The Armour Archive

DukeAvery wrote:Were there any serious losses of temper, or very harsh words exchanged? These are the events that do lasting damage to the social fabric of the sca. A few of these we can certainly absorb, but when you have a few every war for decades you have the problem we have today.

Nah. West and An Tir lurve each other. It was a big kissy smoochy love fest. With some interchange of stout blows (and I suppose the intermittent missile fire).

There was maybe a little tiny crankyness early the second day because of some confusion about limiting both sides to 10 9' pikes total... but that not starting until 2nd battle... I dunno. Seemed like a good ol' war to me.

I think worse than combat archery is when one side brings more archers than the other. It does not have to be MANY more to have "undue" influence (and by undue, I mean, unfun for the side that's getting shot) - maybe only 3-4 per 100 fighter. 12' spears had an equivalent effect, where if ONE side brought only a couple 12 footers, many 'static' scenarios were unbalanced.

At least twice in a rezz battle some archer shot a knight I was lining up to go pound into the dirt. That was somewhat annoying.

What if the Events were broken down to two categories War and Grand Melee Seriously. We have all kinds of events with different themes and scenarios. I like both. We all pick and choose what activity we are going to do this day or that day. You could go shopping with your Lady or do pick up fights during the War portion. Its not really any different than when I skip the Woods battle at Pennsic because I always destroy my ankle in the woods. I skip it for my safety.
Oh and get rid of the War points so its just competition and fun.

To Johno and Balin,
Have you held a properly made crossbow bolt with a fiberglass shaft and Baldar's Blunt and APD If so in your opinion what is unsafe about it.
I truly am curious.

Thor.

Oswyn_de_Wulferton wrote:I didn't recognize the low post count, so I apologize about drawing conclusions about your related behavior based on (non-existant) prior history.

Oh, Johno has a very rich and colorful history -- just not here on this forum...

... yet .

And he has demonstrated remarkable restraint and courteousness throughout much of the dialogue, for which I commend him.

Oswyn_de_Wulferton wrote:I guess I don't really see the difference in ranges, as either most CA's are far enough away I have time to do something about their shot (aka. dodge, block, etc) or they are fairly close and have about the same range advantage over me as a longer spear.

Dismissing something as relatively ineffective is not the same as creating an opportunity for renown. For the latter, there must be risk on both sides, or else the very purpose of one or the other protagonists is unsure. Once they are beyond your physical range, you are nothing more than a target -- you have no hope of mounting a credible offense. Barring intervening opponents, I can defeat even a nine-foot spearman with no more than a step in his direction (assuming he stood his ground -- like, sure, that'll happen !).

Let me ask a question: at it's core, can you explain why archers shoot? I would hazard that the dominant factor is to test one's skill with the bow against a moving, intelligent target. Note that I do not say opponent; I have not found that archers, as a community, are nearly as motivated by so direct a contest. If I am right, however, then so long as we provide that target and a reasonable set of tools (bows powerful enough to reach, arrows that fly true); don't range and striking surface just become qualifiers? Doesn't it take greater skill to hit a smaller target at a farther distance than to strike someone full-body at point-blank range?

In short, what does an archer need in order to feel included? If, for example, I created a number of inviolate firing platforms around the battlefield where archers could shoot into the heavy ranks without themselves required to don heavy armor nor risk having their bows struck by an overzealous attacker; would this provide sufficient challange while still permitting the archer to feel like they are contributing to the course of the battle? The archers could even move between platforms if the tempo of the battle shifted to favor one spot over another. They would not be able to shoot while in transit, but neither would they be able to be hit by a heavy. The only way an archer could be defeated would be if they were struck by another archer, or if their platform was "defeated" by an opposing heavy force overrunning their banner (defended, naturally, by their own heavy fighters). Of course, if all of the heavy fighters from one side are "dead", then the archers are likewise defeated -- unless they choose to put down their bow, pick up a sword, and leave the archery platform to become a heavy fighter.

What I'm getting at is that there are a number of ways a scenario can be arranged without even changing the rules that would allow CA and heavy to co-exist without risking such unbalanced game play. Despite the majority of the solutions implemented in the past; it's much less about the tools than it is about the approach. For example, we did not need to put archers in heavy armor; it only addressed the symptom, not the underlying problem. We need proposals that look to all three of the root concerns -- safety, history, and playability -- and not just one at a time. Yes, it's a little more difficult, but it is not impossible, and the results far more rewarding for everyone involved.

Respectfully,

Alfred of Carlyle

My Oath, and my desire to serve my Knight, Duchy, and Kingdom trump this.
It doesn't mean that I'm not against an organized boycott. I'm hoping it will not come to that.

As I stated Steve, I would like to see CA as a balanced part of HL.
It's not balanced at this time, hence the heard of elephants in the room.

I'm trying to imagine what sort of oath in an SCA context would prevent you from acting on what you believe is right for the SCA.

'Cause if it was me, and I hated combat archery to the point where I did not want to participate in battles that used it, I'd be telling my SCA knight, my SCA duke, and my SCA king, "Sorry, dudes, but to my mind this kind of melee combat does not represent the behourd combat I believe we should be engaging in, and as such, I will not participate in this kind of melee combat."

This is, after all, a game, and if you don't like the rules, you don't have to play - game-play oaths be damned.

Steve

carlyle wrote:Let me ask a question: at it's core, can you explain why archers shoot?

Well, not intending to speak for all archers, but when I was doing CA regularly I did it because that was the role in which I could be the most effective tactically.

Since then I have become a fairly effective spearman, so I tend to limit myself to that. Plus, I find that spearing to be way more fun than CA.

Yeah, I draw fire from archers because I'm a good spearman. I get over it.

Steve, do you realize that you're trolling?

'Cause if it was me, and I hated combat archery to the point where I did not want to participate in battles that used it

I've never said I hate CA.
I said it unbalances the game.
I said I would support a HL boycott of a battle.
I also said I hope it doesn't come to that.

I've also said comparing SCA war to WAR is folly.

I'm trying to imagine what sort of oath in an SCA context would prevent you from acting on what you believe is right for the SCA.

Really?
Howaz bout to support my Knight, Duchy, and Kingdom?
Does that satisfy you my friend?

And I am acting on what I believe is right, trust me.


Please take this to PM if you want to continue it.
We don't need to derail the thread.



[edit for grammar]

Here in the Western part of the world we have been voting with our feet for along time. Its has been near 3 years since our debacle with Caid. I'm not sure what their numbers are but we have not gone in force to either Potrero War (which we dearly loved & happened twice a yr) or Great western war. My unit is far worse for wear. We use to go to 6-8 wars a yr, 3 of them in Caid. Caid has now withdrawn as a principle at Estrella. I'm not sure, but we have been laying them low since the days dread king Avery sat on the bloody Caidan throne & we followed Trelon till the land turned to sea. In those days we fought tooth & nail, every battle mattered! Between then & now, Combat archery took hold in Caid. All their eggs were put in one quiver, now their army is a withered old man, a shadow of it former glory.
While in Atenveldt, where we have dismissed the archers to go fire at the buts, and we have done this at grass roots lvl, our army is still feared.
I think our "War" reputation is well known. Our Kingdom lives for great battles, and we excel. I pray that we can gain balance before those raised in a WOW mentality move in to set their own agenda. So to wrap this all up, look to what has already happened here. A principle pulling out of a war they helped start is very sad, indeed.

Do not doubt that this is tied in with CA for I have seen it with mine own eyes and felt it with my heart. " There is no short cut to courage, discipline can not be cheated, hard work is done with a hard mind." me

D. Sebastian wrote:Steve, do you realize that you're trolling?
... You're assuming much more that I've said. Please take this to PM if you want to continue it. We don't need to derail the thread.

I would hope that you don't, so long as you are both comfortable and can remain civil (of course, I would expect nothing less of either of you).

I think you are both doing an admirable job exploring and explaining how, while archery is problematic, it is rarely to the point that the heavy fighters will stay off the field. Steve's questions may be probing, but I feel he is digging at the root of a very difficult question -- if it's so bad, why do we continue? If it's not so bad, why do we complain?

I personally feel the answer lies in a systemic flaw of the SCA. But it is also essential to see how we deal with it at the personal level, how it affects us on the ground. It's one thing to describe a problem in terms of numbers or, as some have suggested, solve it by simply "sharing the field" and doubling up the number of activities. But how would this change our events? Is it really twice as much fighting for the CA-oblivious? Or is it half as much fighting for the CA-averse? I mean, if we really could have added twice as many battles to the agenda, wouldn't we have been doing it already? And if not, what the h*ll was the autocrat thinking, and why wasn't he fired already ?

With friendship... AoC

My apologizes Syr Alfred,

"This is, after all, a game, and if you don't like the rules, you don't have to play - game-play oaths be damned. "

Did not read as an inquisitive request for discourse.
I read it as 'if you don't like it, don't play.'
Something I would never say to someone who, say, expressed a dislike for knee fighting.

If that was not Steve's intent, then I am obviously in the wrong for my one raised eyebrow.

D. Sebastian wrote:"This is, after all, a game, and if you don't like the rules, you don't have to play - game-play oaths be damned. "

I read it as 'if you don't like it, don't play.'

Something I would never say to someone who, say, expressed a dislike for knee fighting.

I see. For my part, I read it more as an admonition to not compromise your underlying principles for your game-side oaths and offices. I didn't see him as saying, "if you don't like it, leave", but issuing a challenge to stand on the sidelines in protest until changes are made.

But perhaps I was reading into it myself. Maybe Steve would like to clarify?

Alfred

Balin50 wrote:How about have ca fights running at the same time as the no ca fights and see which ones are better attended. To say stand on the sidelines means the choices are don't fight, or fight and get shot. Do it the way I suggest and the choice is fight with ca, or fight with no CA and no one has to just stand around.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

This is a suggestion that has no bearing on reality. The infrastructure of having a full marshalling team, space, waterbearers and all the rest of the support needed to host a battle duplicated to hold simultaneous battles?

Yep, right.

Just hold two battles! One after the other. Draw a number for who gets to go first. Integrated, and not. Play both, fighting is all good.

Why in the world set up *deliberate* points of contention?

Why set up situations where you would have an influential few deliberately going round the populace being divisive? Creating strife?

A War field is about the biggest picture, not individuals. Looking at the whole picture! The Pennsic Wars, seeing the whole of a battle with the Siege, Archery, Foot Units, tactics and movement, engaging obstacles, fighting the buildings and castle. Glorious!

So much scope for activity, how can you not have enough to go around? If you want individual Glory, there is scope. Unit Glory? The Belted and Unbelted Tourney, Battle of the Thirty, Champions Battle, Giant vs Dwarf, Iron Rose, and on and on! Setting challenges, Quests and the like!

Why be divisive? I helped introduce Siege to the East, and taught building, shooting, tactics and integration. Over and over again I was teaching Chivalry my Siege classes. Over and over again, the ones with a vested interest in the status quo, were having a Glorious time! Happy and Smiling! My King gave me my AoA for my work in Siege.

Have both, have it all, if *you* don't want to fight against Siege and CA then don't! Choose events or battles in events that are not integrated.

The last Pennsic I was at, I got picked off the front of a Bridge by a crossbowman. Square to the front of the chest through a gap. Amazing marksmanship. Happy wave back and forth and off to fight the next battle.

Paid a crossbowman back by being too close to the front of a line in an Abbey battle by leaping the no-man's gap between the lines, fended off a spear or two, yelled "ARCHER" and was rewarded by him looking up from cocking his bow to get my sword between the eyes. Glorious! Hurrah from the audience, account balanced. I died, (pole from second row I think) but Gloriously!

Why on earth be sour about any of this? Play the whole game, and don't poison the table you eat from, just pick and choose what you eat from it.

Don't like pickles? Don't eat them. Simple. Easy. Why on earth spoil the Party by moaning about the fact that there ARE pickles on the table?

As a way I integrated my units, I started a mostly Ladies Siege unit. Boys didn't want to play Sissy Siege. Selling point? They wanted to play the game. Some authorized Heavy to fight as well, some didn't, some couldn't, who cares? Effective use of willing and eager people.

They were and are a hell of an effective unit, professional and trained hard. They performed well and honourably by killing other Siege engines as primary targets BEFORE moving on to any anti-personnel roles. Part of the training I gave them was not to be snipers, but to engage UNITS as a part of the overall strategy, COMBINED with CA and foot units.

If they were capable of driving the Enemy Chivalry Command away from the battles they wanted to supervise? Great! Good UNIT tactics.

My Master at Arms foundered a whole enemy unit charge at his flank by picking off the leader at range with one of my Ballistae. Great unit tactics! Great training at Combined Arms by a member of the Chivalry.

Poor training of the enemy unit, who should have disregarded the loss of the leader and sustained the attack. No rational reason it should have stopped.

Play the WHOLE game! Glorious!

Last point? If you have an Enemy Archer Problem, field a team of three Heavy Auth & Armored archers with training and instructions to kill archers only. Put the x-bows on cross belts and sling them behind you with the ammo. See an enemy Archer? Get together, triangulate, pick him off, get back to the line. Good Combined Unit tactics.

If you have a problem, be creative about solving it, don't poison the party!

I apologize. I do not mean to say if you don't like it don't play, at least, not in that tone.

What I'm saying is that for those who hate combat archery (not you, D. Sebastian), the only real option to make change is by boycotting. I am still putting my kit together, so it is not an issue for me yet, but will be soon. I am not sure at this point what action to take. I know that combat archery is not for me, and I feel that it is a non-noble endeavor and as such I won't do it myself. I'm tending to say that I will simply sit out archery battles from now on, in protest. But until I actually put harness on again it's blowing smoke to say so.

But boycotting is the only sure-fire way to settle the problem. Either we end up with separate war and tournament melees, or it will be shown there is no preference either way and things will then continue much as they currently are.

Howaz bout to support my Knight, Duchy, and Kingdom?
Does that satisfy you my friend?
Wink
And I am acting on what I believe is right, trust me.

You must do what you feel is right, of course.

What set my teeth on edge was the idea that an SCA oath in the context of a game would prevent someone from standing up for what they believed was right. This smacks of people who take the SCA far too seriously.

For someone who truly believes that combat archery does not belong in SCA melee combat to the point of boycotting it, no SCA-game oath should be an impediment to doing that. You just go to your friends and say, "I don't think archery belongs in SCA melees, so I'm not going to participate in melees that have it." True friends should respect that.

For example, what if tomorrow the rules changed such that arrows were traditional, wooden-shafted affairs with simple bird blunts on them, like the Regia Anglorum folks do? Would you take the field then just to satisfy your SCA oaths?

Now granted, the issue under discussion is not nearly as grave a concern in terms of personal safety. This is more a debate about melee ideology. But if you (generally, not you specifically) reached a point where ideologically the combat scenarios were no longer palatable no SCA oath should hold you back, in my opinion.

Steve

I see. For my part, I read it more as an admonition to not compromise your underlying principles for your game-side oaths and offices. I didn't see him as saying, "if you don't like it, leave", but issuing a challenge to stand on the sidelines in protest until changes are made.

Thank you, Alfred, this is the sentiment I was trying to convey. I wish I could have said it.

Steve

But I DO believe that there is a place for CA, it's just that the current release is buggy.

Thorstenn wrote:What if the Events were broken down to two categories War and Grand Melee Seriously. We have all kinds of events with different themes and scenarios. I like both. We all pick and choose what activity we are going to do this day or that day. You could go shopping with your Lady or do pick up fights during the War portion. Its not really any different than when I skip the Woods battle at Pennsic because I always destroy my ankle in the woods. I skip it for my safety.
Oh and get rid of the War points so its just competition and fun.

To Johno and Balin,
Have you held a properly made crossbow bolt with a fiberglass shaft and Baldar's Blunt and APD If so in your opinion what is unsafe about it.
I truly am curious.

Thor.

If a child gets hit tell how safe they are. Head comes off somehow and how safe are they? Bow gets hits and explodes ( and if they don't explode then why can't they be hit?) The SCA has implemented a buffer zone for CA that alone says to me it is considered a higher risk. An illegal bar grill gets on the field and someone loses an eye (this would be the bar grill faults but the effect would be the same). Bolt hits butt first(broke ribs at estrella). Most of these things can happen with all weapons, but all othr weapons are controlled as opposed to uncontrolled projectiles flying around.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

Just because people dont want you to hit the bow does not mean they explode.
Aluminum prod crossbows are very rugged.
I might think they are off limits to hit because they dont want a trend of people trying to break them

Oskar der Drachen wrote:

Balin50 wrote:How about have ca fights running at the same time as the no ca fights and see which ones are better attended. To say stand on the sidelines means the choices are don't fight, or fight and get shot. Do it the way I suggest and the choice is fight with ca, or fight with no CA and no one has to just stand around.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

This is a suggestion that has no bearing on reality. The infrastructure of having a full marshalling team, space, waterbearers and all the rest of the support needed to host a battle duplicated to hold simultaneous battles?

Yep, right.

Just hold two battles! One after the other. Draw a number for who gets to go first. Integrated, and not. Play both, fighting is all good.

Why in the world set up *deliberate* points of contention?

Why set up situations where you would have an influential few deliberately going round the populace being divisive? Creating strife?

A War field is about the biggest picture, not individuals. Looking at the whole picture! The Pennsic Wars, seeing the whole of a battle with the Siege, Archery, Foot Units, tactics and movement, engaging obstacles, fighting the buildings and castle. Glorious!

So much scope for activity, how can you not have enough to go around? If you want individual Glory, there is scope. Unit Glory? The Belted and Unbelted Tourney, Battle of the Thirty, Champions Battle, Giant vs Dwarf, Iron Rose, and on and on! Setting challenges, Quests and the like!

Why be divisive? I helped introduce Siege to the East, and taught building, shooting, tactics and integration. Over and over again I was teaching Chivalry my Siege classes. Over and over again, the ones with a vested interest in the status quo, were having a Glorious time! Happy and Smiling! My King gave me my AoA for my work in Siege.

Have both, have it all, if *you* don't want to fight against Siege and CA then don't! Choose events or battles in events that are not integrated.

The last Pennsic I was at, I got picked off the front of a Bridge by a crossbowman. Square to the front of the chest through a gap. Amazing marksmanship. Happy wave back and forth and off to fight the next battle.

Paid a crossbowman back by being too close to the front of a line in an Abbey battle by leaping the no-man's gap between the lines, fended off a spear or two, yelled "ARCHER" and was rewarded by him looking up from cocking his bow to get my sword between the eyes. Glorious! Hurrah from the audience, account balanced. I died, (pole from second row I think) but Gloriously!

Why on earth be sour about any of this? Play the whole game, and don't poison the table you eat from, just pick and choose what you eat from it.

Don't like pickles? Don't eat them. Simple. Easy. Why on earth spoil the Party by moaning about the fact that there ARE pickles on the table?

As a way I integrated my units, I started a mostly Ladies Siege unit. Boys didn't want to play Sissy Siege. Selling point? They wanted to play the game. Some authorized Heavy to fight as well, some didn't, some couldn't, who cares? Effective use of willing and eager people.

They were and are a hell of an effective unit, professional and trained hard. They performed well and honourably by killing other Siege engines as primary targets BEFORE moving on to any anti-personnel roles. Part of the training I gave them was not to be snipers, but to engage UNITS as a part of the overall strategy, COMBINED with CA and foot units.

If they were capable of driving the Enemy Chivalry Command away from the battles they wanted to supervise? Great! Good UNIT tactics.

My Master at Arms foundered a whole enemy unit charge at his flank by picking off the leader at range with one of my Ballistae. Great unit tactics! Great training at Combined Arms by a member of the Chivalry.

Poor training of the enemy unit, who should have disregarded the loss of the leader and sustained the attack. No rational reason it should have stopped.

Play the WHOLE game! Glorious!

Last point? If you have an Enemy Archer Problem, field a team of three Heavy Auth & Armored archers with training and instructions to kill archers only. Put the x-bows on cross belts and sling them behind you with the ammo. See an enemy Archer? Get together, triangulate, pick him off, get back to the line. Good Combined Unit tactics.

If you have a problem, be creative about solving it, don't poison the party!

It would be hard, and the result would be 1 very empty field with CAers looking at each other. This would take no influencing of any kind come on this field they can shoot you and this one there is no shooting.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

white mountain armoury wrote:Just because people dont want you to hit the bow does not mean they explode.
Aluminum prod crossbows are very rugged.
I might think they are off limits to hit because they dont want a trend of people trying to break them

Weapons should be hardy or not on the field as it is now in some kingdoms CAers cannot simply engage they have to find a safe spot for their bow/xbows.WHich is why many yield. IMO

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

I asked earlier but did not get an answer:
Could a bow be made of a length of rattan?
Would it work worth a damn?

Just because people dont want you to hit the bow does not mean they explode.
Aluminum prod crossbows are very rugged.
I might think they are off limits to hit because they dont want a trend of people trying to break them

Exactly. It's a $200+ piece of equipment that is not designed to be hit with a club. I don't begrudge an archer from not wanting his expensive equipment smashed.

Steve

Gun wrote:I was noticing something written by Chef:

"I would venture to assert that a military crossbow, with a composite prod, of the 13th or 14th century, shot at point blank range, would in almost every circumstance penetrate a mail shirt, 9 times out of 10, with a solid hit. "

I am sure this is Entirely true. Our armour standards are set at 11th century, shouldn't X-bows and self bows for that matter also be set at that standard? Otherwise its like me bringing an M-60 machine gun to a revolutionary war re-enactment.
I understand that Chef is not part of the SCA, but weapons go with armour. I know we dress to our persona(roughly) , so how do 11th cen bows compare to 11th cen armour?

Anna Comnena gives us an idea of the power of the crossbow in the late 11C-early 12C as used by crusaders in her father's empire:

"The user rests both his feet against the bow, whilst he strains at the cord with the full force of his arms. It has a semicircular groove which reaches down the middle of the stock. The missiles, which are of various kinds, are placed in the groove, and propelled along it by the released cord. When the cord is released, the arrow leaves the groove with a force against which nothing is proof. IT NOT ONLY PENETRATES A BUCKLER, BUT ALSO PIERCES THE MAN AND HIS ARMOR THROUGH AND THROUGH."

So much for the power of the wood or horn and wood crossbow of the 11-12C. Might have to rethink that face-only thing. Talk about a nuclear Arrow!

I'm still in favor of Face-Only, mainly for playability.
Besides, Anna did not mention range, or how many bolts skipped off shields and helmets, for each that T-and-T'd an armored man.

This is not an answer. I have seen these similar things happen with approved weapons. This is not what I would expect from you.

If a child is hit were is the parent that is supposed to be watching it?

How does the head just come off? Tape over glue does not just pop off.

Bows are not legal to be struck. Nether are hands and lower legs.

Precautions are taking to protect people, you should be happier

A sword with a legal in line thrusting tip will blind you just as easily through an illegal bar gap.

I had 3 broken ribs at Pennsic last year and a Bruised lung (sick for 4 months from infection) WMA 20 gauge stainless Lamealar body armor all from a controlled spear shot. First ten minutes of the first war point battle. So he was not exhausted. (I only missed 2 battles, one was the woods that I was going to skip anyway )

Now I was simple asking if you handled one before. I dont know what you have been in contact with, and what the differences were from other arrow's you may have handled. I have only handled a few types of arrows and might not fully understand your safety concerns.

Thor.

Balin50 wrote:

Thorstenn wrote:What if the Events were broken down to two categories War and Grand Melee Seriously. We have all kinds of events with different themes and scenarios. I like both. We all pick and choose what activity we are going to do this day or that day. You could go shopping with your Lady or do pick up fights during the War portion. Its not really any different than when I skip the Woods battle at Pennsic because I always destroy my ankle in the woods. I skip it for my safety.
Oh and get rid of the War points so its just competition and fun.

To Johno and Balin,
Have you held a properly made crossbow bolt with a fiberglass shaft and Baldar's Blunt and APD If so in your opinion what is unsafe about it.
I truly am curious.

Thor.

If a child gets hit tell how safe they are. Head comes off somehow and how safe are they? Bow gets hits and explodes ( and if they don't explode then why can't they be hit?) The SCA has implemented a buffer zone for CA that alone says to me it is considered a higher risk. An illegal bar grill gets on the field and someone loses an eye (this would be the bar grill faults but the effect would be the same). Bolt hits butt first(broke ribs at estrella). Most of these things can happen with all weapons, but all othr weapons are controlled as opposed to uncontrolled projectiles flying around.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

Balin50 wrote:

white mountain armoury wrote:Just because people dont want you to hit the bow does not mean they explode.
Aluminum prod crossbows are very rugged.
I might think they are off limits to hit because they dont want a trend of people trying to break them

Weapons should be hardy or not on the field as it is now in some kingdoms CAers cannot simply engage they have to find a safe spot for their bow/xbows.WHich is why many yield. IMO

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

Sure, my point was I dont think catastrophic failure of the prod is the issue.
I am not a big CA advocate, I fight pole so I get shot at alot.

Having them laying around on the groud to be tripped over is more likely

I think rattan has to much give. I have bent a 35 inch single handed sword on a persons head before and it stayed partially bent. Of course so did the helmet

Heck see if you know somebody willing to try it out.

You have connections in the east, see if they might want to try a face only battle at Pennsic. Cant hurt to ask.

Thor.

D. Sebastian wrote:I asked earlier but did not get an answer:
Could a bow be made of a length of rattan?
Would it work worth a damn?

Here is a link: http://www.bowyersedge.com/kidsbows.html

There was a group in the Northern Outlands that made Rattan Bows a long time ago. They looked good and seemed very solid. I often wondered after they loosed the arrow, could they beat you with it like a club during the fighting? (Following all rules on diameter, padding, etc)
galenow

WoW that was cool

Thor.

galenow wrote:Here is a link: http://www.bowyersedge.com/kidsbows.html

There was a group in the Northern Outlands that made Rattan Bows a long time ago. They looked good and seemed very solid. I often wondered after they loosed the arrow, could they beat you with it like a club during the fighting? (Following all rules on diameter, padding, etc)
galenow

I dislike CA, I feel it completely alters and ultimately unbalances the game of SCA combat.

I feel that all shafted arrows are potentially unsafe to a degree that I do not care to be on the field with them, not near a field where they are being used.

My sincere dislike of archers their tactics and antics as observed in almost 20 years of fighting is often outweighed for me by my obligations to my friends, followers, and more importantly my Kingdom and its Sovereigns. As a Duke and Knight, I do not have a simple choice to vote with my feet as other fighters so. I have an obligation to lead, and one to help my Kingdom to win.

I don't care to cater any longer to a minority. This is an overall view I have taken of the SCA in general as I feel that we have gone too far in doing so, and are hurting the growth and sustainability of the SCA as a whole by continuing to do so.

CA in its current inherently unsafe form and obnoxious usage should simply disappear. Should I have the honor to sit the throne again, it will.

g-

As a Duke and Knight, I do not have a simple choice to vote with my feet as other fighters so. I have an obligation to lead, and one to help my Kingdom to win.

Leading the boycott of archery would be one way of leading.

CA in its current inherently unsafe form and obnoxious usage should simply disappear. Should I have the honor to sit the throne again, it will.

But then there are more ... direct ... ways of leadership...

Steve

crazy question here, but weren't period tournaments developed as a way for soldiers to hone their skills with out losing you best & brightest, much like the war games that the armed forces participate in.
Archery was a FACT in the period battle field, would it not be logical that some period Melees might have had a form of ca so that the men& animals would be prepared, much like our troops doing live fire exercises,& teargas drills.

Enjoy the small pond.

Morejello wrote:Yeah, I draw fire from archers because I'm a good spearman. I get over it.

funny thing is that none of the archery folks/supporters ever dare to say its fair for what we do in the sca.

the mindless bullshit about "war this and war that" is stupid. we dont do war. if we did we wouldnt have rules. really, give me a break guys.

if shooting folks is so cool just go do it off to the side. i will join you in a heartbeat. i would loooooooooooove to go hunt people in the woods, or field, but the woods most of all, with a hand drawn bow. i mean love it like i would get a chubby over it.

but then again, i love beating people in anything. i love to compete. there is not challenge in sca combat archery, i am plenty good enough with a hand drawn bow as it is. much better than i would bet 90% of the scas combat archers are. and faster too! its so simple as to not be of any sport to me.

but you all know we will never ever see the combat archery folks whine about not being given space to shoot at each other. never. if its so much fun and such an equal playing field (which we all know its not) then why wouldnt they want more time to play at their sport?????????????

logan

Even real war has rules.

Thor.

dukelogan wrote:funny thing is that none of the archery folks/supporters ever dare to say its fair for what we do in the sca.

the mindless bullshit about "war this and war that" is stupid. we dont do war. if we did we wouldnt have rules. really, give me a break guys.

if shooting folks is so cool just go do it off to the side. i will join you in a heartbeat. i would loooooooooooove to go hunt people in the woods, or field, but the woods most of all, with a hand drawn bow. i mean love it like i would get a chubby over it.

but then again, i love beating people in anything. i love to compete. there is not challenge in sca combat archery, i am plenty good enough with a hand drawn bow as it is. much better than i would bet 90% of the scas combat archers are. and faster too! its so simple as to not be of any sport to me.

but you all know we will never ever see the combat archery folks whine about not being given space to shoot at each other. never. if its so much fun and such an equal playing field (which we all know its not) then why wouldnt they want more time to play at their sport?????????????

logan

not shooting in the back, setting traps, burning people,

thats not what we should do in the sca but we do some of it. well, the first one.......

logan

Thorstenn wrote:Even real war has rules.

Thor.

dukelogan wrote:funny thing is that none of the archery folks/supporters ever dare to say its fair for what we do in the sca.

the mindless bullshit about "war this and war that" is stupid. we dont do war. if we did we wouldnt have rules. really, give me a break guys.

if shooting folks is so cool just go do it off to the side. i will join you in a heartbeat. i would loooooooooooove to go hunt people in the woods, or field, but the woods most of all, with a hand drawn bow. i mean love it like i would get a chubby over it.

but then again, i love beating people in anything. i love to compete. there is not challenge in sca combat archery, i am plenty good enough with a hand drawn bow as it is. much better than i would bet 90% of the scas combat archers are. and faster too! its so simple as to not be of any sport to me.

but you all know we will never ever see the combat archery folks whine about not being given space to shoot at each other. never. if its so much fun and such an equal playing field (which we all know its not) then why wouldnt they want more time to play at their sport?????????????

logan

Thorstenn wrote:Even real war has rules.

This is a strawman, Thor. Real war may have rules, but it serves a very different purpose and yields very different results than SCA war. We have rules to assure the safety of the fighters, to ensure fairness for all participants, and ideally, to provide a medievally-inspired environment where we can pursue our particular archtype. At the end of the day, we may have a designated winner and loser; but friends and foes alike join in common revelry, drink heartily, and recount the stories of the day's glory. The next morning, we don our armor, take the field, and start the conflict anew. While I admit I have no modern combat experience, I doubt this compares to either the intent of the rules governing real war, or the practical outcome ... AoC

D. Sebastian wrote:I asked earlier but did not get an answer:
Could a bow be made of a length of rattan?
Would it work worth a damn?

I can offer a 2nd-hand opinion:

One of our local fighters (Jochen Schwalbe) made a crossbow using rattan for the prop, to the 1000"lb limit.

I never actually saw the crossbow, but he told me it was pretty useless, the rattan was just too slow.

Regards,

Columb