More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Dangun]

One characteristic of such a wedge would be that the weight and depth of arrows landing ahead of the point man would be such as to slay, wound or deter all but the most determined, fortunate and best-protected of attackers.  Ergo, provided the wedge kept shooting properly, the point man would not be at risk.

This has to be an exaggeration, because we don't have archery described as a zone-of-instant-death by the sources, so the pointy end of the wedge still has to accept that he will die and die first if the enemy make contact. Given how difficult a set of outcomes this is for any soldier to accept, I am inclined to dismiss the idea of defensive wedges.

[Patrick Waterson]

This has to be an exaggeration, because we don't have archery described as a zone-of-instant-death by the sources, so the pointy end of the wedge still has to accept that he will die and die first if the enemy make contact.

If.

The degree and instantaneousness of lethality will tend to be functions of armour - or lack of it - worn by the target.  But the ability to channel opponents away from the archers is consistent with wedge-type concentration and 'beaten zone' pattern.

And if the enemy is a bit too well-armoured, there are always stakes, or at least the option of stakes.

The points in favour were: ease of assembling the formation, reduced frontage and hence reduced vulnerability plus a much greater concentration of missile power to the extent that it could influence enemy formations to divert away from a direct line of approach to the archers.

Ease of formation - not really.  Lines are as easy.

Or, to put it another way, a wedge is as easy to form as a line.

Reduced frontage - true but  greater depth.

And hence greater impact if everyone is shooting ahead, which would seem to be the default condition.

reduced vulnerability - dubious - any evidence of the use of wedges in defence on this basis?

My thinking was that if the archers on each flank of a men-at-arms formation have a front of, say, 50 yards while the men-at-arms have a frontage of c.250 yards, then 2/3 of the enemy are perforce going to be heading for the men-at-arms, so the archers have to dissuade only a comparatively small number of opponents to clear their own frontage.

concentration  - true surely only directly forward?  And the archers are supposed to be opposing attacks on the main body to their flank.

Yes, directly forward.  This is what parts the oncoming foe and channels him towards the men-at-arms.  Once the archers' immediate front is clear, they can shoot at (and, at closer ranges, into) the flanks of those attacking the men-at-arms.  Against a foe on foot, there will be plenty of time to disrupt and 'attrit' the channelled advance.  (This incidentally raises questions about whether the wedge could or would divide its shooting.)

On your ideas about enfilading, have you considered your deployment of these wedges. ?  At Agincourt, you'd need at least 50 of them.  Presumably, they form a serrated line on the flanks of the main battle?  Wouldn't most of the archers mask each other?

I would envisage fewer but larger wedges.  Current Wikipedia estimates for Agincourt are 1,500 men-at-arms and 7,000 archers.  Given three battles of men-at-arms, the little grey cells suggest two wedges of approximately 1,000 on each flank, echeloned, and a further two wedges between the three 'battles' of men-at-arms.  These six wedges would each contain about 1,166 archers, which raised the issue of command, because voice command reaches only a limited distance in battle conditions, maybe somewhere between 50 and 100 yards.  Given that a man at the point will be shouting over his shoulder rather than directly at those he commands, we might want to consider his effective command span as a mere 50 yards.  This would perforce limit the size of a wedge - but to what?  It just so happens that a 50-deep wedge (and hence 50 yards of depth) contains 1,275 men, and an 1,176-man wedge (quite close to our hypothetical 1,166 above) has a depth of 48 men (and hence yards).  It is also putting out 1,176 arrows per volley on a frontage of 48 yards to a depth of 48 yards.

How does this match up with frontages at Agincourt?  (This to my mind is the big question-mark about wedges: if accepted, they rewrite frontages.)  The frontage for the army was about 750 yards.  The men-at-arms, assumed to be 1,500 strong, were deployed four deep, cover 375 yards or half the frontage.  Six wedges each of 48 yards' width cover slightly under 300 yards, leaving 75 yards uncovered.  If instead we have twelve wedges each of c.588 men, a 595-man wedge is 34 yards deep and wide and a dozen of these cover 374 yards out of 375 - not a bad match.  This would give each 'battle' of 125 yards' frontage of men-at-arms a 34-yard archer wedge on each flank, hence two wedges between men-at-arms contingents, and four archer wedges on each wing, perhaps echeloned to permit flanking shooting to sweep the field.

Would this work deployment-wise?  I think so: 300 French knights on each wing deploy against the archers on that wing. This puts 300 knights on a 4x34 = 136-yard frontage, or about 60 knights wide and five deep on a 120-yard frontage if that degree of order were attained.  It leaves the said 300 knights facing 4x595 = 2,380 archers, and four 595-man wedges seems a much easier way to put our assumed 2,380 archers on this 136-yard frontage than trying to fit them into a 17-deep line. 

[Mark G]

What sort of space per archer within your deployment?

[Erpingham]

If we really are to dissect Agincourt, wouldn't it be better to use the copious evidence rather than just random mathematical speculation? And use realistic spacings between the archers?  You can't have archers at 3 ft depth of ranks because a shooting archer is over 3ft wide. Justin has sensibly used about 4ft frontage and 6ft depth of ranks in his graphic, which looks a possible minimum.  If the "field of stakes" approach were to be adopted, its probably too tight.  Other than the mysterious "Master Archer" we seem to have abandoned command and control, which is where we started.

[Patrick Waterson]

I thought we had earlier noted that archers could fit within 3'x3' with room to spare.  We can go over that ground again if required.

If the point man of each wedge controls its shooting, we have by no means abandoned command control.

But please feel free to lay out the copious evidence concerning Agincourt.  I was primarily looking at frontage, given the currently popular figure for King Harry's forces (c.8,500).  Drop them to Burne's "everyone is agreed ... about 6,000" and my frontage calculations are, if not up the creek, at least struggling with the paddle.

But attempting to squeeze the archers into line with 4' or so individual frontage on a 750-yard front creates its own difficulties.  I am interested to see how these would be resolved.

Stakes and what archers do with and around them is another matter. Shooting from behind them maximises convenience and protection, and is the interpretation I would choose.  Exactly how the pattern of stakes was laid out remains less than lucid, but we aired some thoughts earlier.

[Mark G]

It seems that by "we", you mean that you kept asserting on your own with nothing to support it.

So normal service in other words.

[Patrick Waterson]

It seems that by "we", you mean that you kept asserting on your own with nothing to support it.

Keep the personal off the public forum, please, Mark.  If you look back through the thread, you will see there are in fact a few points which support and/or facilitate the idea of longbow wedges, starting with one of the illustrations Anthony provided.

And yes, the subject is speculative, but I have yet to see anything which would cause me to think wedges were not used  by longbowmen in some battles.  Perhaps Anthony or somebody else will come up with something: we shall just have to see.

[Justin Swanton]

If we really are to dissect Agincourt, wouldn't it be better to use the copious evidence rather than just random mathematical speculation? And use realistic spacings between the archers?  You can't have archers at 3 ft depth of ranks because a shooting archer is over 3ft wide. Justin has sensibly used about 4ft frontage and 6ft depth of ranks in his graphic, which looks a possible minimum.  If the "field of stakes" approach were to be adopted, its probably too tight.  Other than the mysterious "Master Archer" we seem to have abandoned command and control, which is where we started.

Actually I just slapped that graphic together on the fly as a bit of fun - I remain open as to historical spacings. 

I do note however that Vegetius stipulates 6' depths for Roman infantry all of which were expected to use missile weapons (not just bows), for what it's worth.

[Erpingham]

I'll take this in stages if I may

I thought we had earlier noted that archers could fit within 3'x3' with room to spare.  We can go over that ground again if required.

No, you stated this but others didn't agree.  Justin provided some support, but his evidence was disputed.  I don't think we discussed depth really.  However, a little thought will show that 3ft is a non-starter, based on human anatomy.  From tip of fingers to centre line is about half your height.  A medieval man was on average about 5ft 7in.  Drawing an arrow to the ear uses all this distance, plus the second arm protrudes by about half its length (bending at the elbow), so an archer needs about 4 ft 2in minimum to stand in.  Put it another way, Mary Rose arrows are thought to have a draw length of 28-30 inches - the right arm would need to fit into six inches at full draw.  In fact, looking at images of warbow archers, we can see that high-angled shooting reqires more space than the minimum.

If the point man of each wedge controls its shooting, we have by no means abandoned command control.

Presumably, he is connected by radio headset to the 1000 men he commands?  He is facing away from everyone and battles were not quiet enclosed spaces.  I think your earlier versions with "master archers" being vintenars or their equivalent made more sense, if totally speculative.

[Justin Swanton]

If the point man of each wedge controls its shooting, we have by no means abandoned command control.

Presumably, he is connected by radio headset to the 1000 men he commands?  He is facing away from everyone and battles were not quiet enclosed spaces.  I think your earlier versions with "master archers" being vintenars or their equivalent made more sense, if totally speculative.

He wouldn't have to call out any commands. The basic rule would be: if he shoots, everybody shoots; if he doesn't shoot, nobody shoots. The MA draws his bow: the archers behind him see him doing it and draw theirs, the archers behind them see this and draw theirs, and so on. You can have as much battlefield noise and dust as you like, it doesn't matter.

[Erpingham]

But please feel free to lay out the copious evidence concerning Agincourt.  I was primarily looking at frontage, given the currently popular figure for King Harry's forces (c.8,500).  Drop them to Burne's "everyone is agreed ... about 6,000" and my frontage calculations are, if not up the creek, at least struggling with the paddle.

Many books have been written on Agincourt, so this is a bit of a tall order.  But, taking my lead from Anne Curry (with a bit of Clifford Rogers), the basics are as follows :

We have more evidence of how the men at arms were deployed than the archers.  They were in the centre, either in one large battle, a battle with two wings or three battles very close together.

The predominant evidence suggests that the archers were in front of the men-at-arms (e.g. Monstrelet/Waurin/LeFevre), but this may mean "in advance of".  Tito Livio and pseudo-Elmham place the archers on the flanks, and this is also the implication of Walsingham.  The fact that several sources note that the French cavalry were supposed to ride down the archers and were positioned on the flanks re-inforces this.

It is possible that there were archers in the centre.  The Monk of St Denis describes the English archers as encircling the men-at-arms like a crown, which would imply a continuous front, not just two flanks.  Waurin and LeFevre have archers attached to all three battles.  And, famously, the author of the Gesta has bodies of archers (sometimes translated, probably wrongly, as wedges) mixed into his single battle of men-at-arms.

We might also note that several authors thought a small body archers had infiltrated forward through the wood on the Tramecourt side (perhaps a bit of local initiative, as LeFevre states he asked the English leaders about this and they denied it happened).  Finally, the Ruisseauville Chronicle states the archers ran forward shooting in front of the English men-at-arms as they advanced before the French engaged, which may imply some archers in skirmishing in front of the main body.

As we can therefore see, less clarity than we would like and plenty of room for interpretation.  Only one possible mention of wedges and that only in the centre  (although, as Matt Bennett has pointed out, the author only uses cuneus of the English once - he uses it of the French several times in the sense "body of men").  No mentions of archer formations at all.

Most, if not all, modern authors accept the bulk of the archers were on the wings.  This fits the evidence and fits what we know of English practice in other battles.  Angling them forward to have a funnelling effect on the French is also assumed - we know the English did this at other times and it seems to fit the course of the battle.  The main contention has been whether their were archers in the centre, mixed with men-at-arms or forming a screen in advance.  If they were mixed, how so?  Curry is quite keen on the idea that they were attached to their own retinues and literally mixed all the way down the line.  Others see them more in discrete bodies between the three battles.

[Erpingham]

Last bit on the English frontage at Agincourt.  It is difficult to be sure of this because, even if we adopt the consensus location, because we don't know exactly where on the field the English stood nor the exact extent of the woods and enclosures on each side.  Burne works on a front of  940-950 yds (he uses both).  However, examining scale plans suggests the probable English position was 750-800 yds wide, as stated by Patrick.  If we assume the angled flanks of archers, it becomes longer.  Robert hardy reckoned 950-1000 yds.  Clifford Rogers scale plan also suggests about 1000 yds.

[Erpingham]

If the point man of each wedge controls its shooting, we have by no means abandoned command control.

Presumably, he is connected by radio headset to the 1000 men he commands?  He is facing away from everyone and battles were not quiet enclosed spaces.  I think your earlier versions with "master archers" being vintenars or their equivalent made more sense, if totally speculative.

He wouldn't have to call out any commands. The basic rule would be: if he shoots, everybody shoots; if he doesn't shoot, nobody shoots. The MA draws his bow: the archers behind him see him doing it and draw theirs, the archers behind them see this and draw theirs, and so on. You can have as much battlefield noise and dust as you like, it doesn't matter.

But this isn't Patrick's concept .  To quote Reply #4

Diminishing ranges should be easy enough to handle: "Ten score" then "Nine score" then "Eight score" etc. would suffice against oncoming infantry (who cover about 80-100 feet per minute and at six volleys per minute advance only 3-4 yards between volleys, so several volleys can use the same range call).  Against oncoming mounted troops moving at triple that speed that is still only ten yards range change between volleys, so the range only needs to be dropped every second volley.

One man's voice would carry well enough for a brief message like this, not least because his listeners would know what to expect and even if they did not catch the precise enunciation of any change, they would have known what change to expect and re-ranged accordingly.

The "master archer" is supposed to call out target and range information in a continuous commentary.

Also, does co-ordinating shooting by saying "shoot when you see the man in front of you shoot" really need a "master archer"?

[Patrick Waterson]

The "master archer" is supposed to call out target and range information in a continuous commentary.

Or rather: "Ten score ... nock ... draw ... loose ... nine score ... nock ... draw ... loose..." etc.  His voice has to travel backwards about 20-30 yards for a 400-500-man wedge; not too difficult at the outset of a battle when one's own army is fairly quiet, the orders are expected and whatever noise the enemy is making is 200-300 yards away.

I am by no means averse to Justin's idea that the wedge shot when the point man (our putative master archer) shot; if they could hear him (one might wish to replay a few Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo videos to judge how far a regimental sergeant major can be heard, e.g. when a band is playing) they will have preparatory information in addition to the visual cue of men in front loosing.

Also, does co-ordinating shooting by saying "shoot when you see the man in front of you shoot" really need a "master archer"?

Belt and braces.   Also, having someone call the shots results in volleys rather than ripples.

Last bit on the English frontage at Agincourt.  It is difficult to be sure of this because, even if we adopt the consensus location, because we don't know exactly where on the field the English stood nor the exact extent of the woods and enclosures on each side.  Burne works on a front of  940-950 yds (he uses both).  However, examining scale plans suggests the probable English position was 750-800 yds wide, as stated by Patrick.  If we assume the angled flanks of archers, it becomes longer.  Robert hardy reckoned 950-1000 yds.  Clifford Rogers scale plan also suggests about 1000 yds.

Does deploying a crescent or similar configuration actually permit more men to bear on the same frontage?  The frontage itself does not change; all that changes is how closely the line of deployment matches the straight line between two woods.  An angled line on each flank changes the 'surface area' of the English deployment, but does not change the number of men who can shoot forwards.  It does change the number who can shoot to one side, potentially quite dramatically.

oooooo = straight line

o
o
    o
      o
        o
          o = angled line
         

I'll take this in stages if I may

I thought we had earlier noted that archers could fit within 3'x3' with room to spare.  We can go over that ground again if required.

No, you stated this but others didn't agree.  Justin provided some support, but his evidence was disputed.  I don't think we discussed depth really.  However, a little thought will show that 3ft is a non-starter, based on human anatomy.  From tip of fingers to centre line is about half your height.  A medieval man was on average about 5ft 7in.  Drawing an arrow to the ear uses all this distance, plus the second arm protrudes by about half its length (bending at the elbow), so an archer needs about 4 ft 2in minimum to stand in.  Put it another way, Mary Rose arrows are thought to have a draw length of 28-30 inches - the right arm would need to fit into six inches at full draw.  In fact, looking at images of warbow archers, we can see that high-angled shooting reqires more space than the minimum.

Here is Kevin Hicks demonstrating the longbow.  We can see his right elbow doing its stuff, but in a wedge everyone would be standing offset, not directly behind each other (see Justin's diagram), so he would have the extra room (6' total, including himself).  This is another of the virtues of a wedge.  This draw room incidentally does not impinge upon lateral spacing, which need be no more than 3' per man inclusive.

[Erpingham]

It does change the number who can shoot to one side, potentially quite dramatically.

Which, is of course, the purpose. 

We can see his right elbow doing its stuff, but in a wedge everyone would be standing offset, not directly behind each other (see Justin's diagram), so he would have the extra room (6' total, including himself).  This is another of the virtues of a wedge.  This draw room incidentally does not impinge upon lateral spacing, which need be no more than 3' per man inclusive.

There are two errors here.  Firstly, you don't need to be in a wedge to stand offset.  A wargamer-friendly test.  Take 4 d6s, with 5 spots uppermost.  Arrange them in a diamond = offset dots.  Turn 45% into square = offset dots.

Secondly, the key thing is the space between men in a file.  Justin's files are separated by 6ft, whether they are offset or not.  But we do now agree that our archer needs 6ft of depth .  I accept the lateral spacing is disputable and the offset would make it roomier for the same frontage, although, while a popular theory, we must keep reminding ourselves we have no evidence for it.