Combat Archery - New Rules for Atlantia/East Kingdoms

[Vermin]

"I am not talking about breaking the rules in the SCA I am talking about this BS romanticized "fight me like a man" stuff."

See there's the sticker, innit?
What you call BS, some call simple common courtesy.

VvS

[James B.]

See there's the sticker, innit?
What you call BS, some call simple common courtesy.

I call it not history. Arrows killed men from all social standing and that was the way of it.

How is a mass of spears jabbing you from a funny angle any different than a random arrow or siege attack hitting you? Why don't we ban all weapons but sword and shield then so no one has a reach advantage, or all weapons and slug it out, or how about we use rocks.

Building a high horse for one style of doing things in the SCA is damn silly. Since I get called a period Nazi, even though I don’t bother anyone for doing things the way they choose, I think I will call you guys stick Nazis

[Jonny Deuteronomy]

See there's the sticker, innit?
What you call BS, some call simple common courtesy.

I call it not history. Arrows killed men from all social standing and that was the way of it.

How is a mass of spears jabbing you from a funny angle any different than a random arrow or siege attack hitting you?

Fight on James B! Do not relent!

They don't call it the Pennsique Grande Tournee du Plaisance pour Hommes du Noblesse.
They call it the Pennsic WAR.

[Vermin]

"I think I will call you guys stick Nazis"

I am strangely comfortable with this.....


VvS

[Vermin]

"I call it not history. Arrows killed men from all social standing and that was the way of it. "

And the way it is employed in the SCA is historical, or even realistic in regards to the numbers "killed" by arrows?

Because I think you'd be reaching if you took that angle.....

VvS

[Cat of Black Talon]

U guys are kill'n me!
Cat

[Syrfinn]

Come on Cat, lets not derail this, its a great show from here.

<goes back to prodding both sides>

Dance monkeys, dance!

[James B.]

And the way it is employed in the SCA is historical, or even realistic in regards to the numbers "killed" by arrows?

Because I think you'd be reaching if you took that angle.....

No more than short sword and shield being domonant weapons, with 1066 armor standards spears should be the big weapon, then axes, then swords. Is anying employed in a real way in the SCA? Not a chance in hell.

I think with current rules and most senarios CA picks off a proper % of people. We sould have way more archers than knights and normal troops. I don't see how low number of archers with 1 hit kills is any more silly than any other one hit kill rule in the SCA when I am wearing armor (or assumed armor)

[white mountain armoury]

Although it is difficult, we have played bodyguard to nobles to keep them from having to be concerned with getting shot. It involves pavises and suppressing fire. It falls apart when the noble loses his mind and runs off unpredictably.

That would be when the cannon sounds

[Geoffrey of Blesedale]

If we are fighting grand melees/ friendly deeds of arms, as so many suggest, then we need to eliminate ALL thrusting, for thrusting was lethal and there was nothing friendly about it.

No thrusting tips on swords. None on polearms. And no spears.

[dukelogan]

its been touched on but you guys need to really focus on the important aspect of this. we are not really fighting to the death. nor, are we really defeating each other. nor are we wearing real armour. this "dream" is a made up one with made up rules. it is in the spirit and letter of those very rules that many of us object to combat archery. it simply goes against the very nature of our sport the way it is currently employed in most kingdoms.

arguing about how many people were defeated historically by hand drawn missile fire is impossible in an sca context because we have way too many possibilities. if you must focus on history focus on the arms race and you will clearly see that armours and missiles have always been in a race with armours leading the way. that race will continue and there is no end in sight for the argument to be based on that. so focus on the spirit of the club.

regards
logan

[SyrRhys]

If we are fighting grand melees/ friendly deeds of arms, as so many suggest, then we need to eliminate ALL thrusting, for thrusting was lethal and there was nothing friendly about it.

No thrusting tips on swords. None on polearms. And no spears.

You are severely mistaken. Friendly deeds of arms *often* had thrusting, and thrusting with sharp weapons, at that. Consider the friendly deed at Vannes, wherein the lord de Pousanges and the lord de Vertain fought with what Froissart calls "very sharp spears". In that fight the lord de Vertain struck such a blow through the lord de Pousanges' breastplate that he actually drew blood. We know this was a friendly deed because we read that they were strikign each other in the breastplates, and later when William Farrington and John de Chateldemorant fought they agreed to limit where they could strike as well.

Or consider the combat between Lord Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy in 1467: They fought with sharp weapons, but the presiding noble stopped the fight whenver it seemed as though someone was in danger of really getting hurt.

I could literally list *hundreds* of such contests, all fought with sharp weapons, and all intended to be nonlethal, and all of which included thrusting.

Safety lay in first, having a presiding judge to end the fight when it looked as though someone might really get hurt and second, choosing where to strike. This latter point is very important: If we use sharp spears and thrust at one another's breastplates we're *reasonably* safe--there's just enough danger for this to be a way for us to show how macho we are to the ladies on the sidelines. In a serious fight that's when we aim for the armpits and groin, etc.

I believe you've been lead astray by the half knowledge circulating in the SCA.

[Richard Blackmoore]

Rhys is 100% right. Though we should add that in some areas and times where such friendly contests involved sharp non-rebated/non-saftey weapons, the armour chosen for such contests often was geared toward providing greater margins of safety than when rebated weapons were used or when thrusting was prohibited. Hard to make generalizations though.

Just because it was friendly, does not mean that it was not hard core, hard fought or potentially dangerous to some degree.

Hell, these guys fought with axes at times for fun and sport. And even though they did not necessarily want to badly injure the opponent, it sometimes happened.

And Logan's combat about the spirit of what we are trying to do and the demonstration of knightly prowess do matter. When the knights wanted to engage in fun or earnest sport, or to enage in serious battle, their weapon of choice was simply not a bow. They chose lance/spear, sword, mace, axe, polearms, etc. So for the most part, if you want to fight like a knight, you need to use the weapons the knights used for an accurate portrayal.

OK, if we are doing a siege, maybe you will pick up a crossbow. But even that seems to be very, very much the exception to the rule. Polish and Norweigan knights from certain periods also seem to use bows at times but only in war. But we don't have a lot of people portraying knights from Poland (Edward and Jan come to mind) or from Norway. And even they seem to have used the bows only in war, not in tournment melee on horseback or in tournament combat on foot (singles or group combat).

Richard