p-archery-msg - 1/21/08
Medieval archery and equipment.
NOTE: See also the files: archery-books-msg, crossbows-msg, arrows-msg, quivers-msg, bow-making-msg, bowstrings-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
seperate 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 orignator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: Lord Stefan li Rous
mark.s.harris at motorola.com stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
From: g_duperault at venus.twu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: re: women archers in period
Date: 2 Nov 93 18:58:30 +600
Organization: Texas Woman's University
YES! Women archers are most definitely period! (And this time I have
documentation!)
o _Diana the Hunter_, Les Echecs Amoureux, MS Fr. 143, fol. 116;
French, late 15th century; Bibliotheque Natioanle, Paris.
--shows a woman (noble lady by her dress) with longbow and arrow,
multiple beasts lurking in the woods, and her retinue of female attendants in
the background.
o _Woman Hunter_, Giovanni Boccaccio. Le livre des cleres et nobles
femmes. MS Fr. 599, fol. 86; French, third quarter of 15th century;
Bibliotheque nationale, Paris.
--shows a woman with longbow ready to shoot a nearby beast, she has
extra arrows tucked into her belt.
Don't let these examples make you think only French women in the 1400's
used bows. From what I've read (though I can't give you sources right now)
women of just about any period or location used bows to hunt with. They also
hunted with dogs and hawks.
Avwye
From: Daniel K. Jarrell <Dan_Jarrell.DCOTEST at Mailgate.eecs.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Women Archers in Period
Date: 4 Nov 1993 21:02:38 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
In article <9311022124.AA23526 at NISC.SRI.COM> LOU STEWART,
STEWARTL at wood-emh1.ARmy.MIL writes:
>Are there any documented examples of women archers in history?
I don't immediately have information about a woman archer in combat but I
have seen paintings of women hunting with a bow. (Remember the legend of
Lancelot tells of how he was shot by a woman hunting a deer.)
From: gray at ibis.cs.umass.edu (Lyle FitzWilliam)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Period archery technique
Date: 11 May 1993 04:40:47 GMT
Organization: Bergental, East Kingdom
In article <VADER.93May11013431 at meryl.csd.uu.se> vader at meryl.csd.uu.se (]ke
Eldberg) writes:
]Greetings from William de Corbie!
]
] [Discussion of "system archery" deleted]
]
]"System archery" is only possible as long as you have arrows with
]plastic snap-on nocks, which keep the arrow on the string. If there
]is no such device, it is not possible to move one's fingers down
]the string; the arrow will follow or drop off. Without a snap-on
]nock, it is necessary to have one finger above the arrow and two
]below it.
]
]Now, here is my point: Did medieval archers have snap-on nocks?
]If they did not, then I would argue that shooting with all fingers
]below the arrow, and especially system archery where the fingers
]are moved on the string, should not be allowed in the SCA.
]
]Comments?
Yes, I have a comment.
I shoot "instinctive", but I put three fingers below the arrow, rather than
use the "mediterranean" release, which has one above and two below. I do not
use "system archery" -- your missive is the first that I've heard of this
method.
I have used this release for a number of years, with and without snap nocks,
and am comfortable with it. I used it for years before a fellow archer
decided to do me a favor and put a nocking point on my bowstring (the nocking
point made me a little more consistent when doing speed shooting).
I can't speak for whether snap nocks are period. However, even if they are
not, I don't think that the "three below" release can be banned based on their
lack.
Lyle FitzWilliam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle H. Gray Internet (personal): gray at cs.umass.edu
Quodata Corporation Phone: (203) 728-6777, FAX: (203) 247-0249
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: vader at meryl.csd.uu.se (]ke Eldberg)
Subject: Period archery technique
Organization: Indiana Jones University
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 06:34:31 GMT
Greetings from William de Corbie!
In archery outside the SCA, the style that comes closest to
what we are doing is called "classic". This means that no
sights or stabilizers are used. Plungers are okay but clickers
and releases are not.
That is the mundane world's image of old-fashioned archery.
Among those archers who shoot in this style, the most usual method
is to use "system archery", which means that they will grasp the
string with three fingers below the arrow and always aim in the
center of the target with the point of the arrow. To sompensate
for different distances, the fingers are held closer to, or farther
away from the arrow, on the string.
A practised system shooter will know that e.g. holding his fingers
exactly one inch below the arrow gives a perfect result at e.g. 30
yards. Often, the stitches in the tab are used to measure out the
exact distance.
This is not what could accurately be termed "instinctive shooting",
since it is a mechanically calculated system and not based on the
archer's "feel". True instinctive shooting means that you do not
use any such aids, only what your mind and body will tell you when you
look down the arrow at the target.
"System archery" is only possible as long as you have arrows with
plastic snap-on nocks, which keep the arrow on the string. If there
is no such device, it is not possible to move one's fingers down
the string; the arrow will follow or drop off. Without a snap-on
nock, it is necessary to have one finger above the arrow and two
below it.
Now, here is my point: Did medieval archers have snap-on nocks?
If they did not, then I would argue that shooting with all fingers
below the arrow, and especially system archery where the fingers
are moved on the string, should not be allowed in the SCA.
Comments?
William
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: ross at chem.queensu.ca (Ross Dickson)
Subject: Re: Period archery technique
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:43:14 GMT
William de Corbie (]ke Eldberg) writes:
>Now, here is my point: Did medieval archers have snap-on nocks?
>If they did not, then I would argue that shooting with all fingers
>below the arrow, and especially system archery where the fingers
>are moved on the string, should not be allowed in the SCA.
Lyle has already addressed the misconception that snap-on nocks are
necessary to shoot "three-fingers below". However, there are a couple
of other interesting matters raised in William's posting.
(1) Did medieval archers have "snap-on nocks"? It is possible to cut
a self-nock so that it is narrower at the tail than at the front,
creating thereby the same effect. Whether this was done is still a
good question. I'll ask Godwin next time I see him, if I can
remember. Anyone else have some data? (Gaerhun, you listening?)
(2) "Mechanical" adjustments for ranging: Oddly enough, I was talking
about this just last night with Generys Flechyr, who is mundanely
a fairly experienced archer. She described to me "face walking"
or "string walking", and how this was banned in modern competition.
This is a technique of moving your grip hand *and the arrow* relative
to your eye, rather than moving your grip hand relative to your
arrow as William described. Thus it is possible to make analagous
adjustments without losing one's grip :-) on the arrow, and nullifying
the question of snap-nocks. From my own experience, I would
speculate that this technique requires a visual concentration on the
head of the arrow and the target, rather than the *whole* arrow,
but was apparently effective enough that it was banned!
Of course, there remains the difficult question of whether this
practice was known in period.
I should perhaps add that I am leery of banning *techniques*; I think
it is much more educational to restrict ourselves from equipment known
not to be available, and then see what that requires of our technique.
Of course, self-restriction is invariably preferable to a global ban,
except for those souls cursed with an undying need to compete :-)
Angus Boghadair, Greyfells | Ross M. Dickson, Queen's Univ. at Kingston,
Ealdormere, Midrealm | Ontario, Canada ross at chem.queensu.ca
From: lalonde at cs.ubc.ca (Paul Lalonde)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Period archery technique
Date: 11 May 1993 13:24:01 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
In <VADER.93May11202952 at meryl.csd.uu.se> vader at meryl.csd.uu.se (]ke Eldberg) writes:
>I agree that if it is possible to shoot with 3 fingers under
>the arrow, and not use snap-on nocks (as you are doing) then
>we acnnot ban this finger position.
>I am still in big doubts about the "system archery" however.
>It would surprise me if such methods were used before snap nocks.
William, the technique you are describing is very closely related to
string walking, which is already banned from out competitions (by
banning multiple nocking points or other such marks on the string).
As to snap on nocks, they are very easy to do with period techniques.
I've been making my own arrows with self nocks for a while now, and I
can make them into snap-on nocks trivially. The process involves
insetting a piece of bone or horn, then cutting the nock across the bone
and wood. By adjusting the the size of the gap at the bottom of the
nock it is simple to make the nocks snap on. I've documented the
construction of the nock from the arrows found on the Mary Rose, but
don't have any evidence for or agains snap-ons.
Gearhun/Paul
--
Paul A. Lalonde Internet: lalonde at cs.ubc.ca
From: james at nucleus.cuc.ab.CA (James Prescott)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Bow Range
Date: 7 May 1993 09:49:44 -0400
Organization: Nucleus BBS - Calgary, AB CANADA + 1 403 531-9353
To: sca at mc.lcs.mit.edu
-
In discussing ranges for bows we must distinguish at least three
different values.
1) the maximum range ever with any arrow
2) the normal maximum range with the appropriate war arrow
3) the maximum *effective* range, being that range at which the
arrow would still do significant damage
Some of the values mentioned previously under the porticoes of
the Rialto are from category 1 (intriguing but not practical).
Robert Hardy, in "Longbow", gives some solid category 2 numbers
for English longbows. Recall that longbows were probably in the
100 to 185 pound range. Recall too that the long bodkin arrow was
the armour-piercing arrow of choice.
He indicates (p. 203) that the maximum ranges for longbows firing
long bodkin arrows are: 230 yards (100 pound bow), 300 yards
(150 pound bow), and 450 yards (200 pound bow).
As additional evidence of both bow weight and range, one English
law (I have the quote to hand but not, alas, the source) required
that regular target practice be at not less than 220 yards, under
penalty of a heavy fine. This value for target practice suggests
that all English archers pulled bows significantly heavier than
100 pounds.
-
James Prescott (james at nucleus.cuc.ab.ca), (403) 282-0541
Thorvald Grimsson, OP, OL, OGGS, Baron of Montengarde, Yeoman
Royal Archer for Crown Principality of Avacal, Kingdom of An Tir
... and in Iceland 'tis the year of the White Christ 973 ...
From: james at nucleus.cuc.ab.CA (James Prescott)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Arrow nocks (snap)
Date: 13 May 1993 03:43:05 -0400
Organization: Nucleus BBS - Calgary, AB CANADA + 1 403 531-9353
To: sca at mc.lcs.mit.edu
-
From Stone, G.C. "A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of
Arms and Armor":
"In the Turkish arrows [the nock] is made of two pieces of wood having
a natural curve that makes the opening at the end considerably smaller
than close to the shaft, so that the ends have to be sprung apart to
admit the string. This is done to enable the archer, even on horseback,
to carry an arrow in place ready for instant use."
-
The Turks seem to have used snap nocks. Stone gives no dates for the
arrows concerned, but it seems not unreasonable to assume that they
used arrows of such construction in period. It is so obvious that I
would be shocked if it were proven that no horse archer in period
ever used them.
-
James Prescott (james at nucleus.cuc.ab.ca), (403) 282-0541
Thorvald Grimsson, OP, OL, OGGS, Baron of Montengarde, Yeoman
Royal Archer for Crown Principality of Avacal, Kingdom of An Tir
... and in Iceland 'tis the year of the White Christ 973 ...
From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Combat Archery (and other flying stuff)
Date: 10 Nov 1993 03:52:12 GMT
Organization: Cornell Law School
Tristan wrote:
> Even the Mongol's little bows (which
> are more similar in range to SCA bows than an English longbow) ...
Evidence? The general type of bow the Mongols used (wood/horn/sinew
composite) was capable of much greater ranges than the Englishh longbow.
Turkish flight shooting records (admittedly, a sport where the objective
was range, not actual combat) indicate maximum ranges of about a thousand
yards, whereas maximum range for the English longbow seems to have been
about a third of that, and effective range substantially less. _Saracen
Archery_, by Lathem and Patterson, has a good deal of information on this
subject, and Payne-Gallwey's _The Crossbow_ has some information on the
range of the English longbow. My memory is that the effective combat range
of the middle-eastern composite was about twice that of the longbow.
I don't know about the range of Mongol bows in particular, but they were
the same technology as the turkish bows and from the same general part of
the world.
David/Cariadoc
DDF2 at Cornell.Edu
From: bloodthorn at sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Jennifer Geard)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Combat Archery and the EK
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 23:51:19 GMT
Organization: Lethargy Inc.
Iain Odlin asks:
> As for "combat archery" being period: In war, yes. But was archery ever
> used against fighters in a tournament setting?
Probably yes. All quotes are from _The Tournament in England, 1100-1400_ by
Juliet R. V. Barker (Great Britain: Boydell Press, 1986).
Although "by the fourteenth century ballistic weapons had been banned from
the s
port" (p. 179), "until the end of the thirteenth century there were
apparently no restrictions on who could take part in tournaments: foot
soldiers therefore appear regularly. [Examples of foot soldiers deleted --
mention that Sir Symons de Neaufle brought "treis cenz serjanz de pie o
armes,| O ars, o glaives, o gisarmes," to a tournament between Anet and
Sorel.] The suggestion that Symons de Neaufle's men were armed with bows and
arrows is substantiated by the monk of Montaudon who, at the end of the
twelfth century, complained that he hated to see 'dart et quairel' in
tournaments and by Knighton's account of the tournament which turned into the
'little battle of Chalons' in 1272 at which Edward I's company of a thousand
knights and foot soldiers were obliged to resist the Duke of Burgundy's men
'cum fundis et acubus'." (p. 142)
Barker also mentions the song of 'Gui de Nanteuil' -- fiction about the court
of Charlemagne -- in which the author describes a tournament where ten
thousand serjans with bows and arrows were employed.
Make of it what you will. It appears that the rowdier early melee
tournaments could sometimes include archers, but this seems somehow
incompatible with the claim that the *intention* of tourneys was not to kill
your opponents, but merely to bludgeon them into submission or
unconcsiousness. <shrug>
Pagan
________________________________________________________________________
Jennifer Geard bloodthorn at sloth.equinox.gen.nz
Christchurch, New Zealand
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: Combat Archery and the EK
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 19:25:32 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research
Greetings from Arval! After providing some excellent evidence of archery
in period tournaments, Pagan wrote:
> It appears that the rowdier early melee tournaments could sometimes
> include archers, but this seems somehow incompatible with the claim that
> the *intention* of tourneys was not to kill your opponents, but merely to
> bludgeon them into submission or unconcsiousness.
My interpretation has been that foot soldiers and archers in early
tournaments were used primarily against each other, rather than against the
knights, and served the additional purpose of protecting their lords if the
tournament should turn into warfare, as it occasionally did.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle at watson.ibm.com
From: sapalmer at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sharon A Palmer)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Women Archers in Period
Date: 18 Nov 1993 19:25:11 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
>In article <9311022124.AA23526 at NISC.SRI.COM> LOU STEWART,
>STEWARTL at wood-emh1.ARmy.MIL writes:
>>Are there any documented examples of women archers in history?
Well, the _Medieval Woman_ calenda