad-hominem off the board.
I know more about it than both of you put together, but you will have noted that I have *not* made an objection to the practice of CAs on those grounds... since I'm not SCA, they're not mine to make, and I humbly submit to you that it is unseemly for you to do so, at least until you have actually participated in the organization. Within one very specific scope, Rhys is absolutely correct. In fact, I have an article forthcoming on that very topic this year on the battle of Crecy, the conclusions of which will make him very happy.
Russ Mitchell wrote:In fact, I have an article forthcoming on that very topic this year on the battle of Crecy, the conclusions of which will make him very happy.
Oh? Care to release any hints? Frankly, the more I learn about Crecy the more interesting I find it to be.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
It'll be in Volume two of Villalon and Kagay's series. Let's just say I'm going to raise a LOT of eyebrows (Andy's phrase was considerably more colorful), and leave it at that.
InsaneIrish wrote:You are confusing Chivalrous with Honor.
One can be Honorable without being Chivalrous, but one can NOT be chivalrous without being honorable.
CA is un-chivalrous no matter how you slice it. An archer is killing/besting from a safe distane with minimal risk to themselves while dealing damage to those "at the swords point" of combat. It is an un-chivalrous act, just like killing from behind is an un-chivalrous act.
You make a very good point there. I think this is one of the better stated points of view that i have read so far.
Russ Mitchell wrote:It'll be in Volume two of Villalon and Kagay's series. Let's just say I'm going to raise a LOT of eyebrows (Andy's phrase was considerably more colorful), and leave it at that.
Woo hoo--I can't wait!!!
I do hope you'll post on here when it's published.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
Logan noted that there has not been much commentary from combat archers, so here is some.
In fights where there is combat archery I am one. I have to be. I am a mercenary captain and our reknown is based on battlefield effectivness. I cannot allow my troops to go out in a field where they will be subjected to combat archery without offering suppressing fire to ensure we will be effective. I train with my bow and can hit a man in the face consistently from 50 feet. As to being a target for archers, any of you who have ever seen me know that I make a dandy target. If CA went away tomorrow I wouldn't mourn it.
That said, after I have killed all the archers in the area I am not above putting an arrow into the face of a 14th century knight.
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?
I only ask, because I am an avid reader of this site... and I've seen very similar CA thread pop up every 5 months or so...
I'm thinking that posting about something you want changed in the SCA, on the Armour Archive, is like complaining at the post office that your taxes were too high this year...
Yes my opinion has been altered, when I started reading this I didn't think there was really anything wrong with combat archery. I had always thought that it was silly to say that arrows couldn't defeat armour but that was before SirRhys pointed out that the age of mail(which is what our armour calibration is set for) is also the age of broadheads ... Mail defeats broadheads! of course! Therefore I am now of the opinion that combat archery needs a major overhaul. To remove CA from the very few battles its actually allowed in strikes me as unfair to everyone, considering arrows were on the battlefields regardless of who was shooting them.
I can't say with authority exactly what needs changed in CA aside from more selective targeting, restricted arrow supply, and possibly some way to make crossbow reloading take an appropriate ammount of time.
________________________
"If you cannot find the truth right where you are
where else do you expect to find it?"
-Dogen Zenji
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?
I only ask, because I am an avid reader of this site... and I've seen very similar CA thread pop up every 5 months or so...
I'm thinking that posting about something you want changed in the SCA, on the Armour Archive, is like complaining at the post office that your taxes were too high this year...
Yes and no, I can see why people want CA's out and I can see why so many knights are against it and it probably wouldn't worry me (also an authorised archer) if CA was left out and I will probably now from reading this argument no longer undertake CA activities in a war situation. In saying that though I think CA does add another element to our sca "wars" and I think thats a good thing, I get plenty of opportunities to engage in knightly and chivalric combat (Where I live we are lucky to see a war scenario each year).
I was once told (and it seems that many of the knights here disagree with this) that sca "war" is sort of an unchivalrous combat form where you are fighting for yourself and you king rather than for the honour and renoun of your consort.
I see sca "war" as going out to have a bit of fun and not to show off that I am the best fighter on the field.
Last edited by Wulfgar on Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello,
Thay is my point. A keyboard has nothing to do with chivalry. If we are talking about how poor it is to shoot at someone from across a field with no chance of getting hurt, then how chivalrous can it be tohurl personal insults at one another on the computer?
Well, let me weigh in on the question by asking what chivalry has to do with keyboards?[/quote]
I was wondering if, after 421 replies... I was wondering if anybody's opinion has been been altered either way at this point?
Actually I have been swayed. Originally I was going to ransom archers who yield. Now I think that I will exibit mercy by paroling them with a promise not to shoot at my Kingdom. That may be a small difference, but there you go.
Thanks,
Brennainn
Brennainn wrote:Hello, Thay is my point. A keyboard has nothing to do with chivalry. If we are talking about how poor it is to shoot at someone from across a field with no chance of getting hurt, then how chivalrous can it be tohurl personal insults at one another on the computer?
OK, let me ask the question another way: What possible relevance can chivalry have to something that didn't exist in the middle ages? *That* was the point of my question. The answer is: None. It is neither chivalrous nor unchivalrous to hurl insults on the internet. They are completely and totally unrelated.
I suspect you're still thinking of chivalrous as being "nice", too, which is another problem.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
T. Finkas wrote:When I read Rhys' comments, I often imagine Rush Limbagh delivering them. How close am I coming to the real guy behind the keyboard when I conjure this mental image (having never met the man)?
Well, I am fat, damned bright, well educated and right about most things, but I share neither his superstition nor his drug addiction. I'll give you a four out of six.
And thank you, that was quite a compliment.
Actually, Rhys, Rush dropped a lot of weight several years ago when he was showing signs of developing diabetes (which killed his Dad), and he has gone thru rehab, so he's no longer an addict.
Geoffrey of Blesedale
Traveling East, Searching for That Which Is Lost
"vincit qui se vincit"
He conquers who conquers himself.
I was wondering if, after 421 replies... I was wondering if anybody's opinion has been been altered either way at this point?
About CA -no. However this subject is like our combats. It is a crucible in which the particpants are tested, subjected to the burning flames of the ideas and intellect of others. It is interesting to see who can make their points in the most civil manner, who can present arguments effectively. My appreciation of some peoples' command of rhetoric, knowledge of the subject, and their presence has changed. Some for the better, some not so good.
i dont understadn the face/chest thing. its still way too easy to do and its way unbalanced. not to mention historically kinda silly.
but i would chime in that upping the poundage isnt the way to go. combat archery will go away as soon as there is a catastrophic failure from an arrow. as it is the arrows (weapons) do not comply with the societal standard which dictates the minimum diameter of a weapon. thin shafted arrows have such potential for damage should the heads or tails fail. the fact that they are shot without control seems to also be contrary to our comventions of combat. adding more power to them would only increase these risks and still wouldnt make them any more realistic with their ability to defeat armour (well, in the sca).
if i were in charge i would limit shots to the face only and make limits on the amount of arrows/bolts that can be carried on to the field. if i were given 12 arrows and were limited to face targets only i bet i could send 10 guys packing. but im a fairly skilled bowman. of course if i honestly was interested in archery i would be at the range and never on the field. i would like to do an archery only woods battle some time as long as it didnt conflict with fighting.
regards
logan
Hubert d'Aigues-Mortes wrote:
SirAngus wrote:Would there be less complaints if arrows were held to standard calibration, like a normal sword shot?
I honestly think you'd hear more complaints. Given that the kinetic energy of a combat arrow drops very fast, to get a telling blow at 20 yards I expect the poundage of combat bows would need to be overcranked so that at minimum range you'd have issues with excessive force.
The best solution I've heard to date would be to limit the target areas (face shot, face and chest only etc.), which would require a greater level of skill to land a shot and limit the effect of the magic arrow.
Ebonwoulfe Armory is fully stocked with spears again! For now the only way to order them is to send an email to ebonwoulfearmory@gmail.com with the quantity and your shipping address. We will send a PayPal invoice in response including your shipping cost.
depends on your take wulfgar. me, ive never fought for the honor of my consort. it was never in question. and as for renoun the only one that can gain from that is me or, should he best me, my opponent. i fight for the contest, and for the personal test. of course your mileage may vary. as far as "war" goes we have far too many rules in our grand melees for them to be anything but, grand melees.
regards
logan
Wulfgar wrote:
Dante della Luna wrote: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?
I only ask, because I am an avid reader of this site... and I've seen very similar CA thread pop up every 5 months or so...
I'm thinking that posting about something you want changed in the SCA, on the Armour Archive, is like complaining at the post office that your taxes were too high this year...
Yes and no, I can see why people want CA's out and I can see why so many knights are against it and it probably wouldn't worry me (also an authorised archer) if CA was left out and I will probably now from reading this argument no longer undertake CA activities in a war situation. In saying that though I think CA does add another element to our sca "wars" and I think thats a good thing, I get plenty of opportunities to engage in knightly and chivalric combat (Where I live we are lucky to see a war scenario each year).
I was once told (and it seems that many of the knights here disagree with this) that sca "war" is sort of an unchivalrous combat form where you are fighting for yourself and you king rather than for the honour and renoun of your consort.
I see sca "war" as going out to have a bit of fun and not to show off that I am the best fighter on the field.
Ebonwoulfe Armory is fully stocked with spears again! For now the only way to order them is to send an email to ebonwoulfearmory@gmail.com with the quantity and your shipping address. We will send a PayPal invoice in response including your shipping cost.
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?
I only ask, because I am an avid reader of this site... and I've seen very similar CA thread pop up every 5 months or so...
I'm thinking that posting about something you want changed in the SCA, on the Armour Archive, is like complaining at the post office that your taxes were too high this year...
Well, from reading most of this, my opinion has changed a bit. But I'm just a newbie.
Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:Actually, Rhys, Rush dropped a lot of weight several years ago when he was showing signs of developing diabetes (which killed his Dad), and he has gone thru rehab, so he's no longer an addict.
That's good to hear. He seemed to be on a downward spiral when last I heard.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
I cannot understand why people get so upset about this, especially when Rhys is writing actively. If you read what he writes he is generally no more hard-nosed than anyone else who gets involved in these discussions.
I consider myself to have a fairly solid -albeit non-scholarly- grasp of the culture of the fighting nobility of Western Europe during the years 1000-1500 C.E.
What Rhys and I say about knights and their relationship to archery in battle is just a simple fact. It is a historical fact. Why do people get so freaked out? Is it because Rhys wants to ban it?
So what if he does? What is the big deal if he does? If he wants to see all non-European persona disappear- so fuc*ing what?
He hates CA and wants it gone.
I hate it and (to my disgust) want it to stay (I've explained why.)
Logan wants whatever he wants.
Sir Assjack wants what he wants.
Duke Jackass wants what he wants.
Someotherguy wants what he wants.
Rhys and I continue to do what we do regardless of the dungeon bunnies etc. The dungeon bunnies do what they want regardless of whatever we write here. It doesn't matter much. Rhys is talking about Western Europe in the years 1000-1500 (or later)...and when he says that knights didn't use bows it's just a friggin' historical fact.'
You are either interested in the application of facts into what we do, or you ain't. Your opinion and philosophy cannot change -however- certain facts.
I can't understand why people get more upset by what he writes than other people's diatribes. It confuses me.
"I am trying to be a great burden to my squires. The inner changes we look for will not take place except under the weight of great burdens."
-Me
Vitus von Atzinger wrote:I can't understand why people get more upset by what he writes than other people's diatribes. It confuses me.
Because, my brother, I back up what I say better than others do, and people hate to realize how wrong they are and how full of wishful thinking their opinions are.
My Uncle Nelson used to say "An Irishman convinced against his will, is an Irishman, unconvinced still" (we have mostly English blood in our family... ). Well, that statement could be made of a lot of groups, and rubbing people's noses in fact often makes them angry as well.
It's OK, I know who my friends are.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
Russ Mitchell wrote:Speaking of which, friend-I-haven't-met-yet, you still owe me a cite.
Was that to me or to Vitus? If it was to me, what data are you looking for?
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
Russ Mitchell wrote:To you. You're really just skimming my replies, aren't you? Regarding the Spaniards, in your post.
Oh! I'm sorry, Russ, I didn't see any such request from you. There are lots of posts on here, many of them aimed at me and I just missed that one.
The Spaniard is from a book a friend pointed out to me. I have to go find it again. I will post the citation as soon as I do.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
SyrRhys wrote:Was that to me or to Vitus? If it was to me, what data are you looking for?
To you. You're really just skimming my replies, aren't you? Regarding the Spaniards, in your post.
I'm quoting from:
James F. Powers, A SOCIETY ORGANIZED FOR WAR: The Iberian Municipal Militias in the Central Middle Ages, 1000-1284
"The last category of offensive weapons, bows and crossbows, provided the basic firepower of the municipal militias. In contrast to France and the other Western European principalities, archery in the Iberian Peninsula was not the exclusive prerogative of the footsoldier.(90) While there existed some tendency to assign the weapon to the peón in the Siete partidas, numerous municipal charters refer to knightly archers, who receive twice the foot archer's booty shares from military service provided they maintained the skill and the minimum requirement of bow cords and arrows. (See Plates 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 24, 25, 27).(91) Indeed, in a number of towns archers constituted a special legal class."
Granted, they call them "knightly archers" here, but note that they're only paid twice that of a foot archer--if I recall correctly, that's the same the the English paid their Hobelars or mounted archers, and they are commoners from town militias. I believe the "knightly" is a confusion of translation for "horseman" or perhaps "mounted", just as the Roman "equites" is often mistakenly translated as "knight".
I hope that's enough--very early medieval history in Spain isn't exactly my central area of research.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
I think that Sir Rhys is correct in equating the cabarellos discussed in the Fueros (Search Archer in Chapters 5 and 7) with the mounted archers active in England who recieved higher pay for being mounted and thus able to move faster. I think that the nature of Iberia and the England-Scotland border made mounted archers very attractive.
(Anyone have Hatto's article "Archery and Chivalry: A Noble Prejudice," from footnote 90 in Ch 5? It might enlighten us all.)
Over the 16 or so years that I have been fighting in the West I have found that CA archery as practiced here is rather balanced. I have always fought in a closed face helm and breast plate. I usually fight with a shield in war. Sir Geoffrey pointed out what counts as plate for proof. I rarely die to arrows. If I do it is because I was shot in the eye (or one particular archer who shot me with an arrow to my chest inside my breast plate. This was not a lucky shot but one he aimed!) I did notice that at Pennsic several years back that I didn't even worry about CA till I found myself kneeling at the end of a bridge we controlled. I can see why heavies in non-plate is proof kingdoms find CA so frustrating. I watched the golf tube bolt sail in to my plate leg before I realised I had flown over Kansas
The archer wave here is done as an indicator of what hit us not as jubilation. Also we have a long history of non-contact archers. No yeilding; no ransom; Just a simple presntation of your weapon and "Light you are dead!"
Alvar is the one who gave me this splendid (and fascinating) resource.
Hugh Knight www.schlachtschule.org
"Fencing requires heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence.
The whole art would be lost, because the roar of the impact and the rough strokes make a
cowardly heart fearful."
