archery-msg - 5/20/10

Modern traditional archery. Techniques.

NOTE: See also the files: p-archery-msg, archery-SCA-msg, crossbows-msg, arch-shoots-msg, arrows-msg, merch-archery-msg, archery-books-msg, bow-making-msg.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

From: rvd at bunker.UUCP (Robert Del Favero Jr.)
Date: 29 Mar 90 18:18:56 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company, Shelton, CT

I wanted to pass along some information about a useful source for
archery information.  

Rialto denizen Master Dafydd ap Gwystl edits _Fletch_and_Point_, the
Atlantian archery newsletter.  I've seen a number of issues of F&P, and
it contains a wide variety of articles covering the history and period
practice of archery.  Recent issues have contained a comprehensive list
of mail-order sources for archery and fletching supplies (something I
know people on the Rialto have sought in the past) and articles on how
to make period-style arrows, the history of the quiver, conditioning
for archers, how to "sight in" a set of arrows, bow aiming, combat
archery Atlantia-style, and the use of archers in period naval combat.
Coverage seems to be broad and of high quality.  I recommend it to
those of you who are interested in archery in the Society.

Subscriptions to F&P are available from Master Dafydd for $4 for six
issues.  Issues are scheduled every other month, but the vicissitudes
of mundane life occaisionally conspire to delay an issue.  Back issues
are available for $1 per issue.

To subscribe (make checks payable to David Kuijt) or get more information, 
write to Master Dafydd:

        David Kuijt
        2801 Ashmont Terrace
        Silver Spring, MD 20906
        e-mail: kuijt at alv.umd.edu

In service to the Society, I am

        Vittorio del Fabbro
        Citizen of the Arts Archipelago
        East Kingdom

From: malloy at crash.cts.com (Sean Malloy)
Date: 28 May 90 06:43:42 GMT

In article <102539 at convex.convex.com> ewright at convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
writes:
>I saw the same documentary -- or a similar one -- on the Discovery
>channel recently.  They showed that an arrow would penetrate the
>armor plate *if* it struck at a normal (90 degree) angle, but would
>bounce of if it struck a glancing blow.  The researchers performing
>the experiment also found that armor was built in such a way that
>most arrows would strike glancing blows, making a fatal or disabling
>wound from a single arrow quite unlikely.  Not impossible, of course,
>but it would be rather like the "golden BB" from an infantry assault
>rifle that brings down a modern combat jet. 

The Welsh longbowmen would often put a small ball of beeswax on the points
of their arrows. This served the same purpose as the soft iron cap on APC
(Armor Piercing, Capped) antitank shells did -- the cap would deform on
impact, holding the point of the shell/arrow in place to increase the
likelihood that penetration would occur.

Sean Malloy                                         | "What are ... Whores-
  {hplabs!hp-sdd, akgua, ucsd, nosc}!crash!malloy   | Doovres?"
  ARPA: crash!malloy at nosc                           | "Or-derves. It's a Frog
Navy Personnel Research and Development Center      | word that means
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                            | munchies."
  UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, akgua, ucsd}!nprdc!malloy   | "Oh. They could have
  ARPA: malloy at nprdc.navy.mil                       | said."

Date: 27 May 90 12:28:28 GMT
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism
Arrows versus arrow:

My lord husband is a maker both of chainmail and a shooter of bows.  He
conducted the following experiment.

He draped his chain mail hauberk over a six inch thick foam archery target
whent he target was still new and shot it.

The chainmail is made of 12 gauge spring tempered fully hardened stainless
steel with and interior diameter of 1/4 inch.  It is the densest, heaviest
chainmail I have seen in the SCA.  It is butted only, not welded or riveted.  

An arrow fired form a 45 # recurve at a range of about fifteen yards penetrated
the chainmail like it wasn't there, piereced the target foam, and pierced the
back of the hauberk.  The arrow stuck out about five inches behind the
shoulder.  

The arrow was a SCA legal wooden shaft.  My husband was much inpressed, and as a reminder of the lethal power of archeyr, he repaired the hauberk with bronze rrings to mark the place.

Interestingly, the armor suffered little damage.  One ring was deformed to the
point it had to be replaced, the other rings around it merely were reconnected
when the new ring was inserted. 

The arrow was undamaged by being drawn through the target and armor, if you'd like to try this yourself.

I think the longbow used in the previous reported experiement against plate
mail must have been rather light.  also, do note that "poundage" of bows does
not produce the same amount of force in psite of the same weight.  A bow that
is sluggish in firing and produces a lot of handshock (a typical bow) looses a
great deal of its efficiency by diverting energy from teh arrow to the archer.
A bow with a smooth release transmits energy tot he arrow very efficiently,
thereby allowing greater speed and penetration.  It is quite possible for  an
efficient 35 pound bow to do more damage than an inefficient 50 pound bow.  This is just another reason why you should by the best quality equipment you can afford--and try it out before buying it.  

Another factor are the arrows.  Most arrows are splined to within about 5-6
pounds, however in practice a lot of arrows may very by considerably more. This will definitely affect your accuracy, and possibly your penetration.  A few 
perfectionists in the SCA spline within one pound.  This gives a much closer
grouping, and much greater pinpoint accuracy.  Further, tips and shafts can
very significanly inthe amount they weight.  Again, a properly splined batch
might vary as much as 7o grams from one another-and so effect your accuracy.
Teh heavier ones are going to hit lower and slower, the lighter ones will be
higher and faster.  Perfectionists allow only a 10 gram variations among
arrows.  The more consistant the arrow, the tighter and more accurate the
grouping.  The lighter the arrow, the further it will fly.  

My husband has a variety of arrows.  He has aluminum and wooden shafts, both
with feather fletching.  The arrows he has by a master fletcher are
reproductions of the Mary Rose arrows.  They fly sweet!  While shooting at the
clout shoot at last Pennsic, he was amazed to discover he was putting them to 
the 150 yard target, not the 100 as he was trying. I will be happy to provide 
the name of our fletcher (he does mail order) to any interested archer.  At 
fifty dollars the dozen, they are very reasonably priced arrows.  
 
This are some of the basic things SCA archers can consider when buying
equipment: good equipement is a joy to use, and makes learning easier.  If you
want to get really into archery, custom made pre-stressed bows and other 
wonders await.  (A custom made bow is not just one you special order, it is fit to
your personal measurements and shooting style. It is designed to maximize your
shooting, no one else's)

Yours in service to archery
Awilda Halfdane
bright hills, atlantia

From: amanda at mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Date: 31 May 90 16:22:16 GMT

Awilda Halfdane writes about an arrow from a 45 lb. bow at 15 yds. pene-
trating chainmail easily, and concluding:
> I think the longbow used in the previous reported experiement against plate
> mail must have been rather light.

This is not a good comparison.  Chainmail protects by absorbing force, and
plate works by deflecting it.  Chainmail works best against a weapon with
a large impact area, a lot of mass, and relatively low speed, such as a
sword, mace, or rattan sword.  This is part of why it makes such fine SCA
armor.  An arrow will have an extremely small impact area, low mass, and
is delivered at extremely high speed--as your lord husband discovered,
chainmail doesn't do so well with it.

Plate armor, on the other hand, by presenting rigid, oblique surfaces, is
best at deflecting light, fast weapons with small impact areas such as
arrows or rapiers.  The general idea is to arrange the armor so that as many
blows as possible will slide on impact, thus turning into glances.  This
is why beeswax on the point of an arrow will help it pierce armor plate:
it deforms and prevents the arrow from skittering off, thus allowing the
energy of the arrow to be transmitted to the armor itself.

Gosh, I hadn't realized that I remembered all that :-).
--
Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation

From:    Ioseph of Locksley  
To:      All
31-May-90 06:20pm
Subject: Mail (chain type)

From: amanda at mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) 
 
>This is not a good comparison.  Chainmail protects by absorbing force, and 
>plate works by deflecting it.  Chainmail works best against a weapon with 
>a large impact area, a lot of mass, and relatively low speed, such as a 
>sword, mace, or rattan sword.  This is part of why it makes such fine SCA 
>armor.  An arrow will have an extremely small impact area, low mass, and 
>is delivered at extremely high speed--as your lord husband discovered, 
>chainmail doesn't do so well with it. 
 
        Ah....this is not so....mail protects well against cuts and slashes, 
        but, even with a well-padded gambeson underneath it it will NOT 
        protect against impact weapons like axes and maces. As a matter of  
        fact, maces were developed for the primary purpose of defeating 
        mail. 
 
        (Medieval European broadswords should not be considered as primarily         "cutting" weapons, but rather as edged "impact" weapons, like axes.) 
 
        Mail can be made of heavy enough links to withstand impact quite well,

        (I remember Duke Reynard's Chapeau-de-Fer with hanging mail that he 
        wore as a helm) but the weight becomes a limiting factor here. Plate 
        is actually -lighter- in this instance, and a heck of a lot easier 
        to make. 
 
>Plate armor, on the other hand, by presenting rigid, oblique surfaces, is 
>best at deflecting light, fast weapons with small impact areas such as 
>arrows or rapiers.  The general idea is to arrange the armor so that as many 
>blows as possible will slide on impact, thus turning into glances.  This 
>is why beeswax on the point of an arrow will help it pierce armor plate: 
>it deforms and prevents the arrow from skittering off, thus allowing the 
>energy of the arrow to be transmitted to the armor itself. 
 
        This is quite correct, except for the assumption that the rapier is 
        a "light, fast" weapon. In comparison to the medieval Broadsword, yes,

        it is....but it is NOT as quick, or as light, as the modern epee  
        (developed from the 18th Century Smallsword.) 
        Mail, with small diameter links, is FINE protection against the  
        slashes and cuts used in true rapier combat, and will even, if  
        properly tempered and riveted/welded, hold up against a thrust. 
        Look at the blade of the US Army Model 1918 Cavalry Sabre. THAT is 
        a period rapier blade. 
                                        -Ioseph of Locksley 

From: joltes at husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Richard Joltes) 
Date: 31 May 90 19:04:50 GMT 
Organization: Harvard University Science Center   Cambridge, MA 
 
In article <266544B9.1462 at intercon.com> amanda at mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda 
Walker) writes: 
>Awilda Halfdane writes about an arrow from a 45 lb. bow at 15 yds. pene- 
>trating chainmail easily, and concluding: 
>> I think the longbow used in the previous reported experiement against plate 
>> mail must have been rather light. 
> 
>This is not a good comparison.  Chainmail protects by absorbing force, and 
>plate works by deflecting it.  Chainmail works best against a weapon with 
>a large impact area, a lot of mass, and relatively low speed, such as a 
>sword, mace, or rattan sword.  
Yi!  I don't know about you, but I'd NEVER use unaugmented chain as SCA armour
since chain is essentially designed to deflect/stop cutting instruments only!
Chain is great (well, pretty good ;-) ) against swords and daggers, but it's
pretty well useless against mass weapons like maces & hammers since their
damage is caused by crushing (for most purposes, all SCA weapons act like
this).
Chain does not really absorb force--it prevents penetration by non-pointed 
cutting instruments (and riveted chain will *usually* stop arrows since the
links cannot be spread).  Also, I know too many SCA fighters who've used 
unaugmented chain for rattan combat and now sport permanent "watermarks" on
the first body part (yow!) that was nailed by a heavy shot.  To use chain in
SCA combat one should pad it heavily (probably more so than in period times)
and probably use concealed rigid protection underneath in the vital areas.

>Plate armor, on the other hand, by presenting rigid, oblique surfaces, is
>best at deflecting light, fast weapons with small impact areas such as
>arrows or rapiers.  The general idea is to arrange the armor so that as many
>blows as possible will slide on impact, thus turning into glances.  This

Yes, one of the functions of plate is to cause as many blows as possible to
glance, but it also acts to spread a solid blow's force across more area and 
to prevent penetration by a sword or crushing by a mace.  Some have argued
that
the fluting and parallel ridges found on many pieces of (esp. later) plate are
solely decorative.  Wrong!  Fluting increases the ability of the piece to
resist being deformed (read: collapsed) by a blow--it's much harder to cause
a fluted piece to deform than a flat piece, all other factors being equal.

>Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation

Lord Alexander "Tam" Chulannan                  joltes at husc4.harvard.edu
Canton of the Towers (a subsidiary of Carolingia), East Kingdom
Squire to Sir Emeric Wendel the Diversified

From: gilmore at vms.macc.wisc.edu (Neil Gilmore)
Date: 1 Jun 90 03:13:22 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

     Konichi-wa Rialto:
I do not believe that lacquer stops arrows better than steel, but...
The old style of armor, o-yoroi, is in every case I have seen, covered 
with leather. I would guess that the arrows which didn't penetrate might 
tend to stay stuck in the armor more than arrows which struck bare metal 
might stick. Newer armors had their lacings exposed, and being 
ultimately constructed of small plates laced and lacquered together. An 
arrow which struck hard enough to crack the lacquer, but not penetreate 
the plate, also might get caught in the lacings. This is my reasoning 
for the fairly consistant portrayal of arrows stuck into armor in 
Japanese art and stories. It is quite likely that armor of the Japanese 
sort would catch arrows more readily than smooth plate as used in 
Europe. I realize that Europe also had non-plate armors, but archery (at 
least in early times) wasn't a massed affair. Rather, archery was used 
against an individual, instead of against a formation. Thus, I expect 
that more arrows would get stuck in arm.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kitakaze Tatsu Raito  Neil Gilmore     internet:gilmore at macc.wisc.edu | 
| Jararvellir,          MACC, UW-Madison bitnet: gilmore at wiscmac3       |  
| Middle Kingdom        Madison, Wi      DoD #00000064 (no ints here)   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: michaelm at vax.SPD.3Com.Com (Michael McNeil)
Date: 1 Jun 90 17:24:14 GMT
Organization: 3Com Corp., Santa Clara, CA

samlb at pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Bassett RCS) writes:

>In article <9005312026.AA19667 at silver.LCS.MIT.EDU> huff at SILVER.LCS.MIT.EDU
(Robert Huff) writes:
>>      There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklin proposed
>>that units be raised for the Continental Army and equipped with long-bow. He
>>reportedly cited the efficiency of the weapon in the hands of the Indians
....
>       Not apocryphal, the way I heard it -- the Founding Fathers knew
>their history, and reasoned that a good archer could get off more aimed
>shots per time period than a contemporary musket-wielder.  The idea was
>abandoned when they couldn't find enough bowyers and fletchers to arm the
>Continental Army adequately -- the crafts had died out.

I haven't heard that story about Benjamin Franklin vis-a-vis archery,
but here's what Winston Churchill wrote in his *A History of the English-
Speaking Peoples* about the rise of archery in the medieval English Army:

        At the same time {as the Welsh wars of Edward I} a counter-
        revolution in the balance of warfare was afoot.  The mailed
        cavalry which from the fifth century eclipsed the ordered ranks
        of the legion were wearing out their long day.  A new type of
        infantry raised from the common people began to prove its
        dominating quality.  This infantry operated, not by club or
        sword or spear, or even by hand-flung missiles, but by an
        archery which, after a long development, concealed from Europe,
        was very soon to make an astonishing entrance upon the military
        scene and gain a dramatic ascendancy upon the battlefields of
        the Continent.

        Here was a prize taken by the conquerors from their victims.  
        In South Wales the practice of drawing the long-bow had already
        attained an astonishing efficiency, of which one of the Marcher
        lords has left a record.  One of his knights had been hit by an
        arrow which pierced not only the skirts of his mailed shirt,
        but his mailed breeches, his thigh, and the wood of his saddle,
        and finally stuck deep into his horse's flank.

        This was a new fact in the history of war, which is also a part
        of the history of civilization, deserving to be mentioned with
        the triumph of bronze over flint, or iron over bronze.  For the
        first time infantry possessed a weapon which could penetrate
        the armour of the clanking age, and which in range and rate of
        fire was superior to any method ever used before, or ever used
-->     again until the coming of the modern rifle.  The War Office
-->     has among its records a treatise written during the peace
-->     after Waterloo by a general officer of long experience in the
-->     Napoleonic wars recommending that muskets should be discarded
-->     in favor of the long-bow on account of its superior accuracy,
-->     rapid discharge, and effective range. {1}

Concerning the time a generation later, during the beginning of the
Hundred Years' War in the reign of Edward III, Churchill continues:

        The English people stood at this time possessed of a commanding
        weapon, the qualities of which were utterly unsuspected abroad.  
        The long-bow, handled by the well-trained archer class, brought
        into the field a yeoman type of soldier with whom there was
        nothing on the Continent to compare.  An English army now rested
        itself equally upon the armoured knighthood and the archers.

        The power of the long-bow and the skill of the bowmen had
        developed to the point where even the finest mail was no
        certain protection.  At two hundred and fifty yards the arrow
        hail produced effects never reached again by infantry missiles
        at such a range until the American civil war.  The skilled
        archer was a professional soldier, earning and deserving high
        pay.  He went to war on a pony, but always with a considerable
        transport for his comfort and his arrows.  He carried with him
        a heavy iron-pointed stake, which, planted in the ground,
        afforded a deadly obstacle to charging horses.  Behind this
        shelter a company of archers in open order could deliver a
        discharge of arrows so rapid, continuous, and penetrating as to
        annihilate the cavalry attack.  Moreover, in all skirmishing
        and patrolling the trained archer brought his man down at
        ranges which had never before been considered dangerous in the
        whole history of war.

        Of all this the Continent, and particularly France, our nearest
        neighbor, was ignorant.  In France the armoured knight and his
        men-at-arms had long exploited their ascendancy in war.  The
        foot-soldiers who accompanied their armies were regarded as the
        lowest type of auxiliary.  A military caste had imposed itself
        upon society in virtue of physical and technical assertions
        which the coming of the long-bow must disprove.  The protracted
        wars of the two Edwards in the mountains of Wales and Scotland
        had taught the English many hard lessons, and although European
        warriors had from time to time shared in them they had neither
        discerned nor imparted the slumbering secret of the new army.  
        It was with a sense of unmeasured superiority that the English
        looked out upon Europe towards the middle of the fourteenth
        century. {2}
--
Michael McNeil                  michaelm at vax.DSD.3Com.COM (3comvax.UUCP)
3Com Corporation                ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Santa Clara, California         work telephone: (408) 492-1790 x 5-208

Reference

{1}  Winston S. Churchill, *A History of the English-Speaking Peoples*,
Vol. I, "The Birth of Britain," Dodd, Mead and Co., New York, 1962, p. 300.

{2}  pp. 332-333.

From: kr0u+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) 
Date: 1 Jun 90 21:44:34 GMT 
Organization: Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA 
 
>From: amanda at mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) 
 
>       ...         ...         Chainmail protects by absorbing force, and 
>plate works by deflecting it.  Chainmail works best against a weapon with 
>a large impact area, a lot of mass, and relatively low speed, such as a 
>sword, mace, or rattan sword.  ... 
 
>Plate armor, on the other hand, by presenting rigid, oblique surfaces, is 
>best at deflecting light, fast weapons with small impact areas such as 
>arrows or rapiers.  The general idea is to arrange the armor so that as many 
>blows as possible will slide on impact, thus turning into glances.  ... 

   Actually, I have to disagree.  The idea behind both styles of armor
is to prevent the object from penetrating your body.  The effective
methods are (1) slow the object gradually to spread out the energy
delivered at any time, (2) distribute the impact so that you can absorb
it and so that you are not cut or crushed, and (3) deflect the impact so
that you don't absorb much of the blow at all.

    Chainmail does a good job on (1), as the loose mass slows the impact
considerably, reducing the speed at which things hit you.  (The thick
padding under medieval armor helps a lot too :-)  Chainmail also
distributes the blow somewhat - widening the effective edge of a sword
so that your padding can absorb it, and so that you are not _cut_.  You
aren't hit with an edge, you're hit with a line of links.  Naturally,
chainmail isn't too good at deflecting blows - it's too flexible.  As
for arrows, as Amanda mentioned, they tend to just split a link and go
right through.
   Interesting side note: in one of the books on armor I read (many
moons ago, I don't recall the title) the Spanish use of armor in the New
World was discussed.  Apparently a few sets of 3/4 plate and chainmail
were brought over - obsolete in Europe, but they figured that the
American Indians were pretty poorly armed.  The breastplates helped a
lot, but the chain was worse than no armor at all! Turns out that cane
arrows, used in much of the southwest Spanish areas, splinter upon
hitting chainmail and penetrate in lots of little toothpick diameter
pieces, rather than whole.  Chain shirts weren't used very long...

   Plate, on the other hand, weighs less than chain, and does not do as
much of a job of slowing (1) impacts by itself.  What it _does_ do is
distribute the blow (2), for example over the entire chest, so that no
one part of your body takes much energy.  Then you are using that entire
body mass to slow the weapon and absorb the impact.  It is _not_ mainly
for use with fast, light weapons; I understand that by the late medieval
period 80% of the chivalry carried mass weapons, as the plate rendered
most swords ineffective.  If plate did not work well with mass weapons,
people would have gone back to chain.  It also does a fine job of
deflecting (3) arrows, javelins, poorly aimed strikes, and whatnot, and
I understand that was one of the major design criteria.

   Just thought I'd throw in my two cents...
                                                   kwr
                                        aka Donnallain o'r Galaru Glais

From: holland at POLARIS.LLNL.GOV (Robert Holland) 
Date: 1 Jun 90 17:28:06 GMT 
 
Subject: Archery and Armor 
 
In #722, Lord Alexander writes that riveted mail would *usually* stop an arrow 
as the links could not be spread. 
 
In his book "Hunting With the Bow and Arrow", Saxton Pope (for those not 
familiar with him, he was instrumental in bring back bow hunting as a sport early 
in this century) recounts this episode: 
 
He asked the curator of a museum if he could shoot his bow at a coat of
(rivet) mail from the colection. The curator was so sure of the mail's protective
qualities that he offered to *wear* it and be shot at. Wisely declining this
offer, Saxton Pope placed the mail over a *wooden box filled with meat*.
He then fired at it using a 75 lb draw longbow. The arrow had a homemade
broadhead point (*not* a bodkin). The arrow entered the front of the mail,
went through the box, through the meat, through the back of the box, and
caused the mail to bulge out in the back. The link that was penetrated had 
been neatly sliced by the broadhead.
 The curator turned green.

Do not underestimate the amount of force behind an arrow!

Viscount Sir Robert of Woodsend

From: I326 at vmteach.sheffield-city-poly.ac.uk ("Jim N. Deakin", I326 at
VMTEACH)
Date: 4 Jun 90 10:48:57 GMT
  
In Digest #724 Michael McNeil quotes Sir Winston Churchill:
>   In South Wales the practice of drawing the long-bow had already 
>   attained an astonishing efficiency, of which one of the Marcher 
>   lords has left a record.  One of his knights had been hit by an 
>   arrow which pierced not only the skirts of his mailed shirt, 
>   but his mailed breeches, his thigh, and the wood of his saddle, 
>   and finally stuck deep into his horse's flank. 
  
Robert Hardy also repeats this anecdote in his book on the longbow
(I forget the actual title), but adds that the knight, on being hit,
turned to retreat and was shot again in the other thigh, with a
similar effect! Nailing him firmly to his saddle.
 
Jim Deakin
.........................................................................
From:      Jim Deakin,   |
  33 Honeywell Street,   |    Magicien was noon That koude expounde
             Barnsley,   |      what this lettre mente.  -Chaucer.
             S. Yorks.   |
             S71 1PU     |
              England.   |
.........................................................................

From: graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders)
Date: 4 Dec 91 02:36:18 GMT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.

Greetings!

Fiacha - archery, like anything else, is boring to watch if you don't
know what is going on.  (Italian Ren dancing would bore me to tears if
it weren't for the certain proportion of the dancers who would be interesting
no matter what they were doing.)  And, yes, it is frequently and quite
prevalently 'non-period'; that this is 'hopeless', I really doubt.  The
only things you can't buy, in the way of period archery tackle, are points.
You will probably also have to look very hard for natural fibre strings,
but that's about it.  (ok - I'm assuming someone can be induced to learn
how to tie fletches on, but thread-over-glue is period - so what if you
wait a little longer than normal? :] )

Matt - you must have missed it; the short version (what? sighs of relief?)
is that no one really knows what period arrows look like because none have
survived.  The Mary Rose Report, which I hope is available from Her Majesty's
Stationary Office, should have data on Tudor arrows.  You can sometimes get
fletch cuts from manuscripts, etc., and the scholarly consensus about
tying fletches on is (to my knowledge) unanimous.

Graydon

Joe Bethancourt_____________________
Graydon Saunders
15 May 92 

 -=> Graydon Saunders said to All on 08 May 92  00:23:53 <=- 

 GS> From: graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders)

 GS> while of interest (how *do* you pull a 150 lb bow, and shoot
 GS> accurately? I refuse to believe that the sole answer is 'start with
 GS> your grandfather') 

Start with your Great-grandfather? :-)

Try "stepping into the bow" as you draw. I am rather slight of frame, and
have guitar-player's arms (thin and bony) with very little upper back
strength at all, yet by stepping into the bow I can manage up to 80 lbs
of pull with only -some- grimacing and cursing. I wish I could describe the
movement adequately, but...here goes:

(Written with right-handed people in mind...) Present your left side to the
target, with your feet close together, and hold the bow, with arrow nocked, 
down at your left knee (pointing to the ground). As you pull, raise the bow
slightly above your shoulders and down into position while taking a largish 
step forward towards the target with your left foot. Aim quickly and release.

I hope this gives some idea of the movement.....*sigh*.....

Also, the examination of archer's graves shows quite a strong musculature
development.....giving rise to the thought that there may be some truth to
the old saw about "doing it since they were kids..."

-From the Aten Gulag Archepelago

                                                -Ioseph of Locksley
                                                 Grumpy Baron

From: khearn at uts.amdahl.com (Arlon Greyfletch)
Date: 20 Jun 91 03:59:52 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <9106181326.aa13960 at mc.lcs.mit.edu> CANNING at intellicorp.COM (Janet Canning) writes:
>Greetings unto the Rialto, it's fisher folk and visitors:
>
>I have been looking for a finger guard for my shooting of long pointy things
>at straw bails.  I really don't think that the camaflague ones I see are quite period,
>so if anyone has a pattern source, please let me know..I can get scrap leather
>for this, but have no pattern.  Any other info is welcome.
>
>Siban

M'lady Siban,
 
   I've been using a deer suede work glove for several months now. Yes,
a full glove, not just finger tips. I think it looks better than a
three-finger glove. You might try going down to your local hardware
store and see what they have available in leather gloves. They may
just have a pair that looks reasonable. You could also use a tab,
which fits inside your hand. They are usually all leather, or leather
and mohair, so it shouldn't be hard to find a reasonable looking one.
   I have also been working on building up my fingertips by doing 
some of my shooting barehanded. A friend of mine who teaches archery 
recommends having as little between your fingers and the string as 
possible, so I'm working my way down to nothing. I hope to get them 
tough enough to do all of my shooting without a glove. I believe 
that was the most common practice in period, although I admit that I 
haven't done any research on that item. This does involve building up
some callous, which most ladies would object to, so you may not wish
to pursure this course.
  And yes, I believe you didn't start just because of Robyn Hod,
although I wouldn't care, I'm happy to see anyone doing archery.

Good Shooting,
  Arlon Greyfletch
-- 
Keith Hearn               \    
khearn at amdahl.com          \    If the enemy is in range,
Amdahl Corporation          \           So are you.
(408)737-5691(work) (408)984-6937(home)\

From: haslock at rust.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock)
Date: 16 Jul 91 00:07:32 GMT
Organization: DECwest, Digital Equipment Corp., Bellevue WA

From article <1991Jul15.190916.3549 at javelin.sim.es.com>, by krogers at javelin.sim.es.com (K. Rogers):

> BTW, if I ever join the SCA, I'll be a peasant bowman just to lend a
> modicum of reality to offset all the nobles and exotic foreigners you
> guys exlcusively have.  I won't shower or shave for a few days before
> any important gathering.  I won't wash my cloathing (well, maybe my
> undies).  I'll wear the simplest of peasant garb, carry a longbow,
> arrows, and a knife, and that's it.

I'd like to see you in such a state, but I have to point out that you
concept of a peasant bowman needs a lot of work. Certainly peasant bowmen
existed, but peasants were too tied to the land to ever move about, except
as a part of an army. You'ld have been too busy farming to take your bow out,
except for mandatory practise on Sundays. If you're with an army, you should
be in armour probably supplied by your Lord. You are subject to discipline so
you'ld better treat everyone with respect, except in the company of fellow
peasant bowmen. Add decent boots, a leather cap, a belt quiver of 24 arrows,
a long knife and a modicum of pride (the recruiters won't take just anybody
you know).

Once the English realized the value of massed archers, they were a respected
part of the army and paid a decent wage. Definitely a cut above the average
farmer.

The other thing that we tend to lose sight of is the difference between
military bowmanship and a hunters bowmanship. Hunters practise at 20 yds or
so. They shoot from hiding and they have to kill with the first shot or lose
the arrow. Thus bows are lighter so that they can be held at full draw while
aim is checked and rechecked. The arrows can be lighter as they do not have to
punch through armour.

Military bows are expected to be used en masse at a moving mass of targets.
Thus there is no need for precise aim (which doesn't mean that they didn't
try for it). The arrows have to be heavy because both the arrowhead and the
bow draw are heavy, thus demanding even heavier bows. 120 to 150 pound draw
weights are frequently mentioned. The practise range was required to be 220 yds
according to one of my sources.

One of the more impressive points about Crecy is that the English destroyed
the Genoese crossbowmen before they came within shooting distance.

I am pleased to see the interest in archery. I am even more pleased to see
enthusiasm for shooting York rounds locally. I would like to see more
shooting at extreme ranges, even though finding somewhere to shoot at such
ranges is difficult.

I would be happier with the concept of an archery peerage if it was give for
military style shooting rather than poacher/noble hunter style. Equally,
the SCA's insistance on wood shafts and feather fletchings seems bizarre
given the nocks, piles, glues, strings and bows that we allow.

Going back to the concept of peasant. There is an assumption that peasants
dress in rags and are covered with dirt all the time. Do we not, all of us,
dress in our worst for grungy work and have better clothes for special
occaisions. I think that most events have an element of Fair about them.
Even peasant wore their best when going to the fair. Medievals usually made
a point of washing hands. Feet frequently got washed. I don't know for certain,
but I can't imagine a Lady going to the trouble of wearing makeup over an
unwashed face. Medievals may not have bathed, in the sense of total body
immersion in water, but they did have soap and they did use it.

I'm not trying to say the unwashed beggars did not exist. I'm trying to say
that they were uncommon and that even the lowliest of characters should not be
attempted with a modicum of research. The silver screen is responsible for a
lot of conceptualizations about the middle ages that are just plain wrong and
newcomers rarely realize that.

        Fiacha, in foolish pedant mode again
        Aquaterra, AnTir

From: pryder at pro-angmar.UUCP (Mark Dulcey)
Date: 18 Jul 91 19:02:50 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Somebody expressed the opinion that metal arrows should be permitted for
distance shooting, because people find the long distances impossible with
wood.  I beg to differ.

Wooden arrows that are correctly sized and spined for the bow do not have
any disadvantage over aluminum arrows in distance flight.  It is quite
possible to shoot at 100 yards with wooden arrows and a 30-pound bow -- we
have archers here in Carolingia who do it.  Naturally, the people with
heavier bows DO have an advantage at the longer distances (especially at
target shooting rather than clout).

We DO shoot at bigger targets at these long distances; we typically use a
4-foot round target.  (We make them ourselves; they are commercially
available, but the commercial ones are quite expensive.)  People don't
score as many points as they do at 20 yards.  So what?

Two years ago at Pennsic, there was a distance shooting competition.  My
50-pound bow cast my arrows about 200 yards -- uphill.  (We were shooting
on the archery range that has been used in recent years, toward the tall
hill.  Nobody managed to reach the top.)  So target distances of 100 yards
and more are certainly feasible with the equipment we use.

Pryder mab Aurddolen, Chronicler Carolingia

From: ak508 at cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Raymond Benne)
Date: 22 Jul 91 23:41:42 GMT

Unto the good Fisher Folk of the Rialto does Miles Ravenslock
d'Arcy send warm greetings on a sweltering eve.

A short time ago I sent a missive to this area regarding
"period" longbows and a source for them. At that time I did
not have the details but do now.

From: Museum Replicas Limited
      Box 840
      Conners Ga. 30207
      (800) 241-3664

The above good people offer as follows

Longbows, handmade by Jerry Hill as follows
wood core backed by fiberglass (ok one strike against
"period") From 30-65 lbs. Item Number 1-784   $245

Arrows $38 dozen

Quiver $110

Archers Bracer $23.95

All the above items are pictured in there catalog number 18
(most recent)

I have not myself seen these items except in the photos in
the catalog and cannot vouch for the quality or periodicity
of the items. I have however had some measure of success with
several items purchased from these good merchants.

From: gray at ibis.cs.umass.edu (Lyle Gray)
Date: 23 Jul 91 15:08:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1991Jul23.003416.16284 at news.cs.indiana.edu>
mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes:

>In article <9107222226.AA07179 at inmet.camb.inmet.com>
justin at inmet.camb.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks) writes:

>>
>>One more point that bow weight doesn't make a great deal of difference for
>>range: as I recall, a couple of years ago at Pennsic, Patri ibn Cariadoc was
>>easily outshooting me on the clout field, using what appeared to be a 
>>25 pound bow. All a matter of knowing how to use the thing...
>
>For the inexpert archer (me) the heavier the bow the more accurate I get, as
>I don't have to compensate for the drop at long ranges.  The arrow is also
>less affected by wind.

This all reminds me of something I read in Paine-Gallway's book on the
Crossbow (I can't remember the exact title).  He referred to a Turkish archer
using a "flight arrow", an extremely light arrow [shot from a special bow?],
intended for shooting at extreme range.  Use of this arrow was apparently
solely for contests at shooting arrows the greatest distance.  He didn't
mention anything about accuracy, however.

Lyle FitzWilliam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle H. Gray                       Internet (personal): gray at cs.umass.edu
Quodata Corporation            Phone: (203) 728-6777, FAX: (203) 247-0249

From: mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires)
Date: 24 Jul 91 04:19:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University, Bloomington.

In article <33751 at dime.cs.umass.edu> gray at ibis.cs.umass.edu (Lyle Gray) writes:
>
>This all reminds me of something I read in Paine-Gallway's book on the
>Crossbow (I can't remember the exact title).  He referred to a Turkish archer
>using a "flight arrow", an extremely light arrow [shot from a special bow?],
>intended for shooting at extreme range.  Use of this arrow was apparently
>solely for contests at shooting arrows the greatest distance.  He didn't
>mention anything about accuracy, however.

English archers also used a different arrow for long range and short range;
armor could only be pierced with the arrow (sheaf arrow?) at short range
(under 100 yards).
-- 
Mike Squires (mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)     812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu          546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 24 Jul 91 04:13:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"This all reminds me of something I read in Paine-Gallway's book on
the
Crossbow (I can't remember the exact title).  He referred to a
Turkish archer using a "flight arrow", an extremely light arrow [shot
from a special bow?], intended for shooting at extreme range.  Use of
this arrow was apparently solely for contests at shooting arrows the
greatest distance.  He didn't mention anything about accuracy,
however."

(Lyle FitzWilliam)

Flight shooting was a sport in which the objective was entirely
range. Special arrows were also used for harassing fire at long
range. There were several techniques for shooting arrows shorter than
the draw of the bow--apparently short arrows give long range for some
reason. You might want to look at:

Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, Bt, The Crossbow, Bramhall House, N.Y.

J. D. Latham and W. F. Paterson, Saracen Archery, Holland Press,
London 1970.

Paul E. Klopsteg, Turkish Archery and the Composite Bow, published by
the author, Evanston, IL 1947.

Also my piece in the C.A. pamphlet on archery.
Cariadoc

From: graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders)
Date: 12 Nov 91 19:07:20 GMT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.

Greetings unto the Rialto, from Graydon the embarassed!

To address Hal's comments on archery laurels; the fletching and nocking parts
of period arrows are easy.  Points are well documented, since they are the
part of an arrow most likely to survive, and come in a profusion of shapes
and sizes. Some of these would be suitable target points (the light pile
points in particular), but getting them made would involve hiring a foundry
and doing a lot of heat treating.  These are well understood processes now,
and there has been some crystolography work done on period arrowheads (I still
haven't had the nerve to start the process of getting my hands on a paper
published in the 30's in Britain), the upshot of which is that you can't
do a better job in steel.  Steeles (late period term for the arrow shaft;
'shafte' was the whole arrow) are another matter.  I can't convince myself
that they were rip swan out of planks, although I have no sources on the
nature and quality of 'period' (i.e. Edward I until 1500, for serious use
of war arrows for the English longbow) ripsaws.  Probably, they were split
out and then planned down.  (I have 1930's era instructions for sawn and
planned, so the method is at least *possible*.)  The much mentioned eliptical
shape of period arrows is *probably* a result of a kind of wood warping
called diamonding; I'd have to see a cross section of a period shaft to 
really tell.  (Anyone know if the Mary Rose report is out yet?  Robyan?
Justin? )   Anyway, ask me after I try making shafts; it shouldn't
be *that* hard, although if the first batch groups I may faint.

Ok - that leaves strings (making a bracer and a shooting glove is a)leather
work and b) pretty simple :] ).  A method given in Adrain Eliot Hodgin's
'The Archer's Craft' (out of print, and unobtainable; *sob*) for making
Flemish splice linen or hemp strings works, and involves nothing but linen
thread and wax or rossin (is rossin period?).  My first such string is at
430 shots (31" draw on a nominal 60 # bow), and doing fine.  Second string
will have to wait for some rosin (plain beeswax isn't sticky enough) and
some silk thread for serving, although I ought to get it made soon...
Hodgins also mentions the Flemish loop string, made in one operation right
off the distaff, and then disclaims any knowledge of how to make the thing.
Any of you spinners out there got any thoughts?

The preliminary Mary Rose data that I've seen puts the average draw weight
of the bows found on the Rose at 140#, with a range between 100# and 180#.
Howard Hill (the guy who did the trick shooting in the Errol Flyn Robin 
Hood movie, and played the Captain of Archers who lost to Robin in the 
Archery contest) used a 190# bow in this century, so those numbers aren't
impossible.  There are problems, though; you're going to make a real mess
of the standard closed cell foam or tentest butts, they could tell who the
archers on the Rose were because of bone damage in their left wrists and
lower backs, and if you ask a modern bowyer to make you a 100# yew bow
they will most likely collapse in hysterical giggles before getting set
to charge you several thousand dollars if they'll try it at all.   What I 
want to figure out is how to make whatever it is the Norse were using; 
probably a flat bow, based on bog finds, but it almost can't have been a 
self bow (and certainly not yew!) to have been used in sea battles in the 
fall or in Iceland at all.
Any source sugguestions gleefully accepted.

The only real research* I've done on the topic has been figuring out how
to shoot like the guys in the manuscript pictures look like they're
shooting.  The trick with the bent leg stance turned out to be alligning
the target with the front knee with the back hip, and keeping a smooth curve 
bent into oneself from lower back to bowhand wrist (if you get your wrist in
line with the bow, it will hurt a *lot*!!).
*By this I mean, looking at primary sources and trying to figure out how
it was done, rather than trying to come up with a way to do it with materials
I know they had.

The reason for the massive embarassment is that I'd give that arrow Baron
Henry thinks so highly of (which good opinion pleases me no end) a 1.5
on the standard Midrealm 0 - 4 point A&S competition authenticity score.
I surely do not feel like I'm anywhere close to knowing what I'm doing yet!

Graydon the mortally embarrased... I'll publish when I figure it out, really
I will...  

P.S. For those concerned with self nocks and the fragility thereoff; I'm
using bone inserts in cedar shafts (across the grain!!) wrapped with cotton
embroidery thread which is doused with PVA glue(because I haven't got the
glue pot for animal glue(yet)).  I've robinhooded two arrows so far; one
is as servicable as it ever was, and the other had the bone spur (the part
that sticks up past the string, not the other 3/4" in the shaft) on one
side snap off.  Probably still firable, but why take chances?  However,
there was absolutely no other damge to the arrow.  MUCH stronger than those
plastic things.... :]  so they take an hour or so each to make... it's
good for the soul... :]

From: graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders)
Date: 16 Nov 91 00:51:58 GMT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.

Greetings unto the Rialto from Graydon who goes on and on...

Hal mentions the York Round, and implies that it's period.  Well - it
might be *more* period, but the York Round dates from the English Regency.
It consists of 6 dozen arrows fired at 100 yards, 4 dozen arrows fired at
80 yards, and 2 dozen arrows fired at 60 yards, for a total of 144 arrows.

It is important to remember that one of the chief advantages of the English
War Bow was *range*; Crecy was the occaision of a lot (maybe 15 000)
Burgundian crossbowmen finding out that they didn't have the range advantage
anymore...  Period practice would have been at full war ranges - we're 
talking 250 yard clout shoots; the Archers of Arden, an English Longbow
Society, still occaisionally shoot 12 score yard clouts.

======

Rhys asks about putting holes in plate with arrows.  Well, it was most
certainly possible, but it could take a lot of arrows.  The French took
(conservative end of the estimates) about 20 000 casualties at Crecy.
The English army probably fired on the order of half a million arrows.
Tossing out zeros with gay abandon, that gives 250 arrows per dead man.
Expecting heavies to fall over every time they get hit by an arrow is
*very* unfair; the 'take it if you notice it' approach is probably
still unfair, but counting is unlikely to work!

"Most of the energy transmitted to the plate is absorbed by plastic
deformation of the material.  The material is caused to flow around the
arrow point, sideways, forwards, and sometimes backwards, and a simple
case of hole enlargement has been considered by W.T. Thompson, who 
developed the equation for a conical projectile.."("the Target", Peter Jones;
an appendix of Hardy's "Longbow")   Basically, the thicker the plate, and
the stronger the plate, the harder it is to penetrate.  You also want
R, the radius of the point, and R/L, the ratio of the point's radius and
length, to be minimums.

The reason arrow points did not look like darning needles has to do with
angle; the more the impact angle varied from normal toward flat, the more
stress on the arrowhead.  The data I've seen suguests that an arrow hitting
a flat plate at a 30 degree angle (the angle between the arrow's line of
flight and the plate) will just penatrate, and the point may snap; hits
at 20 degrees bounce.  This explains why armor had so few flat bits, and
why bodkin points were a tradoff between thickness for strength, narrowness
for piercing ability, and edge width for ability to wound.

The other thing is that the shape of the point affects arrowdynamics
(BAD Graydon :); the smaller and lighter the point, the more range.
You also want to be able to shoot things that *aren't* heavily armored
knights, and have it be effective (things like the horses the knights 
are riding, for starters), so a pure armorpiercing point is not very
useful after all.  What appears to be the most common medieval point
looked... well, like, a long oval with a point on one end and a ferrule
set into the depth of the second focus from the other; the oval contiues
around almost to the ferrule, forming barbs (the ferrule extends well
past the barbs, a very important detail to the archer's bow hand!)
The section through the widest part would be a squashed diamond, about
3 times as wide as it was high.  About three and a half times as long
the max width, ferrule included in length.
Good range, good wounding, good armor piercing characteristics, and it 
must have been a difficult job of surgery to get the thing out of a wound.

====

About the question of archer peers; there are period pictures of some
archers in half and full plate; obviously, not people of common resources.  
(Could people keep looted armor regardless of social station?  I dunno...)
An archer in the (direct) service of Edward the Black Prince, one William
Jauderel, bore his own coat of arms; by my understanding of the then
current practice, that makes him very like a knight.

The composite Agincourt Roll (combining the College of Arms Roll and the
Harleian manuscript) lists about 1000 men at arms and 3000 archers
(there were somewhere between another 1500 to 2000 archers at the battle)
thusly:  Sir Henry Huse and his retinue'; 22 named men at arms, and:
'lances xxiij ... archers XXV'; even the standard archers counted as
much as the 'armed men'; Edward I, in 1277, paid 100 picked archers
3 d a day, where the rate was 2 d for infantry men, and 1 s for mounted
lances.  

My point being that the archers, even at the low end, were paid specialists,
not peasant levies.  I haven't found a picture of an armored archer with
his own arms(yet), but I'm working on it.  When Henry II conquered Ireland,
Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke (which Earldom was a traditional 
source of archer levies) had the epithet 'Strongbow', because he was 
reputed to draw the strongest bow in the kingdom.  I find it hard to believe
that he could get a name for his archery without using the bow a *lot*,
and in war; clearly, it isn't improper for a nobleman to be an archer.

I think the real problem is creating a name that won't give the collective
chivalry perogative enroachment fits.  A sugguestion of Gwylim's that I
rather like is to collectively convert the current Masters at Arms into
Knights Errant, freeing the Master at Arms title for the archers.

I should probably stop now...

Graydon

From: graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders)
Date: 19 Nov 91 01:13:40 GMT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.

Greetings!

Cariadoc comments that, possibly, it does not require a level of skill worthy
of the Laurel to make 'those bent sticks the Franks use', but he doubts it.

I would point out that, while it may be neccessary in al-Islam, due to the
inimical climate, to resort to clever artifice in bow construction, it has
pleased Providence to provide some of use with large numbers of avaricious
Normans as neighbours, as well as several woods most marvelously suited to
be made into good long strong bows; I would think it obvious what Providence
has intended in this situation, and I, for one, think it ill omened and
unlucky to endevour to thwart Providence.

I asked a professional bowmaker if there were any good books on the subject;
his opinion was that there were some of help, but basically you just had
to go do it, and best to keep a woodstove handy.  The book references I do
have indicate that light (45# or so) bows aren't hard, at least by the
implications of sugguesting that they are a suitable hobby project.  This is
lemon or orange wood, *not* yew; every source I've ever seen indicates that
yew is difficult to work, but since I have not got my hands on any, I can't
assert this from my own experience.  

I would regard someone otherwise possessed of the neccessary qualities of
a peer who could make self longbows, either d-section or flat,  in period
poundages, to be an appropriate candidate for the Laurel.  However, no one
is going to ask me....

I would (and surely they aren't going to ask me about this one) regard
someone who was authorized heavy list, and shot with period tackle to an
exemplarly level of skill, as a proper candidate for knighthood.  I don't
agree with Arval's distinction for rattan fighting; yes, it is a central
activity of this society, but knighthood is (IMO) properly concerned with
our equivalents of the 'noble' skills of period warfare.

I would also opine that I don't know of anyone shooting like that, and
that the identification of knighthood, within the Chivalry, with being an
exemplary heavy list fighter is probably too strong to ever put a dent in. 

I'd also like to ask a question - wasn't the Pelican originally intended
for people who were obviously peers but equally obviously neither Knights
or Laurels?  It seems to me that it is perfectly resonable to make someone
who is a good fencer and long standing shining example of gallantry a Pelican.

Graydon

From: JRECHTSCHAFF at hamp.hampshire.EDU
Date: 5 Dec 91 19:39:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Greetings to the Rialto,
  
   In period, especially during the High Middle Ages, achery and concepts of
chivalry and knighthood really didn't mix.  Chivalry derives from the French
word, chevalier which is based on the word cheval meaning horse.  As we all
know, due to mounting expenses of equipment, the class that could afford
to support a horse and armor, plus have the time to train to use the weapons
effectivly evolved into the exclusive chivalric class.  Archery contasted with
the chivalric ideals of the nobility.  An arrow fired from a yeoman could
take down a prince.  An arrow or crossbow bolt shot from a distance did not
take one's rank into account had both financial and social implications.
The courtesy of chivalry in the Middle Ages did not extend below the chivalric
class.  In battle, the chivalric ideals fostered the notion that a knight
met an honorable death at the hands of another knight wielding the weapons
of the nobilty - a lance and sword, as opposed to being shot down by a
commonor in the distance.  The nature of a missile weapon did not display
courtesy to a person of noble status; this is what made the weapon an affront
to the aristocracy.
  Ironically, archery was employed by princes who prized the chivalric ideals
but knew in reality and the traditional cavalry charge was not going to work
effectively on the battlefield.  Thus, the use of archery were a double
edged sword (pardon the expression); they were effective om war but the use
of weapons such as crossbows, longbows and later on - bombards challenged the
class conscious values of the nobility who ironically used yeomen to operate
these weapons to bring down men [nobles] of their own status.  During the 
Hundred Years War, the English Kings urged the population to learn and practice
the use of the longbow as it was so effective agaist the French.  The French,
however, took a much different view, fearing peasant rebellion, they discouragedthe lower-class from aquiring crossbows and similar weapons.  The French
aristocracy held the crossbow companies in such disdain that they were often
placed in bad strategic positions on the field.  It took a long time for
the French to realize the effectiveness of archery!
  Please note that this is not intended to be a flame on archery.  I'm just 
trying explain how archery was viewed by some during the Middle Ages.  

A very slight change of topic... On the belief that King Harold was shot in
the eye with an arrow, as is depicted in the Bayeuz tapestry.  According to
one of my medieval history professors, Harold was simply hacked to death.
The death of Harold by an arrow was probably to make his death a bit more
dramatic.

In Service,
Lyanna ferch Gwynhelek of Bergental 

From: whheydt at pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Date: 5 Dec 91 18:16:20 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <sw6FcB2w162w at micor.ocunix.on.ca> graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders) writes:
>It is important to remember that the driving objective of modern archery
>is a high standard of accuracy; the driving objective of medieval archery
>seems to have been that the target would die.  (well - bowhunters are working 
>on the 'target will die' objective, too, but they're (in general) tech'd 
>completely out of comparision, and almost all archery instruction is done 
>by target archers, which gives the bowhunters the same creeping 'accuracy is 
>god' objective.)

I think care is the specification of "modern archery" is needed--since
the resurgence of interest appears to have start in the 1920s and
'30s, with some of the most active adherents coming to it as hunters.
What is perhaps the most surprising from this perspective is just how
light a bow is effective against an unarmored 'target' (in the form of
a deer).  Bows as light as 30 pounds have been attested as being able
to kill a deer quite well.  IN the mid- to late-30s, however, bow
weights tended to be in the 75-lb to 85-lb weight, and this is heavy
enough (I think) to give someone in armor pause . . .  At least one
writer (whose name escapes me at the moment) went so far as to hunt
grizzly bear with bow and Howard Hill went to Africa in 1950.  Hill's
ultimate effort was: 4 arrows, 3 elephants (one being a 10,000 lb.
bull).  His bow?  115-lb. longbow--a laminate of glass and bamboo. 
Hill was also a superb shot--when considering accuracy.  (For those
unacquainted with his career--he did all the archery stunt for the
Errol Flynn _Robin Hood_.  Shooting the rope in half took only one
'take'.)
        --Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  415/524-8321 (home)

From: graydon at micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon Saunders)
Date: 11 Dec 91 23:25:08 GMT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.

Greetings!

See what I mean about archery in ASCII, Master William?  I was actually
talking about three seperate anchors there.

1: take your string hand and hold it like you're about to deliver a karate
chop (just the fingers! no need to wave it about); then, take your thumb
and fold it down flat with your index finger.  Fold the first joint of your
thumb down to point in the direction of your little finger.  The index, ring,
and middle fingers are then used in the standard 3 finger string hook, and
the knuckle of your thumb goes under your ear behind your jawbone.

2: Standard three finger string hook; bring string hand back to touch your
chest; this is refered to as 'drawing to the pappe' in Ascham, and he has
a low opinion of it.

3: Same hand shape as 1, but instead of putting your knuckle under your
ear, put it behind your ear; I have a wee dent in my skull there, so it
should be usable as a consistent anchor.  (I'm tempted to try this, because
it could make sighting down the arrow shaft much easier, but I will have to
make some 34" arrows, first.)

Makes more sense?

For sources - the modern stuff is observation, and the Ontario Archery Ass'c
Level One Technical Manual.  The period stuff is looking at scenes of archers
in manuscript, Robert Hardy's 'Longbow: A Social History', and a lot of 
experimentation, trying to shoot so that I looked like the paintings.  It
took me a good three months to figure out that bit about aligning the front
knee and back hip, and was I ever mad at myself for missing something that
simple!  (I'd have days where I could hit things, and days when I couldn't,
and that was most of the difference. sigh. )

Graydon

From: jlee at smylex.UUCP (Jeff Lee)
Date: 13 Dec 91 05:16:16 GMT
Organization: The SMYLEX Usenet BBS  (Newington, CT)

lalonde at qusunb (Paul Lalonde) writes:
> 00mjstum at bsu-ucs.uucp (Matheus Arcuarius MKA Matt Stum) writes:
>>...But after reading Toxophilus (sp?!) I started using the _front_
>>end of the arrow to tell me how far to draw by letting the pile rest on my
>>hand.  Now, my draw _lengths_ are always perfect, but I still haven't
>>developed a knack for getting the elevation of my rear anchor point solid.
> 
>         Well, I've got a successful "ear" anchor.  I've found that I can
> place the fron nuckle of my thumb behind my jawbone, right below my ear
> and get consistant draw length and elevation.  And this added about
> 4 inches to my draw lenth compared to the chin anchor I used when I
> started shooting.  Your milleage may vary.

The way that I draw longbow, I anchor the tip of my middle finger just 
behind my upper canine (with the result that my thumb is just below my 
ear).  The advantage of this is that there is a definite depression between
the canine and the first bicuspid, so it's easy to find the anchor point 
EXACTLY time after time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Lord Godfrey de Shipbrook   |      UUCP: uhasun!smylex!jlee
 House Rivendell, Bowman's   |  Internet: jlee%smylex.uucp at uhasun.hartford.edu
 Rest, Beyond the Mountain,  |     Voice: (203) 666-5836  (Newington, CT)
 East.                       |       MKA: Jeff Lee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gray at ibis.cs.umass.edu (Lyle H. Gray)
Date: 16 Dec 91 04:19:07 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

jlee at smylex.UUCP (Jeff Lee) writes:
>In article <1991Dec11.205858.24487 at ccs.QueensU.CA>, lalonde at qusunb (Paul Lalonde) writes:
>> In article <1991Dec10.091743.2404 at bsu-ucs.uucp> 00mjstum at bsu-ucs.uucp (Matheus Arcuarius MKA Matt Stum) writes:
>>>...But after reading Toxophilus (sp?!) I started using the _front_
>>>end of the arrow to tell me how far to draw by letting the pile rest on my
>>>hand.  Now, my draw _lengths_ are always perfect, but I still haven't
>>>developed a knack for getting the elevation of my rear anchor point solid.
>> 
>>         Well, I've got a successful "ear" anchor.  I've found that I can
>> place the fron nuckle of my thumb behind my jawbone, right below my ear
>> and get consistant draw length and elevation.  And this added about
>> 4 inches to my draw lenth compared to the chin anchor I used when I
>> started shooting.  Your milleage may vary.
>
>The way that I draw longbow, I anchor the tip of my middle finger just 
>behind my upper canine (with the result that my thumb is just below my 
>ear).  The advantage of this is that there is a definite depression between
>the canine and the first bicuspid, so it's easy to find the anchor point 
>EXACTLY time after time.

Okay, I realize that that's a long series of quotes, but bear with me, as I
want to show the trend in the discussion that I'm responding to.

Unless I miss my guess, this discussion of anchor points is based on the
mediteranean release (the three finger release where the index finger is
placed on the string above the nock, and the middle and ring fingers are
placed on the string below the nock).  This discussion doesn't do me much
good, as the release that I used is sometimes referred to as a "tertiary"
release, with all three fingers placed below the nock, and the thumb resting
(very lightly) on the outside of the nock.  Tell me how I'm supposed to use
your suggestions for finding an anchor point when my thumb is otherwise
occupied?  I think watching where the arrowhead is resting is the best I can
think of.

Also, on a side note that has been brought up --- what has the length of the
arrow to do with the length of your draw?  There are period ways to use a
short arrow with a long draw (not that I recommend them, because there's a
certain amount of risk involved).  For instance, in the so-called "Holy
Lands", sometimes the arrow rest was on the archers _glove_ rather than on the
bow.  Make that arrow rest long enough (which was done), and the arrow head
can be drawn back behind the grip.  This has the risk of the arrow falling off
the rest as you release, driving the tip into flesh that's a little close to
home ... (can you say "ouch"?  Try screaming it instead ;-)

Lyle FitzWilliam, who uses a five foot self bow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle H. Gray                       Internet (personal): gray at cs.umass.edu
Quodata Corporation            Phone: (203) 728-6777, FAX: (203) 247-0249

hundred year's war archers, 'combat archery'_
26 May 92 
From: aryk at gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization:  University of Toronto * Universitas Torontoniensis 

I believe that a "hobelar" was named for his horse, a "hobby".

For good, readable, very current scholarship on the subject, I refer you
to:

Bradbury, Jim.  _The Medieval Archer_.  New York:  St. Martin's Press, 1985.
198pp.

Bradbury shoots a lot of arrows into the myth of the long bow as a Welsh
invention, making it quite clear that it was English in origin.  He also gives
dimensions for some arrows which put them close in dimensions to golf-tube
arrows (not _really_ close:  86cm long, 2.54cm thick)

And:

Davis, R.H.C.  _The Medieval Warhorse_.  New York:  Thames and Hudson, 1989.
144pp.

Davis addresses horse breeding and breeds in England, as well as horse prices,
in addition to discussing their deployment in battle and in the tournament
and tilts.

Neither of these books is especially thick or especially dense.
_____________________________________________________________________________
        Aryk Nusbacher                .. .. Celebrating the 20th Anniversary    
                                      ||_||  of Women Members of Hart House 
          Hart House                  | I |1972 || ||    to    || ||  ..1992..
Informal Education in the University  |   |   . ||_||__________||_||  || ___||
                                      | O |___|_|__________________|__| /  \ |
    aryk at gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |   |       o oo  oo  oo   o      |__| |
            VE3UOT                    |_A_|_______A_oo  oo  oo   A__^^^______|
_____________________________________________________`----------

From: alchem at en.com (James Koch)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Primitive Archer Article
Date: 26 Jul 2004 18:39:06 -0700

If you haven't already seen it, there is an excellent article about
SCA combat archery in the summer 2004 issue of Primitive Archer
magazine, written by our own John Edgerton.  The magazine is almost
always worth buying.  This months edition also covers ancient Egyption
bows and birch bark canoe making.

Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)

From: rabidy <rabidy at cos-internet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Primitive Archer Article
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 04:13:02 -0500

On 26 Jul 2004 18:39:06 -0700, alchem at en.com (James Koch) wrote:

This Article is now available upon the primitive archer web site at
the following url, 
http://www.primitivearcher.com/articles/friendlybattle.html
for those who may wish to peruse it.

Have a nice day,
Donovan O'Moore

>If you haven't already seen it, there is an excellent article about
>SCA combat archery in the summer 2004 issue of Primitive Archer
>magazine, written by our own John Edgerton.  The magazine is almost
>always worth buying.  This months edition also covers ancient Egyption
>bows and birch bark canoe making.
>>
>Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)

From: Archerelf1 at aol.com
Date: April 20, 2008 7:43:58 AM CDT
To: trimaris-temp at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tri-temp] archery ???

I will have a dozen or more after he sorts  out the ones that are minus their nocks (knocks? nox?) and  the ones that are minus the tip. And of course the ones  that are missing feathers... and is there anything else that  can be wrong with an arrow besides outright breakage?   Nocks! That's it! 

You also have to look for lack of straightness. They can  warp a bit and cause them to not shoot straight.

  quivers/portable hole 
I will use the quiver to transport the arrows and then just stick  then point down in the ground   It would probably be better to have a ground quiver as  opposed to sticking them into the ground. Depending  on the hardness of the ground, you might cause some  warpage or breakage. Of if you have a belt quiver and  do not like to wear a belt all the time, leave on with the  quiver to use strictly when you are at the archery field. 

Really, it's much nicer than having arrows falling all  over the place.   My hubby says he will make me a bracer so that the string doesn't  smack the inside of my arm. Apparently that's rather painful and I  already know I am likely to hyper extend it at least until I am  sufficiently bruised into not doing that any more   Bracers are a wonderful piece of equipment for saving  your forearm. 

Note for future: if you are hitting your arm,  your elbow is too straight. If you slightly bend your arm,  it should take your forearm and elbow out of the line your  string travels in. If you are hitting your forearm/bracer, you  are interfering with your arrow flight. Food for thought.   ask him for the funny little finger guard thingy   Finger tabs or gloves save your string fingers greatly.

 You should definitely ask for one or more. Keep a spare.  I like gloves, myself. It's easier for me in a timed round. My  speed is better.    

Hope this helps. 
Mar

<the end>