More thoughts on longbow tactics

[RichT]

'Call the shots' - I very much doubt the curling etymology. While 'calling the shots' is used in curling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_curling I haven't seen any evidence that the phrase originated here, rather than being adopted from common usage. The curling explanation seems to come from here https://forum.english.best/t/origin-of-call-the-shots/1807/4 with no further evidence.

There is a good discussion here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/113815/whats-the-origin-of-the-figure-of-speech-call-the-shots

That it has a military origin seems quite likely, but that would appear to be in the sense of 'declaring where on the target the shot struck' (cf. 'call the lines' in tennis). But perhaps also with the sense of 'controlling the shooting' from which the modern meaning of the phrase derives.

Longbows - as I said, the point of a heavy longbow is that you can't draw it at all with "a minimum of surplus movement". You also don't have to hold the bow horizontal to place a new arrow on its left side anyway (though it helps), so that is beside the point.

[Justin Swanton]

Longbows - as I said, the point of a heavy longbow is that you can't draw it at all with "a minimum of surplus movement". You also don't have to hold the bow horizontal to place a new arrow on its left side anyway (though it helps), so that is beside the point.

Fine, then you don't need a lot of lateral space to use a longbow, whether you rest the arrow the left or right side. Makes sense.

[Mark G]

I think the clue is in the name.  You need shot to call a shot, so the gunpowder era seems likely.

Now if it was "calling the flight", or similar,maybe

[RichT]

Fine, then you don't need a lot of lateral space to use a longbow, whether you rest the arrow the left or right side. Makes sense.

No, you misunderstand me. You do need a lot of lateral space to use a longbow (as shown in the videos linked earlier). This isn't greatly affected by which side you nock the arrow. The primary reason the people in those videos are using a lot of space is not because of the left/right arrow question, but because of the whole body motion needed to draw a longbow. The video you linked is irrelevant as it is of a low draw weight bow that can be drawn with the arm.

[Justin Swanton]

Fine, then you don't need a lot of lateral space to use a longbow, whether you rest the arrow the left or right side. Makes sense.

No, you misunderstand me. You do need a lot of lateral space to use a longbow (as shown in the videos linked earlier). This isn't greatly affected by which side you nock the arrow. The primary reason the people in those videos are using a lot of space is not because of the left/right arrow question, but because of the whole body motion needed to draw a longbow. The video you linked is irrelevant as it is of a low draw weight bow that can be drawn with the arm.

Looking at those videos the only time the archers need lots of lateral space is when they tilt their bows to place the arrow on the left hand side (they could hold the bow vertically when placing the arrow on the left or eliminate the problem entirely by placing the arrow on the right). The actual motion of drawing the bow is a straight backwards movement of the right arm whilst the left arm projects forwards holding the bow. I did archery for years and can confirm you wouldn't need more than a couple of feet of width to draw a bow without knocking against anything.

[RichT]

Looking at those videos the only time the archers need lots of lateral space is when they tilt their bows to place the arrow on the left hand side (they could hold the bow vertically when placing the arrow on the left or eliminate the problem entirely by placing the arrow on the right). The actual motion of drawing the bow is a straight backwards movement of the right arm whilst the left arm projects forwards holding the bow. I did archery for years and can confirm you wouldn't need more than a couple of feet of width to draw a bow without knocking against anything.

I did archery for years too and can confirm that that is not the case. Where does this leave us? Nowhere. Boring topic anyway, time to move along...

Edit: I'll expand on that. Justin, are you saying you have shot longbows for years in shooting lines with less than two feet spacing? If so I bow to your knowledge and experience - you should have said so at the start of this disucssion and saved us all a lot of time.

Or are you saying you've shot modern bows in target archery in a typical competition shooting line? That's my experience, and I said above that archers could (and can) shoot in a very squashed up line (two feet? Maybe, though I've not been that constrained myself) though they would much prefer to have more space. In my admittedly limited experience of longbows however, and based on everything I have heard, seen and read about shooting longbows, using a longbow in such a constrained space would be very difficult indeed. Now if your experience of longbow shooting is different, you have shot in a tight line, and found it not to be a problem, I am again happy to bow to your experience - and it would be nice to have such a definite statement of fact on this forum. Of course having established that longbows can be shot like this, we could still argue about whether they actually were but I'm happy to bow out (ha!) of that discussion - I don't know and have no opinion on the matter.

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, are you saying you have shot longbows for years in shooting lines with less than two feet spacing? If so I bow to your knowledge and experience - you should have said so at the start of this disucssion and saved us all a lot of time.

Or are you saying you've shot modern bows in target archery in a typical competition shooting line? That's my experience, and I said above that archers could (and can) shoot in a very squashed up line (two feet? Maybe, though I've not been that constrained myself) though they would much prefer to have more space. In my admittedly limited experience of longbows however, and based on everything I have heard, seen and read about shooting longbows, using a longbow in such a constrained space would be very difficult indeed. Now if your experience of longbow shooting is different, you have shot in a tight line, and found it not to be a problem, I am again happy to bow to your experience - and it would be nice to have such a definite statement of fact on this forum. Of course having established that longbows can be shot like this, we could still argue about whether they actually were but I'm happy to bow out (ha!) of that discussion - I don't know and have no opinion on the matter.

No I've never used a longbow, just a regular recurve for target shooting. Sure, I liked the lateral space as it was easier to tilt my bow when placing an arrow (the arrow didn't fall off the rest so easily). But watching someone like Lars Anderson made me realise that tilting the bow wasn't necessary.

In any case I'm going to need a lot of convincing to believe that an archer needs more than 3 feet max when drawing the bow. Do the elbows stick out or what?

I did archery for years too and can confirm that that is not the case. Where does this leave us? Nowhere. Boring topic anyway, time to move along...

Fair enough.



Or we could settle it like gentlemen...
                                     

(it's the weekend, what can I say?)

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

Of course.  And we see opposing lines apparently exchanging shots at 15 yards or so, simply to fit everyone in the picture.   But the fact we have some tight and some loose archer formations in art of the period might convey something; if all art was convention, why are they not all tight?

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.

Ranging instructions would be given before the cavalry reach the point blank zone; indeed, if they are not broken up or diverted by the time they reach the point-blank zone the archers may well have other things on their minds, e.g. withdrawing through billmen, standing directly behind stakes, etc.  I think we are broadly saying essentially the same thing here but with a bit of misunderstanding, probaly owing to my vagueness.   For avoidance of doubt, ranges get called from 300 or so yards down to about 100, by which time the archers should have done their thing and messed up the enemy (and if not, they move into whatever direct/point-blank shooting procedure they have).

On the question of longbow shooting frontage, I got my own bow out of exile to try a few things.  Doing so, it struck me that the reason re-enactors tilt their bows is because they nock with the left arm below or level with the shoulder, which makes them sensitive about ground clearance.  Try this: lift the bow to an angle of 20 degrees or so, then nock, draw and loose.  It can all be done with no tilt at all.  (Bit more tiring on the arm, but that may be simple unfitness on my part.) Hence, if the standard formation and procedure were configured for distance shooting, an individual frontage of 3' per man would be ample for longbowmen and they might even get away with less.

[Mark G]

It's like that old groucho Marx line, who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?

You can no more compare the draw action of a standard bow to a long bow, than you can to a cross bow.

We present experts who say this, and show this in video, and still you two refuse to accept it.

Ever reenactor agrees, the draw weight needed requires a fill body movement, requires plenty of lateral space to perform, and forward and back space as well.

While your Persian bow wasn't even drawn back to the ear, even with it's much lower strength. 

They are invalid comparisons.

If you two don't start accepting evidence that contradicts you, can you at least start self moderating, and stop posting after page 5.
  It's becoming as bad as Tango on TMP filling the site with rubbish, when every third thread here is a monster one with the two anti science nuts prolonging otherwise simple discussions ad infinitum

Especially as the number two keeps starting the arguments in the first place.

[Erpingham]

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?

Of course.  And we see opposing lines apparently exchanging shots at 15 yards or so, simply to fit everyone in the picture.   But the fact we have some tight and some loose archer formations in art of the period might convey something; if all art was convention, why are they not all tight?

Ah, here we get into the intracacies of medieval art as a source.  But the answer to the question is probably composition.  The artist of the Beauchamp Pageant is good and his compositions are tight, essentially creating an arch/triangle to focus the eye on the main action - a cavalry fight in the top half of the image.  Other artists more randomly scatter their supporting footsoldiers in the foreground, although following essentially the same convention.  There is little reason to assume our artists had seen a battle or, if they had, whether they would try to depict it naturalistically.  And, as already noted, medieval art rarely give more than an impression of battle formations (it starts to change in the sixteenth century, where conventions start to show blocks of troops and masses of soldiers, rather than a representative few).

Another curio is that we can't easily settle the nocking and drawing question because archers are rarely depicted doing it. Archers usually shoot, or carry bows, or even string them, but rarely nock and prepare to draw.  We've already seen one detailed example above, which shows a process similar to that used today, but I not aware of any others this clear, or showing the technique suggested by Patrick.

[aligern]

For my two pennorth I think it far more lijely that archers will deploywith sufficient space to allow those in rank two and quite likely three to shoot on a flat trajectory. You see they are not expecting to fight hand to hand, and if that does occur the second rank can step forward and bolster the line. If the ranks are offset ( which, btw is one of the possible meanings of ' en herce', like the tines on a harrow) then at least one  rank can shoot too.
When it gets to close ranges the archers do not have to aim carefully as a very big target is advancing on them, so 'fire' can be rapid . Of course the ranks still cannt be so clse as to endager leading rabs from shooters behind them.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Ah, here we get into the intracacies of medieval art as a source.  But the answer to the question is probably composition.  The artist of the Beauchamp Pageant is good and his compositions are tight, essentially creating an arch/triangle to focus the eye on the main action - a cavalry fight in the top half of the image.  Other artists more randomly scatter their supporting footsoldiers in the foreground, although following essentially the same convention.  There is little reason to assume our artists had seen a battle or, if they had, whether they would try to depict it naturalistically.  And, as already noted, medieval art rarely give more than an impression of battle formations (it starts to change in the sixteenth century, where conventions start to show blocks of troops and masses of soldiers, rather than a representative few).

Indeed. It is also tempting to cherry-pick one's evidence, which can lead to some interesting evaluation questions as the longbowmen with arrows drawn on the left of the bow are also the ones in closest formation.

At what point do we cease (or begin) accepting the evidence of mediaeval art? (The simple questions are often the most profound.)  Composition is an obvious consideration, and then there is the matter of the artists themselves.  At the Battle of Cascina (AD 1364) the Pisans under Hawkwood attempted to surprise the Florentine vanguard when most of the Florentine army was taking its ease. The Pisan approach took too long, allowing the balance of the army to get dressed, organise and take part. The Pisans lost. However the majority of paintings of the battle seem to consist largely of numerous naked Florentines on the riverbank.  Not too helpful for the modern historian and wargamer.

I do not know whether this follows from composition constraints, but archers in non-siege situations are shown using direct shooting.  Is this because this is all they did, or because it would look silly to have them poised for indirect shooting with their opponents a few paces away on the other side of the illumination?

So yes, we need some mine detectors in order to make any progress through this particular minefield.

Another curio is that we can't easily settle the nocking and drawing question because archers are rarely depicted doing it. Archers usually shoot, or carry bows, or even string them, but rarely nock and prepare to draw.  We've already seen one detailed example above, which shows a process similar to that used today, but I not aware of any others this clear, or showing the technique suggested by Patrick.

Is this our Elizabethan-looking friend in colour, who appears to be shooting by himself?

You can no more compare the draw action of a standard bow to a long bow, than you can to a cross bow.

We present experts who say this, and show this in video, and still you two refuse to accept it.

Do they?  Quote their exact words, please, in support of this assertion.

[Mark G]

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

John Turton

"Warbow, anything over about 70 pounds in draw weight is a warbow
So with the strength of my arms here i can't draw this any further
If I step forward, turn my foot out lean my weight on the front leg and use my back  and my legs to draw it the all of a sudden, not a problem. "

but seriously, if you needed to see that in writing to believe it, then you should just step out of this thread, your knowledge base is simply too low to even think of contributing on the subject.

[Justin Swanton]

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

John Turton

"Warbow, anything over about 70 pounds in draw weight is a warbow
So with the strength of my arms here i can't draw this any further
If I step forward, turn my foot out lean my weight on the front leg and use my back  and my legs to draw it the all of a sudden, not a problem. "

but seriously, if you needed to see that in writing to believe it, then you should just step out of this thread, your knowledge base is simply too low to even think of contributing on the subject.

Watching the video, I see the archer put one leg forward about a foot from the other then draw the bow with his right arm pulling straight back whilst his left arm extends forward holding the bow, using his back muscles to help but standing up straight throughout the process. He doesn't occupy more than about 2 - 3 feet lateral space. The only time he would need more lateral space is if he holds the bow parallel to the ground and that is not part of his drawing technique. So I remain unconvinced.

I do remain convinced however that a minimum of civility is normal for a forum.

[Erpingham]

I do not know whether this follows from composition constraints, but archers in non-siege situations are shown using direct shooting.  Is this because this is all they did, or because it would look silly to have them poised for indirect shooting with their opponents a few paces away on the other side of the illumination?

Interesting question.  Someone (Nick Harbud, I think) has already quoted this as evidence that longbowmen in the open field shot direct.  I tend to agree with you that, because the artist wants to show the archers shooting at someone on the other side, they show direct shooting.  Likewise, if they are shooting at a castle they would raise their bows to hit people on the battlements.

Is this our Elizabethan-looking friend in colour, who appears to be shooting by himself?

He's actually Flemish*, painted by Hans Burgkmair (more famous for his engravings) c.1510s or 20s.  Is your contention that archers would have two different techniques, one for when they have lots of space and one for when they are in close formation?    So our archer learns his trade at the village butts but is retrained in a completely new technique to fight in close-formation?

Or perhaps German - Burgkmair was German but is thought to have been with Maximillian in the Low Countries at times.

PS  While we are talking Burgkmair, to illustrate changing battle image conventions, note how he has handled the unit of longbowmen in the background of this image of the Battle of the Spurs


A block multiple ranks deep rather than a few individuals.