The Armour Archive

How combat archers see themselves:


How some fighters see combat archers:


How some fighters WISH they could see combat archers:

Because it is unfair, unsafe, and unchivalrous.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

Tournies are about the individual. Melees are about the team effort. I am a polearmer/longswordsman not a CA, but seeing my first battle with siege weapon fire, bolts and arrows flying around got me hooked on this sport. While battles without CAs are fun, I like the added dimension CAs bring to the field. I am very much a realist and not so much into the stylized individual thing. If we are going to go this whole honorable thing in close combat then fine, I hit your shield with a halberd or bastard sword at full tilt, then you do the honorable thing and lose your now 'broken' shield and possibly arm. Archers have always been a very important part of any battle plan. The idea of the SCA is to re-live the middle-ages and its art forms. Archery is very much an art form of that time period and we would be less accurate and battles would have less character without them.
And this is coming from someone who has yet to make it to the fort walls in three years of going to GW thanks to coincidentally placed bolts to the chest every time. I fully support CAs and their activities on the battlefield and seriously dislike when they are simply ignored, even though I somehow have a big sign on my head that says shoot me regardless of what I am wearing.
Glory and cool points abound on the battlefield even with arrows and bolts flying. There was a scene from the fort battle just this past GW where like something straight out of a movie, Sir Tirloc(sp) charged up the ramp with his household behind him at a full run and leapt into combat within the walls. I am really hoping someone caught that on video and posts it.

Those of you who despise CA, what do you think about heavy fighters who carry a couple of thrust and throw javelins (or throwing axes, or whatever else) with them? Throw while the sides are closing, or hold and throw when they see an opening, and then out with sword or axe or whatever else.

Is it a perfectly acceptable practice, especially considering the wide historical basis for doing so (especially in early period), or does it lower your estimation of a fighter?

Does your answer to that question change depending on the individual in question's skill with said throwing weapons? Does it change based on any other individual discrepancies?

The difference is that when a fighter does throw a weapon like that, it is normally in close range, and the fighter is still in the thick of things swinging away with the rest of their weapons.


I remember years ago there was a melee where someone brought a bunch of "throwing axes" they were wrapped in silver ductape so much that they looked like tinfoil wrapped pork chops. The scene was made even funnier because a whole bunch of them were thrown back and forth.
Looked like a food fight had broken out.

WHO made those Bayeaux cartoons?
That is friggin' hi-larious.

Infantry allways hates artillery.

Does CA rules need some reworking? Sure. Is it period? Does Agincourt ring a bell? I bet quite a few of the French were kind of pissed off at hauling all their crap to the field only to die.

Seige shields (the little walls on wheels) might make an intresting addition of canceling out your CA during an advance. Just a thought

Seconds on the tapestry humor. I love it.

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:WHO made those Bayeaux cartoons?
That is friggin' hi-larious.

I did.
I love that bayeux tapestry creator.

As was explained to me this year at Gulf Wars it is a cult of personality vs. Hollywood hero problem.

As a fighter progresses through his career in rattan fighting he realizes that the "hollywood hero" moments must be shared with others. 9 times out of 10 he is the extra in the movie. The more he plays the more he realizes that it is his job to show up, do the job, play the extra and watch someone else get their "hero moment".
Show up, do the job, play the extra and watch someone else get their "hero moment".
Show up, do the job, play the extra and watch someone else get their "hero moment".
Show up, do the job, play the extra and watch someone else get their "hero moment".

THEN
show up, do the job, and get rewarded with his OWN "hero moment" while others play the extras.

Combat archers play the Hero all the time. Because of the way the weapon system is designed and the rules/regulations surrounding it are fashioned, the Combat archer plays the hero when on the field everytime. Thus making the other rattan fighters the extras all the time.

The combat archer culture is one of individuals:
"I shot 30 guys in the ravine"
"I killed the king of XXXX 10 times"
"I stopped the line from getting flanked"


A culture of individuals all out looking for their own hero moments at the same time.

Maybe those who want to turn this into a "man up" conversation could go wave their weiners elsewhere. Or they could try to have an intelligent discussion of the issue.

I am not a spear god. I am not a duke, nor am I a knight. Neither is Jehan de Pelham. Yet he and I seem to be of like mind on this issue.

I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms. And as a glaivesman, I would LOVE to see destructible sheilds. I won't hold my breath for it though.

The CA ruleset is broken. Were it to be fixed, where it made more sense and were more equitable and enlarged the fun for everyone, then archers would recieve more respect.

As far as Magyars, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Byzantines, etc, etc, I did not call them pussies. I said that it is not the warrior way to shoot at your betters from afar.

The Classical Greeks considered the bow a cowards weapon even though they often employed archers, usually from other cultures. Anyone here ever hear of a Spartan archer? NO? Hmmm. The Chivalry of all eras considered archers low life scum, even if the demands of real warfare called for them. Richard the Lionheart was a skilled bowman but I'd love to see any documentation that shows he ever used a bow in combat. The Norman warriors generally loathed the Byzantines as cowardly and effete and untrustworthy. Crusaders believed Saracens fought from afar because they had so little blood in their veins that they feared to bleed. There has ever been a tension between those who fight in the fray and those who shoot from afar. Thus the hostility between CA and heavy fighters is very period and adds to the Illusion.

I will let everyone here make their own choice between victory and honor.

I have no usable theory on how to fix that situation.

Uh, how about it doesn't count if you don't feel it? Isn't that what we do with the sticks that are a-swinging?

I think CA is a problem because there aren't ENOUGH of them. They are typically just a nuisance weapon. ( I hear Gulf wars may be different, but I have never been there). They can occasionally be telling in a battle if there is a great discrepancy in numbers (and the 'large' side has enough proportionate the the size of the battle to make a difference)

I think if the numbers approached 10-20% of the combatants things would be different. But for now they are a tiny, hated minority.

The SCA uses 1066 A.D. as-armoured conventions.

CA uses 1350 A.D. crossbows.

One shot does not equal one kill, unless it is in my eye.

Honor.

Any questions??

Mathghamhain

audax wrote:Maybe those who want to turn this into a "man up" conversation could go wave their weiners elsewhere. Or they could try to have an intelligent discussion of the issue.

I am not a spear god. I am not a duke, nor am I a knight. Neither is Jehan de Pelham. Yet he and I seem to be of like mind on this issue.

I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms. And as a glaivesman, I would LOVE to see destructible sheilds. I won't hold my breath for it though.

The CA ruleset is broken. Were it to be fixed, where it made more sense and were more equitable and enlarged the fun for everyone, then archers would recieve more respect.

As far as Magyars, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Byzantines, etc, etc, I did not call them pussies. I said that it is not the warrior way to shoot at your betters from afar.

The Classical Greeks considered the bow a cowards weapon even though they often employed archers, usually from other cultures. Anyone here ever hear of a Spartan archer? NO? Hmmm. The Chivalry of all eras considered archers low life scum, even if the demands of real warfare called for them. Richard the Lionheart was a skilled bowman but I'd love to see any documentation that shows he ever used a bow in combat. The Norman warriors generally loathed the Byzantines as cowardly and effete and untrustworthy. Crusaders believed Saracens fought from afar because they had so little blood in their veins that they feared to bleed. There has ever been a tension between those who fight in the fray and those who shoot from afar. Thus the hostility between CA and heavy fighters is very period and adds to the Illusion.

I will let everyone here make their own choice between victory and honor.

Audax, I have great respect for you as a reasonable person with a sharp mind.

So I can't let you get away with this one.

It is not reasonable, nor is it fair, to accuse someone whose position is opposed to yours of "wiener waving" while you and others on your side of the debate are not only doing the same thing, but actually started it.

If you're going to make accusations of cowardice, you don't really have any right to object to the (every bit as justified and historically supportable) accusations of ego ....

Back to my popcorn.

maxntropy wrote:

Joseph wrote:As long as its allowed in the "game" it should be embraced as a tool in the art of war and persued to a point where you are going to achieve maximum potential with it.

I think your point is that as long as Corpora allows it, Kings continue to negotiate scenarios with it at Wars, and those running events choose to host it at their sites (i.e., we seem stuck with it regardless of its lack of Chivalric stature or its villeinous nature)... that we should optimize their use in pursuit of victory in war.

I certainly understand and can concede the merits of that view for those who are particularly charged with or focused on achieving victory for their Monarchs and Kingdom. Utilize any and all appropriate tools at hand in pursuit of victory, particularly if it proves inclusive and draws more people into our activity and minimizes the political difficulties from excluding them.

However, I can certainly also well understand those who truly believe that such activities are not honorable -- and who would choose not to pursue victory over honor. I think this is one way of personally interpreting the application of Chivalric virtues and Honor in warfare -- and I can understand and respect those who do so and who hold their Honor more dear than Victory.

I'm glad we can have both sides of the issue clearly explicated and delineated in a reasonable manner. There seems to have been a great deal of activity and debate on the matter recently (particularly in regards to safety issues), but given the entrenched interests and historic realities, I'm not sure we're going to achieve a very clear consensus on the issues -- perhaps the best we're likely to achieve is an agreement to disagree detente, with combat archery permitted in some scenarios (for the pro faction) but excluded from others (for the con faction).

I am happy you see that I am looking at it from the basis of strategy and the neccesary evils of war. No stick swingin' SCAdian in his right mind would prefer to get hit with arrows all day instead of being taken out by pike, glaive or even knocked over a haybale... But if you turned a blind eye and close off the option to those who don't fight already you're only going to end up facing more arrows then you can even think of handling.

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:Uh, how about it doesn't count if you don't feel it? Isn't that what we do with the sticks that are a-swinging?.

CA is already considered Unsafe now (*as demonstrated in this thread). I don't think making them stronger and hit harder will solve the safety issue.

I think CA is a problem because there aren't ENOUGH of them. They are typically just a nuisance weapon. ( I hear Gulf wars may be different, but I have never been there).

There "would" be more if people stopped harshing the fun for some people who may get on the field as a CA. As it stands they work as they work now as assassins and snipers because there isn't groups of 5 and 10 able to work together etc.
Not that recruiting more CA people is the answer, but it makes sense that with all the right guys looking down on CA people are less likely to pick it up and therefore the numbers stay right where they are.

I don't know more about the inner workings of CA outside of we have a large household with a growing number of fighters who either pick up CA during battles that allow it, or CA only fighters that come onto the field and join us in the melee. Its helped us grow as a unit and helped to continue to push us against the top units wearing Red tape. We'd be foolish to turn people away and to tell others not to pick it up, because its deciding that because we don't feel that it fits our aesthetic we won't use it. It doesn't help us tactically and it leaves a hole open for others to use against us. I was told that the CA marshalls are working hard to improve the safety and standards and to be honest, as long as Corpora allows it, we're going to face it, so might as well bring some of our own hellish lowly scum to the war if others will rain arrows on us.

Kilkenny wrote:

audax wrote:Maybe those who want to turn this into a "man up" conversation could go wave their weiners elsewhere. Or they could try to have an intelligent discussion of the issue.

I am not a spear god. I am not a duke, nor am I a knight. Neither is Jehan de Pelham. Yet he and I seem to be of like mind on this issue.

I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms. And as a glaivesman, I would LOVE to see destructible sheilds. I won't hold my breath for it though.

The CA ruleset is broken. Were it to be fixed, where it made more sense and were more equitable and enlarged the fun for everyone, then archers would recieve more respect.

As far as Magyars, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Byzantines, etc, etc, I did not call them pussies. I said that it is not the warrior way to shoot at your betters from afar.

The Classical Greeks considered the bow a cowards weapon even though they often employed archers, usually from other cultures. Anyone here ever hear of a Spartan archer? NO? Hmmm. The Chivalry of all eras considered archers low life scum, even if the demands of real warfare called for them. Richard the Lionheart was a skilled bowman but I'd love to see any documentation that shows he ever used a bow in combat. The Norman warriors generally loathed the Byzantines as cowardly and effete and untrustworthy. Crusaders believed Saracens fought from afar because they had so little blood in their veins that they feared to bleed. There has ever been a tension between those who fight in the fray and those who shoot from afar. Thus the hostility between CA and heavy fighters is very period and adds to the Illusion.

I will let everyone here make their own choice between victory and honor.

Audax, I have great respect for you as a reasonable person with a sharp mind.

So I can't let you get away with this one.

It is not reasonable, nor is it fair, to accuse someone whose position is opposed to yours of "wiener waving" while you and others on your side of the debate are not only doing the same thing, but actually started it.

If you're going to make accusations of cowardice, you don't really have any right to object to the (every bit as justified and historically supportable) accusations of ego ....

Back to my popcorn.

I take your point. Perhaps I made mine poorly. I am nowhere near as eloquent as Jehan de Palham.

When I said weiner waving, I meant the suggestion that objections to CA more about ego and spear gods (which I find very confusing since there aren't any spear gods weighing in on the subject) than it is about wanting to give and recieve stout blows face to face and about a CA ruleset that seems poorly constructed at this stage.

Does this make my point more clear or do you think I am missing something?

I'd like Combat Archery more if we ruled that my plate was proof against their arrows.

I mean, why not? Armours of proof existed in period, and there aren't that many people in the SCA who wear full plate; it's not as if making plate proof vs. CA arrows would suddenly make CA useless.

I suppose things could be worse, though. SCA rules about archery could be as horribly biased in favor of the archer as Dagorhir's are...

And here we go again.. *sigh*

Ok, here's my point of view:
We wish to embody chivalrours combat.
Fine.
We also incorporate unchivalrours, but tactically sound options in our rules, KFBehind, KOTGround, Archery, Siege engines, because we also want to incorporate battles, not just grand melees.

Now, in a grand melee, we disallow archery etc...

In a battle we allow it.

So can we please stop whining about combatants that follow the rules?

I mean: If you want to act chivalrous, then you have to acknowledge that fact that some may safely fight you in an effective manner that you deem unchivalrous.

This is fine.

In order to be able to choose to act chivalrous on the field, we need to have safe unchivalros behaiour to be allowed.

First, resonding to some points:

audax wrote:I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms.

Audax, while I respect a lot of your views I have to wonder where this attitude comes from. Can you be any more cliche?

audax wrote:And as a glaivesman, I would LOVE to see destructible sheilds. I won't hold my breath for it though.

As long as we get breakable spear shafts I'd agree to that. A test battle of that would be interesting.

audax wrote:As far as Magyars, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Byzantines, etc, etc, I did not call them pussies. I said that it is not the warrior way to shoot at your betters from afar.

And who the heck do you think you are calling them your inferiors?

audax wrote:The Classical Greeks considered the bow a cowards weapon even though they often employed archers, usually from other cultures. Anyone here ever hear of a Spartan archer? NO? Hmmm.

Classic Greeks are out of period dear. Ever hear of Spartan Innovation? They couldn't change combat styles or tactics. Why do you think they were destroyed in the end and faded to obscurity by the Roman era.

audax wrote:The Chivalry of all eras considered archers low life scum, even if the demands of real warfare called for them.

Please check your facts. In at least half of our period the Nobility WERE THE ARCHERS. Go look up the records of the battles of 1066 some time. It wasn't until much later when the peasant longbowmen were massed vs the French Cavalry that the attitude was prevelant, and mainly only in France. Mostly due to the fact that they WERE peasants.

audax wrote:There has ever been a tension between those who fight in the fray and those who shoot from afar. Thus the hostility between CA and heavy fighters is very period and adds to the Illusion.

Except were are supposed to be recreating the middle ages without the nastier parts, like plague, poor sanitation, etc. Why recreate class bigotry?

Now, that said, I think Audax and I have amply displayed the two sides of the issue at hand. Rather than further re-hash the argument, which realy wasn't the point of this thread, I invite anyone who wishes to discuss it with me to take it to PM.

Joaquin wrote:I'd like Combat Archery more if we ruled that my plate was proof against their arrows.

I mean, why not? Armours of proof existed in period, and there aren't that many people in the SCA who wear full plate; it's not as if making plate proof vs. CA arrows would suddenly make CA useless.

I suppose things could be worse, though. SCA rules about archery could be as horribly biased in favor of the archer as Dagorhir's are...

When I started combat in the West that was the rule. As I have always worn leather armor I have always been "Archer Bait". Its one reason why I'm particularly good at spotting them.

Arngrim wrote:And here we go again.. *sigh*

Ok, here's my point of view:
We wish to embody chivalrours combat.
Fine.
We also incorporate unchivalrours, but tactically sound options in our rules, KFBehind, KOTGround, Archery, Siege engines, because we also want to incorporate battles, not just grand melees.

Now, in a grand melee, we disallow archery etc...

In a battle we allow it.

So can we please stop whining about combatants that follow the rules?

I mean: If you want to act chivalrous, then you have to acknowledge that fact that some may safely fight you in an effective manner that you deem unchivalrous.

This is fine.

In order to be able to choose to act chivalrous on the field, we need to have safe unchivalros behaiour to be allowed.

Well said, Arngrim.

As for the aforementioned chivalry, how about this. What say we try offering that and displaying that toward the CA folk, rather than the (seemingly) customary behavior?

I know several CA folk, and they've warned me about "what to expect", as far as treatment goes on the field. Despite this, I'm going to give it a go. Not because I'm some raving glutton, but because I love archery, and I want to see how much FUN I can have with it.

Do I have some trepidation? Oh yeah. Do I really know what's coming? Not in the slightest. But am I going to let someone else dictate to me how I'm "allowed" to have fun? Not on your life.

That said...

For fucks' sake, try this. Be nice. If they're on your side, thank them, and maybe have a drink with them later. I bet that might go a fair way towards making things better. Learn who those folk are, and find out why they're doing the CA thing.

Maybe some of them have medical issues (blown knees, hips, etc.) Maybe they don't have sword and board yet but can at least contribute via archery. (*And I bet when the air force is in effect on your side, y'all love'em) Try to learn something about them. ( I know, amazing suggestion, no?)

I bet you'd be surprised that they're after the same things as you are.


..just some food for thought..

Vlasta wrote:First, resonding to some points:

audax wrote:I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms.

Audax, while I respect a lot of your views I have to wonder where this attitude comes from. Can you be any more cliche?

audax wrote:And as a glaivesman, I would LOVE to see destructible sheilds. I won't hold my breath for it though.

As long as we get breakable spear shafts I'd agree to that. A test battle of that would be interesting.

audax wrote:As far as Magyars, Huns, Mongols, Persians, Byzantines, etc, etc, I did not call them pussies. I said that it is not the warrior way to shoot at your betters from afar.

And who the heck do you think you are calling them your inferiors?

audax wrote:The Classical Greeks considered the bow a cowards weapon even though they often employed archers, usually from other cultures. Anyone here ever hear of a Spartan archer? NO? Hmmm.

Classic Greeks are out of period dear. Ever hear of Spartan Innovation? They couldn't change combat styles or tactics. Why do you think they were destroyed in the end and faded to obscurity by the Roman era.

audax wrote:The Chivalry of all eras considered archers low life scum, even if the demands of real warfare called for them.

Please check your facts. In at least half of our period the Nobility WERE THE ARCHERS. Go look up the records of the battles of 1066 some time. It wasn't until much later when the peasant longbowmen were massed vs the French Cavalry that the attitude was prevelant, and mainly only in France. Mostly due to the fact that they WERE peasants.

audax wrote:There has ever been a tension between those who fight in the fray and those who shoot from afar. Thus the hostility between CA and heavy fighters is very period and adds to the Illusion.

Except were are supposed to be recreating the middle ages without the nastier parts, like plague, poor sanitation, etc. Why recreate class bigotry?

Now, that said, I think Audax and I have amply displayed the two sides of the issue at hand. Rather than further re-hash the argument, which realy wasn't the point of this thread, I invite anyone who wishes to discuss it with me to take it to PM.

Heh. Sure I'm going to take this to PM after you called me out in so condescending and insulting a manner. I think not.

Allow me to translate my "cliche" into language you can understand: I like to hit people with sticks and look them in the face while I do it. That is where my attitude comes from.

If you weren't so determined to understand this from a post-modern Up With People perspective, you might understand why it is more worthy to face someone toe to toe than to shoot them from afar.

"For Society members, most of the world, and all of the centuries prior to the 17th, can serve as a source for personal research." Straight from Corpora. So Classical Greece is not out of period. Even if it were, you managed to miss the point of the comment which was that the Greeks held the bow as a cowards weapon and that Spartans warriors did not make use of the bow. They left that to the Helots.

I didn't call anyone my inferior. What I said was that it is not the warrior way to shoot at your betters from afar. I will explain this a bit further since it seems really hard for you: He who does more is more worthy. Therefore it is more worthy to face your betters toe to toe than it is to shoot them from afar. For example, Duke Logan is my martial better. By facing him up close and personal, I become more worthy than I would if I shot him with an arrow. there is glory in honorable defeat, none in dishonrable victory.

As far as nobles firing bows at Hastings, I think you are badly mistaken. I have looked at records of names and battles from 1066. None of them list Norman nobles as archers. They list Bretons of non-noble lineage as archers. Anyobne who had acutally read a book about Hastings would know that.

There are also a number of polemics against the use of bows and crossbows in battle from the Middle Ages including those written by churchmen, calling them an engine of the Devil for the destruction of good men. These run across several cultures, not just the French.

Iohne MacGhille Eoine wrote:

Arngrim wrote:And here we go again.. *sigh*

Ok, here's my point of view:
We wish to embody chivalrours combat.
Fine.
We also incorporate unchivalrours, but tactically sound options in our rules, KFBehind, KOTGround, Archery, Siege engines, because we also want to incorporate battles, not just grand melees.

Now, in a grand melee, we disallow archery etc...

In a battle we allow it.

So can we please stop whining about combatants that follow the rules?

I mean: If you want to act chivalrous, then you have to acknowledge that fact that some may safely fight you in an effective manner that you deem unchivalrous.

This is fine.

In order to be able to choose to act chivalrous on the field, we need to have safe unchivalros behaiour to be allowed.

Well said, Arngrim.

As for the aforementioned chivalry, how about this. What say we try offering that and displaying that toward the CA folk, rather than the (seemingly) customary behavior?

I know several CA folk, and they've warned me about "what to expect", as far as treatment goes on the field. Despite this, I'm going to give it a go. Not because I'm some raving glutton, but because I love archery, and I want to see how much FUN I can have with it.

Do I have some trepidation? Oh yeah. Do I really know what's coming? Not in the slightest. But am I going to let someone else dictate to me how I'm "allowed" to have fun? Not on your life.

That said...

For fucks' sake, try this. Be nice. If they're on your side, thank them, and maybe have a drink with them later. I bet that might go a fair way towards making things better. Learn who those folk are, and find out why they're doing the CA thing.

Maybe some of them have medical issues (blown knees, hips, etc.) Maybe they don't have sword and board yet but can at least contribute via archery. (*And I bet when the air force is in effect on your side, y'all love'em) Try to learn something about them. ( I know, amazing suggestion, no?)

I bet you'd be surprised that they're after the same things as you are.


..just some food for thought..

Like many people you are confusing chivalrous with nice. They are not the same.

I'd seriously like to know who can afford a bow before they can afford a piece of plywood and a length of rattan.

As to the rest of it, what makes you think that does not already happen?

Ansteorra has a GoA for archery, the Arc d'Or. There is also the Award for the King's Archer of Ansteorra, which is non-armigerous.

We do thank our archers for their service and we do eat and drink with them and even talk to them. Heck, we even go so far as to treat them with respect.

I think it is self-evident that you are already letting some other people dictate how to have fun in the SCA. Take discussions on the AA with a few grains of salt. Because none of it is policy anywhere in the SCA.

Vlasta wrote:First, resonding to some points:

audax wrote:I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms.

Audax, while I respect a lot of your views I have to wonder where this attitude comes from. Can you be any more cliche?

I have the same attitude.

Giving and receiving stout blows at close quarters with my playmates is pretty much my idea of fun.

I don't consider it a cliche. I consider it a Dream.

f

freiman the minstrel wrote:

Vlasta wrote:First, resonding to some points:

audax wrote:I am a warrior who wishes to give and recieve stout blows at close quarters with my comrades in arms.

Audax, while I respect a lot of your views I have to wonder where this attitude comes from. Can you be any more cliche?

I have the same attitude.

Giving and receiving stout blows at close quarters with my playmates is pretty much my idea of fun.

I don't consider it a cliche. I consider it a Dream.

f

Exactly.

All I am going to say about CA's is this. I am really starting not to like some of you clowns. Last War of the Wings I got shot in the nuts TWICE by the same Archer during the woods battle. First time I saw him wave and yell "Whoa sorry man!". Second time I know for a fact I saw him run away laughing.

I will find you...and I will kill you.

mmm popcorn

audax wrote:I think it is self-evident that you are already letting some other people dictate how to have fun in the SCA. Take discussions on the AA with a few grains of salt. Because none of it is policy anywhere in the SCA.

Actually, I'm just letting this whole thread get to me in a way it shouldn't. That was my mistake, and nobody else's. As for taking these discussions with a grain of salt? I'll go ya one better and take them with a shot of whiskey. (or a beer.)

I don't support CA in its current form, and don't care ever to.

At this point I no longer care about being inclusive, or worrying about a minority group's fun. I do know, however, that I don't like being pushed around by a small group who feels entitled to be a part of something that they, IMO, make less fun for me, and incredibly less safe.

I don't any longer feel the need to try and hold a hand or olive branch out to CA community. I don't care. I hate it, and the way it changes every aspect of our sport at a fundamental level. It in no way makes my experience more real- fighting COT style makes it a little more real- one touch archery just makes fighting a bullshit paintball game.

The occasional novice or best of the best aside, this is the only sport that I have ever been a part of that doesn't have weight classes, age levels, skill levels or anything like that. I don't think that our all inclusive nature makes it better, and I think we already include too many people.

In heavy fighting, I don't mind the occasional rhino or poor sport on the heavy fighting side. Heavy fighting has had a way of dealing with problem children for a long time- the problem is eventually self-correcting.

The problem with CA is that if an archer acts like an asshat on the field, all we can do is smile, or get pissed off and walk off.

If a heavy beats me in tourney or melee, I can eventually test my mettle against the later one way or another. If they are better than me, I look forward to going home to train to become better than them. If they simply got a good shot in, I find them on the field and beat them back. In the end we all smile for the competitive sport we are playing together, and for driving each other harder to become better. I can pay them back in kind for what they gave me

There is, however, no recourse against combat archery. There is no payback of any kind.

I think that is ultimately why I hate it.

g-

I think I've heard enough.

Thanks guys, enlightening discussion.

i knew this was a touchy subject but don't want a flame war.

Can we lock this before it gets to blows?

Thanks

Iohne MacGhille Eoine wrote:

audax wrote:I think it is self-evident that you are already letting some other people dictate how to have fun in the SCA. Take discussions on the AA with a few grains of salt. Because none of it is policy anywhere in the SCA.

Actually, I'm just letting this whole thread get to me in a way it shouldn't. That was my mistake, and nobody else's. As for taking these discussions with a grain of salt? I'll go ya one better and take them with a shot of whiskey. (or a beer.)

Now that is very sensible.

Alot of my attitude towards CA comes from the fact that archers have made a particular point of targeting my knight. I am extremely loyal to him and I get very pissy when he gets picked on. Take my rants with a grain of salt. And a glass of beer.

There seems to be two structural issues that really drive this discussion:

Rule sets:
Since CA has been around since the first war, WHY is there no decent ruleset? Is it an SCA cultural problem? Seems to me that with enough organized high level crown and white belt influence, there could be a ruleset that doesn't make heavies grind their teeth in rage and frustration. As simple a rule as face-shots only, or metal armor is proof, Society-Wide, would go a long way to controlling stupidities.

Leadership:
If you treat CAs like knaves and vagabonds and scum, are you really surprised by knavish behavior? What else can you expect?
Lead them, organize them. You want professional behavior like Genoese Crossbowmen and English Yeoman Archers? You get it from leadership. ALL archers should be attached to a unit. And act under unit command. Or you can go on having sneaky, back-shooting, lone assassins that piss off the rank and file, and ruin the peak moments of the champions.

Combat Archers may not be chivalrous combatants, not every one is suited to chivalrous combat. But like all weapons in a war, they have their place. It is a foolish or arrogant leader who does not control his weapons, and use them for their best purpose. Leaving CA's on the field in the form of wolves and jackals, doing nasty work on the margins, occassionally pulling down a random high lord is in no ones best interest.

Joaquin wrote:I'd like Combat Archery more if we ruled that my plate was proof against their arrows.

I mean, why not? Armours of proof existed in period, and there aren't that many people in the SCA who wear full plate; it's not as if making plate proof vs. CA arrows would suddenly make CA useless.

I suppose things could be worse, though. SCA rules about archery could be as horribly biased in favor of the archer as Dagorhir's are...

While "plate as proof" might be fun, just think what you and I would end up getting tasked with at wars....being a shield. We'd be doing armoured jumping jacks the entire war.

-Aaron

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 really didn't want to weigh in on this but you know what they said bout stupid being as it performs.

Combat archers are tools of war scenarios. Just like polearms, shieldman, spears etc, They have a function if used by a craftsman. The problem occurs when the screwdriver wants to be a hammer.

As an example. Last Pennsic I was fighting spear in the wall battle against the Tuchux. There was an effective archer who made a commitment to kill anyone who was doing well in blue tape. After one of my many "death by arrow" resurections I found an archer kinda looking lost with nothing to do. I grabbed the archer and pointed out he could be the most help by negating the archer wearing red tape. He took five shots at my most desired target, didn't hit him, and decided to go for easier pickings somewhere else.

What this idiot refused to accept that is sometimes the most benefit you can give doesn't have to result in a large number of kills. By supressing the other archer, he would have given those of us on the front line the opportunity to become more effective. BUT, because he wasn't killing the archer or anyone else, left where he was needed the most for where he could rack up a body count. This is a screwdriver wanting to be a hammer.

On the flip side of this. I've had my household archers stay in a group and soften an area that I pointed out to them. This allowed the other fighters to punch a hole in the lines where needed and become effective. This is a bunch of screwdrivers happy to turn the screws on the opponent.

A-FUCKING-MEN BROTHER.

And I don't hate combat archers. And I don't think it's dangerous. I do think it can be done MORE safely, and we seem to be finding new ways to do that, like the bird netting. But I detest the people on the field who pretty well ignore this entire list.

Nissan Maxima wrote:You will be welcome by those that like it and by those that want to win wars.

You will be reviled by some.

There are things you can do to make everyone happier. Such as:

Don't be a dick.

Remember that the other guy needs to have fun to. Do not shoot the same guy twenty times as he walks back again from the res point. He will hate you. You will deserve it.

Salute your oppoent if he acknowledges your shot. Do not do this with a happy dance.

If you get run down, take the hit like a man. Don't yield.

Carry only a moderate amount of ammo on the field. Five gallon buckets of bolts look like ass. When you are out of ammo pull a sword and charge into the fray. You will earn some respect.

If they ignore your shot, don't take it personally. Hell I club people with heavy sticks and sometimes they get ignored too. It means it wasn't good. Move on.