[Ansteorra-archery] What are things that are keeping out Combat Archers of the field?

[Richard Threlkeld]

I am just relaying comments I have received. But I have a greater chance of killing a Duke with my crossbow than with my sword and shield despite less practice with the crossbow to date. His great skills are not even an issue because I am out of range of those skills.

I am not joining the argument on the other side. One reason the archer became so important in period was it cost less in equipment and in training to make an effective archer than an effective knight. And a sufficient number of archers with a sufficient number of arrows could quickly turn the tides of battle. I suspect the knights in period did not like the archers on the other side either, but they did not have the option of ignoring a kill.

I very much like archery in general. On the battle field I like it because I can contribute more as an archer than as a sword and shield man (though I do both).

My $0.02,
Caelin on Andrede

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ansteorra-archery-admin at ansteorra.org
> [mailto:ansteorra-archery-admin at ansteorra.org]On Behalf Of LD. BLACKMOON
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 11:16 AM
> To: ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] What are things that are keeping out
> Combat Archers of the field?
>
>
> >There are still people (some of them knights)
> who don't like archery in combat and will not count a kill from an
> archer. They don't like to be killed by someone with less combat
> skill than they have and the rules be damned.
>
> from my point of view , it takes just as much skill to shoot past
> a fighter
> to hit your target .
> or do they like getting shot in the back, by less skilled archers ???
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra-archery mailing list
> Ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra-archery
>
>