Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Summary
Bibliography
Credits
Appendix

Return to Aethelmearc Archery

Chapter 1

    Before this study is dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of one of 'those' combat archers simply trying to protect and expand what 'they' do, at the expense of everyone else, I'd like to set the record straight. I am not a combat archer. I have never been a combat archer. I will never be a combat archer. About sixteen years ago, I discovered the SCA. After a while, I took up combat in a limited way. I fought both rapier and rattan occasionally. I have been shot by arrows and crossbow bolts, and have been hit by javelins. A couple of years after taking up combat, I retired from combat for health reasons. I know I will never again go on the combat field as any form of participant, because I simply cannot do it anymore. But that does not mean I'm not interested in all of our various forms of combat, including combat archery. I have never used any missile weapon on the combat field. I have used them on the target range. I am an archer, but not in combat. I do throw various missile weapons, but not in combat. In fact, the only authorization I currently actively hold is as a Thrown Weapons Marshal.
    So why did I undertake to do this study? An Email was forwarded to the Missile Combat Email list I am on, stating that a proposal was recently sent to the Society Earl Marshal to make major changes to our fighting rules. This forwarded Email contained the complete proposal. If this proposal were to be accepted and the changes proposed were to be enacted, it would greatly affect combat archery. The rules changes would make combat archery almost totally ineffective on the field, as one provision would restrict an arrow's target to the face-plate of a helmet only. There were several other provisions also, but this one provision alone would  be sufficient to restrict combat archery so much I felt many combat archers would simply stop doing combat archery. Additionally, this provision was based on what I thought to be a false premise. That basic premise is contained in the following quote from that submitted proposal.
    'Extensive research has shown that the armor of any period was generally proof against arrows of the same period and could not penetrate the armor worn by knights, and arrows were effective mainly against their horses or against unarmored auxiliary levies. Each other weapon we use is effective against armored areas because it is historically shown that they either penetrated the armor causing grievous wounds or crushed the armor and the body beneath to cause grievous wounds. This is not the case for medieval arrows, which were mostly effective only against unarmored areas, represented in our armor standard as the open face.'
    My own readings over several years told me the part about the effects of arrows, and even other weapons, was untrue. And having just had a similar argument about six months before with someone else on the Missile Combat Email list, I did have a few references to back up my beliefs. The person I had been arguing with had also produced his own set of references. I had checked his set of references, and found all of his references to be flawed, in one way or the other. I have read a lot, and a lot of that reading was on historical subjects, though not necessarily in historical documents. I have done quite a bit of that as well, but I wasn't keeping notes, or copying references, or anything like that. I was just reading, not studying or researching. In all of my reading, I couldn't remember ever reading about arrows bouncing off of someone in armor. I vaguely remember some instances where an arrow might have glanced off someone because it hit at an angle to the surface, but I have no idea where I might have read of these instances. And the little bit of reading and research I had done before for that earlier argument had pretty well convinced me that my memory has not yet gone bad.
    Some of the others on that Email list kept bringing up my research (such as it was), and trying to use it to counter a few people on the list in the 'discussion' that followed the announcement of that proposal. I knew how inadequate my limited research was at that point, but I was left in the position of being the chief 'spokesman' for one side of the issue, from a 'documentation' presented point of view. I realized that the defense being offered by the affected sector of the SCA was at best 'inadequate', as it was based almost exclusively on my own rather inadequate documentation. What was worse, what little was being presented was being dismissed simply because the presenters did have a vested interest in the outcome because they were combat archers. This is very important to remember. Since I no longer participate actively in SCA combat, I have nothing personally to gain or lose from how it is conducted. I also realized that no other 'disinterested' person was stepping up to address this controversy, so I started this study, or rather, expanded my earlier study, to address what I saw as a potential injustice based on a historical fallacy. Am I the only one qualified to do this study, to address this injustice, or to straighten out this historical fallacy? No! I don't even consider myself the best qualified. All I consider myself is a person who is willing to do so, when others don't seem willing, or are not able to do so, for whatever reasons.
    In this study, I present several quotes from historical documents. I identify the documents in the body of the text, and give a complete citation in the bibliography, including telling where they can be found, when possible. I wanted the facts revealed in these documents to be readily available so anyone can verify my work. I mostly use sources that are available online. Unfortunately, a very few of my sources are simply not available online, and when the text is not available online, I still give information on where a copy might be found, if possible. I tried to use only currently available books, when possible. I also present several conclusions and opinions drawn from these facts. It will be up to the reader to determine if my conclusions and opinions are justified by the facts presented. I think they are.