Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Targets and such

Expand Messages
  • Kinjal of Moravia
    Since previous discussion of distance vs acuracy has been dropped far below the level of educational inquiry , I will just post research finds, and let others
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 29, 2005
      Since previous discussion of distance vs acuracy has been dropped
      far below the level of 'educational inquiry', I will just post
      research finds, and let others draw whatever conclusions they may.
      Perhaps some of you who didn't sleep through 5th grade history
      remember that parts of Europe were conguered by the Mongols and are
      part of "Western culture." I hope those SCAdians living in Hungary,
      Poland, etc. are not too saddened by having been excluded from
      legitimate participation.

      Perhaps these items will be more to your liking ..

      from:

      http://www.centenaryarchers.gil.com.au/history.htm



      1520 AD - Henry VIII demonstrates his skill with the longbow at a
      summit meeting hosted by the French King, where he repeatedly shot
      into the centre of a target at a distance of 220 metres
      ( 240 yards ).

      [ gee, I wonder if he practiced this?? -- or it was just a chance
      thing -- since he hit the center I guess the size of the target is
      not important]


      1676 AD - The Royal Company of Archers first practised 'Clout
      Archery' using longbows to shoot at a 31" diameter white target at
      distances between 180 to 240 yards.

      [ humm -- nothing about a mound of dirt, but 31" sounds kind of 'man
      sized' to me]

      Of course, we know that with evidence of even 'occational' hits at
      more than 500 yards, such distances can only be classified
      as 'medium' shoots anyway, but they are intersting.

      kinjal
    • Carolus von Eulenhorst
      ... Please allow me to be a little pedantic here: 1)1585 In his book The Tenth Simon Stevin suggests that a decimal system should be used for weights and
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 30, 2005
        At 08:09 PM 4/29/2005, you wrote:

        >Since previous discussion of distance vs acuracy has been dropped
        >far below the level of 'educational inquiry', I will just post
        >research finds, and let others draw whatever conclusions they may.
        >Perhaps some of you who didn't sleep through 5th grade history
        >remember that parts of Europe were conguered by the Mongols and are
        >part of "Western culture." I hope those SCAdians living in Hungary,
        >Poland, etc. are not too saddened by having been excluded from
        >legitimate participation.
        >
        >Perhaps these items will be more to your liking ..
        >
        >from:
        >
        >http://www.centenaryarchers.gil.com.au/history.htm
        >
        >
        >
        >1520 AD - Henry VIII demonstrates his skill with the longbow at a
        >summit meeting hosted by the French King, where he repeatedly shot
        >into the centre of a target at a distance of 220 metres
        > ( 240 yards ).
        >
        >[ gee, I wonder if he practiced this?? -- or it was just a chance
        >thing -- since he hit the center I guess the size of the target is
        >not important]
        Please allow me to be a little pedantic here:
        1)1585 In his book "The Tenth" Simon Stevin suggests that a decimal system
        should be used for weights and measures, coinage, and divisions of the
        degree of arc. 1670 Authorities give credit for originating the metric
        system to Gabriel Mouton, a French vicar, on about this date. Thus the
        metric system is post Henry and Post-period and he could not have shot at
        220 metres

        2) In modern rules the center of a target is defined as a circle of a
        defined size (varying on the overall size of the target) and not a point3)
        He certainly did practice, as did many others but we have little evidence
        of just what type of practice he did, at what ranges, and what targets; and
        even less about the demographics of such practice. Again we have an
        example of a notable effort by an individual, not a group.



        >1676 AD - The Royal Company of Archers first practised 'Clout
        >Archery' using longbows to shoot at a 31" diameter white target at
        >distances between 180 to 240 yards.
        >
        >[ humm -- nothing about a mound of dirt, but 31" sounds kind of 'man
        >sized' to me]
        I would like to confirm the measurement as it looks suspiciously like a
        transposition of the 30 foot target of modern clout.

        I note that this site is one of those web sites you referenced in an
        earlier post where facts are posted without citation. This makes it
        impossible to determine the veracity of the "facts" cited.

        Please note that I am only holding the archers to the same standard of
        proof I called for when we were debating the effectiveness of archery
        versus armor. Fair is fair.
        Carolus


        >Of course, we know that with evidence of even 'occational' hits at
        >more than 500 yards, such distances can only be classified
        >as 'medium' shoots anyway, but they are intersting.
        >
        > kinjal


        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
      • Kinjal of Moravia
        ... standard of proof I called for when we were debating the effectiveness of archery versus armor. Fair is fair. ... .................................. This
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 30, 2005
          --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Carolus von Eulenhorst
          <eulenhorst@e...> wrote:
          >
          > Please note that I am only holding the archers to the same
          standard of proof I called for when we were debating the
          effectiveness of archery versus armor. Fair is fair.
          > Carolus
          ..................................

          This I find sort of amusing. If you recall, I first psoted on this
          topic in response to completely unsupported statements of a
          universal nature (opinions) offered by yourself. I even asked for
          documentation, but none was forthcoming. So I stopped construction
          on my home long enough to do a little research, all of which you do
          not like for one reason or another, little of which has to do
          with 'research' methods, such as you 'opinion' as to what items in
          heistory are relevant to 'western culture'.

          Now we can look at your two responses just given. In (1) you do not
          offer counter-documentation or dispute the fact of the shoot, but
          wish to arue the author's right to place the article in terms his
          readers would understand -- not everyone is writing a master's
          thesis, you know. Yet on (20, becuase it apparently goes against
          some pet theory, you would wish to translate the given distance into
          your own terms. What? Fair is fair.

          If you feel a need to police postings here please be consistent. If
          you wish to conduct a 'scholarly' research project then there are
          documented guidelines to follow from any university. If you wish to
          encourage exploration and research of a 'fun nature' (in keeping
          with the concept of the SCA game) then all 'found items' should be
          encouraged, with each reader using the information as they will.
          Those wishing a more 'scholarly view' may do so off-list as friend
          Blackthorne did.

          Naturally, 'opinions' based on ones personal feelings about the
          things they read and see should also be encouraged -- and stated
          as 'opinions' -- not as facts or universal claims. An archer's
          chosen garb is supposed to reflect research into persona
          develpment. When on the field, do you accost each participant with
          observations about the inconsistencies of their cloths? Do you bar
          an archer from the lists because the color of his fletchings are
          inconsistent with the period of his chosen name? I doubt it -- so
          why do it here?

          The 'purpose' of the Group is clearly stated as "discussions of
          traditional archery in the SCA." For me, your recent comments are
          not meant to foster 'discussion' but to filter ideas and concepts
          according to previously held beliefs and assumptions. That is your
          right, but please don't pretend it is 'educational'. Try learning
          something NEW occationally.

          To this end, I will quit providing any documentation at all! Anyone
          wishing to do a formal and proper research project may contact me
          off-list. Feel free to offer any opinion related to my postings as
          you will, but pray do not so under any pretence of 'research'. If
          you wish to encourage contributions on a theme, please start each
          post with a statement of that theme so that all know what you are
          comparing the ideas to, and do not assume that any posting of mine
          is in response to any unstated theme just because it seems to fit.

          pedantically yours,

          kinjal
        • Carolus von Eulenhorst
          I don t recall any unsupported statements of opinion. Merely that we do not have documented evidence of the activity of western archers activities which
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 30, 2005
            I don't recall any "unsupported statements" of opinion. Merely that we do
            not have documented evidence of the activity of western archers activities
            which backup claims of distance and accuracy. And that is the core of the
            original postulate - not that remarkable feats were occasionally achieved
            by specific, extraordinary individuals. That that occurred you have shown
            well. What has not been shown is support for the contention that such
            results were reproducible and common by the typical archer. I am not
            saying that what you are doing is without value or is not true. What I am
            saying is that it does not support the original contention. I am also
            trying to point out where our "research" fails. Yes, Evian's work was
            exemplary and would be the target for which we all aim. Please note my
            many posts in the past where I stated I had heard or read things but did
            not have support for them. I present them as anecdotal support only, not
            documented evidence. Honesty in our sources is the primary consideration
            here. I also point out that the questions which led to Evian's work were
            also historical in nature and a high degree of proof was demanded. If we
            accept less in our own discussions we demean ourselves, our work, and our
            credibility in future studies. If you read the archives of this and the
            missile combat list you will see that I an very consistent in my criticisms
            over years of work.
            Carolus

            At 03:45 AM 4/30/2005, you wrote:

            >--- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Carolus von Eulenhorst
            ><eulenhorst@e...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Please note that I am only holding the archers to the same
            >standard of proof I called for when we were debating the
            >effectiveness of archery versus armor. Fair is fair.
            > > Carolus
            >..................................
            >
            >This I find sort of amusing. If you recall, I first psoted on this
            >topic in response to completely unsupported statements of a
            >universal nature (opinions) offered by yourself. I even asked for
            >documentation, but none was forthcoming. So I stopped construction
            >on my home long enough to do a little research, all of which you do
            >not like for one reason or another, little of which has to do
            >with 'research' methods, such as you 'opinion' as to what items in
            >heistory are relevant to 'western culture'.
            >
            >Now we can look at your two responses just given. In (1) you do not
            >offer counter-documentation or dispute the fact of the shoot, but
            >wish to arue the author's right to place the article in terms his
            >readers would understand -- not everyone is writing a master's
            >thesis, you know. Yet on (20, becuase it apparently goes against
            >some pet theory, you would wish to translate the given distance into
            >your own terms. What? Fair is fair.
            >
            >If you feel a need to police postings here please be consistent. If
            >you wish to conduct a 'scholarly' research project then there are
            >documented guidelines to follow from any university. If you wish to
            >encourage exploration and research of a 'fun nature' (in keeping
            >with the concept of the SCA game) then all 'found items' should be
            >encouraged, with each reader using the information as they will.
            >Those wishing a more 'scholarly view' may do so off-list as friend
            >Blackthorne did.
            >
            >Naturally, 'opinions' based on ones personal feelings about the
            >things they read and see should also be encouraged -- and stated
            >as 'opinions' -- not as facts or universal claims. An archer's
            >chosen garb is supposed to reflect research into persona
            >develpment. When on the field, do you accost each participant with
            >observations about the inconsistencies of their cloths? Do you bar
            >an archer from the lists because the color of his fletchings are
            >inconsistent with the period of his chosen name? I doubt it -- so
            >why do it here?
            >
            >The 'purpose' of the Group is clearly stated as "discussions of
            >traditional archery in the SCA." For me, your recent comments are
            >not meant to foster 'discussion' but to filter ideas and concepts
            >according to previously held beliefs and assumptions. That is your
            >right, but please don't pretend it is 'educational'. Try learning
            >something NEW occationally.
            >
            >To this end, I will quit providing any documentation at all! Anyone
            >wishing to do a formal and proper research project may contact me
            >off-list. Feel free to offer any opinion related to my postings as
            >you will, but pray do not so under any pretence of 'research'. If
            >you wish to encourage contributions on a theme, please start each
            >post with a statement of that theme so that all know what you are
            >comparing the ideas to, and do not assume that any posting of mine
            >is in response to any unstated theme just because it seems to fit.
            >
            > pedantically yours,
            >
            > kinjal
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >---8<---------------------------------------------
            >Brought to you YahooGroups Ad Free in 2003 by Medieval Mart
            >Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's http://www.medievalmart.com/
            >
            >[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to leave this list]
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >--
            >No virus found in this incoming message.
            >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005


            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.