More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Jim Webster]

One might incidentally observe that the best way to stop a cavalry charge is in fact to shoot the horses.  Even this, if left too late, can be counterproductive, as a dead horse still has momentum.  From 50 yards away this is of no consequence.  From 10 yards away the hurtling body can break a formation.  There is every reason to open up on charging cavalry as soon as they are in effective range, and for bows this means shooting indirectly.  It also means judging arrow flight times against opponent rate of advance accurately, but that is another story.

I remember a quote along the lines of 'a dead horse can still cover 30 yards' before it stops running
I suspect that would be why roundshot was so effective, it knocked them down as well

[Erpingham]

I remember a quote along the lines of 'a dead horse can still cover 30 yards' before it stops running
I suspect that would be why roundshot was so effective, it knocked them down as well

One of the most surprising findings from the 1890s and early 1900s, confirmed by repeated veterinary tests, was that wounds particularly from the smaller calibre bullets introduced for the new generation of magazine rifles and machine- guns had much less penetrating and stopping power against horses than had been expected: a rifle bullet hitting a charging horse evenat 50 yards would not bring it down unless it hit a major bone or organ, and a charge would cover that distance in about seven seconds; it was common for horses to collapse from wounds after a charge was completed, but not before.


Steve Badsey : Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880–1918

Note Badsey uses the official regulation charge rate of 440 yds a minute (give or take).  This was designed for controlled impact rather than everybody racing as fast as their horse and nerve would allow Hollywood style.

I've looked at a few estimates of charge estimates

According to John M. Kistler, in his book 'Animals in the Military' A knight mounted on a destrier would close with the archer's at 25 mph  and would reach them in just over 6 1/2 second from 80 yards and a 6 mph man-at-arms on foot in 34 seconds. If the archer's nerves held there may perhaps time for approximately 3 arrows at the latter and just time to pick up mêlée weapons in the former.  (this from the very informative Warbow Wales website, which also contains some good articles on Tudor archery)

Here, a rate for a freely galloping horse has been chosen (about 740 m/min).  Incidentally, the man-at-arms on foot seems to be travelling too fast here - medieval infantry advanced steadily, trying to stay in formation.

Finally, Clifford Rogers calculations of medieval cavalry charge speed, based on 18th century French practice, use a speed of 340 yds per minute for a gallop.

One thing these do remind us, going back to our original discussion point, is there wasn't much time for any body to be working out ranges and calling back targetting instructions as cavalry closed, even if those at the front could think of anything other than trying to bring the enemy down.

[Justin Swanton]

this is all very reminiscent of the argument that legionaries engaged in long range skirmishing and the pila was used at maximum ranges.

we have a powerful armour / shield penetrative weapon.
it loses penetrative power (and some accuracy) the longer the range to target.
it loses the ability to pick the point of impact (the weak point in the armour) the further from target.
but it technically can reach a much further range than that which it has maximum penetrative effect.

therefore, lets ignore the weapon's key superiority point (penetration), and focus on theories about how it could be used un--aimed and at longest ranges, and lets ignore the evidence of people who use it now, and just use what we can imagine being possible from our readings or history a thousand years earlier.

to assist undertanding of why you need yards not feet space to wield this things, some short videos.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=english+longbows&&view=detail&mid=2CD539CDC1BD1159E7712CD539CDC1BD1159E771&rvsmid=15EACB30582BFF44548515EACB30582BFF445485&FORM=VDQVAP

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=english+warbows&&view=detail&mid=E59B805324D3597EBAB3E59B805324D3597EBAB3&&FORM=VRDGAR

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=english+warbows&&view=detail&mid=E4DA1E69C272AF3D718DE4DA1E69C272AF3D718D&&FORM=VDRVRV

for the last one, take note of the ranged penetration of the heaviest bow !

if you can do that by aiming and letting them come on to you, why waste your arrows and time with unaimed long range shots unless the target is unarmoured (horses or other bowmen)?

The three examples show archers resting their arrows on the left side of the bow (the modern method) which requires tilting the bow to the right to get the arrow there in the first place. Historical archers commonly rested their arrows on the right side of the bow which meant they could nock an arrow, draw and loose without moving the bow at all. Check how Lars Anderson does it here.

[Jim Webster]

One thing these do remind us, going back to our original discussion point, is there wasn't much time for any body to be working out ranges and calling back targetting instructions as cavalry closed, even if those at the front could think of anything about trying to bring the enemy down.

I suspect the 'overhead' or 'clout shooting' was more to goad the enemy into attacking. At Agincourt Henry moved his line forward to bring it into range.

Jim

[Erpingham]

Historical archers commonly rested their arrows on the right side of the bow which meant they could nock an arrow, draw and loose without moving the bow at all. Check how Lars Anderson does it here.

Lars Anderson's trick shooting is very impressive, but he is scarcely using a longbow.  His techniques (and choice of bow) seem to be drawn from a horse archery tradition.

[Justin Swanton]

Historical archers commonly rested their arrows on the right side of the bow which meant they could nock an arrow, draw and loose without moving the bow at all. Check how Lars Anderson does it here.

Lars Anderson's trick shooting is very impressive, but he is scarcely using a longbow.  His techniques (and choice of bow) seem to be drawn from a horse archery tradition.

From the same video:

[Erpingham]

From the same video:

These are very well known images - while they show the arrow on the right side of the bow (as do nearly every image of a longbow I've seen), but do they demonstrate the technique of shooting used by Lars Andersen?

[Erpingham]

Just a couple of examples of longbows, arrows on left side. 

[Patrick Waterson]

Just a couple of examples of longbows, arrows on left side. 

And look at the individual frontage.  Does each archer have even three feet of individual frontal space?

One of the most surprising findings from the 1890s and early 1900s, confirmed by repeated veterinary tests, was that wounds particularly from the smaller calibre bullets introduced for the new generation of magazine rifles and machine- guns had much less penetrating and stopping power against horses than had been expected: a rifle bullet hitting a charging horse even at 50 yards would not bring it down unless it hit a major bone or organ, and a charge would cover that distance in about seven seconds; it was common for horses to collapse from wounds after a charge was completed, but not before.


Steve Badsey : Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880–1918

This must be the origin of Douglas Haig's assertion that "a machinegun bullet cannot stop a charging horse".

Arrows would not necessarily kill a horse outright, even if they hit a major artery.  But a horse hit by an arrow tends to feel it, and this can render it uncontrollable, with consequent negative effects on the charge.  In some ways, to disrupt a charge it is better to wound horses than to kill them outright, although dropping them in their tracks also works.

One thing these do remind us, going back to our original discussion point, is there wasn't much time for any body to be working out ranges and calling back targetting instructions as cavalry closed, even if those at the front could think of anything other than trying to bring the enemy down.

One of the virtues of war experience is that one does not need to work out ranges; one knows them at a glance.  Being good at judging distance and knowing the usual rates of advance and the usual flight time for volleys at given ranges, a good 'master archer' can shout out ranges from instinct and experience in a standard sequence and timing, and the volleys will do the job.  (A bad 'master archer' can get it wrong - once.  I suspect there were very, very few of these.)

[Erpingham]

And look at the individual frontage.  Does each archer have even three feet of individual frontal space?

I'm sure I don't have to remind you medieval art was conventionalised and tended to represent armies with a handful of individuals, rather than a realistic expression of formations of hundreds?  This composition is in fact fairly classic, with infantry at the front, cavalry at the back, the whole set in an arching shape.  There are plenty of other compositions where the archers are more loosely arranged.

One of the virtues of war experience is that one does not need to work out ranges; one knows them at a glance.

I'm not doubting this.  What I'm doubting is in the approximately 10 seconds or so in which cavalry cross the point blank zone we will get a steady and coherent stream of ranging instructions and, even if we did, whether they could be effectively acted upon.  This regardless of whether we have our mysterious "master archer" or the equally speculative informal model.  I suspect a quick "Here they come!" would be more like it.

[RichT]

Historical archers commonly rested their arrows on the right side of the bow which meant they could nock an arrow, draw and loose without moving the bow at all. Check how Lars Anderson does it here.

Lars Anderson's trick shooting is very impressive, but he is scarcely using a longbow.  His techniques (and choice of bow) seem to be drawn from a horse archery tradition.

Exactly - he is drawing using just the strength of his right arm. A video of someone doing that with a longbow would be interesting. I've tried it, and can't do it. I dare say practised longbow archers are a lot stronger than I am, but even so I have doubts.

The nocking isn't really the point - it's perfectly possible to nock on the left with the bow held vertically (or with the bow held pointing straight down, and lined up fore and aft, which also takes little space and is what you'd usually do in competition target archery with a crowded shooting line, two people per 120cm boss). As I said, I dare say archers could cram in really close, but it would be suboptimal at best for heavy bows.

[Justin Swanton]

And look at the individual frontage.  Does each archer have even three feet of individual frontal space?

I'm sure I don't have to remind you medieval art was conventionalised and tended to represent armies with a handful of individuals, rather than a realistic expression of formations of hundreds?  This composition is in fact fairly classic, with infantry at the front, cavalry at the back, the whole set in an arching shape.  There are plenty of other compositions where the archers are more loosely arranged.

One of the virtues of war experience is that one does not need to work out ranges; one knows them at a glance.

I'm not doubting this.  What I'm doubting is in the approximately 10 seconds or so in which cavalry cross the point blank zone we will get a steady and coherent stream of ranging instructions and, even if we did, whether they could be effectively acted upon.  This regardless of whether we have our mysterious "master archer" or the equally speculative informal model.  I suspect a quick "Here they come!" would be more like it.

The point of resting the arrow on the right of the bow is that you can nock, draw and loose very quickly, with a minimum of surplus movement. Also you don't need to hold the bow horizontal to place a new arrow on its left side. That being the case, archers can form files that are closer together - 3 feet per file would be quite adequate.

The master archer bit applies only to extreme range shooting: 200 to 300 yards. Once enemy cavalry get close it is the front 2 to 3 ranks that are shooting at will, sighting their targets as they do so. No need then for anyone to call the shots (now where'd that expression come from I wonder?).

[Erpingham]

The master archer bit applies only to extreme range shooting: 200 to 300 yards. Once enemy cavalry get close it is the front 2 to 3 ranks that are shooting at will, sighting their targets as they do so. No need then for anyone to call the shots (now where'd that expression come from I wonder?).

Again, I don't think anyone has suggested that the front 2 or 3 ranks aren't shooting instinctively at a target they can actually see.  The argument is about passing target information to ranks 4+.  If these people are present in the formation, controlled shooting isn't possible for them against a fast-closing enemy- they can only hope to shoot off arrows at an estimated range or just not shoot at all.

[Duncan Head]

No need then for anyone to call the shots (now where'd that expression come from I wonder?).

Not recorded in print till the 1960s, apparently. Probably not archery, then 

[Justin Swanton]

No need then for anyone to call the shots (now where'd that expression come from I wonder?).

Not recorded in print till the 1960s, apparently. Probably not archery, then 

Seems to have originated in the Scottish game of curling which dates back to the 16th century, though when exactly the practice of the skip (team captain) calling the shots was introduced is open to debate.