On Jul 28, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Kazimierz Verkmastare <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Better? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on your criteria. You are correct that technically the thin shafted arrows have longer range, better accuracy, and you can carry more. If that is your criteria for being better in the mixed field game, then by your criteria thin shafted arrows are better. But if you factor in elements that are not specifically technically about the ballistics of an arrow, you might reach a different conclusion, and sacrifice a bit of accuracy and range for gameplay more suited to the desired outcome. So subjectively it fits what we want to do better.
Yes. I happy to hear multiple opinions. And since, as I mention, most of what I've got in the Florilegium, I think, is oriented more toward the thin-shafted combat archery than golf tube arrows, I'm open to adding that side of the story to the Florilegium.
> When you can send an arrow accurately across a battlefield from one end to the other with a 30 pound bow, that is not historically accurate for most battles with a major involvement of archery. I suspect that in percentage of battlefield area in which an archer would be directly effective (point of aim shooting) the larger arrows are more representative of the historical reality, being able to accurately range only about 40-50% or less of our average battlefield with any kind of accuracy.
An interesting point. I will be adding this message to the c-archery-msg file in the Florilegium.
> I suggest that we can deliver a harder blow, easier to acknowledge in heavier armor. We can use a heavier bow, more realistic in the effect it has over time on the archers. We don't need any special armor for anyone to participate, watch, or marshal. Our arrows are easy to identify, they don't need constant re-inspection, and they are inherently safer. Our arrows materials can be sourced locally by anyone, and built without special equipment or skills. It makes the game easier to participate in by our standards, and creates what I consider an adequately dangerous and effective archery force without archery becoming a nuclear weapon.
What about the point that the golf-tube arrows can easily be knocked out of the air by most spearman?
> So consider it what you will, technicalities aside. It is a best fit for us, so we consider that in the name of the game as we play it it is preferable. Others have a different opinion, and they play the game they feel best suited. And if a better fit for us comes along, we will adopt it.
> And you know, while there are a few details to building a heavy arrow, there are not many things that can be written technically.
Umm. You have been doing it for a while. What about the new archer? Can they easily make arrows using just the rules for them?
Can you use the same bows (and crossbows) for both golf-tube arrows and target arrows?
> As for tactics and best use and that sort of thing, well, since most of the types on the field that actually practice Calontir combat archery have some background in hunting and sport archery away from the SCA, they simply learn to shoot what they have at the same types of targets that they would engage with another system. I have seen and been involved in a LOT of Calontir combat and siege missile weapon activities, and I can't say that we make significant use of any other historical precedence or developed archery tactics except ''it's wearing (insert opposition tape color here), shoot it, and if you miss and it gets too close then hit it with a stick." Target priority being the same in a battle, archers just might have a few more options to engage the priority targets.
Sounds a lot like what I think I would have heard in the early days of the SCA about shield walls. Until Calontir showed that an organized shield wall can be much more effective than an impromptu one.
> Not exactly Floregium stuff, but it gets the job done for us.
Useful enough that I think it deserves being placed in a message file.
Here is some of what I have on combat archery. It's been a while since I looked at most of them, but I'm not sure if the tactics mentioned apply to both types of combat archery or not. Hence, my interest in adding more information on the golf-tube version, especially for those who have not been involved with it before.
C-A-Basics-art (8K) 11/18/07 "Some Combat Archery Basics" by Sir Jon Fitz-Rauf, R.C.A., R.C.Y.
C-A-Handbook-art (108K) 10/29/96 Sir Jon's Combat Archery Handbook.
CA-Hunt-Tips-art (10K) 9/10/98 "Hunting Tips for Combat Archers" by Octavia
c-archery-msg (37K) 4/28/10 Combat archery in the SCA.
> And those, if there are any, with a more developed sense of tactics and authenticity with our gear will, I am certain, be happy to provide all kinds of information.
THLord Stefan li Rous Barony of Bryn Gwlad Kingdom of Ansteorra
Mark S. Harris Austin, Texas [log in to unmask]
**** See Stefan's Florilegium files at: http://www.florilegium.org ****