Combat Archery: Why is it so hated?

Iain mac Gillean · Post by **Iain mac Gillean** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Popcorn. Need popcorn.
And another beer.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:37 pm

They were elevated.
E
L
E
V
A
T
E
D

to a higher estate.

Just like Sir Robert Knowles was in England.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:42 pm

Vitus, Alejandro's statement is factually correct. Knights also served as horse archers there as well, similarly to nobles in Hungary who preferred to fight in the lighter equipment, rather than in what they called the "Swabian" heavy-cavalry method.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:45 pm

Hugh Calveley and Robert Salle were also knighted after rising up from much lower ranks.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:48 pm

Yes, Vitus, but you're missing the point: such men were elevated and continued to serve in their roles. While you're completely correct regarding the English and French behavior, did not mean that everybody else did it their way: you're attempting to universalize what was not universal.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:49 pm

I agree that it is factually correct. In Spain crossbowman were made into knights. There is nothing in that quote that leads me to believe that a crossbowman continued to fight like/as one after being made a belted knight. I just don't buy it.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:52 pm

That Galway didn't elaborate does not mean that it's incorrect: you may choose not to buy it, but that doesn't change the history.

Baron Alejandro · Post by **Baron Alejandro** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:56 pm

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:I agree that it is factually correct. In Spain crossbowman were made into knights. There is nothing in that quote that leads me to believe that a crossbowman continued to fight like/as one after being made a belted knight. I just don't buy it.

Sir,

I ask you to read further down in the citation I quoted.

"A troop of <i>mounted crossbowmen</i>, of special skill & courage, usually formed the bodyguard of the king, and attended him in battle. Mounted crossbowmen were largely employed on the Continent in the fourteenth, and first half of the fifteenth century, and these men were usually allowed one and sometimes even two horses apiece, besides being supplied, when on the march, with carts to carry their crossbows and quarrels".

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:00 pm

What history? He doesn't claim that they continued to fight as crossbowmen after being knighted. He just says that crossbowmen were made into knights. I buy that part. I accept that in Spain you could go from the ranks of the crossbowmen into a knighthood without fighting as a man-at-arms or "squire".
I do not buy the concept that a person could be given such a severe change in rank while continuing to do the same job as the common arbalester. Nope.
Of course, Spain may have just been f'ed up in some way I am unaware of.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:06 pm

A mounted crossbowman automatically equals a knight? Nothing in these quotes directly says that these mounted crossbowmen guarding the king were knights. He says "that in Spain the crossbowman was even granted the rank of a knight."
That doesn't mean that a crossbowman continued to shoot after being knighted, or that the mounted crossbowmen guarding the King of Spain were knights.

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:08 pm

Just find more documentation about these Spanish crossbow-knights and I'll gladly admit that the Spanish were completely out of step with the rest of Europe.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:11 pm

Ah, but it's NOT the rest of Europe's entirety. Just all the parts you don't care about.

DELETEMYACCOUNT · Post by **DELETEMYACCOUNT** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:20 pm

Russ I believe you just hit the nail right on the head. Whatever. Complaining about archers is just pussy. If you're a knight, TRULY a knight then you're gonna face whatever comes at you bravely and no sniveling. Thats my opinion anyway.

St. George · Post by **St. George** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:24 pm

Here are a couple of serious problems with the SCA:

Armor as worn doesn't matter.

We fight under a rule set, so we really are a sport. CA, when added into the mix, significantly alters the sport. This video, I think, adequately gets across how CA fundamentally changes what is otherwise a good and balanced sport with plenty of opportunities for sporty/heroic moments. CA takes this away. This video is a great example of how I think CA messes with the game and totally cheapens it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk

If you don't want to watch the whole thing watch the last minute or so. Guns don't work in football, they don't work in our game.

To further muddy the issue, personas- ie, place you are "from," era, etc, don't really matter in terms of being in the SCA. This means that all such arguments relying on these facts or lack of facts are really pointless. You can be a Samurai, Frenchman, Swabian, who cares, we are all still judged by our acts at SCA events. If someone is a dick or "unchivalrous" we don't let them get away with that because they are a (insert persona here), we call them a dick. Personas are straw man arguments. We are all SCA members, that is the bottom line. We are judged by the rules we set up and abide by for our culture. We base them on Medieval culture, but they are not, per se, medieval culture because we don't live the way they did.

As such, we are not period Knights. If we were, we would likely be riding horses, owing our liege lords payments, etc, etc. We are KSCA- we try to follow the rules and ideals of Chivalry as WE have set up and interpreted them. This is why CA and fencing face such hurdles. They don't naturally fit in with the SCA culture, and have just been added on like bad expansion sets for good game systems.

CA doesn't work. I would like to see it gone. It isn't safe, and it makes the game stupid. Anyone who "wins" with it, doesn't impress me, because it isn't the same game I am playing.

g-

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:36 pm

All of these views are reasonable. To be perfectly honest, I don't really even read or think about these things much anymore, so claiming to know what I care about and what I don't is...well, I don't know what it is. I have read widely on these topics in the past, and although I have seen solid conceptual threads that run through this idea of "knighthood" I understand that there are exceptions to every rule.
Some exceptions water down a concept, warp that concept or cheapen that concept. Regardless of any of these things I like just about any warrior culture that existed before firearms. I mean, how would G. Khan feel about his mongols settling down and living in decadent cities full of weaklings?

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:07 pm

You know, upon further thought on this matter I don't think strange exceptions to a common cultural rule change the bend in the steel. Back on topic- I don't mind being shot at. Follow your own soul.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:22 pm

i like killing archers

that is all i have to say :lol:

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:30 pm

Vitus, the issue is this: you are positing a rule, and that rule holds true, here and there, region and time. But when you address areas that do not hold to those rules as exceptions around the borders of the "real" European knighthood, you, make a profoundly chauvinistic statement regarding which cultures', which European cultures', ideals of knighthood are legitimate. I assume this is unintentional; it would be a true poverty to assume that the existence of other cultures' concepts sullies the concepts you yourself choose to uphold.
-----
Regarding attitudes towards missile weapons, etc., allow me to quote a bit from the Anonymous Continuator from the Song of the Cathar Wars, as it may be interesting to others in the thread.

July 1213
Laisse 133

The French soldiers have entered Pujol and the great count of Toulouse has surrounded them. With him are the count of Foix, his valiant son Roger Bernard....First a wise lawyer spoke, a member of the Capitol and an eloquent man:
"My lord, great count and marquis,if it please you, listen; and you too, all you others gathered here: We have brought up the catapults and other siege weapons o as to fiht hard against the enemy, for I trust in God we shall defeat them quickly, before our very eyes.....if we do not defeat those men before tomorrow evening, they will receive help and strong reinforcements, well equipped knights and armed sergeants, and they will do us great dishonour and a double injury if we go away without cutting them to pieces. We have plenty of crossbows, plenty of feathered quarrels. Let us fill up the ditches and let us make sure our deed are equal to our words! .... Laisse 134, At once the whole host went to get the filling; not one knight, citizen or sergeant but instantly shouldered a load....

The text is available from Ashgate here, http://tinyurl.com/d9opc3 and I strongly recommend it.

Vlasta · Post by **Vlasta** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:32 pm

audax wrote: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.

Did I say anything about the NORMAN nobility using bows? There WAS more than one army on the field at Hastings. Heck, all I said was 1066. There were 3 armies in the field in England that year. Harold of England defeated Harold of the Vikings (Harold Hardrada wasn't it?) shortly before he moved to take on William. Harold Hardrada was killed by an arrow to the throat fired by a nobleman. If I could find my friggin' reference book I'd give you a direct quote but its been misplaced during one of my many moves.

There are quite a few members of the Chivalry that are or have been archers after they won their spurs. Some have retired from full heavy fighting due to age and/or imfirmity but still like to contribute to their kingdom during war. Some simply like to learn another martial discipline as they have reached their goal within heavy combat already. There is also the fact that it is not unheard of for a Western Queen, and much more common for one of our Princesses, to be pulling a bow for their realm. I'd think twice before I assumed that the person who is shooting at me is of lesser martial skill than I, or of lesser rank.

Lastly I feel that there is absolutely no dishonor in killing from a distance. If so then I hardly think the Samurai of Japan, a group who was more honor conscious than any European, would have an entire martial discipline based around archery. If killing from a distance, or from a place where another can not hit you, is so bad then what do you think of 12' pikes hiding behind a shield wall?

And BTW, I'm more a Declaration of Independence kind of guy. But if you _must_ use an entertainment reference try Oaklahoma. "I'm not saying I'm no better than anybody else. But I'll be danged if I aint just as good."

And if nothing else, try seeing tollerating the archers as an exercise in Largess. YMMV

Vlasta · Post by **Vlasta** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:39 pm

audax wrote:
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.

I consider it a fun game that I can play with a bunch of (usually) cool people.

Sorry, but I get a bit twitchy when I hear the term "Dream" in regards to the SCA. A lot of folks justify being complete snobs in the SCA by using that term. Not trying to put either of you two down, and I'm not saying that either of you do that, its just a button of mine. I'm starting to wish that Bard at 20 Year had never written that song "In Service to the Dream". I was there when she performed it. Very moving but too many people go from The Dream to THE Dream, then to THEIR Dream is the only right one.

audax · Post by **audax** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:59 pm

Spain was so different from the rest of Europe in it's military traditions as to be almost irrelevant to this discussion.

The were very few knights, at least until fairly late in our period, if by knight you mean a nobleman trained as heavy cavalry. Most of the cavalry was light and from non-noble families. Spain was also not a nation state unified under one king for a very long period of time, but a collection of small kingdoms that by pure necessity made use of whatever they had available. Most of what they had was infantry with a little bit of cavalry.

There was also a heavy Moslem influence and we all know the Moslems were big into archery. As well as being Summa Culpabilis. :twisted:

Vlasta · Post by **Vlasta** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:59 pm

muttman wrote:Do to the uneven and a-historical ruleset, a fighter who has spent years honing there skill, money on a kit that works well for him, injurys and wear on there body, ect. can be taken out in droves by some guy who just qualled a week before and has never had the pleasure of a screaming buttwrap by an uberduke in the interest of his training. Many of these CAs are completely unprepared to be hit the same way the rest of us take for granted.

In a war, if you're not paying attention, the rankest newbie can walk up and clock you. I don't care who you are. An example: I had that happen to me last year by a gal I know who can't take me at any time normally. She's very short and I had a tall shield. She walked up to me and hit me with a wrap to the back of my head before I ever saw her. Funniest thing that happened to me that whole war. To me its no different if I lose concentration and stop watching for archers. If I get hit I feel its my own bad, not theirs.

Funny thing, I've been reading this thread and seeing a lot of people saying in essence that they want CA to go back to what it USED to be. The old Peacmaker / Markland blunt arrows hit hard even from a 35 pound bow, it had to be a good impact or it didn't count, plate was proof and no arrow could be gleaned and re-fired without being taken back to an inspection point. That's the way it was in the West 20 odd years ago.

Vlasta · Post by **Vlasta** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:19 pm

white mountain armoury wrote:I had a great eastern duke manage to penetrate our line and get into our "castle" the only thing between him and the flag capture point was me with a maul, I believ he had a shorter great weapon as well.
There was that moment of eyes meeting and the mutual understanding that we were about to have a combat related "moment" and throw down hard .
Someone popped me with a crossbow and you could see the duke make a face, then a moment after he was popped in the chest as well.
We were both deprived of a contest that couled have been the highlight of an event.
That moment was lost 2 a couple of gents lobbing golf tubes from relative safty.
Fairly disapointing.

Perhaps the archer who shot you thought they were doing a service to their Duke in clearing the way for him. Your side's archer then may have struck in "revenge" or to protect your flag. Perhaps that was their own "hero moment" as someone said, rather than your own.

audax · Post by **audax** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:43 pm

Vlasta wrote:
audax wrote: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.

Did I say anything about the NORMAN nobility using bows? There WAS more than one army on the field at Hastings. Heck, all I said was 1066. There were 3 armies in the field in England that year. Harold of England defeated Harold of the Vikings (Harold Hardrada wasn't it?) shortly before he moved to take on William. Harold Hardrada was killed by an arrow to the throat fired by a nobleman. If I could find my friggin' reference book I'd give you a direct quote but its been misplaced during one of my many moves.

There are quite a few members of the Chivalry that are or have been archers after they won their spurs. Some have retired from full heavy fighting due to age and/or imfirmity but still like to contribute to their kingdom during war. Some simply like to learn another martial discipline as they have reached their goal within heavy combat already. There is also the fact that it is not unheard of for a Western Queen, and much more common for one of our Princesses, to be pulling a bow for their realm. I'd think twice before I assumed that the person who is shooting at me is of lesser martial skill than I, or of lesser rank.

Lastly I feel that there is absolutely no dishonor in killing from a distance. If so then I hardly think the Samurai of Japan, a group who was more honor conscious than any European, would have an entire martial discipline based around archery. If killing from a distance, or from a place where another can not hit you, is so bad then what do you think of 12' pikes hiding behind a shield wall?

And BTW, I'm more a Declaration of Independence kind of guy. But if you _must_ use an entertainment reference try Oaklahoma. "I'm not saying I'm no better than anybody else. But I'll be danged if I aint just as good."

And if nothing else, try seeing tollerating the archers as an exercise in Largess. YMMV

I'm from Texas. Just imagine what I think about Oklahoma. But whatever blows your skirts up.

I would love to see reliable evidence that Hardrada was slain by a nobleman at Stamford. I do not consider sagas to be reliable nor would I consider Florence of Worcester reliable since he was writing about an event he was not at and that took place several decades before he was writing. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a bit better but still has all the problems associated with Medieval (and Ancient) documentation. Of course, having looked through the AS Chronicle, I don't see any reference to a nobleman killing Hardrada. So I await your reference.

I consider the philosophy of the Bushi to be quite different from that of the European court we are supposed to be emulating.

I am willing to accept the notion that an archer has honor.

Oh and that 12 foot pike thing must be a Western thing. We only use nine footers in Ansteorra. So I have no thought on it. As far as spearmen hiding behind a sheildwall, if I'm in the sheildwall, I'm still able to look the other sheildman in the eyes and try to kill him if I can. I also wait for the moment to charge or for the formations to break up and then I get to go on a little rampage againt the spearmen. If I'm using glaive, i wait for my moment and close on the speaman. once I'm close, I'm better armed than the spearman, given that i have both cutting and stabbing surfaces.

So I figure that makes us even. I don't feel that it's even with the way CA is right now.

I have also stated and restated and I guess i'll try it again for the hard of reading that I do tolerate archers, even going so far as to respect and treat them honorably.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:55 pm

audax wrote:Spain was so different from the rest of Europe in it's military traditions as to be almost irrelevant to this discussion. The were very few knights, at least until fairly late in our period, if by knight you mean a nobleman trained as heavy cavalry. Most of the cavalry was light and from non-noble families.

Hrm. That sounds just like Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Hungary and Kiev to me. The statement only makes sense if, like Vitus, "your" Europe ends somewhere at the Pyrenees and the Elbe... because what you're really talking about isn't Europe: it's the part of Europe you're choosing to privelege for the purpose.

Spain was also not a nation state unified under one king for a very long period of time....

You mean, like France? Are you really going to make the argument that Iberia isn't to be regarded within Europe because it was comprised of several kingdoms, rather than one large one, or because the Iberian kingdoms, just like every other medieval European kingdoms, weren't nation-states? Where are the medieval nation-states?

audax · Post by **audax** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:55 pm

Vlasta wrote:
white mountain armoury wrote:I had a great eastern duke manage to penetrate our line and get into our "castle" the only thing between him and the flag capture point was me with a maul, I believ he had a shorter great weapon as well.
There was that moment of eyes meeting and the mutual understanding that we were about to have a combat related "moment" and throw down hard .
Someone popped me with a crossbow and you could see the duke make a face, then a moment after he was popped in the chest as well.
We were both deprived of a contest that couled have been the highlight of an event.
That moment was lost 2 a couple of gents lobbing golf tubes from relative safty.
Fairly disapointing.

Perhaps the archer who shot you thought they were doing a service to their Duke in clearing the way for him. Your side's archer then may have struck in "revenge" or to protect your flag. Perhaps that was their own "hero moment" as someone said, rather than your own.

Yeah Vlasta, exactly the point. The archers robbed two good men-at-arms of a great fight. In other words, he pissed in their cornflakes, just like you keep saying heavy fighters are trying to do to the poor archers.

There seems to be a real contradiction in what you are saying.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:57 pm

Could really care less about combat archery: any cursory reading of the innumerable Archive threads on the subject would convince folks that it's badly broken. Neither which version of knighthood amuses one playing the game. But to insist that only one version of knighthood was "the standard" is simply ahistorical. It's a return to the -- now hopelessly discredited -- center/periphery theory, and shouldn't stand.

St. George · Post by **St. George** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:05 am

Samurai? Seriously... don't compare apples and oranges. Samurai are accepted by, but NOT the SCA warrior culture.

Vlasta- I had a very similar situation happen to me once at a Fool's War. I was the last person left on my side, and after having been offered single combat by the opposing warriors, and having fought my way though quite a few of them, some jackass shot me with a crossbow bolt. It was the single lamest moment I have ever had in the SCA- with the exception (maybe) of getting one shotted in my first battle after getting knighted

I don't give a shit what that schmuck was thinking, he ruined a moment. If that was a hero moment for him, then he deserves whatever happened to him after the combined Meridian Chivalry teleported around him and carted him off to have a "talking to."

The rank newbie does occasionally get me too. The difference is, that I can "get them back" as part of the game. Archers live outside of the system and code that we have set up for what we consider a "war" to be and what we consider "Chivalric Behavior" to be as well. The Newbie knows that they are getting me unawares, and that they will probably "pay" the next time I find him or her. The Archer, however, gets away without any penalty, and virtually no threat. Should I respect this? Should I even care how much fun they are having at my and my friend's and peer's expense?

When I was coming up through the ranks, I paid with pain and suffering not only at practice, but also at wars. People remember who gets them in fights. This pays off in many different ways- as Chivalry members, we start to remember the unbelts who are getting us more and more often. We look for these gentles at fighter practices, tournaments and such, and work with them, to help them get even better. Eventually we ask these better fighters to join our Order. We remember who the asshats are who have bad attitudes or are rhinos- these are fun to unload on, because we usually have to be judicious in our applications of power and targeting. There is a give and take heavy fighting that archers just are not a part of. This is why we hate them when they are on the other side, and tolerate them when they are good and on ours.

g-

PS- I am not a fan of CA, and I was totally in support of the Atlantian archers who got their Shark's Teeth at Pennsic. Having had that honor bestowed on me three times myself, I think I have a clue who should and shouldn't get one, and there was no doubt they earned it. Although I watched in amazement at how quickly they thinned out the enemy ranks, I couldn't help, however, feeling guilty every time they shot one of the other side's guys.

audax · Post by **audax** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:10 am

Russ Mitchell wrote:
audax wrote:Spain was so different from the rest of Europe in it's military traditions as to be almost irrelevant to this discussion. The were very few knights, at least until fairly late in our period, if by knight you mean a nobleman trained as heavy cavalry. Most of the cavalry was light and from non-noble families.

Hrm. That sounds just like Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Hungary and Kiev to me. The statement only makes sense if, like Vitus, "your" Europe ends somewhere at the Pyrenees and the Elbe... because what you're really talking about isn't Europe: it's the part of Europe you're choosing to privelege for the purpose.

Spain was also not a nation state unified under one king for a very long period of time....

You mean, like France? Are you really going to make the argument that Iberia isn't to be regarded within Europe because it was comprised of several kingdoms, rather than one large one, or because the Iberian kingdoms, just like every other medieval European kingdoms, weren't nation-states?

Well, no and no.

But right now, it's getting very late. I'll make clarifications later.

maxntropy · Post by **maxntropy** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:10 am

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:This video is a great example of how I think CA messes with the game and totally cheapens it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk

Your Grace:

I sincerely understand the sentiment, though I think that it might be more like Billy "The Gun" Van Goff, than Cole...

http://www.digitalsportsdaily.com/?p=482

:lol:

Max Von Halstern

Vlasta · Post by **Vlasta** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:14 am

audax wrote:I'm from Texas. Just imagine what I think about Oklahoma. But whatever blows your skirts up.

Thanks for the good laugh. And I don't wear skirts. Wait a minute. I do have a hoopalond. Oh well. :wink:

audax wrote:I would love to see reliable evidence that Hardrada was slain by a nobleman at Stamford. I do not consider sagas to be reliable nor would I consider Florence of Worcester reliable since he was writing about an event he was not at and that took place several decades before he was writing. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a bit better but still has all the problems associated with Medieval (and Ancient) documentation. Of course, having looked through the AS Chronicle, I don't see any reference to a nobleman killing Hardrada. So I await your reference.

I'll have to see if I can find it then. The box its in is probably in storage someplace. I don't think I've seen that book for 5+ years now.

audax wrote:I am willing to accept the notion that an archer has honor.

Cool. Your earlier posts led me to believe, probably erroneously, that you did not.

audax wrote:Oh and that 12 foot pike thing must be a Western thing. We only use nine footers in Ansteorra. So I have no thought on it. As far as spearmen hiding behind a sheildwall, if I'm in the sheildwall, I'm still able to look the other sheildman in the eyes and try to kill him if I can. I also wait for the moment to charge or for the formations to break up and then I get to go on a little rampage againt the spearmen. If I'm using glaive, i wait for my moment and close on the speaman. once I'm close, I'm better armed than the spearman, given that i have both cutting and stabbing surfaces.

So I figure that makes us even. I don't feel that it's even with the way CA is right now.

We don't use the 12 footers either, or if we do they are few and far between. I've had to face them from other Kingdoms though, I've even seen some 16 footers before. (Turns out they aren't effective in an SCA context. Too few of them and too slow to change direction. If there had been some 30+ of them THEN they might have been effective.)

audax wrote:I have also stated and restated and I guess i'll try it again for the hard of reading that I do tolerate archers, even going so far as to respect and treat them honorably.

You did, but I hadn't gotten that far through the rest of the thread to where you said that.

Me, I'm one of those folks who would like to defeate you on the war field before the two sides ever come to blows. If my side can defeat the other by tactics and maneuver I'm quite happy. Its just as cool though if the other side, once they have been caught in the nutcracker, manages to turn the tables.

BTW, my oppologies if I came off too strong or seemed insulting in my comments. I'm told I have a blunt way of writing that makes my friends wince a lot. It frequently comes across in ways I don't mean. Sorry about that.

Owyn · Post by **Owyn** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:21 am

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:We fight under a rule set, so we really are a sport. CA, when added into the mix, significantly alters the sport...Guns don't work in football, they don't work in our game.

CA doesn't work. I would like to see it gone. It isn't safe, and it makes the game stupid.

I think the arguments about historical relevance are missing the point here. We know archery was used in a historical context. Perhaps not by knights, but then again - most SCAdians are not knights, either. So from a historical perspective, the use of CA in wars makes a certain degree of sense.

The bottom line point, I think, is that SCA heavy list fighting is a game. It's a game which more or less recreates heavy contact fighting. We have a lot of rules for that game, most of them designed to let us all taste battle and still go back to work on Monday.

Because SCA fighting is a game, elements of that game should be analyzed for safety and for their addition to or detraction from the enjoyment of the game by the participants.

It doesn't matter if CA is historically accurate or not. What matters is whether the addition of CA to a battle is a) safe for the participants and b) adds to or detracts from the fun of the game.

Is it safe?
Is it fun?

If the answer is yes to both of those, then CA should be kept. If the answer is no to the first, or no to the second for the majority of participants, then it should be removed.

audax · Post by **audax** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:23 am

No harm no foul, vlasta. I can be blunt meself.

I gotta say, though, where is the fun of melee combat if no one ever comes to blows. Seems like we could just stay at home and phone it in, in that case.

I mean, in the real world, sure. Every effort should be made to preserve life. On the SCA battle field, since we don't really die and victory is not a matter of life or death, not so much.

Probably a philosophical conversation to be had over good food and beer.

mrks · Post by **mrks** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:24 am

this is a pretty good rendition of CA at gulfwars..

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StkyajKkku0

part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsWGiFs ... re=related

does it look fun to you? reminds me of paintball using the 1st generation splatmasters.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:26 am

audax wrote:But right now, it's getting very late. I'll make clarifications later.

Groovy. Meanwhile, I forgot to add Bohemia to the list, in a most relevant example: the knights of the Vltava district, who used crossbows in the very first battle of the Hussite revolution, attempting (unsuccessfully) to interdict Jan Zizka before he could cross with a relatively small band to where he would gain further supporters. Would be 1418 iirc. The Iron Lords were definitely knights. (reference is in Heymann's Jan Zizka and the Hussite Revolution, which I do not own, sadly, but having done lots of grad work on the Hussite Revolution, I can vouch that the chronicle reference is solid).