Missile combat - What did you think? Where to from here?

[Stuart]

In all the debate about of archery, two rather important questions seem to have been
forgotten.

1) In battlefield archery combat, how are the opposing archers supposed to tell the difference between a “heavy” archer and a “light” archer ? I mention this because at 50 meters it is near impossible to see any physical differences. Can you spot a mesh visor at that distance ?

2) How do we archers perform our primary purpose ? Which, I suggest, is to attack infantry and fortifications ?

As I see it, a re-enactment battlefield never stays static for long. Tactical movements of troops happens continually. In practice infantry tend to get mixed up with archers.
We have already had that scenario demonstrated inside the NAAMA fort, when infantry and archers were shoulder to shoulder. Can an archer be a legitimate target and the person next to them not..? We are not all exact shots all the time. I suggest that in practice all people standing next to an archer will be liable to become unwitting targets for long distance bow- shots.

So what do we do ? We could devise an even more complex set of archery rules which would break-down in practice. Or we make a single simple change that fixes everything…
I would suggest that a solution to both issues is simply to designate all battlefield combatants to the status of “light” and expand that “light” category to include the limited use of direct shots to the midriff and legs. Nothing higher.
Call it extra-lite, if you want !

None of this puts any restriction on the heavy archers. It does go some way to unify the concept of battlefield archery. So please give us feedback.

Armour. All the debates amongst archers have not mentioned the wishes of the infantry warriors. I think they should be polled. For what I heard at the last NAMMA many infantrymen have no intension of adopting full-face helmets ( the majority at the last NAAMA appears to favour Norman/Norse conicals ). I think it is unreasonable to expect them re-equip because of new archery rules. I respectfully suggest that it is the archer’s reasonability to adapt to the needs of the infantry’s existing armour, not the other way around.

The adoption of low-level direct shots would allow archers to work with the infantry. It is not perfect, but it is safe and most of the good folk who practiced throughout the weekend became very proficient in selectively targeting beer-bellies and legs.

Flu-flu v Speedblunts. You are correct that speedblunts fly much faster than flus. But remember that with an increase in speed comes an increase in ballistic energy (at point of impact). Being hit by a speedblunt is greater than being hit with a flu-flu from a 60 pound long-bow. Put on a gambeson and try it.
I have already indicated my concern at the way that speedblunts cannot easily be seen
( too fast to duck out of the way ). I got hit hard by one some years ago and cannot over emphasise how dangerous they can be.

Sharing of arrows. Battles are chaotic. In the smoke and fury of battle I don’t think we have the time to sort out who can shoot another person’s arrows. As long as the individual gets them back at the end of the show, that is fine by me. I made 50 arrows for NAAMA with the intension that they should be shared and used by anyone who could shoot. They were.

Over to you.

[shoelessgirl]

Stuart, I believe it has been pointed out on more than one occasion that at any one time there will only be LIGHT combat archery or HEAVY combat archery. At NO STAGE will there be a mixture of combatants on the field. Some people may be outfitted for heavy combat, but if any light combat archers are on the field then the whole "round" - if you will, will be light combat, and therefore only volley fire as announced by a marshall will be allowed.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the following statement:

[griff]

what about having scurriers to collect the arrows take them to the side to be checked by a marshall for that purpose or a least so they dont get trodden on during the battle. it would also get the next battle started a bit quicker because all the arrows have already been collected and checked.

[Stuart]

I favour the idea of combat re-enactment archers being an integrated part of an authentic medieval army. They take part in one big battle, like the one we had last weekend. They also have a more realistic battlefield role than just making volleys.

I hope that makes sense ? I am being inclusive. Archers and infantry together on the battlefield.

[shoelessgirl]

Hmmm... arrow scurriers is a possibility. I like the idea in terms of reducing the time between battles, but in terms of practicality, the scurriers themselves would need to be kitted out in full heavy armour and they would need to be absolutely neutral (i.e. not secretly returning arrows to their mates!)

I absolutely agree that archers and infantry should be on the same battlefield at the same time. The only way that I think that would be safe is if everyone was wearing full heavy combat armour to allow for stray arrows/misfires etc etc.

[Stuart]

This is good. We tried arrow scurriers, outside the fort, at the first battle. It worked really well.

[Joel of Old]

How about a system where everyone on the field of battle during missile fire is armed and armoured enough to qualify under the 'heavy' rules. Meanwhile archers off field are lobbing shots into the air in volleys.

That way there is no confusion as to who is heavy and who is light, as the 'light' archers are helmetless and off-field.

Also the battlefields need to be larger - when filled with people. This will need more (or at least more active) Marshalls armed with airhorns and loudspeakers.

Also the fact that most clubs are heading towards at least LHB combat means that the majority of peeps on the battlefield will have sufficient safety gear for direct fire.

Don't forget the gorgets though people.

[stephan]

Actually it just means that you'd need to invest about $5 to get some mesh to cover the eyeslits of your helm. Most people just go with a temporary solution that they can remove easily for normal combat.[/quote]

fair enough will do

[NigelT]

I think I should just invest in a tape recorder because I seem to be posting the same thing over and over.


OK, the current rules, as they WERE being practised at NAAMA state the following:


ALL combatants on the field will be wearing armour. Unless made explicitly clear to the contrary, ALL combatants are considered Lightly armoured and should only be targeted with volley shots. Unless you heard a marshal or organiser say to everyone before the battle that this was a HEAVY ONLY battle, then it was NOT a heavy battle in any way shape or form and nobody should be treated as such regardless of archery mesh or not. If you came to weapons check and had your gear certified as Heavy legal then you are a light combatant.

We DID NOT do any heavy combat with mass battles. The only heavy combat we did was with four people to one side after everyone else had finished and wandered off. The only time we mixed light and heavy was during practise rounds down by the archery range where people got to shoot directly at the advancing heavies. That was the ONLY time.

OK, unarmoured archers can be used provided they stay OUTSIDE of the field of battle (nobody on the field without armour!). They are NOT targets for anyone in this case. The archers will NOT move around, break in smaller groups or cross the battlefield - this makes it difficult for combatants to predict where arrows are coming from and adequately cover their faces.

Arrow scurriers could be used provided there is no risk of them being hit either by arrows or combatants. In most battles it's not possible to do this safely. If it were possible to do it safely and they could be checked in the presence of a marshal then in theory they could be reused IF and only if everyone had been given the specific directive to do this. In the absence of any clear instruction to the contrary, you should assume that your arrows are dead once they've been fired, end of story.

DO NOT shoot other peoples arrows. At no time was this endorsed as OK by any marshal or organiser. It's the same as picking up someone elses sword and using it - you just don't do it. If you wish to lend your arrows to someone else then that is fine. If you wish to borrow arrows from someone then you ask permission to use them.


For the love of God and all that is holy, DO NOT MAKE ME EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN or else I will block you from participating in archery related conversations for One Week. If you are in any doubt, read the compiled rules document and the miriad of previous posts stating the same thing repeatedly.

If you have something new to discuss then go for it. But, if you're going to tell us that we should be doing things differently and suggest that we do it the way we've been doing it all along, it makes for very frustrating reading.

Don't tell us the rules don't work when you clearly don't understand them. If you would like to have something in the rules clarified then you only need to ask, but we expect you to listen when we explain them.

Yes, I am now grumpy.

Nigel

[Chevalier]

Amen.

[Stuart]

Dera Grumpy,

No-one was criticing you. Not in any way.
We were having a discussion about the ways that archery could evolve in the future.
You also asked me to post that last essay.

[NigelT]

I did and thank you. I was just hoping that you would have modified it slightly given that most of your converns had already been addressed.

Anyway, thank you all for providing feedback. Keep it coming. I'll start sifting through the rules and what people have said and try making some recommendations that I think everyone will be happy with.

Nigel