Jon Freitag's blogging about realistic medieval rules got me thinking about something I want to be clear about in my own rule writing - effective battlefield ranges of missile weapons. I'll try to give a bit of context, but at the same time avoid diving down too many research areas.
Firstly, what do I mean by effective battlefield range? Well, there is no standard definition of effective range but there is a general agreement it's where the weapon has a good chance of making an impact on the enemy. It is immediately obvious that this has to vary according to target. It will also vary according to the shooter. A shooting guild champion who practices regularly is probably going to be more effective than a burgher who has just been issued a bow from the communal armoury to perform militia duty. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume a bunch of average shooters aiming at blocks of close order troops. In terms of effect, do we want to annoy/harass them or do we want them hors de combat? We probably need to think of both.
Ok, now we reach the beginning :) I looked again at Sven Ekdahl's theory about the tactics of Teutonic Order crossbowmen. It's been discussed on the forum before (raised by me, IRRC). Anyway, Ekdahl suggested that the crossbowmen started the battle by showering bolts on the enemy at around 250-300 metres range, shooting at a high angle. Then, when the enemy were worn down, the crossbowmen would advance to 80m and engage in more flat trajectory shooting and start doing real damage. His long range estimate is based on experiments with replica field crossbows (we don't need to go into the vast number of crossbow types the Teutonic order had but he is thinking moderate draw weight weapons, not the big siege and wall crossbows). I can't see where he gets his 80m from (some think he is drawing from TO records but I think he has taken a point blank range figure from modern experiments).
This seems quite plausible but it isn't based on any contemporary data, as far as I can see. We do have some comparative info from late 15th and early 16th century shooting competitions (these really were a popular pastime in much of Europe). These suggest ranges of 90 - 100m were regularly shot over - perhaps a bit further. So maybe he has erred on the conservative side for the shorter range. For what it's worth, Mike Loades in his Crossbow book seems to favour 60 yds and under for short range.
I'd be interested if anyone has some more details of target shooting ranges (I've seen about three with sufficient detail) but tactical manuals making recommendation or historical accounts which specify ranges would all be helpful in firming up this range study.
So far the historical has been the focus, but the intention is to be clear on the basis for dividing missile ranges between high impact/shorter range and disruptive/harassment shooting at longer range, and how that is simply represented/abstracted. But that might better form a topic in the Rules Discussions area.
A bit of serendipity, Anthony, as I considered the same when studying authenticity of Medieval rules in the post to which you refer. I do not have any field trials comparing crossbow v longbow for effective range. For my gaming and rule-writing purposes, I put crossbow and longbow having the same short-range while only longbow have a long-range at double the short-range. Scientifically rigorous? Probably not but this provides a relativity between the two missile platforms. An equally important part of the equation is how fast can a formed body of advancing troops cross this "beaten" zone.
Interesting video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9jApIaIMAs) where a 600 pound crossbow is tested against a 165 pound longbow. Their extreme range is about the same - a little over 200 yards. Sure, a heavier crossbow will shoot further, but will also take much more time to winch up.
Shooting to extreme range is actually quite accurate as the parabolic curve of the arrow or bolt's flight ends up pretty much in the same place whether the bow is elevated a little above or below 45 degrees. How long to get through the beaten zone? Presuming the men advance at about 2km/h with their shields up, that's 33 metres a minute, so probably a good half minute or so before they're through. Long enough for some lucky arrows or bolts to find chinks in the armour.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 14, 2025, 07:02:53 PMHow long to get through the beaten zone? Presuming the men advance at about 2km/h with their shields up, that's 33 metres a minute, so probably a good half minute or so before they're through. Long enough for some lucky arrows or bolts to find chinks in the armour.
"A good half minute" must be a colloquial term. At a march rate of 33m/minute, covering 200m will take at least six minutes.
For what it is worth, Guilmartin in his work on Renaissance galley warfare reckons 75 yards as the maximum effective range against an armoured target, perhaps 150 yards tops vs an unarmoured target. He notes that Payne-Galloway quoted 80-300 yards, but argues this might be true for lethal effect against a relatively unarmoured target if the bolt hits, without taking into account the likelihood of actually hitting said target. He has a very dim view of the accuracy of military crossbows firing war bolts, and also notes their much greater drag than arrows, so his guesstimate of 150 yards is based on the point where drag really hurts the bolt.
Now, if one assumes one's enemy is kind enough to be in a very dense formation, then accuracy is less of an issue, just as with muskets, in terms of true effective range. But if they are not so kind... As Guilmartin notes, the appeal of the crossbow in its maritime use was a weapon that needed not a lot of skill to use, but equally skill may not have allowed marked increases in effect, unlike conventional archery.
QuoteAn equally important part of the equation is how fast can a formed body of advancing troops cross this "beaten" zone.
The closest I can offer to contemporary evidence is Humphrey Barwicke in
A Breefe Discource (etc.) in 1592
I would firste deliuer a single Bullet, at 24. score off or there abouts, by that time they had marched fourescore neerer, I would deliuer another Bullet, He is shooting a musket, hence the long range, but the march rate is what interests us. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us how long it takes him to load a musket ::) Going from a fellow Elizebethan firearms enthusiate, Barnabe Rich, probably about 40 seconds. An English pace was about 30 inches. So about 120 paces - 300 ft, 100 yds - a minute is what he is thinking. The trouble with Barwicke is that he is engaged in a row with Sir John Smythe about longbow effectiveness and he tends to exaggerate (as does Smythe). In this case, a slower advance rate would be an advantage to his argument, though. But 120 paces seems high - it's modern light infantry pace - and it does reflect drilled troops. Medieval seems more slow and steady to me -
a petit pace.
Another idea which I have seen, based on the introduction of marching to a drum beat in the 16th century, is that the rate of march was 60 beats per minute, at one pace per beat. So half Barwicke's rate. The problem with attempts to use Napoleonic and later rates is there was a shift to faster manouever in the latter half of the 18th century.
Quote from: Jon Freitag on March 14, 2025, 07:08:09 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 14, 2025, 07:02:53 PMHow long to get through the beaten zone? Presuming the men advance at about 2km/h with their shields up, that's 33 metres a minute, so probably a good half minute or so before they're through. Long enough for some lucky arrows or bolts to find chinks in the armour.
"A good half minute" must be a colloquial term. At a march rate of 33m/minute, covering 200m will take at least six minutes.
The beaten zone at extreme range isn't 200m but more like a dozen or two dozen metres since all the arrows/bolts are shot to pretty much the same distance. So there's a eye of the hurricane once past the 200m mark and before reaching the 100m mark of direct line-of-sight shooting.
Quote from: DBS on March 14, 2025, 07:28:49 PMNow, if one assumes one's enemy is kind enough to be in a very dense formation, then accuracy is less of an issue, just as with muskets, in terms of true effective range.
Which is why I made this assumption - our game problem is mainly about bodies of men, not picking off individuals. One shooting record I found was of a match in 1458. Over a range of 91 m., crossbowmen shot 50 arrows at a 15cm target. The winner hit it 11 times. Doesn't sound much but that's pretty impressive. But of course, the other 320 competitors didn't do as well, so it has limited value for massed shooting, alas.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 14, 2025, 07:35:28 PMQuoteAn equally important part of the equation is how fast can a formed body of advancing troops cross this "beaten" zone.
The closest I can offer to contemporary evidence is Humphrey Barwicke in A Breefe Discource (etc.) in 1592
I would firste deliuer a single Bullet, at 24. score off or there abouts, by that time they had marched fourescore neerer, I would deliuer another Bullet,
He is shooting a musket, hence the long range, but the march rate is what interests us. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us how long it takes him to load a musket ::) Going from a fellow Elizebethan firearms enthusiate, Barnabe Rich, probably about 40 seconds. An English pace was about 30 inches. So about 120 paces - 300 ft, 100 yds - a minute is what he is thinking. The trouble with Barwicke is that he is engaged in a row with Sir John Smythe about longbow effectiveness and he tends to exaggerate (as does Smythe). In this case, a slower advance rate would be an advantage to his argument, though. But 120 paces seems high - it's modern light infantry pace - and it does reflect drilled troops. Medieval seems more slow and steady to me - a petit pace.
Difference between infantry in 1592 compared to, say, 1400 is that the former had no adequate protection against firearms so did not rely on it so much. The best tactic was to close with the enemy as quickly as possible to mitigate the effect of their firearms (which weren't very accurate anyway). Even then the infantry would be trying to keep formation whilst advancing which would naturally slow them down. 100 yards a minute translates to 6km/h, about as fast an an unencumbered man without a care in the world can manage before breaking into a trot.
Infantry in 1400 could stop arrows with shields and body armour hence would tend to be naturally heavier and more cautious when advancing, keeping behind their raised shields and in particular taking care to cover their faces, which made visibility a problem, obliging them to advance slowly.
QuoteAnother idea which I have seen, based on the introduction of marching to a drum beat in the 16th century, is that the rate of march was 60 beats per minute, at one pace per beat. So half Barwicke's rate. The problem with attempts to use Napoleonic and later rates is there was a shift to faster manouever in the latter half of the 18th century.
Ditto. I doubt one can equate infantry movement speeds in the 18th 15th centuries.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 14, 2025, 07:46:52 PMQuote from: DBS on March 14, 2025, 07:28:49 PMNow, if one assumes one's enemy is kind enough to be in a very dense formation, then accuracy is less of an issue, just as with muskets, in terms of true effective range.
Which is why I made this assumption - our game problem is mainly about bodies of men, not picking off individuals. One shooting record I found was of a match in 1458. Over a range of 91 m., crossbowmen shot 50 arrows at a 15cm target. The winner hit it 11 times. Doesn't sound much but that's pretty impressive. But of course, the other 320 competitors didn't do as well, so it has limited value for massed shooting, alas.
Difficult to miss in massed shooting since your target is wide and deep. All you need to do is get the range right. The infantry need to be close enough together that when they close for melee, there aren't any gaps that can be exploited. That makes them easy to hit.
From the Tang dynasty manual of Li Jing, as preserved in later Tang encyclopedias. Translation posted by "Yun" in the old China History Forum:
QuoteWhen the formation is ready, the drums are sounded and the crossbowmen loose their bolts when the enemy are a distance of 150 paces away. The bowmen loose their arrows next, when the enemy are 60 paces away. If the enemy comes within 20 paces, the crossbowmen and bowmen put down their crossbows and bows, which will be gathered up by the men in the support companies. The crossbowmen and bowmen each have a modao 陌刀 (or daobang 刀梆, sword-pole) tied to their arm, and will now pull on the rope to pick up their modao and advance with a shout to attack the enemy along with the vanguard (zhanfeng 战锋) companies. These crossbowmen each have 50 bolts, and are arranged in a V-formation (or goose-flight formation 雁行阵) at the front of each combat company. If a crossbowman fails to advance into close combat with the others, he is executed.
From an early 11th-century Song source, quoted in Needham
Science and Civilization.... V:6 p.122:
QuoteAll the military theorists of the Tang maintained that the crossbow had no advantage over hand-to-hand weapons, and they insisted on having long bills and great shields in the front line to repel the charge, and made the crossbowmen to carry sabres and long-hafted weapons. The result was that if the enemy adopted an open-order formation and attacked with hand-to-hand weapons, the soldiers would throw away their crossbows and have recourse to those also. A body of the rearguard was therefore detailed beforehand to go round and collect up the crossbows. But now things are not at all like this. The crossbow is the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet. The crossbowmen are mustered in separate companies, and when they shoot, nothing can stand in front of them, no formation can keep its order. If attacked cavalry, the crossbowmen will be as solid as a mountain, shooting off such volleys that nothing can remain alive before them. Although the charge may be impetuous it will not reach them.
Despite the latter statement there is other information saying that the Song infantry were a mixed formation with a rank of men with shields and various pole weapons, 3 ranks of crossbowmen and a rank of archers. (Lorge has it as I recall)
QuoteThe beaten zone at extreme range isn't 200m but more like a dozen or two dozen metres since all the arrows/bolts are shot to pretty much the same distance. So there's a eye of the hurricane once past the 200m mark and before reaching the 100m mark of direct line-of-sight shooting.
Do you have a source for this single long range shot Justin? Or is it a speculative idea?
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 14, 2025, 09:10:52 PMFrom the Tang dynasty manual of Li Jing, as preserved in later Tang encyclopedias. Translation posted by "Yun" in the old China History Forum:
QuoteIf a crossbowman fails to advance into close combat with the others, he is executed.
These references to men having to be encouraged to do battle by the threat of execution always intrigue me. As late as 1911 there are accounts from the Hankow uprising of revolutionary troops advancing so as to keep clear of a line of executioners wielding two handed swords. Old practices or old tropes die hard?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 14, 2025, 07:46:52 PMWhich is why I made this assumption - our game problem is mainly about bodies of men, not picking off individuals. One shooting record I found was of a match in 1458. Over a range of 91 m., crossbowmen shot 50 arrows at a 15cm target. The winner hit it 11 times. Doesn't sound much but that's pretty impressive. But of course, the other 320 competitors didn't do as well, so it has limited value for massed shooting, alas.
I would also observe that accuracy in target practice is likely superior to accuracy in combat, when the target is advancing towards you with the intention of killing you, and there is likely to be a fair amount of shouting and possibly jostling just on your own side of discipline is less than perfect. Also, estimation of range can always be tricky, especially when nervous. Does a good commander of crossbowmen in a field action favour commencing fire at a theoretical effective range, hoping to get off more than one bolt per man, and also hoping to induce hesitation in his target, or does he favour one good, hopefully devastating, volley at closer ranges where even his less skilled lads are likely to hit? If said volley gives the enemy pause for thought, he might then get more volleys away.
The other factor is of course the type of crossbow. Earlier weapons with just a simple stirrup might be much faster firing, but less likely to drop a man with even a good solid hit. (But a Saracen might still be deterred from getting too close to Richard's column...) Steel-bowed, windlass jobs are likely much more lethal if they hit, but how many bolts are you going to be able to shoot against an advancing enemy?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 14, 2025, 10:01:52 PMQuoteThe beaten zone at extreme range isn't 200m but more like a dozen or two dozen metres since all the arrows/bolts are shot to pretty much the same distance. So there's a eye of the hurricane once past the 200m mark and before reaching the 100m mark of direct line-of-sight shooting.
Do you have a source for this single long range shot Justin? Or is it a speculative idea?
The mechanics of parabolic flight isn't speculation. You can use a number of online parabolic trajectory calculators, this one (https://newtum.com/calculators/physics/projectile-range-calculator) for example. They don't take into account air resistance but that will not substantially affect the result.
I set the projectile velocity at a rate that would give a maximum range of about 300 metres, pretty much the maximum range of a longbow. Then entering in shooting angles in 5 degree increments, I got this:
5° - 53.55m
10° - 105.46m
15° - 154.18m
20° - 198.21m
25° - 236.22m
30° - 267.05m
35° - 289.76m
40° - 303.67m
45° - 308.36m
50° - 303.67m
55° - 289.76m
60° - 267.05m
65° - 236.22m
70° - 198.21m
75° - 154.18m
80° - 105.46m
85° - 53.55m
Notice that between 40° and 50° there is a range difference of less than 5 metres. Below 40° and above 50° the range varies increasingly until you get 50 metre differences. That's how a parabolic flight path works.
I've had some experience with archery. You can't see the target if the bow is elevated much above 15° or so.
This means there is a range vacuum somewhere between 15° and 40° where an archer can't shoot accurately, even to distance. Archers are obliged to shoot at maximum range and then wait until the target reaches sighting range. They can try lobbing arrows between those ranges but then "aiming" is just guesswork.
Define accurately.
I practised with a longbow most weekends for several years as part of a reenactment archer unit.
We could hit a unit sized ...er...unit after an initial sighting shot repeatedly from around 200 yards and closing even over intervening troops.
Ok we aren't talking massed bodies here as the units tended to be small in most reenactment battles but I took part in the Battle of Tewkesbury reenactment show several times where we had around 2-3000 combatants
In some respects, flat shooting is harder as it's difficult to get massed volleys unless you are in a thin line
Quote from: Imperial Dave on March 15, 2025, 07:25:22 AMDefine accurately.
I practised with a longbow most weekends for several years as part of a reenactment archer unit.
We could hit a unit sized ...er...unit after an initial sighting shot repeatedly from around 200 yards and closing even over intervening troops.
Ok we aren't talking massed bodies here as the units tended to be small in most reenactment battles but I took part in the Battle of Tewkesbury reenactment show several times where we had around 2-3000 combatants
In some respects, flat shooting is harder as it's difficult to get massed volleys unless you are in a thin line
Could you accurately hit a closing target from extreme range to 100 yards regardless of where in that range the target was? How did you aim?
Don't forget you are aiming at bodies of men not individuals so it's a different mechanism to say target shooting.
Also all the bowmen have different strengths and abilities but en masse we were confident of hitting a body of men repeatedly after the initial sighting shot
Aiming is a practice thing. It's more to do with modifying the amount of pull or strength used along with the elevation of the bow and what the wind is doing rather than "sighting"
I think the gist of Justin's article is that the single range is hypothetical, not source based. I've never been an archer but have studied historical archery a bit. We know, for example, that longbowmen shot at various ranges at rovers on their practice grounds, even if their village butts were a fixed distance apart. The technique for aiming an elevated bow was called underhand shooting - you sighted under your hand rather than over it. But we are drifting into longbow stuff, which wasn't the intention.
As to massed targets, we are clear that is practically our interest. It was Ekdahl's interest too and the Battle of Wisby was in his minds eye (even though it didn't involve the Teutonic Order, who didn't conquer Gotland until a few decades later).
It seems to me one issue, possibly generated by his Wisby image, is his tactic assumes a static enemy. Barwicke, in his faintly silly example, at least assumes the enemy will advance. I'd assume a faster target like cavalry would be an issue for any long range shooting.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 15, 2025, 09:42:56 AMI think the gist of Justin's article is that the single range is hypothetical, not source based.
We have Vegetius:
QuoteThe archers and slingers set up scopae, bundles of twigs or straw for marks, and generally strike them with arrows and with stones from the sling-staff (fustiablus) at the distance of six hundred feet. - De Re Militari: 2.23
600 Roman feet is about 200 yards, i.e. the maximum range of bows and slings (more or less). Which implies that it's easier to be accurate - to the point of hitting a bundle of twigs - when shooting to extreme range.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 15, 2025, 09:42:56 AMI've never been an archer but have studied historical archery a bit. We know, for example, that longbowmen shot at various ranges at rovers on their practice grounds, even if their village butts were a fixed distance apart. The technique for aiming an elevated bow was called underhand shooting - you sighted under your hand rather than over it. But we are drifting into longbow stuff, which wasn't the intention.
Please do carry on. :) What applies to longbowmen probably applies
mutatis mutandis to other kinds of archers.
Not necessarily Justin.
War bows are an entirely different athletic process to crossbows and composite bows.
It follows that aiming is going to be different because of the draw process being so different.
Correct. For example you don't "hold" the draw when using a longbow whereas a composite/recurved bow you can
Quote from: Mark G on March 15, 2025, 10:35:27 AMNot necessarily Justin.
War bows are an entirely different athletic process to crossbows and composite bows.
It follows that aiming is going to be different because of the draw process being so different.
I
suppose you could put marks on the bowstaff below the hand to help sight to longer ranges. But what do I know?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 15, 2025, 10:08:59 AM600 Roman feet is about 200 yards, i.e. the maximum range of bows and slings (more or less). Which implies that it's easier to be accurate - to the point of hitting a bundle of twigs - when shooting to extreme range.
Christine de Pisan, in her paraphrase/update of Vegetius, says that the English practice at the butts at 600 feet range. Our earliest record of the range of a longbow. The passage is often confused because the translator rendered the French
buttes as barges, for some reason. ???
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 15, 2025, 10:08:59 AMPlease do carry on.
I'm not sure - talking longbows could have its own topic very easily (and probably already has). One interesting thing not often mentioned is that, in our earliest longbow shooting manual (French, late 15th century), a method of training archers to keep their trajectories low is mentioned.
If you wish to become a good archer you must practice in two ways, namely, at the butts under the screen, and at a target. For it is easier to learn to shoot by shooting under the screen, than in any other way, and in order that you should know how the screen if fixed, I will tell you. The screen should be placed across the range, half way between the butts, the bottom edge being one foot abort the ground for every ten paces there is between the butts. Thus if the butts are one hundred paces apart, the screen would be ten feet high, and the bottom edge should have bells on it, so that even if the feather of the arrow should touch it, one may know it by hearing the bells ring. And the said screen should be at least half an aune in depth, so that no mistake may be made.Going back towards the crossbow, one source which does mention the weapon in comparison to others is Fourquevaux's
Instructions for the Warres (title of English translation). The author was a champion of the crossbow against the harquebus and, in the style of the English Bow v. Gun arguments, makes comparisons. The most useful to our present purpose may be this comment
And although the Harquebusier may shoote further, notwithstanding the Archer and Crossebow man will kill a C. or CC. pases off, aswell as the best Harquebusier : and sometime the harnesse, except it be the better, can not hold out : at the uttermost the remedy is that they should be brought as neere before they do shoote as possibly they may, and if it were so handled, there would be more slaine by their shot, then by twice as many harquebusiers, Fourquevaux is writing in the 1540s and it is fair to say that his harquebus was a much better weapon than the early versions in our period. But interesting to note he refers to both long and short range use of crossbows here. We might note that neither the longbow or crossbow is particularly effective against "the better" armour at a hundred paces plus and hence the need to get in closer.
QuoteI'm not sure - talking longbows could have its own topic very easily (and probably already has). One interesting thing not often mentioned is that, in our earliest longbow shooting manual (French, late 15th century), a method of training archers to keep their trajectories low is mentioned.
If you wish to become a good archer you must practice in two ways, namely, at the butts under the screen, and at a target. For it is easier to learn to shoot by shooting under the screen, than in any other way, and in order that you should know how the screen if fixed, I will tell you. The screen should be placed across the range, half way between the butts, the bottom edge being one foot abort the ground for every ten paces there is between the butts. Thus if the butts are one hundred paces apart, the screen would be ten feet high, and the bottom edge should have bells on it, so that even if the feather of the arrow should touch it, one may know it by hearing the bells ring. And the said screen should be at least half an aune in depth, so that no mistake may be made.
Interesting. This looks like a training technique to help the archers rangefind by getting used to the appropriate bow elevations at different distances.
Before moving on, I thought I'd share these from a discussion on MyArmoury forum (a great place to find information crossbows, including reconstruction tests, BTW). These are from the researches of Jean Henri Chandler, former HEMA instructor, game designer and generally knowledgeable on late medieval German military matters.
"One invitation from Strasbourg to Rottweill in 1494 said that targets at 90 ells distance had to be hit 4 times out of six shots to qualify to enter the tournament. That was a 20 cm target. By our estimate it worked out to 102 meters distance. Other invitations from Strasbourg earlier in the 15th Century worked out to targets at 70-90 meters.
Another invitation (1549 from Landshut) said that the target (shown as a circle on the invitation as being about 18 cm) had to be hit 8 times out of 12 shots at a distance of 96 Landshuter cubits, which works out to 43 meters. Once qualified the shooters would have 24 shots at the target. The same invitation specified 260 cubits distance for the arquebus target.
In a letter in 1408 the Teutonic knights Komptur of Elbing mentioned a 'safe distance' of 300 ells from a defended castle against crossbows, with different ranges listed for culverin and hand-büschen.
In an earlier manuscript (Chronicon terrae Prussiae) from 1326 they listed a safe distance of 250 ells. So apparently the weapons got a bit more dangerous. Or possibly the ell meant a different unit of measure then. The Chronicler doesn't specify.
In a document from 1427 (just before attack by Hussite armies), the city of Wroclaw specified that certain defensive outworks be built at the limit of crossbow range from the wall, which they listed as 600 cubits, which works out (possibly) to about 270 meters. "
Cubits and ells are probably dependent on translation here but the real problem is which ell or cubit is referred to. Broadly speaking, German ells/cubits were approximately two feet long (it varied from town to town). The French version, the aune, was approximately the same as an English ell, at 44 inches. Jean Henri presumably has evidence that a Landshutter ell was particularly shorter than the German average.
Why the good burgers of Wroclaw (or Breslau as it was at the time) chose a longer distance than the Teutonic knights did, I don't know. I suspect this was about heavy crossbows suitable for defence of walls, rather than generic crossbows for the field with shorter ranges.
Note again the levels of accuracy that a marksman could achieve at around the 100 metre mark, remembering the previous comment that most people wouldn't be this good.
So, where does that leave us with Ekdahl's range bands? They seem broadly comparable, though perhaps a slightly higher "impact" shooting range is justified.
Quote"One invitation from Strasbourg to Rottweill in 1494 said that targets at 90 ells distance had to be hit 4 times out of six shots to qualify to enter the tournament. That was a 20 cm target. By our estimate it worked out to 102 meters distance. Other invitations from Strasbourg earlier in the 15th Century worked out to targets at 70-90 meters.
Another invitation (1549 from Landshut) said that the target (shown as a circle on the invitation as being about 18 cm) had to be hit 8 times out of 12 shots at a distance of 96 Landshuter cubits, which works out to 43 meters. Once qualified the shooters would have 24 shots at the target. The same invitation specified 260 cubits distance for the arquebus target.
Which makes the Landshut archers (landshutters?) pretty awful marksmen. They'd be eaten alive by the Rottweillers. ::)
Just a small point. I think that medieval distance measurements would tend towards 'natural' distances, such as the length or breadth of a finger or thumb , just as measuring by paces or the length of a forearm or palm. Some of these measurements are still with us, measuring horses. Thus , when being trained a man would grip the bow in a certain way and probably decide on elevation by counting which finger was in conjunction with the distant target. Training would work just as it did with the old SMLE, the recruit kept a constant aim and then aimed off for his and his bow's deviation. Shooting a WwII rifle without using the graduated sight ( which takes time ) was a matter of the foresight Or the muzzle blocking out portions of the target, the more distant a target was the more of the target the shooter would block out.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on March 18, 2025, 09:51:01 AMJust a small point. I think that medieval distance measurements would tend towards 'natural' distances, such as the length or breadth of a finger or thumb , just as measuring by paces or the length of a forearm or palm. Some of these measurements are still with us, measuring horses. Thus , when being trained a man would grip the bow in a certain way and probably decide on elevation by counting which finger was in conjunction with the distant target. Training would work just as it did with the old SMLE, the recruit kept a constant aim and then aimed off for his and his bow's deviation. Shooting a WwII rifle without using the graduated sight ( which takes time ) was a matter of the foresight Or the muzzle blocking out portions of the target, the more distant a target was the more of the target the shooter would block out.
Roy
My guess is that that would work up to about 100 yards or so, after which the bow needs to be raised so much the hand is no longer any use as a sight. It
seems that an experienced archer could shoot by feel to any distance, but the mechanics of parabolic flight tell me he had an easier time shooting to an accurate distance when at extreme range.
Yes