More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Erpingham]

Well, it's nice to be largely in agreement in one of these dicussions 

On Bradbury and his arguments, I think he demonstrated pretty well that the English were not described in a single formation through the HYW.  His arguments about hedgehogs don't work for me - I'm convinced by the harrow argument.

Clifford Rogers argument about the palisades is that there would be too big a gap between the stakes, though he admits that it couldn't have been charged through.  Following Keegan, he has his files of archers a yard apart and six ranks deep but is clearly thinking they are in staggered lines, as he thinks the stakes in each rank would be 5ft 8 in apart if they were deployed directly in front of individual archers (assuming a 4in stake).  Turning to his own calculation, he keeps the archers in six ranks but brings them down to a 3ft frontage (he doesn't explain why). He concludes that the archers placed half their available stakes in an outward sloping palisade, set 6-9 inches apart (assuming a 3 in stake - it isn't clear why the stakes have shrunk), and the remainder spaced in depth 2 or 3 to a yard behind.  To avoid his archers being unable to pass through the palisade, he envisages the palisade in staggered "by a few feet" every 50 yds e.g.

___     ____      ___
     ___        ___

For those with access, he discusses this here :

Rogers, Clifford J. (2008). "The Battle of Agincourt". In Villalon, L. J. Andrew; Kagay, Donald J. The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas. Leiden: Brill. pp. 53-56

[MixusMaximus]

concerning individual frontage or spacing, you should consider that arrows don't leave the bow in a straight line, they swing until the stabilising effect of the fletching kicks in.
And when shooting in their own pace it would be even riskier to move in front of a guy behind you who is just about to let his arrow fly! So staggering seems important to me as a 3 D archer (low poundage hunting recurve )

[Patrick Waterson]

Good observation, MM.

Everything seems to suggest an offset deployment of individuals (staggering).  Here is something for thought.

If a vintenar commands twenty archers, does he and his command together come to 21?  If so, we have an interesting feature of the wedge:

         o
       o  o
     o  o  o
   o  o  o  o
o  o  o  o  o
o  o  o  o  o  o       = 21

Similarly, 5x21 = 105, also a wedge which coincidentally corresponds with the command of a centenar (five vintenars). [I am not going to sketch this one!]

[Erpingham]

Staggering the archers does seem the best way to combine a reasonable frontage with the need for elbow room.

On wedges, we have no evidence that longbowmen fought in them, so it's a bit of distraction.

On vintenars, its hard to say because vintenaries were often understrength.  The Welsh evidence seems to suggest they are supernumerary, but then they had more supernumeraries than English troops.

[Patrick Waterson]

On wedges, we have no evidence that longbowmen fought in them, so it's a bit of distraction.

If we had, yours truly would not be conjecturing on the subject.

On vintenars, its hard to say because vintenaries were often understrength.  The Welsh evidence seems to suggest they are supernumerary, but then they had more supernumeraries than English troops.

Sorry to go on about the matter of wedges, but if one's subunits are understrength one can make smaller mini-wedges, e.g. 15 or even 10.  I would think, though, that if wedges were used in battle (the speculative 21-strong and 105-strong wedges would be more likely to be used for practice) they would be substantial formations containing at least 300 men (or maybe 325, 341, 368, 396, 425, 455, 486 or 518 men), suitable for placing on the flank of a battle of men-at-arms.  Instead of nicely tessalated triangles, understrength vintenaries would be packed together in a massive wedge, the whole under the ... dare I suggest it ... direction of a master archer.

There would be diminishing returns with such an arrangement.  At 518 men the wedge is 32 deep from base to apex and hence although conferring impressive arrow power the depth of the 'beaten zone' is greater than most opposing formations it could expect to encouter, which means some of the arrows will be wasted.  Conversely the frontage of the archer formation is accordingly narrow, making it less vulnerable to attack.  500 men-at-arms 4 deep would have a frontage of 125 yards. 500 (or 518) archers in wedge would have a frontage of 32 yards.  Geometry alone would commit most of the opposition against the men-at-arms rather than the archers.

On the whole, I rather like the idea of archer wedges for Crecy, Agincourt and the like.  Less sure about their applicability in Wars of the Roses battles, though.

[Jim Webster]

Currently reading 'Fighting for the Faith' by David Nicolle. (The many fronts of crusade & jihad 1000-1500AD)

He discusses the Military sections of the mid-thirteeth century Siete Paridas by King Alfonso el Sabio. These seem to have leaned on Nicephorus Phocas as well.
In the Mid-Fourteenth century another Spanish knight, Don Juan Manuel also listed some Spanish cavalry tactices. One was 'al haz, 'the close packed bundle.' [which to quote Nicolle] "which was defensive and probably lay behind the herse formation used by English armies during the Hundred Years War."

I am not entirely impressed. If only because from the writing style I'm left not entirely sure which of the two Spanish authors mentioned al haz.

[Justin Swanton]

Similarly, 5x21 = 105, also a wedge which coincidentally corresponds with the command of a centenar (five vintenars). [I am not going to sketch this one!]

There you go. 

[Erpingham]

If we are to duplicate the works of Burne, we should note

1. His "wedges" are actually two lines joined at the apex - an inverted V shape.
2. They are designed to shoot in enfilade, not forwards.

As I've said, though, we don't have any evidence they were used.  But the graphic is impressive Justin.

[Jim Webster]

If we are to duplicate the works of Burne, we should note

1. His "wedges" are actually two lines joined at the apex - an inverted V shape.
2. They are designed to shoot in enfilade, not forwards.

As I've said, though, we don't have any evidence they were used.  But the graphic is impressive Justin.

One thing I took from the rather impressive graphic was that it does show that the row of men on the outside would be able to shoot 'over open sights'
I'm not sure about the men next to them because they've got somebody in front of them. I guess that somewhere between 27 and 30 men would be able to fire direct.Mind you there are probably 60 men who contribute nothing.
Ironically if you just had two lines at the same spacing (look at the two lines at the base of the formation) you'd also have about 28 men capable of shooting 'over open sights'

Having the formation hollow, line an inverted V shape does sound interesting

[Dangun]

The thing about wedges...
When the enemy foot, or better still, cavalry, make contact... what happens.
Are the guys at the point end meant to stand their ground and die?

[Justin Swanton]

The thing about wedges...
When the enemy foot, or better still, cavalry, make contact... what happens.
Are the guys at the point end meant to stand their ground and die?

Perhaps that's the origin of the expression: 'They have a stake in the matter.' 

[Patrick Waterson]

Indeed.

The thing about wedges...
When the enemy foot, or better still, cavalry, make contact... what happens.
Are the guys at the point end meant to stand their ground and die?

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.  The point man, if he were the 'master archer', would have considerable incentive to ensure the shooting machine ran effectively, his life being first on the line if it did not.

I am still not sure whether to conclude that the English herce/herse represents a wedge or a chevron; the wedge seems indicated by the harrow analogy, while the chevron has its own appeal in certain ways.  On the whole, I am inclined to favour the wedge for weight of indirect missile power, shortness of frontage and the ability to produce a concentration of missilery capable of creating the slowing and displacing effects noted by sources in respect of approaching enemies - and also ease of formation (once you have the point man in place everyone else can assemble with minimal guidance).

By the way, thanks for the 105-man wedge diagram, Justin!

One thing I took from the rather impressive graphic was that it does show that the row of men on the outside would be able to shoot 'over open sights'
I'm not sure about the men next to them because they've got somebody in front of them. I guess that somewhere between 27 and 30 men would be able to fire direct.Mind you there are probably 60 men who contribute nothing.

Their main contribution would be when shooting indirectly, during which they could put a lot of arrows into a concentrated frontage.  I would suggest the whole point of this was to stop/divert the enemy before he could get into direct shooting range, at which point c.60 archers would be reduced to fingering their mauls or whatever because they can no longer shoot.

Having the formation hollow, like an inverted V shape does sound interesting

Burne favoured this.  It is optimised for direct shooting, and allows a certain amount of overlap of the target to make up for 'fudging' if shooting indirectly.  What it does not do is provide a heavy concentration of arrows, which is why in my book it takes second place after the wedge on the probability curve.

[Erpingham]

Burne favoured this.  It is optimised for direct shooting, and allows a certain amount of overlap of the target to make up for 'fudging' if shooting indirectly.  What it does not do is provide a heavy concentration of arrows, which is why in my book it takes second place after the wedge on the probability curve.

Probably the greatest strength of Burne's idea was it had a rationale behind it.  If you assumed that an English army placed its archers on the wings of its battles (which is quite well attested), that the archers stood forward of the men-at-arms (also mentioned) and that the battles deployed side by side (again mentioned), it is a fairly straightforward leap to see the archers angled to provide enfilade shooting in support of their MAA and where the wings of adjacent battles met, you get chevrons of men.  This could have happened on occassion.  Burne then decides that this is the explanation of the herse formation mentioned by Froissart and the mention of "cuneos" of archers at Agincourt in the Gesta, and it it is at this point he begins to go out on a limb.  That he then decides that the English always used this standard formation carries him way beyond the evidence.

So, as we can see, Burne creates his chevrons of archers, and their tactical employment, by logical means but making them into wedges is a bit of linguistic fudging.

The solid wedge, however, appears to have no rationale, just the linguistic fudging to back it up. 

[Patrick Waterson]

The solid wedge, however, appears to have no rationale, just the linguistic fudging to back it up. 

I thought we had been examining rationale in this thread (as far as I am concerned linguistic fudging is neither here nor there, although the use of 'cuneus' might be considered indicative).  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.

If our putative wedges were forward of the line of men-at-arms, they would be well placed for at least some archers to enfilade anyone taking on the men-at-arms.  Another thought is that if the line of men-at-arms was a couple of hundred yards long, or more, then simply by having every archer face left (or right) the entire wedge could shoot indirectly (albeit lopsidedly) into opponents closing with the men-at-arms, doing more damage than a few archers shooting directly in enfilade.

The more I look at the wedge as a possible longbow formation, the more I like it.

[Erpingham]

The solid wedge, however, appears to have no rationale, just the linguistic fudging to back it up. 

I thought we had been examining rationale in this thread (as far as I am concerned linguistic fudging is neither here nor there, although the use of 'cuneus' might be considered indicative).

But without fudging, there is no reason to suggest wedges at all.

  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.
Reduced frontage - true but  greater depth.   
reduced vulnerability - dubious - any evidence of the use of wedges in defence on this basis?
concentration  - true surely only directly forward?  And the archers are supposed to be opposing attacks on the main body to their flank. 

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 serated line on the flanks of the main battle?  Wouldn't most of the archers mask each other?

As I said before, lack of evidence for wedges and how they might work really just makes them a distraction.

[/quote]