The Armour Archive

Cian of Storvik wrote:It was hyperbole, but still. A lot of what melee is about is tactics, and all of this talk about "Well, it's not chivalrous", and "It's denying me one on one combat with another". Well, in melee you can have 4 people beating you down simultaneously and that's honorable. But shoot an arrow at someone and you're devil spawn.

The seriousness is that I do listen to what others tell me to do. If the King or his knights say "cian, but on this pink tu-tu and pirouette to the other side of the field", I'd do it. Because fealty is part of the game we play. and if they say "for this scenario, use your bow" then I'm going to grab my bow. If they say drop the arrows and pick up your mace and shield, then I do that. Melee is about tactics as much as it is about individual skills. It's not necessarily about winning, but making the right tactical decisions at the proper time to control the folow of battle on the field. For some in command, we're their little chess men and tactics are their game. I don't question it. Whether I'm told to stand my ground against a charge 10 times our number or told to break through a line. We just do what we're told to win that round.

And if you are denying your side a tactical evening of the battlefield by using a weapon that is most appropriate even if it's the hell spawned crossbow (shock and horror!!), then you're doing your side a disservice.

No matter what weapon I'm using, I'd rather be on the field then off of it.
-Cian

Beg your pardon Cian but you are a knight of Atlantia if I am not mistaken no? This above statement about your fealty and loyalty confuses the hell out of me. When Logan has been is your King why have you not chosen to do what is obviously his desire which is for you and others to put the bow down and step away from it until at least until some sort of resolution has been come too? You can say that when requested to you have or would but I know from other chat boards that you have always championed the bow whether your king liked it or not. Please forgive any thoughts that I might be atempting to offend but this is clearly a conflict of what you say your fealty requires and what your chosen actions display. It is quite confusing that you would defend the weapon and it's use even when your soveriegn clearly opposes it.

Cian of Storvik wrote:"Well, it's not chivalrous"

It is not -- this is not a weapon a nobleman of western Medieval Europe would use in either an open battle or war-game.

Cian of Storvik wrote:"It's denying me one on one combat with another"

Name me one heavy warfighter who has ever said this.

Cian of Storvik wrote:...in melee you can have 4 people beating you down simultaneously and that's honorable. But shoot an arrow at someone and you're devil spawn.

Exactly. It's not about the numbers (therein lies renown), its about the risk. The archer is unthreatened by his target. All four opponents, at least, are at nominal risk from their single adversary.

Cian of Storvik wrote:Melee is about tactics as much as it is about individual skills.

Trying to create a discussion of tactics versus skill is a red herring. This has never been a question about individual skills (saving where the effect of a relatively inexperienced archer is perceived to be out of proportion to his training). Tactics are only one part of the battle -- honor, renown, risk, safety, and even a little bit of medieval flavor must also be considered. For example, if my king told me to hold a position and the same fellow kept coming back to it only to die and get sent back to resurrection; well, that's his problem. If I were commanded to target a specific person for more than a single exchange, however, or to use an advantage that would deny my opponent the opportunity to mount a credible offense; then I would feel my liege is violating his oath of fealty to me by placing victory on the field over my personal honor. I would advise him to reconsider and, failing that, would retire from the field, for he would have broken his word and I would no longer be his man.

Cian of Storvik wrote:No matter what weapon I'm using, I'd rather be on the field then off of it.

I used to believe that, too. Now I'm older, I don't have as many fights left in me, and I won't waste them on something that does not allow me to win honor and advance my renown. Archery as it currently exists -- either fighting against it or with it -- is one of those situations.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Would any knight/duke/king who asks his subordinates to use a bow care to defend that request? If you ask those in fealty to you to use a controversial weapon, shouldn't you support them when they're reviled for doing what you asked?

Conversely, if you're a king who opposes combat archery, shouldn't you ask your kingom's fighters not to use a bow on the field (unless perhaps it's their only authorized form)?

Has anyone tried to use the award system to discourage CA? As in trying to see that combat archers don't get awards for non-CA activities, no matter how deserving they may be?

Johno wrote:Beg your pardon Cian but you are a knight of Atlantia..

That's Sir Cian Connor McQuaid. I'm just an opinionated nobody of no renown.
If Logan or any other rightful monarch of Atlantia said "no more bows", I wouldn't use one. There would be dissent, but Logan hasn't made a blanket ruling like that. If there is such a ruling by his Majesty of such, I'll let the household know, because we've got 2 combat archers going to Pennsic this year. (I'm missing it for financial reasons).
-Cian

carlyle wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:"Well, it's not chivalrous"

It is not -- this is not a weapon a nobleman of western Medieval Europe would use in either an open battle or war-game.

Cian of Storvik wrote:"It's denying me one on one combat with another"

Name me one heavy warfighter who has ever said this.

(Snipped)

Alfred of Carlyle

To clarify I said something similar as in that even in battle every opponent I come in contact with is an individual contest even if the encounter is brief or in passing. Like you I see every fighter I come in contact with as putting me at risk of being dealt a blow as I attempt to deliver my own.

Johno wrote:To clarify I said something similar as in that even in battle every opponent I come in contact with is an individual contest even if the encounter is brief or in passing. Like you I see every fighter I come in contact with as putting me at risk of being dealt a blow as I attempt to deliver my own.

Understood. Still, was it your intent to compare the effect of archery to denying you one-on-one combat? Otherwise, Cian's characterization is out of context. Heavy war fighters are not seeking one-on-one; they want many-on-many and the inherent risk that comes with it... AoC

Cisco wrote:weren't spearmen and pikemen also commoners?

Generally speaking, yes. In medieval armies, the vast sea of warriors weren't even gentle, much less noble. And if you're on foot, well...

Of course, those are generalizations. But the principle holds.

Cian of Storvik wrote:Well, in melee you can have 4 people beating you down simultaneously and that's honorable. But shoot an arrow at someone and you're devil spawn.

THIS. I just can't wrap my head round this attitude. I know I have little chance of survival facing one skilled opponent. More than one foe, even semi-skilled, will leave me a quivering mass of bruises. In my specific case, there's also that I have physical and personal issues which prevent me from swinging a stick with the aplomb I used to enjoy. Using a missile weapon in an authentic fashion gives me the chance to get out in the fresh air and enjoy myself while serving King and Kingdom.

That said, when I reauthorize I'm going for more than one HL weapons form, including poleaxe and spear, and practice as much as my business and my body will permit. Portraying a Burgundian crossbowman will give me much more satisfaction. But if the tide shifts, I want to be able to surf.

Are there problems with combat archery? Yes. Most are problems with bad behavior combined with bad implementation of the archers. Both are fixable.

Respectfully,

Bob

Cian of Storvik wrote:

Johno wrote:Beg your pardon Cian but you are a knight of Atlantia..

That's Sir Cian Connor McQuaid. I'm just an opinionated nobody of no renown.
If Logan or any other rightful monarch of Atlantia said "no more bows", I wouldn't use one. There would be dissent, but Logan hasn't made a blanket ruling like that. If there is such a ruling by his Majesty of such, I'll let the household know, because we've got 2 combat archers going to Pennsic this year. (I'm missing it for financial reasons).
-Cian

My apologies I stand corrected.

Even so is it not clearly understood that while he wishes not to alienate or deny participation for anyone he still clearly opposes it? Does it take a direct order or ruling to make you accept his desires as king?

I am saddened to hear you say that you are "an opinionated nobody of no renown"

This is a portion of the social seperations that take hold of those who see the condemnation of combat archery by the royals as being a personal offense. Perhaps this is not the case with you specifically but I do see a disturbingly high number of people who label themselves in this manner merely because they do not wear a shiny hat. I wish there were some way to get rid of that feeling.

Johno wrote:Even so is it not clearly understood that while he wishes not to alienate or deny participation for anyone he still clearly opposes it?

Tell that to the three knights who murdered Thomas Becket, believing the were merely carrying out their King's wishes ("Will no one rid me of this meddlesome cleric?"). I suspect they wish they had waited for more explicit instructions ...

Johno wrote:Does it take a direct order or ruling to make you accept his desires as king?

Yes, it should. And this is something the King should know. In the West, His very word is Law; I expect him to be aware of this and so choose his words extremely carefully.

Fealty is a hard master, after all ... AoC

brewer wrote: In my specific case, there's also that I have physical and personal issues which prevent me from swinging a stick with the aplomb I used to enjoy. Using a missile weapon in an authentic fashion gives me the chance to get out in the fresh air and enjoy myself while serving King and Kingdom.

snipped

Respectfully,

Bob

Would it bring you the same satisfaction to fire only at the opposing archers being that you know how effective thay are against your sides melee troops? Would it help or hinder your ideals of personal honor or chivalry to willingly NOT use the weapon against those that you know do not have the same range advantage? Taking out the other sides archers would be as effective as taking out any duke or commander would it not?

I don't use the bow much because I'm trying to get better at heavy. But if the person that is directly in charge of me says "use the bow", I do. I've only used the bow twice this year (so they're getting dusty). Once at a melee event, and once at a local practice. Personally, I don't like dragging around all of my weapons to each thing I'm doing. So I try to get clarifacation about what is necessary. If I can just grab a shield and mace, I'm a happy camper.

I have heard of his Majesty's personal dislike for archers, but until he outlaws them, I assume he's okay with their use when he's not around to be shot by them. Otherwise, why do we keep having scenarios which are advertised "with combat archery" if it's illegal?

When Logan's the king he can do what he wants. And everyone knows he's not one to mince words (even if he's just being Duke Logan). I'm not trying to guess his intent. If he says "atlantia no longer does CA" (for the next 6 months), then no body will.
-Cian

carlyle wrote:

Johno wrote:Even so is it not clearly understood that while he wishes not to alienate or deny participation for anyone he still clearly opposes it?

Tell that to the three knights who murdered Thomas Becket, believing the were merely carrying out their King's wishes ("Will no one rid me of this meddlesome cleric?"). I suspect they wish they had waited for more explicit instructions ...

Johno wrote:Does it take a direct order or ruling to make you accept his desires as king?

Yes, it should. And this is something the King should know. In the West, His very word is Law; I expect him to be aware of this and so choose his words extremely carefully.

Fealty is a hard master, after all ... AoC

It is sad that we would wish to see a crown make a ruling that he knows is just only to have his reputation and leadership tarnished by even a few vocal dissenters.

It is difficult to be king for certain but mainly because of the years worth of after effects over past actions and peoples lack of understanding just why a ruling was made, even if the ruling was needed to correct a problem.

Cian of Storvik wrote:I have heard of his Majesty's personal dislike for archers, but until he outlaws them, I assume he's okay with their use -Cian

Come on man read what you wrote!?!

I agree with Alfred about a crown needing to make their desire and rulings known but really if you already know then you already know.

carlyle wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:"Well, it's not chivalrous"

It is not -- this is not a weapon a nobleman of western Medieval Europe would use in either an open battle or war-game.

Cian of Storvik wrote:"It's denying me one on one combat with another"

Name me one heavy warfighter who has ever said this.

Cian of Storvik wrote:...in melee you can have 4 people beating you down simultaneously and that's honorable. But shoot an arrow at someone and you're devil spawn.

Exactly. It's not about the numbers (therein lies renown), its about the risk. The archer is unthreatened by his target. All four opponents, at least, are at nominal risk from their single adversary.

Cian of Storvik wrote:Melee is about tactics as much as it is about individual skills.

Trying to create a discussion of tactics versus skill is a red herring. This has never been a question about individual skills (saving where the effect of a relatively inexperienced archer is perceived to be out of proportion to his training). Tactics are only one part of the battle -- honor, renown, risk, safety, and even a little bit of medieval flavor must also be considered. For example, if my king told me to hold a position and the same fellow kept coming back to it only to die and get sent back to resurrection; well, that's his problem. If I were commanded to target a specific person for more than a single exchange, however, or to use an advantage that would deny my opponent the opportunity to mount a credible offense; then I would feel my liege is violating his oath of fealty to me by placing victory on the field over my personal honor. I would advise him to reconsider and, failing that, would retire from the field, for he would have broken his word and I would no longer be his man.

Cian of Storvik wrote:No matter what weapon I'm using, I'd rather be on the field then off of it.

I used to believe that, too. Now I'm older, I don't have as many fights left in me, and I won't waste them on something that does not allow me to win honor and advance my renown. Archery as it currently exists -- either fighting against it or with it -- is one of those situations.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Hmm...a few melee thoughts.

Knowing what tactic to use when in a melee is a skill. We can argue (probably to death) if a knowledge of tactics (and when to use them) is part of knightly prowess or not.

Prowess usually beats any clever tactics. The phrase "Fine, we'll just fight our way out of this." of "Our plan is to go up and hit them." is not unknown where I come from.

I wonder, Alfred, do you consider field sense part of prowess? Using a weapon effectively is only part of what needs to be done. Using a weapon effectively in the right place at the right time is what, hopefully, wins the fight.

For my part, I do not believe in "beating an opponent like a baby seal" in any fight--singles or melee. I believe is a well delivered shot, and usually in the swirling chaos of a battle, that's all I really have time for.

If my oppoent yields, no matter what weapons form is being used, then I am obliged to see him/her off the field without harm.

As I have stated, melee, especially large fights, can become a swirling mass of chaos. Folks should expect that the choas in extremis can find them. The possibility of being hit hard or knocked down exists; if you can not accept this possiblity, then please don't take the field.

Mord.

I should point out that HRM Logan in his last reign did announce face shots only counted, and there was a bit of an outcry from archers, but they quickly got over it. He was within in rights to do it, and it didn't throw the world off of it's axis, or make the stock market crash. It just made the archers aim better.
Some people just need something to complain about.

-Cian

carlyle wrote:It's not about the numbers (therein lies renown), its about the risk. The archer is unthreatened by his target.

This is an interesting nit to pick. I'd like to worry it in a respectful manner.

I submit there is always risk no matter where you are on the battlefield. It is a matter of degrees.

The archer is at less immediate risk than those in the shieldwall. So are the spears, the halberdiers, the reserve S&S men: if you're in the backfield, you're at less immediate risk.

In my world, the archer would be at considerable risk: from opposing archers and siege engines. (That's because a crossbowman sniping from a halberdier's position is ahistorical and, well, dumb. When I am Emperor of the Universe, I will ban that practice. )

Moreover, the battlefield is fluid. One can never tell when someone like HRM Logan is going to come skipping through the line, singing while he slays. Risk increases exponentially when House Ebonwoulfe or Bloodguard come cruising into your backfield looking for ... fun. If they see an archer, that archer's name is Harpseal McTentstake. That's a considerable amount of risk. Me, I see a mass of livery lumbering at me, I'm runnin' - whether I've got a poleaxe or crossbow. I'm allergic to bruises.

The point is that on the field there is always risk. The amount of risk being ... er ... risked is variable. To say that the archer takes no risk is patently untrue. He experiences less risk on the whole than a fighter in the shieldwall, true, but hardly no risk.

Anyway. That's this afternoon's stream of consciousness.

Cheers,

Bob

Johno wrote:Would it bring you the same satisfaction to fire only at the opposing archers being that you know how effective thay are against your sides melee troops? Would it help or hinder your ideals of personal honor or chivalry to willingly NOT use the weapon against those that you know do not have the same range advantage? Taking out the other sides archers would be as effective as taking out any duke or commander would it not?

1000% true. We cannot duplicate or even remotely simulate the effect of massed-fire archery on the SCA field. So archers must choose their targets of opportunity carefully.

The most effective target is the enemy's long-range weapons systems. Happily, that targeting also reduces the antagonism of those stout fellows slugging it out in the line.

Win, win and win, innit?

Bob

Johno wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:I have heard of his Majesty's personal dislike for archers, but until he outlaws them, I assume he's okay with their use -Cian

Come on man read what you wrote!?!

I agree with Alfred about a crown needing to make their desire and rulings known but really if you already know then you already know.

And at the last event I attended, HRM bestowed an award of Merit upon someone for their efforts in combat archery and publicly praised them for their personal skill in combat with the bow. Can you blame us for being a bit on the fence about the archery thing?
-Cian

P.S. You edited my post. You cut-off the "okay with their use when he's not around to be shot by them".

brewer wrote:To say that the archer takes no risk is patently untrue. He experiences less risk on the whole than a fighter in the shieldwall, true, but hardly no risk.

Clever, Bob -- but I'm not going to let you get away with restating my position, either .

We are not discussing the wider issue of environmental risk. My point is that the archer is at no risk from his target. This is a fundamental, ideological plank in my platfrom. However remote it might be, even a shieldman has a -shot- at the nine-foot spearman. He may be out of effective range, but so long as he is not out of physical range, there is an element of risk. The amount of risk is what determines renown. The four ganging up on the one win little renown for the undertaking, since we all believe they should win. The one earns great renown should he emerge the victor, because no one expected it. And according to these conventions, the archer, beyond physical reach of his target, earns no renown. An archer only advances his martial honor when he shoots at other archers, or from within his sword-wielding opponent's weapon-range.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Cian of Storvik wrote:

Johno wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:I have heard of his Majesty's personal dislike for archers, but until he outlaws them, I assume he's okay with their use -Cian

Come on man read what you wrote!?!

I agree with Alfred about a crown needing to make their desire and rulings known but really if you already know then you already know.

And at the last event I attended, HRM bestowed an award of Merit upon someone for their efforts in combat archery and publicly praised them for their personal skill in combat with the bow. Can you blame us for being a bit on the fence about the archery thing?
-Cian

P.S. You edited my post. You cut-off the "okay with their use when he's not around to be shot by them".

That I did but still not taking your words out of context. I know he doesn't like it but I assume he is ok with it is a little...odd.

I suppose the mixed messages are a bit confusing. Gotta admit I am confused myself to hear public praise for skill at combat archery by Logan.

I despise what you do...now here's a doodad for doing that thing I dont agree with

the order of the opal is given for service to the kingdom. gregor has done a whole ton of stuff to help fighters and combat archers for a long time. i commented on the job he did for me as a personal archer guard at gulf wars while i was prince. his orders were to shoot any archer that was in our path and he did just that. every single one of them. he shot them as soon as i ordered them shot (which was the moment i saw one of them draw down on a fighter. the ones that shot at archers i usually let them fight it out). he followed my orders to the tee and he hit almost every one of them in the face.

now, one thing that needs to be corrected. if you have heard someone telling you that i have a personal dislike for archers they lied. i have nothing against archers, combat or otherwise. i dislike the current way that combat archery is done in the sca. heck, clan ebonwoulfe has its own siege engine. of course it only fires at other siege engines and never at fighters.

what ive always encouraged combat archers to do is to target other archers and siege crews. always try to hit them in the face. that is my preference. i did make it my whim during my last reign that atlantia would go to face targeting only during that reign. only one person got bent over it but, well, he gets bent no matter what i say about any topic. its how he rubs one out i think. he falsely accused me of trying to destroy combat archer and that this was my chickenshit way of making so impossible to be successful that it would simply cause everyone to quit. of course i went to an event immediately after that and dropped 9 of 10 arrows into the grille of a helmet at a quick walk sideways at 45' or so. i had never fired the bow before and i missed the first one. still, even though i proved it was easy to do, he continued with his silly claims.

a lot of archers talked with me during and after the reign. a bunch of fighters too. all of them said the face only whim did a lot to ease tensions on the field. the fighters didnt feel cheated by the magically destructive arrows that we use in the sca. the archers actually had to possess some skill in order to succeed. all in all i think it was a good thing.

didnt do it this reign because we were so busy dealing with an ugly little issue that we had to resolve shortly after stepping up that i really didnt think about it.

regards
logan

Cian of Storvik wrote:

Johno wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:I have heard of his Majesty's personal dislike for archers, but until he outlaws them, I assume he's okay with their use -Cian

Come on man read what you wrote!?!

I agree with Alfred about a crown needing to make their desire and rulings known but really if you already know then you already know.

And at the last event I attended, HRM bestowed an award of Merit upon someone for their efforts in combat archery and publicly praised them for their personal skill in combat with the bow. Can you blame us for being a bit on the fence about the archery thing?
-Cian

P.S. You edited my post. You cut-off the "okay with their use when he's not around to be shot by them".

Johno wrote:
That I did but still not taking your words out of context. I know he doesn't like it but I assume he is ok with it is a little...odd.

How is it odd to have a conditional preference?

I love ketchup, but not on my Peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
I hate paying taxes, though I look forward to getting my tax refund.
I hate archers, only when they are shooting at ME.

How are any of these statements at odds?

I wish people would stop comparing what we do to medieval or any war. it isn't. We are playing at a sport.

I feel compelled, through years of camaraderie, let alone my oath as a Knight to take the field in battles where I would normally choose not to. If I am injured, or tired, or just plain have something I would rather do, I go out and fight, because i have an obligation to friends who desire me being there to aid them in being successful in the game we are playing.

I despise shafted arrows, as I think they are blatantly unsafe.

I don't mind the siloflex arrows and bolts as much, but I think that archery seriously detracts from our game and alters it so much from what I like, that I simply don't enjoy it- this would be the same as allowing tackling in basketball, or using a gun in football: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk .

How do we make it work fairly? Let's first ensure that it is:

1) safe

2) enhances the playability and enjoyment of the game by the majority of the players

3) we do not cater the the whims of another minority in the SCA

To make it fair, we need to require either only certain targets to be legal, plate as proof, or allow those shot to make their own calls AS WE DO FOR ALL OTHER WEAPONS.

Until then, it isn't and won't be remotely fair.

g-

Cian of Storvik wrote:

Johno wrote:
That I did but still not taking your words out of context. I know he doesn't like it but I assume he is ok with it is a little...odd.

How is it odd to have a conditional preference?

I love ketchup, but not on my Peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
I hate paying taxes, though I look forward to getting my tax refund.
I hate archers, only when they are shooting at ME.

How are any of these statements at odds?

First to Logan thank you for the explanation. That makes more sense than just a random praise for combat archery.

And Cian it is odd because the conditional preference you speak of is one of ideology. The current method of it's use and the perceived lack of skill and risk is what Logan normally refers to when he talks about the issues he sees.

I don't think he applies a double standard of that nature to his dislike of combat archery as currently used.

I don't want ketchup on my PB&J either so I wouldn't tell someone to put ketchup on your PB&J sandwich. I don't appreciate combat archery as currently used so why would I suddenly be accepting of it if it was used against someone other than myself?

You're right about everything. I give up. I'm obtuse and a moron.
I bow down to your omnipotent way of thought.
-Cian

Cian of Storvik wrote:You're right about everything. I give up. I'm obtuse and a moron.
I bow down to your omnipotent way of thought.
-Cian

Not my intent. To simplify I think it's unchivalrous so I don't want anyone to do it at any time to anybody?

That's all. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong about the possibility of conditional acceptance in general just that in this instance its not exactly on the mark.

carlyle wrote:Clever, Bob -- but I'm not going to let you get away with restating my position, either .

Party pooper.

However remote it might be, even a shieldman has a -shot- at the nine-foot spearman. He may be out of effective range, but so long as he is not out of physical range, there is an element of risk.

Now, while I understand and respect your position, I find this to be, bluntly, bollocks.

Show me the last time a shieldman leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, and I'll show you a dead shieldman who's going to get a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post. The opposing spearman is hiding behind his own shieldwall. The only thing the targeted shieldman can do is bat at and block the incoming spears. He has as much chance of gacking the opposing spearman as he does becoming Pope.

Where's the risk in that for the spearman? From the other spears, that's where.

In other words, risk is assessed on targeting, which is based on the range of particular weapons systems. Which is why crossbows are alternately known as "50-foot spears".

[A]ccording to these conventions, the archer, beyond physical reach of his target, earns no renown.

In my view, neither does the spearman who gacks an foe armed with a one-handed weapon.

An archer only advances his martial honor when he shoots at other archers, or from within his sword-wielding opponent's weapon-range.

I got no beef with the first. Opposing long-range weapons systems should be an archer's primary target. The second is impossible to implement under any safe ruleset, so we can safely discard it.

With respect,

Bob (Fairfax)

I dislike Two weapon fighting with a passion so as Crown should I ban it for my reign.... No. And for your last paragraph, Blackmail is NOT Kingly in our society. It's like rotten Chicken, it leaves a foal taste in my mouth.

Thor.

Flittie wrote:Would any knight/duke/king who asks his subordinates to use a bow care to defend that request? If you ask those in fealty to you to use a controversial weapon, shouldn't you support them when they're reviled for doing what you asked?

Conversely, if you're a king who opposes combat archery, shouldn't you ask your kingom's fighters not to use a bow on the field (unless perhaps it's their only authorized form)?

Has anyone tried to use the award system to discourage CA? As in trying to see that combat archers don't get awards for non-CA activities, no matter how deserving they may be?

huh?

i do it all the time. spearman lunges at me or someone else, i take a deep step and pop him in his neck or shoulder. then i step back. i think ive been "killed" once doing it and once i got knocked off the bridge. now thats just bridge scenarios. in the open field its even easier. now sure there are times where doing so isnt feasible, so i do something to make it so. usually its in the form of changing range. however, a spearman can not target me with his spear and not be at risk of me hitting him back. never.

regards
logan

brewer wrote:

carlyle wrote:Clever, Bob -- but I'm not going to let you get away with restating my position, either .

Party pooper.

However remote it might be, even a shieldman has a -shot- at the nine-foot spearman. He may be out of effective range, but so long as he is not out of physical range, there is an element of risk.

Now, while I understand and respect your position, I find this to be, bluntly, bollocks.

Show me the last time a shieldman leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, and I'll show you a dead shieldman who's going to get a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post. The opposing spearman is hiding behind his own shieldwall. The only thing the targeted shieldman can do is bat at and block the incoming spears. He has as much chance of gacking the opposing spearman as he does becoming Pope.

Where's the risk in that for the spearman? From the other spears, that's where.

In other words, risk is assessed on targeting, which is based on the range of particular weapons systems. Which is why crossbows are alternately known as "50-foot spears".

[A]ccording to these conventions, the archer, beyond physical reach of his target, earns no renown.

In my view, neither does the spearman who gacks an foe armed with a one-handed weapon.

An archer only advances his martial honor when he shoots at other archers, or from within his sword-wielding opponent's weapon-range.

I got no beef with the first. Opposing long-range weapons systems should be an archer's primary target. The second is impossible to implement under any safe ruleset, so we can safely discard it.

With respect,

Bob (Fairfax)

brewer wrote:

carlyle wrote:Clever, Bob -- but I'm not going to let you get away with restating my position, either .

Party pooper.

However remote it might be, even a shieldman has a -shot- at the nine-foot spearman. He may be out of effective range, but so long as he is not out of physical range, there is an element of risk.

Now, while I understand and respect your position, I find this to be, bluntly, bollocks.

Show me the last time a shieldman leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, and I'll show you a dead shieldman who's going to get a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post. The opposing spearman is hiding behind his own shieldwall. The only thing the targeted shieldman can do is bat at and block the incoming spears. He has as much chance of gacking the opposing spearman as he does becoming Pope.

Where's the risk in that for the spearman? From the other spears, that's where.

In other words, risk is assessed on targeting, which is based on the range of particular weapons systems. Which is why crossbows are alternately known as "50-foot spears".

[A]ccording to these conventions, the archer, beyond physical reach of his target, earns no renown.

In my view, neither does the spearman who gacks an foe armed with a one-handed weapon.

An archer only advances his martial honor when he shoots at other archers, or from within his sword-wielding opponent's weapon-range.

I got no beef with the first. Opposing long-range weapons systems should be an archer's primary target. The second is impossible to implement under any safe ruleset, so we can safely discard it.

With respect,

Bob (Fairfax)

The risk is in 3 feet of rattan in my right hand that's where.

Any wise spearman who sees me standing across from them with a shield knows his doom is standing just a few steps away. I kill them often and have for many years. I've never considered trying to become pope though. Maybe I should.

Show me the last time a shieldman leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, and I'll show you a dead shieldman who's going to get a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post. The opposing spearman is hiding behind his own shieldwall. The only thing the targeted shieldman can do is bat at and block the incoming spears. He has as much chance of gacking the opposing spearman as he does becoming Pope.

Where's the risk in that for the spearman? From the other spears, that's where.


I have done it alot, its no big deal and i have even been assigned the task of doing just that and have never recieved an ass chewing for it.
Where is the risk for the spearman, its from more than the other spears.
Its from anyone who chooses to engage them.

Brewer wrote:

Show me the last time a shieldman leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, and I'll show you a dead shieldman who's going to get a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post. The opposing spearman is hiding behind his own shieldwall.

Maybe on a defensive shieldwall that relies on tight shields to stay alive, I would agree. Though I do think, in general, a defensive-only shield wall is a speed-bump and a waste of men. Though there are times, and units, where this is the best use of resources...

Maybe things are different out here, but I've seen spears taken out by shields pretty regularly. Column charges by shields are the a pretty good way to eliminate a spear line, especially on a bridge. To be fair, our spears tend to work in front of shields, falling back when charged while the shields advance to support. A shieldwall with spears behind tends to get eaten pretty quick, as second line spears have a range handicap of two or three feet. We don't tend too see many shieldwalls out here... a line of mixed troops, sure, all the time. Spear line with shield support, certainly! Rarely does a second line of spears stays effective for long.

When a lone shield charges a spearline, he may not get a kill, but he usually gets a few RBIs as friendly spears take advantage of the distraction and take out a few of the enemy line. And frankly, in a scenario, it's not really about how many kills YOU get, but how many the TEAM gets. Usually. Sometimes. Well, at least until after victory... okay, I guess you can brag even if you lose...

Just a silly rant, has has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

By the way, this is the longest, most civil, and by far the best archery thread i have ever seen on the Archive, or anywhere else! Good job all! Let's see if it lasts....

Sir Roland

brewer wrote:

Johno wrote:Would it bring you the same satisfaction to fire only at the opposing archers being that you know how effective they are against your sides melee troops? Would it help or hinder your ideals of personal honour or chivalry to willingly NOT use the weapon against those that you know do not have the same range advantage? Taking out the other sides archers would be as effective as taking out any duke or commander would it not?

1000% true. We cannot duplicate or even remotely simulate the effect of massed-fire archery on the SCA field. So archers must choose their targets of opportunity carefully.

The most effective target is the enemy's long-range weapons systems. Happily, that targeting also reduces the antagonism of those stout fellows slugging it out in the line.

Win, win and win, innit?

Bob

There, this is the point I tried to make earlier. Combine this with the argument of risk? Anyone on the field is at risk, all the time. If you are an attractive target, your risk goes up!

When I started to field my Siege weapons, the opposing side adapted the tactics they used. In particular, being that the kill is proximity, a fast-moving fighter was sent on a specific mission to kill me. In most part he succeeded, time after time.

Tactics, not prejudice. I was happy to die, I was in the fight, made my presence felt, swayed the tide of battle, and was killed by adapted tactics. Did I face a risk? Yep, did my attacker? Definitely, had he been less speedy or capable of broken field running in armour, he could have collected a Siege bolt close range. That he did not was testament to his skill. Did he feel danger? OH YES. In talking to him after the battles he said hunting me gave him a bigger battle high than he had felt in a long time. Risk and danger, thrills, for both of us!

What was the term used, Harpseal McTentstake?

If an archer takes the field, use your tactics to rid yourself of them. Don't use bile and anger off the field. Use the rules to engage and kill them on the field. If they yield? Great! Saves the energy to run them down, go kill someone else.

Send a hunting squad to go kill archers the same way squads are used to kill Siege. That is the way I would, and have, gone about it. Who was saying they liked the thrill of the Hunt? That's real hunting! Through hostile territory to bag your quarry? Mmmm crunchy goodness.

If an archer is close enough to shoot at you, then that Archer is close enough to be shot. If you Truly don't like being shot by archers, and you have people who share this view, train them to kill Archers.

Hunter Squad, Dressed in black with a broken arrow if you like. Train them is marksmanship with superior bows, give them light fast weapons combinations to run the archers down. It's all good by the rules right? A light fast squad of six could devastate both the Siege AND the Archer contingent of an entire Pennsic battle.

Targeting applies to archers too. Making it harder to kill you (faceplate only) makes it harder to kill them as well. Law of unintended consequences. If archers are easy to kill, (proximity, yield) why is that a bad thing? It just means fewer fighters can kill them faster. Again, why is this bad? Instead of an Offence against your sensibilities and Honour, take it as a tactics problem. Defeat them, don't revile them. Negativity breeds with itself. Us and Them instead of We breaks us.

If you do dedicate yourself sufficiently to be King, again all good. You have earned the right to make the rules by the rules of the game. Make them if you feel it serves the Dream, that is your earned right as King. If it serves the Dream well, the rules will stay after you are gone. If the rules you make serve ill, they will be changed by another. Again, all good, that is what spurs the Excellent to be Excellency.

With respect, and in Service to the Dream,

Oskar der Drachen

brewer wrote:Show me the last time a shieldman leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, and I'll show you a dead shieldman who's going to get a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post.

Uh, we do this all the time. It's called a pulse charge. Helps if you have some training and a decent sized shield. I have seen great shield men cross no mans land and skip across a spear/shield line throwing raps, maybe killing a few guys, and then safely returning to his own line.

And that's in the WORST case scenario - a tight bridge battle or static line engagement.

EDIT: I owe a couple people Cokes... or whatever won't kill Logan. Miller Lite?

Gentlemen, I apologize. A bloke who was only halfway beyond n00b when he stopped fighting five years ago shouldn't make sweeping pronouncements. I was wrong, as your testimony hath shewn.

Let me rephrase:

The last time a I leapt across the spear-duel no-man's-land in order to gack a spear, I was a dead shieldman who got a well-deserved arse-chewing for deserting his post. The opposing spearman is hiding behind his own shieldwall.

The element of risk for the opposing spears when I was across no-man's-land and behind a shield was literally nil. I was wrong to apply that to the entirety of SCA humanity.

Fair enough?

Bob