The Armour Archive

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:27 am**

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:What knights do is chivalrous, what they do not do(or frown upon) is unchivalrous because it is not done by the chivalry=knights.

This is a tautology. "Blue is the best color because the best color is blue".

If what knights do is chivalrous, then any behavior I see a knight do is therefore an example of chivalry? Contrarywise, if I see a Knight behaving in a non-chivalric manner (say, using a bow in battle), he is therefore not a Knight?

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:27 pm**

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:
What knights do is chivalrous, what they do not do(or frown upon) is unchivalrous because it is not done by the chivalry=knights.

This is a tautology. "Blue is the best color because the best color is blue".

If what knights do is chivalrous, then any behavior I see a knight do is therefore an example of chivalry? Contrarywise, if I see a Knight behaving in a non-chivalric manner (say, using a bow in battle), he is therefore not a Knight?

Agreed.

There is a diffence between The Chivalry (knights of the relm) and chivalrous actions. A non-knight can and should (at least in my opinion)act with chivalrous intention, as well as having the right to act without chivalry in mind. A knight however is held to a higer standard and should never act in a way that can be concived as unchivalrous. (an idyllic statement)

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:28 pm**

Brother Vitus,

At least one King of England used a bow in combat. The Black Prince used archers in every way he could, was he then Unchivalrous in his actions ? or just a damn good tactician. Archery was a major part of combat in the 12th to the 16th century. They even changed the arrow tips to penetrate plate armor.

Thor,

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:Knights did not shoot arrows at people in combat because men-at-arms made alot more money than archers- these were not only two different jobs, they were two different cultures. Think about polo and monster truck races...get it?
An archer is not a less chivalrous combatant- he is not in any way a chivalrous combatant. What knights do is chivalrous, what they do not do(or frown upon) is unchivalrous because it is not done by the chivalry=knights.
Archers had a culture all their own. This is very easy to understand. More later.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:41 pm**

No dagnabbit, by "what knights do" I mean the way they fight, the armour they wear, the horses they use, the sports they engage in, the dances they do, the wines they drink, the types of birds and hounds they own.

Most of what knights try to get away with and fob off as chivalry isn't. Mainly, being jerky. Being a jerk is something that powerful people have a tendency to do- to the less powerful.
We are not talking about chivalrous actions regarding ethics. That is a different topic. We are talking about the culture of knights, and shooting arrows at people was not something they did. It would be like announcing that you want a pay cut!!!
Shooting at pagans was probably looked at differently by some. Shooting at people you considered less than human/scumbags was probably done on occasion.
Look at it this way- if a knight shot a crossbow at you it was a sign of complete and utter class/culture-based CONTEMPT. Like when that guy threw his shoes at President Bush- a sign of total contempt.
You can't change these things based upon what you want them to mean. The Queen of Trimaris is an honorable and noble lady of the highest caliber, but her habit of shooting crossbow bolts at people is unchivalrous. This cannot be refuted by modern desires to re-interpret the culture of medieval knights.
It is unchivalrous to shoot bolts and arrows at people because it was not done by medieval knights. It was done by medieval arbalesters and archers- a totally different type of soldier from a totally different income bracket.
People who go to polo matches rarely show up at monster truck races, and vice-versa. Americans don't like the way this medicine tastes, but we are talking about people who have been dead a very long time.

Now, if you want to say that shooting arrows and bolts in the context of modern chivalric cult sports is chivalrous, nobody can stop you. Go ahead. However, you would have no historical basis for your statement- you would simply be trying to apply modern ideas about equality to a world that didn't even get near such an idea.

A chivalrous person can perform a unchivalrous function and still be noble, honest, good-hearted, trustworthy etc. However, when they start doing things that knights wouldn't do they are performing an unchivalrous act. This is very easy to understand.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:48 pm**

To his brother Thorstenn the WrongHand comes greetings from Vitus von Atzinger, Knight and his servant in all things noble and true.

Who was Richard shooting at, and why? This is the question.
The French used arbalasters just like Edward of Woodstock used longbowmen. Was the application of these troops unchivalrous? Many knights from the 1100's would have said so. Many knights on both sides of the Hundred Years War no doubt spit at the same archers and crossbowmen their commanders employed. Look at how the French reacted to the Genoese.

What matters is this- there were not knights among the crossbowmen or longbowmen, except to issue commands. Sir Robert Knowles rose from the ranks and started his career as an archer. When he became a squire, or when he could outfit himself as a man-at-arms, he turned his back on the culture/lower pay of archers forever.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:01 pm**

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the knightly = chivalric concept.

The "cult of chivalry" and the "culture of the miles "is not a 1-to-1 matchup. Now, there are obvious regionalisms: warfare was more serious on Europe's "frontiers," and Prince Geza used his bow at the battle of Kerles (and riding way out in front to do so was considered a brave act, as it meant being the point guy guaranteed to suck up a bunch of shafts in return).

But there's also social strata questions that go into this that are rather different from 14c HYW. English knights dressed in lightweight leather armor and snuck around in the night like AngloNinjas(tm) trying to catch welsh raiders. Was this unchivalric? Even if a knight and his men were doing so?

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:11 pm**

Combat archery is as hated as a monster truck doing donuts on the Buckingham lawn would be at a polo match for the Queen of England. Paraphrasing Sir Vitus.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:14 pm**

The topic asks why Archers are hated. It seems to me that the reason stems from the fact that they decide to do combat in an unchivlarous manner. Should they be hated for this? I personally don't think so.

The way I choose to do combat limits my combat options. It is a trade I am happy to make so that I might keep my chivlary intact (no I am not a member of the chivalry, but I try like hell to conduct myself with chivalry.)

If a person decides to fight with a bow then that is there choice. I will not hate them for it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:22 pm**

Malcolmthebold wrote:The topic asks why Archers are hated. It seems to me that the reason stems from the fact that they decide to do combat in an unchivlarous manner. Should they be hated for this? I personally don't think so.

Most people don't have the person, they hate the practice. I don't hate the guy who IS a combat archer (unless they do something for me too). I DO hate the practice of being shot on the battle field. It IS unchivalrous.

The way I choose to do combat limits my combat options. It is a trade I am happy to make so that I might keep my chivlary intact (no I am not a member of the chivalry, but I try like hell to conduct myself with chivalry.)

You are confusing chivalry with honor. The 2 are not interchangable. If you are being chivalrous, whether it be the victorian ideal or more medieval construct, then you would not normally shoot arrows at other people. As Vitus said, it was a war system that used unskilled peasants as its mechanism. Noble men at arms and knights rode into battle.

If you choose to shoot at people then you are acting in an unchivalrous manner. You may still be an honorable person, but you are acting unchivalrously.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:45 pm**

If you are being chivalrous, whether it be the victorian ideal or more medieval construct, then you would not normally shoot arrows at other people. As Vitus said, it was a war system that used unskilled peasants as its mechanism. Noble men at arms and knights rode into battle.

If you choose to shoot at people then you are acting in an unchivalrous manner. You may still be an honorable person, but you are acting unchivalrously.

Agreed. I hate getting shot. It sucks like few things have ever sucked before. Armies are not made up exclusivly of Knights. Archery is going to be a reality. If you don't want to be shot avoid those scenerios. personally, arrows or not, I am gonna take the field because I love the game.

On the topic of chivalry: perhaps I have a wonky perspective on the concept.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:46 pm**

Sirs,

The question remains unanswered as to whether the "dream" of an archer is as worthy of that of a knight...

This is not just an issue of labels "chivalrous or non chivalrous" but clearly a moral judgment. It is a judgment of value or "worth" of a person and his dream.

What say you? is an archer as worthy as a knight, thou he be non chivalrous? are his dreams as worthy? or not?

John Ball, er... Rowan of Needwood

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:56 pm**

Malcolmthebold wrote:
Agreed. I hate getting shot. It sucks like few things have ever sucked before. Armies are not made up exclusivly of Knights. Archery is going to be a reality. If you don't want to be shot avoid those scenerios. personally, arrows or not, I am gonna take the field because I love the game.

except that The Societyâ„¢ is made up of Nobles. If nobles, as a general rule, did not use the bow and arrow (or Xbow) in combat in period, then does that mean Combat Archers are peasants?

On the topic of chivalry: perhaps I have a wonky perspective on the concept.

One could have a wonky perspective of Physics. But, that does not mean their perspective is right.

HONOR on the other hand is VERY MUCH a matter of personal perspective. Example, the Samurai. The Samurai is very honorable, his existence is based on honor. But, his honor code when compared to the western european idea of chivalry is very much NOT chivalrous.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:02 pm**

InsaneIrish wrote:
Malcolmthebold wrote:
Agreed. I hate getting shot. It sucks like few things have ever sucked before. Armies are not made up exclusivly of Knights. Archery is going to be a reality. If you don't want to be shot avoid those scenerios. personally, arrows or not, I am gonna take the field because I love the game.

except that The Societyâ„¢ is made up of Nobles. If nobles, as a general rule, did not use the bow and arrow (or Xbow) in combat in period, then does that mean Combat Archers are peasants?

On the topic of chivalry: perhaps I have a wonky perspective on the concept.

One could have a wonky perspective of Physics. But, that does not mean their perspective is right.

HONOR on the other hand is VERY MUCH a matter of personal perspective. Example, the Samurai. The Samurai is very honorable, his existence is based on honor. But, his honor code when compared to the western european idea of chivalry is very much NOT chivalrous.

One question that I find myself asking, reading this thread, is whether honor or chivalry is more important. My personal answer is that one is incredibly important and I couldn't care less about the other, but that's also coming from the perspective of someone who isn't a SCAdian and who doesn't play a high-late medieval persona.

Is a samurai or a Hungarian noble less honorable or less worthy because their arsenal includes the bow and arrow? While it may be that the SCA is modeled on Europe in a certain time period, it must be pointed out that more noble traditions the world over used the bow than didn't. Arabs, Egyptians, Indians, Japanese, Mongols, Hungarians--are they less worthy because they don't follow your code of chivalry, and if your answer is yes, is there any justification for that answer other than blatant and egregious ethnocentrism?

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:02 pm**

Rowan of Needwood wrote:Audax,

What a fine Hoplite you would make!!

You are channeling 2000 years of the "Western Way of War". Hoplite warfare was precisely based on the principles you so strongly espouse. You will notice that except in the Illiad which is far earlier, there is no use of missile troops in Classical Greek warfare. It was a convention not a tactical choice. A convention based on an idea, and connected to the concept of the citizen soldier, who stands shoulder to shoulder with his relatives and friends in a phalanx (I am getting teary eyed) fighting face to face with an equally decked opponent. But sadly this convention was going out of fashion by the late Peloponesian war and fully out of fashion in the Hellenistic period. And forget the Romans, they had soldiers, not hoplite militias.
As for archery not being used by hoplites, notice that hoplite ethos was based on a fusion of Homeric values and city-state mores. In the Illiad, the "Bible" of Classical Greece, archery is well renowned, and archers such as Odysseus, and Paris are proficient with the Bow, dedicated to Apollo. In fact there is an oracle stating that without the presence of Philoctetes' bow, Troy cannot be taken. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoctetes ) So that all valour courage and renown would have been useless without the bow being present. What an image.

By medieval times, Knightly kings such as Richard the Lionhearted made full use of crossbow troops, and in fact he was known to be a pretty good shot with one. Alas, he died of a crossbow bolt himself. Was he a coward or less chivalrous because of his use of missile troops?
There is specific mention of Richard using a crossbow "Richard and his forces aided in the capture of Acre, despite the king's serious illness. At one point, while sick from scurvy, Richard is said to have picked off guards on the walls with a crossbow, while being carried on a stretcher".
Edward III and the Black Prince, and Henry V used archery in combat, even if they did not pull the actual bowstrings. Are they less chivalrous?

Inequality on the battlefield was born the moment someone mounted a horse to go faster and further than the guy on foot. Equitation was certainly inequitable to the masses of people who could not afford a horse, and saw themselves ridden down by people moving faster and from higher than themselves. Many new fighters have literally no chance at all against experienced fighters like knights and dukes. To blame the less strong for arming themselves in a way to balance the odds a bit sounds unfair. It is like a shield and sword fighter complaining of the longer reach of a spearman's weapon of choice.

Combat archery "sucks" because like firearms, makes all men equal (and women too ) And in large numbers, deadly, so the few cease to have monopoly of the killing power on the battlefield.

Notice that I am a target archer and a fighter, but I don't do CA, not as much because I find it morally distasteful, but because like yourself I prefer to face my enemy close and personal.

As for cost. The cost of a CA bow, arrows and armor are pretty much comparable to a decent heavy fighter rig. There is variation in both.

Lastly I wanted to add to what Fokke said, the arrows flying and the ballista bolts incoming give IMHO a cool degree of "realism" to a large melee.

The only thing I'd add is that CA archers need to not be jerks about targeting someone all the time, just as fighters should not do that either. Sending a group of fighters to kill a duke or a king in the battle field as a "hit team" would be no different than shooting a CA arrow at someone because they are good fighters. Renown and prowess make you a target of more than arrows....

You sure you don't want to go Hoplite Audax? you'd make a magnificent member of a phalanx....

Rowan

I do love the look of a nice Corinthian helm. Or a Thracian. Or a Chalcidian.

And how fabulous would I be in a musculata or linothorax?

So many personas, so little time and money. Le sigh.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:10 pm**

You know, I find this whole discussion of chivalry pretty funny. I always assumed that real chivalry (not the pretend Victorian, SCA version) was the art and culture of fighting on horseback - thus the name. In that sense, almost none of us practice chivalry. If you're talking Knightly (tm)/warrior virtues that's another discussion and YMMV.

I have no dog in this hunt, but isn't CA linmited to a few battles at a few events a year? So we're talking what maybe a dozen times or so a year where it is used? I'm not nuts about CA, but frankly, bridge and castle battles seem a bit pointless without missles of some sort. If we insist on doing what we call wars without time-framed scenarios, we have to accept that some of what will take place will not be to everyone's liking.

Hell, I didn't like getting gaked by spears either, etc.

Not everyone's vision of The Dream (tm) is the same - it's both the curse and blessing of the SCA.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:19 pm**

Malcolmthebold wrote:

Agreed. I hate getting shot. It sucks like few things have ever sucked before. Armies are not made up exclusivly of Knights. Archery is going to be a reality. If you don't want to be shot avoid those scenerios. personally, arrows or not, I am gonna take the field because I love the game.

except that The Societyâ„¢ is made up of Nobles. If nobles, as a general rule, did not use the bow and arrow (or Xbow) in combat in period, then does that mean Combat Archers are peasants?

Quote:

On the topic of chivalry: perhaps I have a wonky perspective on the concept.

One could have a wonky perspective of Physics. But, that does not mean their perspective is right.

HONOR on the other hand is VERY MUCH a matter of personal perspective. Example, the Samurai. The Samurai is very honorable, his existence is based on honor. But, his honor code when compared to the western european idea of chivalry is very much NOT chivalrous.

While we are all considered to be nobility there are clearly defined class differences in combat. If there were not I would ride my horse across the river ford instead of crawling on my knees. Some guys shoot arrows, some guys ride horses. I will gladly accept them all to make my experience of war more real.

On the topic of my perspective on chivalry, perhaps we should not clutter up this thread with discussion on my perspective. Feel free to hit me in PM, or post a thread in another forum. I would be happy to hear what you have to say on the topic.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:20 pm**

Malcolmthebold wrote:
If you are being chivalrous, whether it be the victorian ideal or more medieval construct, then you would not normally shoot arrows at other people. As Vitus said, it was a war system that used unskilled peasants as its mechanism. Noble men at arms and knights rode into battle.

If you choose to shoot at people then you are acting in an unchivalrous manner. You may still be an honorable person, but you are acting unchivalrously.

Agreed. I hate getting shot. It sucks like few things have ever sucked before. Armies are not made up exclusivly of Knights. Archery is going to be a reality. If you don't want to be shot avoid those scenerios. personally, arrows or not, I am gonna take the field because I love the game.

On the topic of chivalry: perhaps I have a wonky perspective on the concept.

Do I hate being shot by an archer? Just about as much as I hate being face thrust, or thrust in general, or even hit with polearm, mace, sword, etc.

In short, I don't like to die during a melee, and I have been known to work and train against just such an eventuality. To be honest, much of my perform at this recent Gulf Wars was unsatisfactory. I need to train more.

As for the so-called Chivalric attitiude towards combat archery, the arguement goes that the archery was not considered something a knight, ritter, etc did. We've seen evidence of this. However, other questions need answering. If knights did not fight with archery, then what was their attitude, especially on the battlefield to those folks who did fight?

Put in other words, did knights and their betters employ archers? You bet they did.

Mord.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm**

talaananthes wrote:One question that I find myself asking, reading this thread, is whether honor or chivalry is more important. My personal answer is that one is incredibly important and I couldn't care less about the other, but that's also coming from the perspective of someone who isn't a SCAdian and who doesn't play a high-late medieval persona.

That is kind of my point as well. It is about correct terminology, not necessarily importantence. Honor is very subjective depending on personal values, culture, and mind set. What is honorable to one may not be honorable to another. That does not mean one is right and one is wrong, only that honor is subjective.

Chivalrous behavior, whether victorian or medieval, is pretty straight forward. There are guidelines and rules. If you break them then you are acting in an unchivalrous manner. Because "chivalry/chivalrous behavior" started in the western european culture that is where the morale guides put. Kind of like the difference between American Football and Austrailian Rugby. similar games, but not the same nor interchangable. If I play rugby and call it football, it is still rugby. If I want to play American Football then I need to follow THOSE rules. If I play rugby then I don't get to say I am playing Football.

Is a samurai or a Hungarian noble less honorable or less worthy because their arsenal includes the bow and arrow? While it may be that the SCA is modeled on Europe in a certain time period, it must be pointed out that more noble traditions the world over used the bow than didn't. Arabs, Egyptians, Indians, Japanese, Mongols, Hungarians--are they less worthy because they don't follow your code of chivalry, and if your answer is yes, is there any justification for that answer other than blatant and egregious ethnocentrism?

If I were a good noble of western European decent then yes, the hungarian or samurai WOULD be considered less worthy for not following my code. Just like the Samurai would consider ME less worthy for not following HIS code.

My debate is not that one is "better" than the other. Only that people keep confusing the 2 and keep stating that they ARE one even though they break those rules.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:41 pm**

Malcolmthebold wrote:
While we are all considered to be nobility there are clearly defined class differences in combat. If there were not I would ride my horse across the river ford instead of crawling on my knees. Some guys shoot arrows, some guys ride horses. I will gladly accept them all to make my experience of war more real.

Ok, cool. If you get your arrows, where is my knight's horse? This goes to the OTHER aspect of Combat Archery that people dislike. The unbalancing aspect of the game. Combat Archery in its current form is TO deadly, it is TO medieval. The aforementioned "paper" to the CA's "Rock" is Cavalry, but we can't employ cavalry on the field in the SCA. Yet we CAN be shot like pin cushions by archers.

On the topic of my perspective on chivalry, perhaps we should not clutter up this thread with discussion on my perspective. Feel free to hit me in PM, or post a thread in another forum. I would be happy to hear what you have to say on the topic.

Actually I think your differing perspective is VERY relevant to this topic. It is the differing opinions that cause some of the friction between the 2 games.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:56 pm**

Knights dismounted to fight throughout the entire period we study. Did they like it? Probably not. Delbruck talks about a crapload of battles from the era 1100-1300 where the knights dismounted. Dismounted combat is the other half of the knightly picture, but again- it was alot safer and more fun to cream people while mounted.
Archers were present at most medieval battles. Again, Delbruck cites multiple battles where archers were not allowed to participate in particular engagements.
How did the chivalrous class of knights, squires and gentlemen-at-arms feel about archers? Who knows? While Richard I was sick in a litter he picked off MUSLIM soldiers with a crossbow. When the kid with the crossbow and frying pan pointed his bow at Richard, Richard applauded to show his own fearlessness- and then a second unseen archer hit him with the arrow that killed him.
He pardoned the kid with the frying pan. After he died, what did Richard's best pal (a French mercenary knight named Mercadier) do to the kid?

He had him flayed alive.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:05 pm**

allow me to explain, no there is too much, allow me to sum up.

in my wars i want the entire range of combat options. at least as many as i can get while still keeping the game safe. I want everything from Knights on horseback, to peasants with rocks. Regardless of my concept of chivlary i thank anyone that comes to the feild and makes my childhood dream come true.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:11 pm**

Uh, I don't want to be trampled by a horse, or accidently trample a guy with a horse. Keep the horses away from the large foot combats.

I don't want CA banned. If I ever get too old to fight, I will GIVE BACK MY BELT, RESIGN FROM THE ORDER OF CHIVALRY and shoot people full of crossbow bolts and laugh my head off while doing it.

But I still won't shoot knights.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:13 pm**

Knights frequently fought dismounted. Remember the oft-mentioned battle of Agincourt? The French knights fought dismounted because the field was so muddy the horses could not be used effectively. Normans frequently had part of their forces fight dismounted especially when they faced disciplined infantry. This does not mean they were not knights.

It does not matter in the least whether or not all people in the SCA are knights. Many of us are squires, actively on the path seeking knighthood and the knightly virtues. Many others are proteges or apprentices, seekers after peer-like qualities. All the rest are considered to be of gentle birth and guests at a noble Medieval European court. This is per Corpora. Therefore we should all be endeavoring to behave like gentles at a European court. If that is not your vision of the Dream, why are you here and not playing another game more suited to your tastes?

Now, having said that, if someone wants to do CA, I will treat them with respect, break bread with them, have a beer with them and call them friend. I will appreciate them for their service to the kingdom and encourage them to behave in all ways like a noble person.

If I am ever a commander in a battle I will make the best use of archery that I can, based upon both sound tactics and sound virtue.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:22 pm**

Vitus von Atzinger Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:11 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, I don't want to be trampled by a horse, or accidently trample a guy with a horse. Keep the horses away from the large foot combats.

I don't want CA banned. If I ever get too old to fight, I will GIVE BACK MY BELT, RESIGN FROM THE ORDER OF CHIVALRY and shoot people full of crossbow bolts and laugh my head off while doing it.

But I still won't shoot knights.

Maybe this is the key. Not just the part about no horses, but the fact that archers target kings, super dukes, and knights. this falls to the archers to consider their targets.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:23 pm**

Similarly, the anonymous continuator of one of the big chronicles detailing the albigensian crusades is at pains to specify that noble ladies and girls were working the siege machines that killed french nobles. It's not that there was anything wrong with using siege machines to kill nobles, especially foreign northerners who behaved like cultureless scum: it's that it would have been a violation of paratge (peerage) for non-nobles to have killed nobles, and so obviously that didn't happen. It wasn't how you killed the other guy: it was who was doing the killing (thus Vitus' example).

Old French and Middle French courtly literature is filled with outright hate for the non-noble, and particularly for the peasant. It's the same sort of constantly-reinforced bigotry that characterized slavery in the U.S. And in northwest Europe, when one is playing at being an archer, one is usually taking a non-noble role. If one is playing the game with various virtues of the miles, attitude towards archery can be all over the map. If one is expressly playing to the Cult of Chivalry, then I would be surprised if he or she didn't express scorn and contempt for other roles: it's part of their persona.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:39 pm**

Irish, you have indestructable shields +5 that cannot be cut in half along with your arm from polearms. However, polearm\s and spears tend to be fairly decent runners(or at least people who dont know me well enough tell me anyway"man, I dont want to chase you"(I hate running although I love the mobile battle(weird irony I know))) we are the cavalry to the CA. Meanwhile, you shieldmen are the the rocks to us polearm scissors because we cant simply blast through your defences.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:46 pm**

Aaron wrote:Combat archery is as hated as a monster truck doing donuts on the Buckingham lawn would be at a polo match for the Queen of England. Paraphrasing Sir Vitus.

Aaron,

I just re read this thread, saw this and I feel this should not remain unaddressed.

At Pennsic, three great CA archers were awarded the Shark's Tooth for Valor in Combat by the then Atlantian King Sinclair. A Knightly King, mind you. I saw what they did. I was there.

How many Shark Tooth awards have you won during your Atlantian time thus far?

I know these archers. One of them would do circles around most fighters you and I know for his chivalry as a fighter alone, the other two are great archers and great people, and were as close to danger in the line as any shieldman or spearman in that battle.

Atlantia loves its archers, and we have some of the best in the Known World, CA or Target. Sir Guy, whose man-at-arms I am, does not scorn to grab a crossbow here and there, though I prefer target to combat archery. In the field I like to fight, but that is simply my preference.

To paraphrase a modern expression, if you don't like CA, run faster, but you'll only die tired. Or Charge them and die gloriously. Think Bushido.

As for myself, I was hit at Pennsic with arrows, ballista bolts (ouch), and every type of weapon. I took it like a man, smiled and trotted back to the res point, and back to the fight. It's all it takes. You can do it too, and smiling as well.

Rowan

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:55 pm**

audax wrote:Therefore we should all be endeavoring to behave like gentles at a European court.

All knights are gentles, but not all gentles are knights, nor do they aspire to be, nor should they be.

If that is not your vision of the Dream, why are you here and not playing another game more suited to your tastes?

Oh, but some of us have - from the other side of the argument. A few of us with aspirations to chivalric combat formed a group without archers, Vikings, Celts, Romans, Irish, Mongols, bagpipers, doumbek players, or any other such rabble. :wink:

And, we required full medieval armour, allowed full body targeting, encouraged a much higher level of calibration, and did not act out wounds. Combats were decided by having been struck the agreed-upon number of blows, beaten down, disarmed, or "shown the gate" (driven from the list field in an ignoble ending). It was a roarin' hoot. However, despite the fact that we were allowed to do this occasionally (as a demo only) at SCA events, and that most of us were active SCA members, we normally pursued this ideal at our own events and did not suggest that other SCA members who did not share our ambitions should leave the Society. The sword cuts both ways.

I would suggest to any member of any group who is dissatified with how that group fundamentally works to start your own thing, they need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, any hobby group who declares that I cannot simultaneously belong to any other has just lost me - I've been there before.

Now, having said that, if someone wants to do CA, I will treat them with respect, break bread with them, have a beer with them and call them friend. I will appreciate them for their service to the kingdom and encourage them to behave in all ways like a noble person.

If I am ever a commander in a battle I will make the best use of archery that I can, based upon both sound tactics and sound virtue.

Now you're talking sense.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:12 pm**

Rowan, I don't think Aaron was expressing his own opinion as much as paraphrasing many other people's opinions in this thread.

Do Atlantians truly love their combat archers? There are some Atlantians who don't seem to love CA. Prince Logan is reputed to be one of those.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:13 pm**

Maybe this is the key. Not just the part about no horses, but the fact that archers target kings, super dukes, and knights. this falls to the archers to consider their targets.

No it falls to the commander of the archer to use good tactics or to the archer to have good combat awareness.
An archer is a tool that when used properly will bring the most deadly to their knees. Why spend countless bolts and an hour taking out a shieldwall when you can eliminate the threat of the spear gods on a bridge/town etc and wait for the desperation to mount and that final push that will land the enemy in your killing cup with maximum attrition, or give you the ability to push forward without fear of being attrited yourself.
SCA Archers= Snipers.
Have your archers first priority to keep all bolts going AWAY from your side by neutralizing the other sides CA capabilities.
Use your archer to take out high priority threats (be it spear gods, generals or the King himself) in static situations.
Have your archer lead out on a flank or to the forefront of a field battle and act as a 30 foot spear doing the same as above-
Eliminating the immediate threat of CA against your side, taking out high profile targets and as a 3rd possibility keeping the opposition honest and making them second guess a quick assault to a flank etc.
An archer gains more pride and honor from being an asset to his Commander, to his Unit, to his Kingdom as a highly effective sniper then someone who thinks they are God because they shot 10 dukes with a piece of plastic.
Trained, accepted and used effectively your Archer/sniper can do a job and that is where the pride of the archer is.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:46 pm**

Flittie wrote:Rowan, I don't think Aaron was expressing his own opinion as much as paraphrasing many other people's opinions in this thread.

Do Atlantians truly love their combat archers? There are some Atlantians who don't seem to love CA. Prince Logan is reputed to be one of those.

Flittie, I am not sure. Aaron seemed to express his dislike for CA as well.

As for Prince Logan, His Highness expressed his opinion above which I respect. He has fought in more events that I have practices. But I also know that he was there as well when the Sharks Teeth were earned and then awarded in the field by his former Squire and then King. If anyone thought that CA was not desirable, they were not expressing their opinion at the time.

To paraphrase the epitaph of Aeschylus, ( http://www.squidoo.com/aeschylus )
Pennsic can tell about the deeds of the Atlantian CA archers, and the brave Midlrealmers who knew them all too well.

I would have paid good money to be a fly on the wall when the two of them discussed this subject after Pennsic, or even that night. One cannot argue with field effectiveness, and most kings like the idea of winning. That is how they became kings.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong in setting up tournaments and lists for heavy fighters alone. It is proper and honorable, and provides a great setting for chivalric personae. But in larger melees, I think few can argue about CA's desirability. Neither did Edward III, the Black Prince or Henry V. They may have not liked it, but they respected its effectiveness in the field. I am not sure our CA archers want love. But I am pretty sure that respect goes a long way.

I am, by the way, looking forward to fighting under the leadership of HRH Logan this Pennsic.

Respectfully,

Rowan of Needwood

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:15 pm**

I once commanded archers on my own side not to shoot at the noble Duke Cuan.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:23 pm**

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:What matters is this- there were not knights among the crossbowmen or longbowmen, except to issue commands.

Sir,

I believe you are incorrect with this.

"Near the close of the fourteenth century, the Continental crossbow had become such a costly weapon, and one of such importance in warfare, <i>that in Spain the crossbowman was even granted the rank of a knight</i>. The position of 'Master of the Crossbowmen' in France, Italy, & Spain, was one of great honour, and only bestowed on persons of high consequence and title."

"The Crossbow" by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallway

http://books.google.com/books?id=ippFTA ... w#PPA48,M1

Emphasis mine.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:28 pm**

A "master of crossbowmen" was just that- their commander. This in no way proves that any belted knight continued to shoot in battle after elevated into the next pay bracket.
Sorry, not buying this particular bridge. even if the seller is smarter than I am.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:32 pm**

Heh! Very well, Sir - but you still haven't addressed Payne-Gallway's clear statement that in Spain, crossbowmen were made knights. That's pretty unambiguous.

The Armour Archive

Combat Archery: Why is it so hated?