Combat Archery at NAAMA 2007

[pmel018]

Hi Guys
the Redheads arrived this morning and I will send them off to Victor in about 20 mins. They cost abot $22 a dozen (approx) and they would want an order of more than 100 to apply a discount. Anyhow these are free so try them out and report on the effects. Like Stuart I have been under arrow shot at Hastings(and have been shot at by the low powered crossbows that Steve made a few years ago.) In brief, if you don't have any padding on it bloody hurts, a decent padded garment will cut the sting and mail will reduce the impact to a mild punch.

Relying on the head alone to slow the arrow and make it safe is flawed to say the least, I have personally seen SCA 'approved' helmet grilles broken open by the arrows from the low powered bows that they use. At Hastings the draw weight was 50lbs at a standard length and the archers were required to test shoot on the battlefield before combat began, each was assigned a place and markers were place on the field to ensure no mistakes were made. Those of us on the recieving end were briefed about the dangers and told in no uncertain terms that looking up would result in our removal from the field, one way or another!!! The archers were about 200m from our line and even after all the careful testing etc arrows were easily overshooting us and landing amongst the TV crews to our rear. The arrows were all fitted with Redheads as it is the standard reenactment blunt, each arrow was fletched in the "flu-flu" style mentioned before but done in the traditional manner with linen thread. Each arrow was colour coded so owners could reclaim them at the end as each one represented a considerable outlay. Finally each arrow was inspected at the start and before each volley to ensure only sound arrows were used, appearantly some idiot at another event had slipped the blunt over a bodkin point thinking this made it safe!!!! Broken arrows on the ground pose a hazard so there were scurriers(mostly non-combatant children) who were tasked with clearing away the spent arrows and recycling them to the archery lines. Number of injuries.....0, and none of us had any special equipment visors etc. Direct shooting is another matter though and should be approached carefully as one injury will spoil it for everyone.
Sorry for the long waffle
Phil

[Víkarr]

Sasha, thanks for the specs on the Riverhaven blunt. Regardless of the blunts used I wouldnt personally be keen on or recommend firing arrows at people whos helmet visors have open eye slots and doubt that the extra diameter of the Riverhaven blunts adds much more prevention to entering a visor occular than any other blunt. The visors need to be fully enclosed, which sort of makes the argument of a larger sized blunt entering the visor occular redundant. The SCA folk require enclosed visors also.

Nigel, how did you propose to do this at NAAMA if people dont have suitable visors?

Derek recommended to me the Riverhaven blunts also but I would like to understand better the reasoning behind why some blunts are considered safer than others. I do agree that tried and tested ways of doing things are better and the Riverhaven blunts would allow a larger playing field as Sasha and Angel have suggested (which I think would appeal to a lot of people). Good points.

V.

[Chevalier]

[Víkarr]

oh right, my misunderstanding!

[pmel018]

Hi Victor
back from the P.O. now. If you are only using flights of arrows onto a group of fighters(ie. plunging fire) then all that is required is a decent helmet and some shields. It is relatively easy to see the arrows loosed and get the shield up in time. The only problem comes when some plonker wants to look up into the descending arrows. You need good leaders and steady troops to make it work, and it reqires practise. The impact of arrows on your sheild, helmet and armour is quite disconcerting, not to mention noisy, and can provoke illogical and dangerous responses( like looking into the sky) Training is required.
As to point shooting, well I've only seen it done by the SCA and it ended badly. If you had closed helmets, proper eye, throat and wedding tackle protection(breast protection for women) it might add something but the risks are much higher.
Phil

[gt1cm2]

While you guys are deciding on the rules regarding safety and visors I just want to show you this

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/59630276/

His eye slot looks to be quite narrow but still some wood managed to get thru. I know this picture is a) not related to archery and b) a freak accident but i believe it shows how much attention is needed to the small details. I'm not sure I would happy firing arrows at anyone unless the have mesh behind the slots or grill like slots (if that makes any sense).

[Grayson]

Ok guys my two cents worth,

Wouldn't hurt to follow Sca rules for the first time ( they have been there done that, so probably easier trying not to reinvent the wheel at this stage). As Angel said use the SCA specs then we could turn up and shoot at them, or the SCA Fighters would be able to bulk up the number of targets

Angel- Is there is any kind of Head of combat archery for the SCA that could speak to people before Naama rolls around

And once the rules are figured out and set in semi permenant concrete, post said rules/ requirements here and then run a workshop/grading class on Saturday/Sunday morning for both archers and targets so all people participating have a firm understanding of what is expected.

Thats my thoughts, sorry if i have gone over things already brought up.

Grayson

[Víkarr]

yeah what Grayson said.

and anyone who wants to look at SCA CA in Auckland Derek has offered to sort something out. Contact him at: derektomes@gmail.com

[Víkarr]

have been told that the SCA requires blunts to have a tip diameter of 3/4 inch and that the Redheads have been looked at by them - but because they dont have this tip diameter are not used

[Chevalier]

Rubbish! I am SCA and we use Riverhaven blunds. Who the heck did you talk to??

[NigelT]

Hello all.

Ok - just catching up after being offline all week.

I should probably put some of our current thoughts into words here. Keep in mind this is simply an indication of where our thinking is at present and not a final set of rules.


We're thinking of defining two distinct types of combat archery, each with their own rules and requirements:

(1) Volley Archery
Arrows must be flu-flu fletched (the definition of which is yet to be set). Draw weight will be restricted but probably to 50 or 60lbs, not 30lb. There will be a minimum range (probably 10 to 30m - depending on what we define as 'flu-flu'). There will be a minimum angle - it must be a 'lob shot' not a point shot.

Archers must not be targeted by any melee combatant or other archer. There will be an automatic kill range for all archers who are not kitted out to become a melee combatant. As with the SCA, when a melee combatant comes within range (perhaps 5m) of an archery, the archer is automatically dead and no physical contact should be made.

Arrows may be fired at melee combatants as long as (a) each volley is coordinated and anounced in a way that will alert all combatants to incoming arrows, (b) archers are firing from behind friendly ranks such that arrows can be predicted as to their direction and will not come in sideways, (c) normal melee armour requirements will suffice provided all participants have undergone an pre-combat orientation stating the rules and emphasising that they should look down, cover their faces, and raise their shields (if applicable) upon announcement of an incoming volley.

This will allow virtually everyone to participate in some form of combat archery. These rules will also apply to javelins, siege, and other forms of missle weapons.

The volley rules will need to be strictly enforced and perhaps Graysons suggestion of a grading before each days fighting is a good one to make sure people know what to do and we don't get people looking up into arrows.


(2) Point Archery
Point archery is defined as any unannounced arrow fired directly at a combatant (melee or archer) which breaks angle of attack rules defined for 'Volley Archery'. There will be a maximum draw weight of 30lbs, which will be measured and checked at weapons check. There will be a minimum range strictly enforced (yet to be set) and will require the same flu-flu fletched arrows as above. All participants who could be targets (usually all participants, including archers) will be required to have a minimum armour standard - chiefly head, face, neck, spine, (chest for women) and groin protection. The face protection will likely be fairly strict. We will probably adopt something similar to the SCA standard, although we're still in discussions on what form this will take - most likely 1.6mm perforated steel plate or 1.6mm wire mesh. Mesh will need to be structurally supported or strong enough to withstand a direct close range arrow hit - no helmet opening should be more than 5mm in diameter. Head and face protection should cover the entire skull and jaw against any arrow incident from above or below to an angle of maybe 20 to 30 degrees below horizontal (to allow for head movement, terrain etc). No arrow should be fired from a position lower than the target. A gorget should be worn if no other neck protection is provided.

These armour requirements will probably mean that only some combatants will easily be able to bring their kit up to standard, but hopefully with increased popularity more people will acquire the right kit so they can participate. We are looking at ways of temporarily attaching mesh to various existing helmet designs so that people with full-face helmets and the other armor can meet the 5mm diameter hole rule.

There has been a suggestion that we don't introduce point archery at this years NAAMA and instead try and drum up interest from volley archery, which can be done as part of almost any melee battle. Personally I think we should run several sessions at NAAMA for those who wish to participate and have the kit requirement.


Speed blunts - after listening to various people on this forum and reading elsewhere we've pretty much decided to avoid speed-blunts this time around because of their inherent safety risks and the probable lack of sufficient NAAMA combatants with enough armor to participate. However, we're looking at making some concessions in terms of defining the required fletching such that a compromise between a speed-blunt and a true flu-flu can be achieved - allowing a little more range and speed without increasing the risk beyond what is realistic for NAAMA combat. We've recognised that the SCA rules although a good place to start, are designed for people with more stringent armour requirements than what we are used to in steel reenactment circles and therefore some adjustments need to be made.

In terms of arrow design - I agree that all else being equal it makes sense to adopt the SCA standard for arrow construction, with the exception of the fletching, which will be safer than SCA rules.

Siege and other missile weapons - we're interested in including as many missile weapons in this venture as we can. Any suggestions on ways to include these safely would be welcome.


Questions and comments are welcome.


PS: As a separate enterprise we're looking at making combat arrows for sale and possibly selling temporary mesh visors to be attached over the top of existing full-face helms if there is a demand. If anyone else is interested in making armor that would allow people to acquire the required kit I'm sure people would greatfully purchase it rather than making it.

[pmel018]

Hi Guys
I can guarantee that done properly, flu-flu arrows will carry and easy 150 m from a 50lb bow loosed at about 45 degrees. How much more range do you need? I was able to walk the battlefield at Battle yesterday and was reminded how far the archers there reached on the day in 2000. It is uphill and much steeper than I remembered. The arrows used during that reenactment easily passed over our battle lines a distance of about 200+ m

I have contacted the Missile Thegn of the Vikings regarding their rules etc and will pass on such information as I recieve.
Phil

[Víkarr]

The redheads arrived Saturday (cheers Phil!). Have to say they look pretty nice. I've posted one off to Nigel so he can check it out. I plan to do some shooting with them over the next couple of weeks.

V.

[pmel018]

Hi Victor
that is excellent!!the system works. What did you think of the magazines, nice production values but a bit thin on content?? They are most useful as resource for obtaining stuff websites etc. Anyhow enjoy and I will pass on anything else I can find out.
Phil

[Stuart]

I see no point in prohibiting archers from shooting at other archers. It`s done all over Europe and is an integral part of any re-enactment.
-I also have no patience with any silly notions of " archers becoming automatically dead" if they get within a certain distance of heavy combat warrior. ...in the chaos of a battle do we really need such regulations ?

I would strongly suggest that the armchair rule concocters do a search for some of the video footage of UK/European re-enactments and get an idea of what works. We need minimal rules, not a ton of them...

I note that the Battle of Hastings was mentioned in these pages, and comment was made as to bow poundage required.
I fought at three Hastings, 1984, 190 & 1995. The Saxon army were on the top of a hill. Our Norman archers found it near impossible to hit the saxons at the designated range ( 150 meters ). Accordingly we used 50 pound longbows to get our flu-flus into the Saxon shields.
My point here is that Hastings was unique and in New Zealand ( our battle ground being fairly flat ) we do not need to shoot such high poundage .
35 pounds is sufficent for general combat .It`s also less nackering...!

Regards,

Stuart.