Missile Combat Rules

[Angel]

[Stuart]

Oh dear, here we go again....

None of the practices you descibe ( so graphically ) can be attribitued to me or any other responsible archer.
Is what you describe an SCA problem, or are you trying to fly another argument based on a bogus ( and alarmist ) claim ?

If you want to waste your time, go right ahead. The rest of this thread has passed judgement and moved on.

[weekend_viking]

[Stuart]

And good morning to you Mr Zane ..So how did you suffer the misfortune to loose both an eye and a tooth ?

[weekend_viking]

The eye was ruptured by a small wood splinter that took me in the face while I was trimming a wedge with a side axe, for the ridge beam pin of a replica Anglo Saxon hut, on the site the Ancient Arts Fellowship have with the Danelaw chaps to the southwest of Sydney. Still have peripheral vision out of it, but lost most of the macular retina and paralysed the iris, so it's essentially blind in bright light or at night.

The tooth, initially snapped off by a low flying bottle in the mid eighties, capped, then lost the cap to abcess developed after face strike in ice hockey game, got a plate, had that broken several times during sport and drinking bouts. I do wonder why all the impacts to my mouth strike that tooth (right hand secondary incisor) particularly.

There has been one bloke lose an eye in similar manner to mine during SCA combat archery in Australasia, because he had substandard mesh in his faceplate that the blunt pushed inwards to contact the eye, and destroyed the cornea and lens, I think. The woodchip that did me in was about the same thickness as an arrow blunt. I had one incident in the late nineties when one of my blunts took someone's mesh bascinet faceplate orthogonally at its weakest point, stove the mesh in and bruised his cheek, but that was more a facet of his substandard mesh attachment than the strength of the arrow blow.

Suffice to say that I'm cautious about doing combat archery anyway, even with full face protection, because after I buggered my right eye, I'm under medical command to avoid impacts to the head because they can complicate it further (and I'd sorta like to keep what peripheral vision remains). I spent a fair bit of time with my opthalmologist discussing my various reenactment sports, showed him the weapons and rules, and he banned me from SCA heavy, allowed me SCA combat archery, and some steel (late period fencing, semi-choreographed non headblow Steel).

[Stuart]

Sorry to hear about your injuries. I hope Odin & Fenris smile on you in future.
Any idea of what bow poundage was in use in Australia and the range at which the incident happened ?

[weekend_viking]

Odin can steer well clear of me, I'm not into death and poetry.

The chap was SCA, Hamilton, mid nineties, bow thirty pounds or less, range greater than 5m, but otherwise unknown. Had his equipment been properly checked, he would not have been allowed on the field by reason of the sub spec mesh.

[Stuart]

Was that Hamilton NZ , or Aussi ?
-why on earth was someone loosing at such short range ?

[griff]

Stuart Hamilton is in NZ its about 2hrs drive south of Auckland.
its a nice place, there are some odd charcters down there but there nice to you may have meet some of them at the thorablot feast. (sorry off topic)

[Stuart]

Hello Griff,

Yep, Hamilton is good...

[Angel]

Setting aside where any of the rules may have originally come from - the intent of the rule is more important than whoever devised it. The intent is to balance safety and fun.

Identify a problem, or potential problem, and mitigate the risk.

Unannounced direct targeting is inherently more dangerous than announced volleys. In my opinion, it's also a hell of a lot more fun. Changes to the equipment required reduce the risks of participation, while still allowing the fun.

Firing sharp arrows at people is dangerous. We mitigate the risk by using rubber blunts instead of target or hunting points. Riverhaven blunts (as used by the SCA in NZ and Australia) are deemed preferable due to the greater striking surface, and thickness of rubber at the tip. Redheads (as used in the UK) are also allowed.

We have established that the standard arrow shafts used in archery in NZ can and do occasionally break under normal use in such a manner as to pose a hazard. Taping the arrows reduces this risk - it doesn't totally eliminate it, but any reduction is obviously benficial. Arrows also break when stepped on, but shit happens. They'll all be thoroughly checked before being fired again, and broken or cracked arrows will be removed from use.

Copping a blunt arrow in the eye could be potentially fatal. Copping a broken arrow would be the worst case scenario, so we protect the eyes etc from something the size of a broken arrow shaft.

We limit the poundage of the bows and draw length of the arrows to keep the max potential speed of the arrow down to something reasonable. Fletching the arrows as flu-flus slows them down further.

The blunts that we use and the max poundage of the bows is still sufficient for killing rabbits and other small animals. The structures of the throat are vulnerable to damage from a similar hit - and hits to the throat do happen with unannounced direct targeting - as Stuart has attested to in another thread. Protecting the throat with some manner of gorget has been declared to be required armour.

Some archers are there for the shooting, they don't want to be struck by anything other than return missiles. The NAAMA rules already state that you can refuse to fight someone, so archers have the option to yield without being struck.

Now which other rules were there issues with? and what are the alternatives for mitigating the risk that the rule is intended for?

Nigel asked for thoughts on rules that we might like to see, and things that we have seen work elsewhere, and so that's what we've given him. My experience comes via combat archery within the SCA in NZ and Australia. Stuart's comes from his experience of combat archery in the UK. The two traditions seem to be quite different animals, but that doesn't make one more valid than the other.

If the form of combat archery that we want to do at NAAMA (in this case heavy missile combat) bears more resemblance to SCA combat archery, then it makes sense to use the accumulated wisdom of those who have been doing it for the past decade or more. In fact, we would be remiss in our duty of care to ignore any of the problems that they have experienced while doing such a similar activity, and take note of what they have done to prevent such incidents.

[weekend_viking]

[Stuart]

Well, as some of my writings have been taken, most selectively, out of context I fell obliged to reply.

The incident at Hastings twenty+ years ago was caused by a 140 pound longbow shooting a full cloth yard "speed blunt" at range of less than ten meters.
That is about twenty times the ballistic energy of the kids bows the SCA wants us to use at NAAMA. Is a 30 pound bow with a 28 inch arrow a children`s bow ? According to New Zealand Archery Products of Nelson, yes it is.

The SCA also goes on to claim that this child`s bow will kill small animals. I am a bow hunter and to hunt with anything less 50 pounds is cruel and ineffective. So once again, we can see a pattern of alarmist hype and misrepresenation from the SCA.
They tell us we must obey their rules for safey. But their own safety record is shocking. Look at Austrailia, what sort of fool allows the loosing of arrows to the head of a warrior at only 5 meters ? There is something badly wrong with the mindset of SCA training if they consider this responsible archery. They are quick the blame the victim ( who lost an eye ) , but reluctant to admit his eye injury was made more severe by the metal screen he was forced to wear.
-and now they expect us to follow their rules ?
I think not.
Let us assume they get their way. We will be shooting children`s arrows from children`s bows. What is the effective range ? With a 28 inch arrow not more than 30-40 meters. Anything further will require a huge elevation of the bow and accuracy will be lost. The arrows will not fly true. As a warrior I would rather face one accurate archer than ten who can`t shoot for s***.
Inaccurate fire is dangerous fire. Thats a fact.

Moving on, what is all this nonsense about "heavy & light " archers ? We sould be having one catagory only. Archers. Anything else is confusing and requires increased resources from the marchals. But isn`t that the idea ? More SCA officials taking over. Oh yes, I think we may have found an agenda...
We need a minimum number of simple and sensible rules. The SCA way is the wrong way to do it.
What would I do ? Well, for a start, I would assign each company of archers an experienced captain. He/she directs the shoot and calls targets.
He/she also runs training before the main battle.
...see . It`s easy. It does not have to be complicated.

[weekend_viking]

[gt1cm2]