ANST - Re: History Repeats Itself
mordockvonrugen at home.com
Mon Apr 16 18:51:26 PDT 2001
Let's revisit the apparent statistics being set up here.
It's not the number of shafts loosed that should be considered - but
rather the percentage that hit a person's body.
At a guess, looking simply at the number of casualties, I'd say that
perhaps 60-90 people in the fort battle were hit in the body by a
missile weapon. The open field battles had perhaps half that. The
resurrection battle, because of the increased duration, probably had 4
times that. So about 500-600 missile strikes.
We had three reported incidents of clearly unsafe conditions.
By comparison, there were (again, just based on looking at the number of
folks who fell down) at least 5 (probably closer to 10) times as many
rattan weapon blows that landed on bodies. There were some complaints
about weapons hitting too hard, and others regarding rules of
engagement, and so forth (just as there were numerous complaints about
crossbow bolts hitting way too hard). But how many injuries did we have
due to weapons? As far as I know, none.
Is the concern just a bit clearer, now? This is not just a bunch of
guys crying 'cause they don't want archery and see an excuse for getting
it off the field.
Bob Dewart wrote:
> I want to make something clear. "I" don't want to force anyone to change
> anything. The current SCA rule allow for both personal eye protection and
> ABDs, if the participants want to use them. Use them if you want to.
> However; I don't believe I've ever heard we need to make the arrows "X"
> amount safer. It's just been change them or I will. Well, we're way past
> the "99% safe rule". It would be a SWAG, but I think there was at least
> 5,000 to 7,000 arrows and bolts flying around at one time or another at the
> war. Darcy and I and Middleford had well over a thousand there. We had 3
> incidents. So what does that work out to?
> How safe is safer?
> Gustave alf Blitzgarten wrote:
> > As for the space and fit of eye protection, that is why I suggested the
> use of
> > Lexan plates. It's thin and strong, and can fit in the bow of any normal
> > shield. It's simple, yet does have to be constructed and passed on to
> > But you are right, it does nothing for someone falling on a shaft. Other
> than a
> > complete re-design of the arrows, there isn't really a good way to get
> > the 99%-safe rule.
> > And all it takes is one incident and everyone's buns will get a chewing
> > Unless some of the other deep thinkers out there can come up with a better
> > it looks like a bit of work will have to be done in the days ahead.
> > --------------- In Service
> > Gustave alf Blitzgarten
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
More information about the Ansteorra