Belegarth
http://board.belegarth.com/

Historical conflict with BoW
http://board.belegarth.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=40949
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Phishstrangler75 [ Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Historical conflict with BoW

I am very, very new to this sport so don't hate me for being contradictory, but it seems like the BoW's rules for weaponry come into conflict with the historical uses of weapons. Two examples come to mind:
1.4.6 Double-ended Weapons must conform to all of the following:
1.4.6.1. Double-ended Weapons must not be more than 7 feet long.

This seems to me to make the staff a useless weapon, considering that
"In Paradoxes of Defence, Silver explains how to find the perfect length of a quarterstaff for a person’s own individual stature. This length usually works out between 8 to 9 feet depending on if you have a small or large stature. "
(http://backswording.webplus.net/page16.html)

So a traditional staff is supposed to be a minimum of 8ft whereas the staffs in this sport cannot be more than 7ft.

A similar thing for archery.
1.4.8.4 A draw stop is required to prevent an arrow from being drawn more than 28 inches.

However, a traditional English bow used a draw length of 30".

So if a tall man draws a longbow, he will have to release the arrow from a point two inches in front of his face.

I do partially understand this one from a safety standpoint, but couldn't the poundage be measured from 30" with a lower poundage than 35lbs?



Kind of more than a philosophical question than anything else, just why are things like they are?

Author:  Brutus [ Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

The BoW is a ruleset based on several decades of play-balancing that are designed to simulate medieval combat according to the heirarchy of safety, playability, and realism. You'll note where realism sits in that heirarchy.

There are many things that would be much more realistic, such as allowing headshots with melee weapons, that are not safe within the context of this game. It is for this reason that bows are limited to 35# draw weight at 28", despite historical precedent. While I have no doubt that a different draw length/draw weight combination could be calculated that would impart an equivalent energy to the projectile, such a combination would be incompatible with the sport. An archer with a 30" draw on his bow would only be allowed to use 28" draw arrows, because an arrow with a 30" draw would be unsafe if fired from a standard 35#/28" bow.

As for staves, well, they get no love.

I myself have many problems with the BoW, which is why we re-wrote it for our realm. There are people that don't like our innovations, but some do. If you feel strongly about certain rules, push for a rule change at the local level first. Many current rules in the BoW started as local rules that gained popularity nationwide. But do remember that this ruleset wasn't developed in a day. It has been debated and modified ceaselessly for the past 30+ years. Often the reasons behind certain rules do not become obvious until you try to fight without them.

Author:  Celtic Christ [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Brutus is right on with the safety>playability>realism. As for a lack of realism, the hardest ones for me to get used to were wrap shots and only thrusting and blocking with a spear. I still think Bel and Dag have the best balance between participation cost and time involvement vs. reward. For a more realistic combat set you could get with the SCA but I don't know many stick jocks with the time or cash to throw at armor and some of their other requirements.

Author:  Brutus [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

I don't think any of our combat systems are realistic, even SCA. Their weapons are more realistically weighted, however none of our sports accurately depict the sorts of swings that would have actually posed a risk to an armored opponent. Until we have wearable computers that can calculate damage from blows for us, this is the closest we're going to be able to get to simulating combat.

Author:  Celtic Christ [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

hmm, between android phones and those fps vests think you may be on to something. I'm not nearly geeky enough to be able to script something for that though.

Author:  Phishstrangler75 [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Thanks guys. The stave rule was just a point of contention for me because I am a stave player myself. I do currently own a 7ft stave, but I made it when I was 15 and have since grown out of it and was thinking about making a new one, but I think I am going to take up naginata since it does not have a length limit.

Oh, and as for blows penetrating armor, that didn't happen very often once plate became prevalent. A truly realistic fighting game from this period would only count blows to the neck, thrusts under the arm, and full-strength heavy red strikes. I didn't even bring it up because the safety difficulties would be impossible.

Realistic single-combat to the death usually involved a lot of grappling and stabbing at armor joints with daggers while smashing your opponent repeatedly with a steel gauntlet. Again, probably a safety hazard. :D

Author:  Tiberius Claudius [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

I contemplated making a naginata for last year's "Samurai Summer" but was talked out of it because the versatility of a two-sided glaive outweighs the cool factor of a one-sided naginata.

But, whatever floats your boat. I sadly learned and accepted years ago that this is a game and certain things help you win the game while others, though realistic, hold you back.

Author:  Phishstrangler75 [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

When I say naginata, I apply the term loosely. My blade won't have curve, and will most likely be double-sided.
So essentially it's a glaive.

Imagination is really the only thing that makes it different...And that I am an Asian character, not a European one and will be using Asian techniques.

My shaft will be almost 8 ft long (longer than a glaive)
Also my blade is about 24 inches to allow more reach when gripped near the head. Naginatas are often used from very close range, whereas glaives are not.

Author:  Celtic Christ [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

The only issue with a polearm design like that is the haft padding required.
1.4.2.3. The maximum handle length for Class 2 Weapons is eighteen (18) inches or one-third (1/3) of the overall length, whichever is greater. This cannot exceed one-half (1/2) of the overall length.
You can do the haft padding to where you can grip close to the head but it can cause extra wear on it. Just things to keep in mind while building it.

Author:  Phishstrangler75 [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Answering the longbow energy question:

The safety of a bow is determined by it's kinetic energy.

KE = Draw weight * Draw length.

Kinetic energy according to current rules:

(28 inches)
2.333 ft * 35 lbs = 82 ft*lbs

With my draw length:

(31 inches)
2.583 inches * weight = 82 ft*lbs

weight = 32 lbs.

So the equivalent weight for my draw length would be 32 lbs at 31".





As for haft padding issue, I have fairly large hands so there is nothing to keep me from grabbing the courtesy padding. Also, the rules do not say how the padding has to be configured. With a 10 ft weapon I am allowed more than 3 ft of handle, so I'm sure I can make it work.

Author:  Celtic Christ [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

I more meant it to have you keep in mind the extra wear and breakdown on the foam from using the haft padding as a handhold. That way you can use materials and construction so that it'll be easier and more cost effective to repair it down the road.

Author:  Phishstrangler75 [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Yes, that makes sense. I didn't understand that sentence at first. Thanks.

I'm kind of thinking a two handle model, with a wide one near the base and a small one just beneath the head.

I have a quarterstaff with unsecured padding, so I'll just slip the pad off one end, slide some of the end padding to the middle and swing it around a bit to see how I like it.

Author:  Brutus [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Phishstrangler75 wrote:
Answering the longbow energy question:

The safety of a bow is determined by it's kinetic energy.

KE = Draw weight * Draw length.

Kinetic energy according to current rules:

(28 inches)
2.333 ft * 35 lbs = 82 ft*lbs

With my draw length:

(31 inches)
2.583 inches * weight = 82 ft*lbs

weight = 32 lbs.

So the equivalent weight for my draw length would be 32 lbs at 31".

This is NOT the correct way to calculate the potential energy of a drawn bow. You are assuming that the draw weight is constant, i.e. that it takes 35# to draw the bow 10", 35# to draw the bow to 12", the same 35# to draw the bow to 28". Obviously for a recurve bow, the draw weight increases the further you draw the bow.

To approximate how much potential energy a bow has you could graph the draw weight at fixed intervals (say every 1 or 2 inches). Then if you graphed that data, the area under the curve would represent the potential energy of the bow.

This diagram helps show why compound bows are not allowed, as well as demonstrating how to properly visualize the potential energy of a drawn bow.

Image

You can see from this diagram that compound bows actually have a higher draw weight at mid-draw, which makes the graph "hump up" in the middle. This is why compound bows rock: that hump makes the area under the curve greater, and because the draw-weight is lower at full-draw, it makes it physically easier to hold the draw. For the two bows shown here, the compound bow has a much larger "area under the curve" while actually having a lower draw weight at full-draw.

Also, you're ignoring the problem of your 31" arrows being fired from standard 28"-35# bows. There would be no way for other archers to know how far back to draw their arrows, so they would be able to over-draw, thus making your projectiles unsafe. You could mark your arrows so that they could only be fired by other 31" bows, but then that gives you the unfair advantage of not having to worry about most (or in this case, all) other archers returning fire with your projectiles, while you would be safe to do so with theirs.

While it is possible to do the work to make sure a 31" bow does not impart more kinetic energy to a projectile than a 28"-35#, it is not practical from a playability standpoint. It is for this reason that no exceptions of this type will ever be made on a national field. You are, of course, welcomed to try to push through an exception at the local level, though with the knowledge you've gained from this discussion, I would hope you would see this as unfair to your opponents.

Author:  Phishstrangler75 [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

That's what I thought. I was pretty **** sure it was the integral of the force equation but this fairly official looking website gave me this method and I foolishly trusted it.

Must be getting stupid.

Well I guess not everyone can go to the physics lab and measure the pull of their bow at 1 cm intervals up to 1 meter and then find the area of the curve, so it's a good rule.

Sorry for being such an anarchist.




I found a much better site for calculating potential energy of a bow.

http://www.mrfizzix.com/archery/bow.html

Yeah, not even Hooke's law. Even different kinds of wood or string twist would change your results (though not very much) and the challenge of different length arrows would still be an issue.

And even if the standard length of a bow was set to 30", the unfair disadvantage I have now would become an unfair advantage and I'm just not selfish enough to take a time machine back to when that rule was made and change it.

I guess I'll just stick to using a polearm. :)

Author:  Jamdawn [ Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Quote:
The Bow.

In a nutshell, a bow is a device that converts slow and steady human force over a distance (Work) into stored Mechanical Potential Energy (in the form of tension in the Bowstave, Limbs, or Prod). This energy is converted into Kinetic Energy upon release of the Bowstring, and a great deal of that kinetic energy is transfered to the arrow.

Q: If it's just human work, why can't someone throw the arrow that fast and far?

A: For a number of reasons. One-- When you throw something, you're also throwing your arm's Mass along with it. Two-- Humans are only capable of exerting a certain amount of Force. With a bow, a human can exert that force over a longer period of time, storing it up in the force of Elastic Potential Energy.


Nice website you provided sir,
This can calculate accurately i guess :)

Author:  Reverend [ Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Historical conflict with BoW

Phishstrangler75 wrote:
Yes, that makes sense. I didn't understand that sentence at first. Thanks.

I'm kind of thinking a two handle model, with a wide one near the base and a small one just beneath the head.

I have a quarterstaff with unsecured padding, so I'll just slip the pad off one end, slide some of the end padding to the middle and swing it around a bit to see how I like it.


The purpose of the incidental padding is to prevent hitting someone with unpadded cored.

Putting an exposed core/handle directly behind the striking surface kind of defeats that purpose.

Just an FYI.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/