From: zebee@ucs.adelaide.edu.au (Zebee Johnstone)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Combat Archery
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:55:34 GMT
Organization: Information Technology Division, The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA

mdewis@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au ( Mark Richard Dewis) writes:

>Greetings from Richard of Dunheved!

>From an Inter-Kingdom Anthropology point of view, Lochac derived most of its
>combat rules from the Known World Handbook, since it was the only source we
>had. Lochac started out from a Sydney Univerity Medieval/Role Playing group,
>encountered the SCA at Aussiecon and decided to join with the Society. Thus

Hang on, Innilgard and Ameala were formed a while after Rowany 
in 1982CE, and Aussicon 2
was 1985CE.  Aussiecon 1 was 1975CE, long before the Tolkon
where the Sydney mob started playing with medieval type stuff.

However, we did get a lot of our combat archery ideas from
stuff that was heppening in the West (not so much the KWH) at the
time.  Then the West didn't do much with the ideas they 
were kicking around, and we did.  Hence the diversions.

Also, we didn't have much heavy armour at the time, and light
stuff was easy to make, so lots of folk wanted to play light 
because it was easier and cheaper than heavy.  And the heavies
just wanted to fight, if lights meant more bodies, fine.

Later the problems came...


>we had to develop our skills and standards without close consultation with
>US groups. As an example, when Sir William the Lucky came over, we found out
>that what Australia had been using as armour was significantly thinner than
>what the West was using, because what our tanners called 4 ounce leather
>was different to what US tanners called 4 ounce leather (which was the only
>specification at the time). On the other hand, we were hitting lighter, so it
>sort of balanced out. (This incident is one of the things that led to the
>armour standards including thicknesses :)


Have to take your word for this, I don't remeber that.  I do
remember that we had problems over thicknesses of metal, as US
gauges and Oz ones are different.Another source of confusion was 
that when Lucky fisrt came out we were using Caid rules, as they 
were the only ones we had.  24" square 10lb shields as I remember :-)

>would provide the best option for you. I would point out that Lochac has
>special permission from the Earl Marshal of the West to use our existing
>archery standards seperate from those of the West (mainly because our
>proportion of archers is much larger). It would seem to make sense for
>Southron Gaard to have a go at our methods, just for proximity's sake. 
>Perhaps you could come to some arrangement with central Caid similar to
>ours with the West? 

Just to confuse the issue, there is now some problems to do 
with the Lochac rules not getting published inthe PAge and
so not legal.  Once the new Principality Marshal gets time
to  draw breath we may get this solved.

Certainly Lochac seems to be more into combat archery than 
anyone else, and have ironed out most of the bugs.  Now if
we can just get the lights to brush up on their target
recognition - the blokes in the black and gold are NOT fair game...

Selfran, who has been around all that time and is still confused...

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Zebee Johnstone  DoD #605   | You don't own an Italian motorcycle 
     Adelaide City Council       |  - you merely have the privilege 
    zebee@itd.adelaide.edu.au    |    of paying its bills.... 
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca