I'm taking the slightly unusual step of lifting a post from another part of the forum to give it wider exposure. We had been discussing rules for longbows causing compression effects on enemy formation - how common was this, what caused it, was it worth representing and if so how?
However, I had suggested if we wished to talk more widely about longbow tactics, we needed another thread. Patrick Waterson has envisioned an method for controlling longbow shooting, which I will quote in full
QuoteI take and agree the point that the various archer contingents would rarely if ever have trained together.
However, in order to concentrate their shooting effectively they may not have needed to.
Let us envisage a line, herce or whatever with (say) a thousand archers drawn up (say) ten deep. (Modify this according to preference and period knowledge.) The thousand consist of several contingents of 80-100 or so, each of which has trained on its own to put arrows into a relatively small general area at specified ranges.
The essential point regarding coordination is that everyone works from the same drillbook (or at least procedure). Hence if archers from a dozen different villages are grouped together, they will, regional accents permitting, all understand when the chap in charge gives them a range and an aiming point. Everyone will shoot for the aiming point, with elevation for the specified range.
But ...
Not everyone will hit the aiming point called. Those at the centre of the line of archers probably will. Those at or near the ends will drop their arrows a couple of dozen yards short of the aiming point, with every archer group in between putting theirs progressively closer. The actual distribution thus becomes a tight shallow chevron with its main focus around the apex, which is fine on several counts.
1) Putting everyone's shots on exactly the same target would be overkill and hence wasteful.
2) A bit of spread is handy as it covers more of the archers' frontage.
3) A chevron-shaped impact area could actually help to channel the target away on both sides, snowplough-style.
Hence by having everyone shoot on the same instructions toward the same target, a line of archers would obtain a nice dispersion pattern which is actualy tailor-made for chanelling opponents away from the archers (in addition to its basic function of pincushioning some of the varlets). Yours truly only just realised this because he only just did the arithmetic, but best of all it does not require the whole archer formation to train together. In fact, it more or less relies on their not having done so. :)
I think I have a number of queries and alternative interpretations here.
Firstly, command an control. Was there really a tactical unit 80-100 strong? We know commission of array forces and equivalent territorial units from Wales were organised in 100s and 20s. These had leaders - centenars and vintenars. It is unclear whether these leaders had a tactical role or simply an adminstrative one. Indentured archers didn't have these leaders as they came as part of mixed retinues of different sizes, from handfuls to hundreds. Instead, it is likely that these archers were placed under a man-at-arms from their retinue. There is no evidence of indepenent command at a higher level for archers. The oft-quoted idea that Sir Thomas Erpingham commanded the archers at Agincourt is a 16th century invention, possibly based on a misreading of 15th century Burgundian narratives.
After that long piece of context, my question of Patrick's idea would be does this structure allow large scale targetting and shooting control? Or was targetting in the hands of lower level leaders acting independently? Did targetting involve more than choosing the nearest enemy banner to the front as an aiming point?
Another question raised by Patrick's post is "How well could deep archer units target the enemy?" Archer units had to be drawn up in depth to fit on the battlefield. Sir John Smythe, our 16th century guide to longbow tactics, reckoned archers could be drawn up effectively in 7-8 ranks. Modern experiments suggest only the first two or three ranks can aim or observe the fall of shot. So half the unit or more is shooting indirectly. Now the unit leader or the men in the front ranks can relay back target information and we know orders were passed by shouting to neighbours but this can't have been very precise - time lags, different voices, no connection between individual shots and observed arrival on target. If the target was moving, these effects were probably intensified and, against something the speed of a cavalry charge, the rear ranks would be guessing the closing speed and range because feedback wouldn't be fast enough. So, although it would be an exaggeration to suggest shooting was pretty random, any kind of detailed targeting seems beyond the command and control abilities of these longbow units.
Just to start this one rolling ...
I would suggest that aiming is not done by the individuals in the unit but rather by whoever is calling the shots. He will be standing in the front rank and have a fine view of everything, and be a very experienced judge of distances and battlefield movement. For the sake of argument we can call him a master archer (and perhaps see if anyone of such description appears in period muster rolls - perhaps drawing a significant bit of extra pay). His control will be limited by the reach of his voice, perhaps fifty men to each side of him, so if the archers are, say, eight deep, he can conrtol the shooting of 800 archers.
These 800 archers will be an assemblage of dribs and drabs (well, dribs, anyway - the drabs will be part of the baggage) from various localities, but they all understand English and use a common measure of distance (vital in that particular day and age) so a called shooting instruction will be comprehensible to all and will produce the intended result.
What does our putative master archer aim at? If not concentrating his shooting, then everyone can just aim "Right ahead, to be sure" but for concentration he has to pick a point. Mediaeval armies tended to be forested with banners, which would make good aiming points. A line of (say) Genoese mercenaries might be less convenient, as their banners would all be identical, but a resourceful master archer who had prepared beforehand could simply instruct "At ten score [i.e. make the range 200 yards] shoot on my mark" and release his own arrow to land where he wanted everyone to aim. If it had brightly-coloured fletchings for easy visibility and distinguishability, so much the better. [Note: I have no idea if anyone actually did this; it is simply a conjecture as to how it might have been done.]
However it was done, assuming it was done, it would have to be a procedure consistent with the ABC of communication, to wit, accuracy, brevity and clarity. I think iot had to be done, as leaving targetting to each and every little contingent is a recipe for confusion: who shoots, at what, and when? At best one will have desultory shooting, probably with more enthusiasm than effect. Fauconberg's control of Yorkist shooting at Towton suggests that having a 'master archer' was the norm; having a master archer control concentration of shooting for each archer wing is a natural if unproven surmise. I do not see much hope in shooting by committee. ;)
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
How much training was needed to get archer units to fire as units?
Other than numbers taking part, how would things differ from a bunch of men clout shooting at the same clout at the butts. They don't really have to drill much together to be effective at shooting.
As for aiming and coordination, you would only need a good archer in the front rank to shout out the range for the ones behind to be able to treat it as a clout and shoot overhead.
The question is how much coordination is needed. Assuming that archers are drawn up in contingents, it might be standard procedure for each contingent to put forward somebody who can do that. It needn't be a paid position, just something somebody does in battles. Everybody in a formation would know who were the men who were good at it. Whoever it was in charge could just pick an appropriate number of them and then leave the archers to get on with it. The guy in charge would only interfere if the formation had to move or deal with some new threat. He might even give overall direction to shooting but let the professionals handle the details
I suspect Jim is closer with his loose organisation than Patrick. The "master archer", like a more modern NCO, is an idea popular in fiction but not founded in history. Archers are archers. There are no higher pay scales (although Welsh archers were paid less). Some men drawing men-at-arms pay were, we know, ex-archers. Could some of these served a command role among archers? Or did they send the lowliest men-at-arms to look after the archers, knowing that in battle a more informal structure would prevail, perhaps as suggested with units placing their best archers in front to gauge the conditions and view the target? These were probably the best shots, more able to hit targets as they closed, too.
The point of best co-ordination was probably the first shot. We see this at Crecy, for example, where the English took a pace forward and shot together at the Genoese. But here we see perhaps a contradiction of what I said earlier. One person must have judged the time for that step - we just don't know who. They may have issued a "stop shooting" command too, though this would be more raggedly enacted. We might imagine that our retinue leaders and vintenars would be the ones looking out for these signals, relying on the experience of their men to manage the targeting.
As to controlled volleying at constantly changing ranges, I remain sceptical. I think after the first shot the archers shot to a rhythm which was comfortable and this would have kept them more or less in sequence, rather than someone shouting commands for a succession of volleys. Range adjustment would have been a bit ragged, because it probably was declaimed in ringing drill square tones but shouted back through the ranks and complex stuff was difficult to pass like this. Where we do have examples of medieval commands, they are short for this reason.
Indeed, the only 'proof' for the existence of a master archer is an entire body of archers doing the same thing at the same time. If this can be achieved without one, all well and good. If it cannot, we know there was one, whether we can find him or not.
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 relatively deep formations of the pre-gunpowder period would mean that the 'beaten zone' would continue to coincide with at least part of the target during these volleys. Archery's slowing effect would also mean that the target would change range more slowly once the arrows began impacting. Sooner or later most opponents on foot would have had enough and begin diverting sideways away from the beaten zone so the range would before long cease to require adjustment anyway.
Unless it all went horribly wrong, as at Patay.
Wouldn't each banner be under a noble of some sort?
Probably more the other way round, but yes.
Quote from: Mark G on June 17, 2018, 08:18:23 PM
Wouldn't each banner be under a noble of some sort?
Banner bearing implied leadership. So commanders of contingents carried banners, whether noble or knight banneret. Militia also carried banners.
I don't mean to be boring. But what sources are we leveraging off here?
If a source makes the claim that archers targeted this or that, then compared to what exactly was deployed, might give us a sense as to what control over targeting the unit or leader had.
Another thought... not trying to be negative, but some simpler questions...
Do we have good information on how deep an advancing infantry unit might be? Or any source on how much archery fire was direct versus indirect?
Without sources I admit, but an advancing line of infantry might be so thin as to render indirect archery fire completely pointless?
Quote from: Dangun on June 18, 2018, 08:27:54 AM
Do we have good information on how deep an advancing infantry unit might be? Or any source on how much archery fire was direct versus indirect?
Without sources I admit, but an advancing line of infantry might be so thin as to render indirect archery fire completely pointless?
We don't have as much information on formation depths as we would like. From bits I've found over the years, I'd say any close-combat infantry formation under 5 ranks would be considered a bit thin. The English were in 4 ranks at Agincourt. Linear infantry formations were perhaps up to double this. Tactically, there were forces that fought in deep blocks or wedges. These could be much deeper. And circumstances like a constricted front could cause troops who would normally be in narrower formations. So the French are recorded as 31 deep at Agincourt, because they're in a space too small to deploy properly and two divisions have become intermixed.
Cavalry were usually in shallower formations only two or three deep - maybe 1 deep in places. This was not the case with Germans, who developed deep cavalry wedges 20 or more ranks deep.
On direct v. indirect, this is a moot point. We've already mentioned that archer formations were probably sometimes/often deeper than would allow the men in the back half of the formation to use aimed shots. If, however, we are talking about dropping shots rather than flat shots, it becomes a different tale. Traditionally, English archers have been considered to drop shots on the enemy once they were in effective range or even, if you are an enthusiast like Robert Hardy, from extreme range. More recently Mike Loades has suggested that longbowmen rarely shot indirectly - it was all intensive flat trajectory shooting, under 100yds.
Anthony answers the questions very well. I would add only that we can infer that longbowmen were effective at both direct and indirect shooting, given a) existing accounts of battles, especially Halidon Hill and Towton for indirect, and Poitiers for direct, shooting, and b) various snippets from the doings of the English in Italy under Sir John Hawkwood (these entered Italy as part of the Company of the Star but soon became more famous under Sir John in the White Company). The Italians were very impressed by the direct shooting abilities of English longbowmen. Halidon Hill saw the Scots advancing against a 'hail of arrows' in a manner which reflects indirect shooting. At Towton both sides' archers loosed off their inventory of arrows at extreme range, which is not consistent with direct shooting. Putting all this together, one concludes that the question of direct/indirect shooting was not a matter of 'either or' but rather 'both and'.
I appreciate the responses, but I remain confused by the differences.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 18, 2018, 07:37:56 PM
On direct v. indirect, this is a moot point... More recently Mike Loades has suggested that longbowmen rarely shot indirectly - it was all intensive flat trajectory shooting, under 100yds.
Anthony seemed to suggest that indirect vs direct is moot because all shooting was at short distance, and so the trajectories were very flattish.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 18, 2018, 07:37:56 PM
Halidon Hill saw the Scots advancing against a 'hail of arrows' in a manner which reflects indirect shooting. At Towton both sides' archers loosed off their inventory of arrows at extreme range, which is not consistent with direct shooting. Putting all this together, one concludes that the question of direct/indirect shooting was not a matter of 'either or' but rather 'both and'.
Patrick seemed to suggest that indirect fire was common and
at longer (unspecified) distances implying higher trajectories.
I have no strong opinion. But it would seem to practically bear on what exactly the archers at the back of a formation might be doing.
Vegetius in his De Re Militari describes how Roman archers and slingers were trained to hit a large target at 200 yards, i.e. roughly at their extreme range. He doesn't mention shorter ranges. Two things about shooting at extreme range if you are an archer:
1. You can't actually see what you are aiming at since you are elevating your bow at an angle of about 42 degrees.
2. At extreme range, given the nature of an arrow's parabolic flight, a difference of up to 5 degrees elevation either way translates to only a few yards difference in where the arrow lands. At shorter ranges a slight difference in elevation translates to a significant difference in where the arrow lands.
So massed fire (all archers in all ranks firing together) is quite possible and even easy at extreme range with a high degree of accuracy, but I doubt it would would work nearly as well at shorter ranges (though it might work well enough to be tried). It certainly isn't possible for more than the first few ranks of archers to shoot in direct fire mode, aiming at their target. If the archers form up in files in intermediate order - 3 feet per file - one could reasonably expect the first 3 ranks to be able to fire: the second and third ranks each have a 9 inch shooting gap.
The manuals speak of skirmisher troops (armed with bows, javelins and slings) deploying in as many files as heavy infantry (who habitually formed up intermediate order) but with half as many men per file. This means that the lights weren't spread out laterally to enable the rear rankers to shoot between the front ranks. If they wanted to shoot they had to shoot overhead, aiming blind. This probably applies to mediaeval archers too.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 18, 2018, 09:27:56 AM
If, however, we are talking about dropping shots rather than flat shots, it becomes a different tale. Traditionally, English archers have been considered to drop shots on the enemy once they were in effective range or even, if you are an enthusiast like Robert Hardy, from extreme range.
Put this and the Loades opinion together and one gets a reasonably complete picture: direct shooting in certain circumstances; indirect as the principal battlefield technique. It is one of these 'both and' things as opposed to 'either or'.
QuoteAnthony seemed to suggest that indirect vs direct is moot because all shooting was at short distance, and so the trajectories were very flattish.
My impression - whicvh Anthony is welcome to correct if I have it wrong - is that Anthony was making reference to Mr Loades representing current fashion as opposed to the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is enough evidence of shooting at long, or even extreme, range (notably Agincourt and Towton) to kick Mr Loades' direct-trajectory exclusivity out of the window, but this does not mean direct trajectory shooting was never employed: Poitiers and the White Company in Italy attest to its practice and effectiveness. The problem is, and has been, a traditional insistence by many on
either direct
or indirect when there is evidence of employnent of both.
The question of what rear ranks did during any direct shooting is a pertinent one. It may be worth noting that at Poitiers direct shooting (into the flanks of a French formation) was accompanied by redeployment (to attain the shooting position), which would give opportunity for reducing the depth of the shooting formation to half depth or less, allowing all to participate in direct trajectory missile discharge. The relatively small number of archers involved in this particular redeployment lends credence to this interpretation.
The answer to the question would thus seem to be: for directy shooting, either the formation spread out (where possible) or, if restricted to its original depth, my best guess is that tactics would change, e.g. front 3-4 ranks kneel (holding their bows aslant) while the rear 3-4 ranks stand, or perhaps 'ripple shooting' in which the front man shoots, then kneels to pick up an arrow and stays kneeling, the second shoots and kneels, etc. until the last man shoots and the 'master archer' calls "Up!" or something similar and the process begins again.
The above is conjectural. It may be worth noting that the displacing effect of longbow archery (and perhaps also with other well-trained regular archer types) would mean that direct trajectory shooting would mostly not be needed on the battlefield.
Justin's post points out that in some ways extreme range is optimum range for formation shooting, given the missiles' trajectories: because of the nature of parabolic trajectories, the 'grouping' improves as the range gets longer. This suggests that even inexperienced archers could have been useful at the longest ranges; it its their effectiveness at intermediate ranges which might be questionable. (This has implications for Biblical era combat which I shall not detail here.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 20, 2018, 07:33:23 AMThe answer to the question would thus seem to be: for directy shooting, either the formation spread out (where possible) or, if restricted to its original depth, my best guess is that tactics would change, e.g. front 3-4 ranks kneel (holding their bows aslant) while the rear 3-4 ranks stand, or perhaps 'ripple shooting' in which the front man shoots, then kneels to pick up an arrow and stays kneeling, the second shoots and kneels, etc. until the last man shoots and the 'master archer' calls "Up!" or something similar and the process begins again.
That's clever, and would work.
QuoteAnthony seemed to suggest that indirect vs direct is moot because all shooting was at short distance, and so the trajectories were very flattish.
Anthony is actually a traditionalist, seeing the engagement proper starting when the enemy is in effective range. Outside of this, you have the practice of "pricking" or "gadding", which is more a type of long distance skirmishing. Actual engagement ranges possibly varied with target. I suspect that archers engaged each other at an effective range but didn't march up to one another and let rip at point blank. Archers wouldn't get to close to something that could suddenly charge them, I suspect. Against an advancing enemy, I suppose they would be shooting until they had to drop their bows and take up their melee weapons.
Whether more archery in volume, as opposed to time, was engaged at short range is a nice question. Personally, I tend to the idea that archers only shot at at a high rate as the target closed - we know high rate shooting was tiring and it ate through the ammunition supply, so why use it ineffectively?
QuoteIt may be worth noting that at Poitiers direct shooting (into the flanks of a French formation) was accompanied by redeployment (to attain the shooting position), which would give opportunity for reducing the depth of the shooting formation to half depth or less, allowing all to participate in direct trajectory missile discharge. The relatively small number of archers involved in this particular redeployment lends credence to this interpretation.
I think you are stretching the evidence here. All we know is a body of archers was picked up by Oxford and led onto the flank of the French. We can't say anything about formations from it. It is, though, an example of a commander being able to assume command a body of archers directly.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 08:44:47 AM
QuoteAnthony seemed to suggest that indirect vs direct is moot because all shooting was at short distance, and so the trajectories were very flattish.
Anthony is actually a traditionalist, seeing the engagement proper starting when the enemy is in effective range. Outside of this, you have the practice of "pricking" or "gadding", which is more a type of long distance skirmishing. Actual engagement ranges possibly varied with target. I suspect that archers engaged each other at an effective range but didn't march up to one another and let rip at point blank. Archers wouldn't get to close to something that could suddenly charge them, I suspect. Against an advancing enemy, I suppose they would be shooting until they had to drop their bows and take up their melee weapons.
Whether more archery in volume, as opposed to time, was engaged at short range is a nice question. Personally, I tend to the idea that archers only shot at at a high rate as the target closed - we know high rate shooting was tiring and it ate through the ammunition supply, so why use it ineffectively?
There is a question of time: how long does it take for an enemy line at, say 250 yards, to reach you? If they don't waste time and come in smartly at 6km/h they will reach you in 2 minutes 30 seconds. If you start shooting at 100 yards you have just one minute to shoot. How many arrows can a longbowman loose in one minute? Not that many (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Shooting_rate).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 20, 2018, 07:36:43 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 20, 2018, 07:33:23 AMThe answer to the question would thus seem to be: for directy shooting, either the formation spread out (where possible) or, if restricted to its original depth, my best guess is that tactics would change, e.g. front 3-4 ranks kneel (holding their bows aslant) while the rear 3-4 ranks stand, or perhaps 'ripple shooting' in which the front man shoots, then kneels to pick up an arrow and stays kneeling, the second shoots and kneels, etc. until the last man shoots and the 'master archer' calls "Up!" or something similar and the process begins again.
That's clever, and would work.
I would suggest a note of caution here. "Ripple shooting" seems very like the film Zulu to me and represents far more internal drill and organisation than I would think present in a body of longbowmen. Most archery books I've read also suggest that you need your legs and lower back muscles to shoot a heavy poundage bow - could it be done effectively while kneeling?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 09:11:22 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 20, 2018, 07:36:43 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 20, 2018, 07:33:23 AMThe answer to the question would thus seem to be: for directy shooting, either the formation spread out (where possible) or, if restricted to its original depth, my best guess is that tactics would change, e.g. front 3-4 ranks kneel (holding their bows aslant) while the rear 3-4 ranks stand, or perhaps 'ripple shooting' in which the front man shoots, then kneels to pick up an arrow and stays kneeling, the second shoots and kneels, etc. until the last man shoots and the 'master archer' calls "Up!" or something similar and the process begins again.
That's clever, and would work.
I would suggest a note of caution here. "Ripple shooting" seems very like the film Zulu to me and represents far more internal drill and organisation than I would think present in a body of longbowmen. Most archery books I've read also suggest that you need your legs and lower back muscles to shoot a heavy poundage bow - could it be done effectively while kneeling?
I would personally be in favour of front rankers kneeling after shooting to let rear rankers shoot. It's not a complicated manoeuvre: your rank shoots and immediately kneels - no command required - the next rank shoots and kneels, and so on to the last rank. The master sergeant then shouts "Stand!" and you all get up and nock another arrow. Simple and easy.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 20, 2018, 09:14:29 AM
The master sergeant then shouts "Stand!" and you all get up and nock another arrow. Simple and easy.
Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer". We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 20, 2018, 09:14:29 AM
The master sergeant then shouts "Stand!" and you all get up and nock another arrow. Simple and easy.
Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer". We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.
For any army (rather than a confused mob) if you are forming an organised line where specific contingents go in specific places then somebody has to be in charge of the contingents. It's natural and equally natural that the bods in charge also call the shooting. One thing to notice about armies in Antiquity is how hierarchically structured they were - to a certain extent that must have applied in the Middle Ages. I doubt the Burgundian Ordnance archers invented a command structure out of thin air. The Burgundian archers represent part of a move by European rulers in France and Burgundy to raise permanent standing armies in place of the former feudal levies (and resolve the problem of unpaid mercenaries). That meant documented organisation but it doesn't mean the Burgundians were the first to think up a command hierarchy for an army.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 20, 2018, 10:05:05 AM
For any army (rather than a confused mob) if you are forming an organised line where specific contingents go in specific places then somebody has to be in charge of the contingents.
I don't think this is being questioned - see earlier in the discussion
Quote
It's natural and equally natural that the bods in charge also call the shooting.
I disagree. The leaders have been chosen by rank, not by archery prowess. You might have a men-at-arms who is an ex-archer but you might get a young squire whose never seen a battle before. For militia, you end up with a local landowner or, in a town, a draper or a butcher. The leader is there to follow the instructions being received on things like starting to shoot, stopping shooting and moving and maybe target selection. technicalities like ranges, wind etc. were probably in the hands of the archers themselves.
Quote
That meant documented organisation but it doesn't mean the Burgundians were the first to think up a command hierarchy for an army.
We don't really have much more in terms of structure in a Burgundian ordnance army than a 15th century English one. Yes it's organised into companies and lances of a set strength but it has precious few officers - one to command the company, another to command each lance. No separate infantry officers or NCOs.
As to what Burgundian archer drill consisted of :
In like manner (they are to exercise) the archer with their horses, to get them used to dismounting and drawing their bows. They must learn how to attach their horses together by their bridles and make them walk forward directly behind them, attaching the horses of the three archers by their bridles to the saddle-bow of the page to whose man-at-arms they belong:, also to march briskly forwards and to fire without breaking rank. The pikemen must be made to advance in close formation in front of the said archers, kneel at a sign from them, holding their pikes lowered to the level of a horse's back so that the archers can fire over the pikemen as if over a wall. Thus, if the pikemen see that the enemy are breaking rank, they will be near enough to charge them in good order according to their instructions. (The archers must also learn to) place themselves back to back in double defense, or in a square or circle, always with the pikemen outside them to withstand the charge of the enemy horse and their horses with the pages enclosed in their midst. No mention of any command structure beyond the lance commander conducting the exercise. In this case, there are three archers per pikeman, so its possible all three ranks could see what they were shooting at.
One final point on Burgundian organisation that may be relevant. Back in the pre-ordnance days in 1417, we have a Burgundian deployment plan. In this, all the archers are drawn up on the wings of the vanguard, each wing commanded by a man-at-arms with a small banner. This may parallel what the English were doing with their archer wings.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 11:13:35 AM
No mention of any command structure beyond the lance commander conducting the exercise.
Look at the size of a lance: the lance commander, a squire, two pages and two archers. 6 men in all of which only 4 actually fought. You don't need more than one commander for a unit of 6 men. If the Burgundian Ordnance were structured to this extent then it is hardly unreasonable to suppose a body of archers - say 50 men - would have a man-in-charge to organise how they shoot if organised shooting was more effective (which is was).
Can't say the idea of ranks shooting and then kneeling is very convincing at all. I fact the needle clicked to Wild flight of Fancy on the dial for that. Most likely archer ranks are offset so three men can shoot directly ahead, then, on comnand, all three ranks shoot straight ahead. Kneeling in front of a shooting man is pretty pointless as fall the archers shoot so rapidly that it is a waste of effort to shoot and then duck. Its very unlikely that the soldiers at Rorkes' Drift shot as in the film because it takes longer to kneel than it does to get another round off from a Martini Henry. The British had a perfectly good drill for double rank shoiting which involved aligning the second rank a little to the left . Much easier to do that with bows too. The likely command is simply going to be the equivalent of 'Pour on the lead boys' . As someone very sagely observed earlier, the opponent covers the last 100 yards rather quickly. At that point the commanders couldn't give a damn about ammunition supply, they just need as much damage done as possible and to hold their men in place. For that 30 seconds or so they want every arrow they can get on the advancing target. Silly complex drills and holding bows at an angle is asking for trouble. Patrick can face a charging armed man on his knees if he wishes .
😉. Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 20, 2018, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 11:13:35 AM
No mention of any command structure beyond the lance commander conducting the exercise.
Look at the size of a lance: the lance commander, a squire, two pages and two archers. 6 men in all of which only 4 actually fought. You don't need more than one commander for a unit of 6 men. If the Burgundian Ordnance were structured to this extent then it is hardly unreasonable to suppose a body of archers - say 50 men - would have a man-in-charge to organise how they shoot if organised shooting was more effective (which is was).
Slight clarification needed here. A 1473 ordonance lance had at least seven members, of whom 6 were combatants. A man-at-arms, a coustillier, a page, three mounted archers and a pikeman. Even the non-combatant had a role, holding the archers' horses. It may, like the 1471 ordonnance lance, have had an handgunner and a crossbowman on foot, but they are not mentioned. The man-at-arms can't command the infantry in action as he is away with the other men-at-arms of his squadron.
However, your point is fair. On rereading, the minimum unit which was exercised together was probably not a lance but a
chambre of six lances. If we go up a level and pull together all the archers in a squadron, there would be 75. Could the squadron have spared a man-at-arms to command them, in the same way an English indentured retinue likely did? Probably.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 11:13:35 AM
One final point on Burgundian organisation that may be relevant. Back in the pre-ordnance days in 1417, we have a Burgundian deployment plan. In this, all the archers are drawn up on the wings of the vanguard, each wing commanded by a man-at-arms with a small banner. This may parallel what the English were doing with their archer wings.
And it would not surprise me if, despite lack of specific official mention, the said commander called the shots in action.
Quote from: aligern on June 20, 2018, 03:46:15 PM
Its very unlikely that the soldiers at Rorkes' Drift shot as in the film because it takes longer to kneel than it does to get another round off from a Martini Henry.
Mostly they are shooting in a single rank from behind low walls of mealie bags until the final stand around the redoubt. Was Sir thinking of the film
Waterloo (1970) and the British Guards volleying against the French Imperial Guards in the famous four-rank stand-and-shoot sequence?
QuotePatrick can face a charging armed man on his knees if he wishes .
If it lets my rear rankers shoot them over my head, fine by me. :) As previously mentioned, because of the opponent-diverting effect of longbow archery being charged directly is in any event unlikely.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 09:25:22 AM
Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer". We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.
A cold shower maybe, but helpful to segregate the sources from our imagination.
Quote from: Dangun on June 21, 2018, 01:56:42 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 20, 2018, 09:25:22 AM
Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer". We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.
A cold shower maybe, but helpful to segregate the sources from our imagination.
Although in this case I wonder if it is not just segregating the sources from reasonable inference based on source-recorded activities. It is highly unlikely that the Burgundians, who used mainly English (and Picard) archers, invented a drill for them out of nothing. Ordonnances of this nature tended to be codification as much as innovation.
Anthony is pointing out, correctly, that we have no explicit references to the existence of a 'master archer' rank/office. However we have implicit status from the accounts of wings of archers (or at Towton those of a whole army) shooting under the direct command of one man. To infer 'master archer' status is thus a reasonable action, and to deny it unreasonable. It seems to be one of those cases where apparent absence of evidence is merely because the evidence has a different label.
What we should avoid is any statement that a source 'mentions' a 'master archer' when in fact it is we who infer his presence from his archers' actions.
What we have to remember is that in an army of the period there were a large number of men of varying ranks. They had that rank whether they were given a job within the army or not.
Rank and role were loosely connected. You could be a belted Earl and just left to fight in the ranks with your own men.
So when we look for the 'master archer' or 'captain of archers' I don't think we're looking for somebody in a formal position. I think we could also see, when the army drew up, the person the Monarch had placed in command of, for example the left wing, as part of his job, would just say to the men at arms (or whoever) in charge of the archers on his wing, "I want you, you and you to coordinate the archery fire on my wing."
With regard training and drill, the individual archer would be expected to have achieved a certain level of technical competence. That was his responsibility.
Once in the battle line, why would they need more pre-battle training and drilling that Greek citizen hoplites?
A lot of what they needed to know would be passed down through the community. When they joined the army, their place in the file would be given them, they'd know who they were standing next to.
They didn't need to be taught how to hit a clout at so many paces, they came to the army knowing that. They merely needed to know when to hit that clout.
Jim
QuoteMostly they are shooting in a single rank from behind low walls of mealie bags until the final stand around the redoubt. Was Sir thinking of the film Waterloo (1970) and the British Guards volleying against the French Imperial Guards in the famous four-rank stand-and-shoot sequence?
You are forgetting the climactic sequence where Bromhead draws up his men in three ranks in front of the final redoubt.
Back to the topic in hand. Things about internal organisation are beginning to get a bit confused . Our "Master archer" was originally a contingent archery leader. He now seems to have become conflated with a commander of an archery wing. The Burgundian man-at-arms with his flag is commanding a whole wing of the vanguard - hundreds of men. This is the figure who would get the archers to step forward and shoot and call "fast" for them to stop. We can infer his existence in English armies. The next tier down in English, Welsh and perhaps Scottish armies is probably at the contingent leader stage. These will be the centenars (perhaps), vintenars and assigned men-at-arms, dependent on origin of the men. There is a lack of any differentiated senior common archer - a master archer - in the English pay records (which are extensive).
As to speculation and inference, I agree we are in that territory. But longbowmen are vulnerable to being mythologised. Every man a Robin Hood with a similar level of organisation and discipline of a Napoleonic fusilier. In reality, most were adequate shots at best and, while having discipline and internal organisation, weren't drilled at all.
And, as to no-one charging archers, perhaps a little bit more study is needed. Most of the time, archers avoided being charged by cavalry by lurking behind fieldworks or terrain features, not just relying on their shooting. I don't think there are many occassions where shooting alone prevented an enemy from closing.
Keeping in mind that the point about master archers is the need for some sort of controlled system of shooting to allow archers in depth to shoot at a target that is nearer than maximum range. The manuals have skirmishers like archers deploy in 8-man files, not 3-man ones, with as many files at infantry, implying that they deployed in intermediate order though naturally with more space between each man in the file to permit them to use their bows.
It seems we agree that at most the 3 front files can shoot with direct LOS at the enemy. The other ranks will be idle unless something is done to enable them to shoot with direct LOS as well. Two possible mechanisms: rotate the front ranks or get each rank to kneel after having loosed its arrows. Both require someone to give orders at the right time. If you don't have a mechanism then all the ranks after rank 3 are there for decoration once the enemy has advanced within the max range bracket.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 21, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
Keeping in mind that the point about master archers is the need for some sort of controlled system of shooting to allow archers in depth to shoot at a target that is nearer than maximum range. The manuals have skirmishers like archers deploy in 8-man files, not 3-man ones
What manuals?
From what Anthony has said earlier, references to archers 8 or so ranks deep come only from the later 16th century theorists, by which time the whole tactical context has changed and archers are being deployed together with pikemen and calivers at similar depths.
If you look at the Burgundian training ordonnance, it implies to me (it's not explicitly stated) that when the archers deploy behind the kneeling pikemen, it is the three archers of one lance behind the single pikeman of that lance - so only three bows deep.
I am still not convinced that the supposed need to control archers shooting in depth applies at all to the 14th-15th centuries.
Personally, rather than a formal system of NCOs, I would go for a suggestion already made by Jim of trusting your experienced men. There is a whole set of modern military psychology stuff on natural leaders - those the soldiers look to in a tight spot. In a military structure which relied a lot on interrelationships for recruitment, hierarchies beyond the formal based on experience and respect are to be expected. So, our contingent leaders, noting the skills and interrelationships, select the men who they place in front and these relay back to those behind their tactical commentary on which they act.
I agree the depth thing is a connundrum. If shooting in turns at a static target, we might suggest different men came to the front and had a go but I can't see that working in a more intense situation, such as when the enemy are shooting strongly or advancing. It is possible that all the rear ranks could be expected to do was help to create a "beaten zone" around the enemy or through which they intended to advance.
One other thought. In some battles, the English were deployed on a slope. This would help.
QuoteI am still not convinced that the supposed need to control archers shooting in depth applies at all to the 14th-15th centuries.
This is a good point. There will often be times when archers don't need to deploy in depth. If we take our typical HYW English army in France, it has between one and three archers per man-at-arms. Those operating in Gascony would be particularly low on archers (they bulked out their missilry with Gascon crossbows). It depends on deployment how deep the archers need to be. If we see an English battle with a centre of men-at-arms maybe in 4-6 ranks, with archer wings of same size, archers don't need to be in deep formations at the lower end of this ratio scale.
And one point on the sixteenth century depth quote. This was Sir John Smythe giving a view as to the maximum practical depth, not an ideal.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 21, 2018, 09:39:22 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 21, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
Keeping in mind that the point about master archers is the need for some sort of controlled system of shooting to allow archers in depth to shoot at a target that is nearer than maximum range. The manuals have skirmishers like archers deploy in 8-man files, not 3-man ones
What manuals?
From what Anthony has said earlier, references to archers 8 or so ranks deep come only from the later 16th century theorists, by which time the whole tactical context has changed and archers are being deployed together with pikemen and calivers at similar depths.
If you look at the Burgundian training ordonnance, it implies to me (it's not explicitly stated) that when the archers deploy behind the kneeling pikemen, it is the three archers of one lance behind the single pikeman of that lance - so only three bows deep.
I am still not convinced that the supposed need to control archers shooting in depth applies at all to the 14th-15th centuries.
The Burgundian training ordonnance seems to imply a 3-deep archer line which further suggests a line as deep as can allow all archers to shoot together by direct LOS.
But that doesn't imply that English archers a century earlier deployed only three deep, and my point about the manuals (the hellenistic ones) is that they do stipulate archer/slinger/javelin lines 8 men deep, which would make direct LOS shooting impossible for all the skirmishers in the line. They also state the skirmisher line had as many files as the heavy infantry which rules out the skirmishers spreading out in a sort of super open order several times wider than the HI to allow all ranks to sight their targets. So if all skirmishers in a line are going to be able to shoot at any distance except extreme range, some sort of mechanism is required.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 21, 2018, 10:46:55 AM
The Burgundian training ordonnance seems to imply a 3-deep archer line which further suggests a line as deep as can allow all archers to shoot together by direct LOS.
But that doesn't imply that English archers a century earlier deployed only three deep, and my point about the manuals (the hellenistic ones) is that they do stipulate archer/slinger/javelin lines 8 men deep, which would make direct LOS shooting impossible for all the skirmishers in the line. They also state the skirmisher line had as many files as the heavy infantry which rules out the skirmishers spreading out in a sort of super open order several times wider than the HI to allow all ranks to sight their targets. So if all skirmishers in a line are going to be able to shoot at any distance except extreme range, some sort of mechanism is required.
I think the Burgundian ordonnance is far more likely to be relevant to English practice than the Hellenistic theorists of 1500 years earlier. I am surprised that you would bring the manuals into a discussion of mediaeval tactical command, as they seem to be entirely irrelevant.
In any case, the Hellenistic manuals are only explicit about 8-deep files and matching the width of the heavy infantry in circumstances when the light infantry are exactly half as strong as the heavies and are standing deployed behind the phalanx:
QuoteNow these light infantry will also have 1024 files, if they are to stand behind the phalanx of the hoplites and extend the same distance, without, however, a depth of sixteen men — for they are only one‑half as strong — but obviously of eight men.
- not necessarily on all occasions and in all circumstances. In these circumstances, yes, they might need some sort of fire control. But Hellenistic light infantry have a known structure of officers:
Quotea company (hekatontarchia), to which will be attached the supernumeraries, five in number, an army-herald, a signal‑man, a bugler, an aide-de‑camp, and a file-closer
- which English archers don't. So the comparison from a completely different military system with a completely different tactical doctrine is, not surprisingly, pretty irrelevant.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 21, 2018, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 21, 2018, 10:46:55 AM
The Burgundian training ordonnance seems to imply a 3-deep archer line which further suggests a line as deep as can allow all archers to shoot together by direct LOS.
But that doesn't imply that English archers a century earlier deployed only three deep, and my point about the manuals (the hellenistic ones) is that they do stipulate archer/slinger/javelin lines 8 men deep, which would make direct LOS shooting impossible for all the skirmishers in the line. They also state the skirmisher line had as many files as the heavy infantry which rules out the skirmishers spreading out in a sort of super open order several times wider than the HI to allow all ranks to sight their targets. So if all skirmishers in a line are going to be able to shoot at any distance except extreme range, some sort of mechanism is required.
I think the Burgundian ordonnance is far more likely to be relevant to English practice than the Hellenistic theorists of 1500 years earlier. I am surprised that you would bring the manuals into a discussion of mediaeval tactical command, as they seem to be entirely irrelevant.
In any case, the Hellenistic manuals are only explicit about 8-deep files and matching the width of the heavy infantry in circumstances when the light infantry are exactly half as strong as the heavies and are standing deployed behind the phalanx:
QuoteNow these light infantry will also have 1024 files, if they are to stand behind the phalanx of the hoplites and extend the same distance, without, however, a depth of sixteen men — for they are only one‑half as strong — but obviously of eight men.
- not necessarily on all occasions and in all circumstances. In these circumstances, yes, they might need some sort of fire control. But Hellenistic light infantry have a known structure of officers:
Quotea company (hekatontarchia), to which will be attached the supernumeraries, five in number, an army-herald, a signal‑man, a bugler, an aide-de‑camp, and a file-closer
- which English archers don't. So the comparison from a completely different military system with a completely different tactical doctrine is, not surprisingly, pretty irrelevant.
OK, I wanted to show that deploying shooters more than 3 men deep was something that demonstrably happened in the past, and if those shooters used direct LOS fire then they must have had some sort of rotation mechanism for the ranks. But as you point out the 8-deep stipulation explicitly applies only to skirmishers behind an infantry line (I overlooked that), where they are obviously using indirect fire.
If one applies the Burgundian ordonnance setup to English archers then the presence or absence of officers becomes moot. It becomes natural to conclude that the English deployed only 3 deep and just got on with pumping arrows into their visible targets. Question then is: did mediaeval archers deploy only 3 deep (or less) in every battle? If they deployed more than 3 deep were the rear rankers used for extreme rangge indirect fire only? (for sure they weren't able to use direct fire at short range without a rotation mechanism). Does this match up with numbers and frontages of battles?
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 21, 2018, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 21, 2018, 10:46:55 AM
The Burgundian training ordonnance seems to imply a 3-deep archer line which further suggests a line as deep as can allow all archers to shoot together by direct LOS.
But that doesn't imply that English archers a century earlier deployed only three deep, and my point about the manuals (the hellenistic ones) is that they do stipulate archer/slinger/javelin lines 8 men deep, which would make direct LOS shooting impossible for all the skirmishers in the line. They also state the skirmisher line had as many files as the heavy infantry which rules out the skirmishers spreading out in a sort of super open order several times wider than the HI to allow all ranks to sight their targets. So if all skirmishers in a line are going to be able to shoot at any distance except extreme range, some sort of mechanism is required.
I think the Burgundian ordonnance is far more likely to be relevant to English practice than the Hellenistic theorists of 1500 years earlier. I am surprised that you would bring the manuals into a discussion of mediaeval tactical command, as they seem to be entirely irrelevant.
My guess is that Hellenistic theorists might have had some traction with the 16th and 17th century theorists but damn all with the practical men of the 14th and 15th centuries. So we might suspect their influence on Sir John Smythe but not on Henry Vth
The Hellenistic manuals are really for heavy infantry, and the info on lights is, well, very light, and obviously theoretical. I don't think it would be wise to conclude that even in the Hellenistic period light infantry skirmishers (who were as often as not tribal or ethnic levies with, so far as we know, no military training) formed up in formal ranks and files, or at fixed two cubit intervals.
That said, there does seem to have been greater depth among missile-users (assuming the 'eight ranks' reflects some sort of reality, and based on the amount of ground that they would occupy) than is easily comprehensible for direct shooting. I have always assumed a great deal of mobility among loosely ordered missile users - step forward from the mass, loose off a few shots, drop back, unless concentrating for some particular purpose.
I suppose there's no evidence for Medieval longbowmen as to depth, intervals, ranks or files (presence of)? I had always assumed, based on nothing in particular - shallow, open order, and loose (no formal ranks/files - though maybe a shooting line for those at the front doing the shooting).
Quote from: RichT on June 21, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
I suppose there's no evidence for Medieval longbowmen as to depth, intervals, ranks or files (presence of)? I had always assumed, based on nothing in particular - shallow, open order, and loose (no formal ranks/files - though maybe a shooting line for those at the front doing the shooting).
Alas no, as far as I am aware. Possibly the best hint is the Burgundian passage we've already quoted, at least for depth. Though we should note the archers are three deep because there are three in each lance, not for any stated reason of advantage. Incidentally, there is a detailed description of the deployment of a Burgundian army in review at Lausanne in May 1476, if anyone can find a copy. There is a diagram in Contamine based on it and this does show the archers of the companies deployed together, as suggested earlier. The pikemen though are in mixed formations with the crossbowmen and handgunners.
The problem in an English army of the archers being too spaced out is their numbers. Imagine a hypothetical English battle of 1000 MAA with 2000 archers. The archers deploy to the flanks. The MAA in the centre would be on about 3 ft frontage and perhaps 5 deep - a width of about 200 yds. Assuming a slightly looser formation of 4ft for the archers, because bows are, in the words of one 16th century commentator, "a combersome tying weapon in a throng of men", a three deep wing would be nearly 450 yds long. Less than half the men in the formation are in effective range of the flank of a force attacking the centre. Some are outside extreme range. Their ability to support their men-at-arms is limited.
Now, it is a mistake to assume that all the archers were on the wings in every battle, or that they were always static. I think it is perfectly possible they sometimes pushed smaller groups forward to skirmish and harass. But it is hard, with the numbers available, not to assume there weren't deep blocks of men somewhere.
For what it is worth, my reading of 16th century military literature does show the influence of the ancient tacticians on pike formations but they didn't take their shooting tactics from there as they had stronger traditions of their own.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 21, 2018, 11:02:20 AM
In any case, the Hellenistic manuals are only explicit about 8-deep files and matching the width of the heavy infantry in circumstances when the light infantry are exactly half as strong as the heavies and are standing deployed behind the phalanx:
QuoteNow these light infantry will also have 1024 files, if they are to stand behind the phalanx of the hoplites and extend the same distance, without, however, a depth of sixteen men — for they are only one‑half as strong — but obviously of eight men.
Taking a closer look, the manuals are clear that ideally the light infantry are half the number of the heavies and organised in a hierarchy that matches that of the heavies but just with different names for the units. Aelian affirms elsewhere that the lights have as many files as the heavies without specifying that this was so only if they deployed behind the heavy infantry:
| The name and size of the various units of light troops are as follows: four files make up what is called a systasis [σύστασις] containing thirty-two men. Two systases make up a pentacontarchia [πεντηκονταρχία] containing sixty-four men. (See Plate 6.) Two pentacontarchiae make up a hecatontarchia [ἑκατονταρχία] containing 128 men. In each hecatontarchia there should be five supernumeraries [ektaktoi, ἔκτακτοι]: a standard-bearer [semeiphoros, σημειφόρος], a rear commander [ouragos, οὐραγός], a trumpeter [salpigktēs, σαλπιγκτής], an aide-de-camp [huperetēs, ὑπηρέτης], and a herald [stratokērux, στρατοκῆρυξ]. Two hecatontarchiae, containing 256 men, are called a psilagia [ψιλαγία]. Two psilagiae make a xenagia [ξεναγία] of 512 men. Two xenagiae form a systremma [σύστρεμμα] of 1,024 men.2 Two systremmae make an epixenagia [ἐπιξεναγία] of 2,048 men. Two epixenagiae form a stiphos [στίφος] containing 4,096 men. Two stiphoi form an epitagma [ἐπίταγμα] of 8,192 men arranged in 1,024 files. - Aelian 16 |
Also that the lights when deployed in front of the heavies will match them file for file:
| Protaxis [πρόταξις] describes the positioning of the light-armed troops in front of the armed infantry who make up the phalanx. The repositioned light troops then assume the role of file-leaders, or protostatae. - Aelian 30 |
It seems fairly clear that however the lights deployed in front of the heavies they would have the equivalent of 8 men per file in intermediate order, so the question of how the rear ranks managed direct shooting still stands. If English archers did deploy deep they would probably have solved that problem in a similar way.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 21, 2018, 04:04:22 PM
Now, it is a mistake to assume that all the archers were on the wings in every battle, or that they were always static. I think it is perfectly possible they sometimes pushed smaller groups forward to skirmish and harass. But it is hard, with the numbers available, not to assume there weren't deep blocks of men somewhere.
Based on my 'feel' for the period (such as it is) I would agree. Depth gives a gain in controlability, and the additional point about everyone needing to be in easy range is a very pertinent one.
QuoteFor what it is worth, my reading of 16th century military literature does show the influence of the ancient tacticians on pike formations but they didn't take their shooting tactics from there as they had stronger traditions of their own.
Hellenistic manuals presumably began circulating in the 13th century following the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in AD 1204; whether anyone paid as much attention to them as to Vegetius is another question, but pike-type weapons and formations did become increasingly popular from AD 1300 or so, which might suggest some degree of influence. English shooting tactics did, of course, have their own tradition and practice.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 21, 2018, 08:07:10 PM
Hellenistic manuals presumably began circulating in the 13th century following the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in AD 1204; whether anyone paid as much attention to them as to Vegetius is another question, but pike-type weapons and formations did become increasingly popular from AD 1300 or so, which might suggest some degree of influence. English shooting tactics did, of course, have their own tradition and practice.
I'm not sure the Greek pike treatises were much known/noticed before the 16th century, when armies were filling up with pikemen. The late medieval pike tradition seems not to be related to Hellenistic traditions. Vegetius seems to have sufficed for most. It is of course not just the English who have their own traditions and practice. Most of Europe had a love affair with the crossbow. Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.
For what it's worth (which may not be much at all) I've been rereading William Barriff's Military Discipline, a typical 17th C (1635) Aelian-inspired tactical treatise.
He has musketeers eight ranks deep, matching the pikemen. Deep formations of musketeers are even more of a problem than deep formations of archers since there is no question of indirect fire, and he has a lot (a LOT) of drills for giving fire, most of which boil down to front rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear, second rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear and so on. Retiring to the rear was either to the flanks of the formation, or between the files.
Observations:
- the slow rate of fire of musketeers compared to archers might well require a totally different set of drills so there may be no relevance to archers' practice. On the other hand, maybe there was some continuity, it's just that there are no records of earlier practice?
- these drills so far as I know don't appear at all in literary accounts of battles, so if it wasn't for the existence of the manuals, we would have no hint that they existed.
For Hellenistic (etc) light infantry, so far as I know there's no evidence for how (or if) missiles were delivered from deep formations aside from the various occasions where lights shoot or throw over heavy infantry in front, where it is usually a question of javelins or thrown stones (where it is more obvious how it worked).
So comparative stuff isn't much help really.
Quote from: RichT on June 22, 2018, 09:40:25 AM
For what it's worth (which may not be much at all) I've been rereading William Barriff's Military Discipline, a typical 17th C (1635) Aelian-inspired tactical treatise.
He has musketeers eight ranks deep, matching the pikemen. Deep formations of musketeers are even more of a problem than deep formations of archers since there is no question of indirect fire, and he has a lot (a LOT) of drills for giving fire, most of which boil down to front rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear, second rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear and so on. Retiring to the rear was either to the flanks of the formation, or between the files.
Observations:
- the slow rate of fire of musketeers compared to archers might well require a totally different set of drills so there may be no relevance to archers' practice. On the other hand, maybe there was some continuity, it's just that there are no records of earlier practice?
- these drills so far as I know don't appear at all in literary accounts of battles, so if it wasn't for the existence of the manuals, we would have no hint that they existed.
For Hellenistic (etc) light infantry, so far as I know there's no evidence for how (or if) missiles were delivered from deep formations aside from the various occasions where lights shoot or throw over heavy infantry in front, where it is usually a question of javelins or thrown stones (where it is more obvious how it worked).
So comparative stuff isn't much help really.
It is curious that the hellenistic manuals don't give any hint of shooting drill for lights whereas the 17th century manuals do have detailed shooting drills. Is it possible skirmisher archers and slingers shot overhead only to extreme range, then just the front rankers at close range, then everyone again at extreme range once behind the line of HI? That wouldn't require any drill other than filtering back between the files of the heavies, for which a drill was laid down.
Thinking about it, I suspect there was no drill for rotating ranks of direct LOS shooters as there was no need for it. Indirect fire at extreme range would cover an area about 200 - 250 yards away with good range accuracy. Skirmishers could probably shoot indirectly to a shorter range with tolerable accuracy. As the enemy drew nearer the front rankers only would shoot using direct LOS fire but would have very little time to do so. An enemy 100 yards away advancing at a brisk 6km/h (why would they dawdle?) would reach the lights in a minute, and the lights need that time to withdraw through the heavies and permit the latter to double files from open to intermediate formation and be ready to receive the enemy attack. Light troops by and large seem to have been used to screen heavy infantry from other lights, each indulging in a desultory exchange of extreme range fire, and to support HI from the rear and to cover the flanks, all shooting from extreme range with some close range direct fire if necessary.
Which of course has diddly squat to do with English longbowmen. ::)
The complex multi-rank drills for muskets do seem to be a late phenomenon, caused by the need to keep up a steady fire with slow-firing weapons. Longbows and even crossbows shot faster.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 22, 2018, 11:42:01 AM
The complex multi-rank drills for muskets do seem to be a late phenomenon, caused by the need to keep up a steady fire with slow-firing weapons. Longbows and even crossbows shot faster.
Muskets could indulge only in direct LOS fire and, as you point out, were very slow firing, thus requiring a rotation system of ranks to maximise their effect.
Which leaves the question of how longbowmen managed. AFAIK they didn't rotate ranks (arrows stuck in the ground seem to preclude that). Which leaves the front ranks ducking down after shooting, but there's no evidence for that.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 22, 2018, 11:47:00 AM
Which leaves the question of how longbowmen managed. AFAIK they didn't rotate ranks (arrows stuck in the ground seem to preclude that). Which leaves the front ranks ducking down after shooting, but there's no evidence for that.
They could have assumed, in circumstances where the commander had the luxury/problem of so many archers they can't all be deployed in optimal thin lines, that you used your surplus sub-optimally and just used them to add weight to the barrage, rather than accurate targetting.
Again, we should remember standing around with arrows in the ground didn't happen all the time. There were times when archers were moving and shooting on the offensive. Were things more fluid then?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 22, 2018, 08:17:02 AM
Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.
I think you are right about that, not least because massed archery was not exactly a Hellenistic speciality.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 22, 2018, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 22, 2018, 08:17:02 AM
Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.
I think you are right about that, not least because massed archery was not exactly a Hellenistic speciality.
But obviously the Persians did manage it
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 21, 2018, 11:02:20 AM
In any case, the Hellenistic manuals are only explicit about 8-deep files and matching the width of the heavy infantry in circumstances when the light infantry are exactly half as strong as the heavies and are standing deployed behind the phalanx:
And it makes sense that you can deploy deeper in this situation because, since they are behind pike, the trajectory is necessarily higher/more indirect.
Quote from: Jim Webster on June 22, 2018, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 22, 2018, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 22, 2018, 08:17:02 AM
Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.
I think you are right about that, not least because massed archery was not exactly a Hellenistic speciality.
But obviously the Persians did manage it
Oh, yes. Thermopylae.
Persian: "
Our arrows will darken the sun."
Spartan: "
Good, then we shall fight in the shade."
If that does not indicate massed archery, then what can?
Alex at Issus had to - or chose to - pick up his pace when the first Persian arrows started coming down. Interestingly, he had deployed so as to have his Cretans in position to work over the opposition, but when the Persians opened up that went out of the window and Alex immediately ordered the charge. Alex had evidently concluded that the Persians were going to win the preparatory shooting phase, therefore let us get straight into charge movement and melee. It worked: apparently the Persians were unable to call their shots well enough to hit the rapidly accelerating Macedonian cavalry - Alex had presented them with a targetting calculus problem instead of an arithmetical shooting solution.
The above suggests the Persians were able to deliver missiles in volume, and volume on a limited frontage indicates depth. So yes, good observation, Jim.
I am not going to suggest that our hypothetical English master archers habitually browsed through Achaemenid military manuals ;), just that there were particular ways of handling massed archers in depth which would eventually occur to people attempting to use them.
QuoteI am not going to suggest that our hypothetical English master archers habitually browsed through Achaemenid military manuals ;), just that there were particular ways of handling massed archers in depth which would eventually occur to people attempting to use them.
If we want to talk Achaemenid archery tactics, I suggest another thread, which will excite the interest of the larger number of members interested in this period. I must confess, I'm not aware of the system used by the Persians to control their archers, but, as we don't know what medieval English archers did, we couldn't compare to see if they came up with the same idea anyway.
I must admit, now we've started comparing ancient manuals, I'm surprised that Byzantine practice has not been called forth. They certainly used overhead shooting and a regular command structure.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 23, 2018, 08:57:32 AM
I must admit, now we've started comparing ancient manuals, I'm surprised that Byzantine practice has not been called forth. They certainly used overhead shooting and a regular command structure.
That is because some of us (notably myself) have been commenting without thinking the matter through. :)
Dare one suggest that if we must seek a classical comparator for English 14thc longbow tactics, we should at least seek a successful one.
Persians at themopolae is all well and good, but the English occasionally won a battle which is recorded well. The persian archers always seem.to be ineffective, with the mounted nobles winning battles, or sheet numbers winning campaigns.
Even Egyptian shields seem to be enough to stop the Persian archery. Steel plate seems debatable against English longbow men. Other than both needing (entirely different) arrows, I cant see any value whatsoever in the comparison.
Quote from: Mark G on June 24, 2018, 07:33:57 PM
Dare one suggest that if we must seek a classical comparator for English 14thc longbow tactics, we should at least seek a successful one.
I suppose one dare seek even an unsuccessful one since the thread is really about archers shooting effectively in deep formations (well, more than 2 - 3 ranks deep). This implies a spotter of some sort who estimates the range of the enemy and times the volleys that are necessarily overhead hence blind. The Persian archers at Issus were unsuccessful as Alexander's unexpected charge threw the spotters off their stride. But the principle is the same.
I would agree that we are looking at potentially similar techniques as opposed to seeking identical results. The Egyptians had quite a few successes to their name, although the only account which emphasises archery is Merneptah's victory over the invading Libyans in which Egyptian archers work over the enemy for six hours. It should be pointed out that Egyptian accounts are not detail-rich and we do not have an Egyptian Holinshed or Le Baker or Froissart.
Achaemenid actions are similarly source-starved, our principal account of Achaemenid archery being from the early stages of the Battle of Plataea, when the Spartans and Tegeans, presumably like their Libyan counterparts opposing Merneptah, were huddled together behind their shields enduring a gradual but remorseless attrition.
What we do have is significant numbers of archers shooting in depth, and we can consider what means would be employed to direct and regulate such shooting.
Sorry you too, but that is just too shallow.
If you are seeking to compare ineffective low powered short draw then that would he fine, but the evidence in this thread for long bow tactics is quite specific and does not tally at all.
Longbows are clearly a penetration weapon, specifically for armour and horses, quite probably only used for direct shooting on a flat trajectory, with a possible usage as a mass long range weapon only when shooting off other missile troops.
The evidence for indirect volleys seems limited to either large, dense bodies of unarmoured men that you can probably identify from their pikes anyway, or other missile troops.
Against knights, either on horse or foot, it's a quite different case, and so far the only evidence for indurect volley there seems to be based on the men having to fit in somewhere.
It ignores the full body movement required for a longbow, which is entirely different from the static cheek draw of the persians, and it completely overlooks the possibility that not all English archers were shooting at once.
I suggest that you do need an example of successful power bows as the comparator, because they are quite different weapons and you are drawing false conclusions from poor comparisons.
Saying that, because the persians were in deep formations, they had to have "a spotter of some sort who estimates the range of the enemy" and then saying that this must also apply to English longbowmen is an argument built on sand.
Mark's point about how do we know the English all shot at the same time is a fair point. However, we don't have any references to fresh archers replacing ones who had shot all their arrows, or being held in reserve. Certainly, in some battles like Poitiers or Agincourt it is either implicit or explicit that all the arrows had been used, which suggests all the archers took part. But it is possible that, in some battles, not all the archers were engaged (leaving aside where less than the whole army was engaged).
As to space considerations required by longbows, internet images of massed shoots suggest that 4-6ft frontage is workable and probably six foot between ranks.
So to summarise:
We know nothing at all about how Persian massed archery worked - no idea as to depths, direct or indirect shooting, 'fire control', or anything else.
We know nothing at all about how Hellenistic massed archery worked or even if it existed, other than the vague reference to light infantry eight ranks deep in the tacticians.
We know nothing at all about how Medieval longbow massed archery worked, and only think it must have existed because otherwise it would be hard fitting everyone in.
We might know something about how Byzantine massed archery worked but if we (collectively) do, because it's covered in Byzantine manuals, we (individually) don't, because nobody has read them. :)
We know in detail how massed musketry worked, but agree that it's a different thing and not applicable at all to archery.
The rest is groundless speculation.
My own piece of groundless speculation is that, in the absence of any evidence for spotters, master archers, controlled fire by ranks and such like, there are two likely possibilities:
- loose skirmish formations in which shooters made their way to the front, took a few shots, and rotated back. Everyone gets a go, but only the front one or two are shooting at any one time. In high time pressure situations (receiving chargers) those at the front would stay put (hopefully) and shoot as fast as possible.
- deep close formations using indirect shooting in which approximate range was good enough, and everyone would take their cue from the archers in front of and alongside them to put arrows into roughly the right place, no doubt accompanied by a lot of "How far do you reckon, Will?", "Long shot, Harry. A bit higher." - that sort of thing.
QuoteWe might know something about how Byzantine massed archery worked but if we (collectively) do, because it's covered in Byzantine manuals, we (individually) don't, because nobody has read them. :)
From INFANTRY VERSUS CAVALRY THE BYZANTINE RESPONSE Eric McGeer , talking about the
Praecepta Militaria,
"If indeed the όπλΐται and the μοναυλάτοι were crouched over their fixed spears, the archers would have been able to shoot over their heads all the more easily, even to within very short range as the enemy drew near. Most unfortunately, our author does not give any details as to how archers stood, how they were commanded, or what their rate of shot was expected to be in battle. "Not a lot of help. Interesting isn't it that no-one bothered to record, even when we have manuals, exactly how you control archers shooting.
How much do you need to be able to see to shoot at a massed target?
Quote from: Mark G on June 25, 2018, 07:34:22 AM
I suggest that you do need an example of successful power bows as the comparator, because they are quite different weapons and you are drawing false conclusions from poor comparisons.
Well, no, not really. The difference in range is not such as to constitute a different weapons system (as with bows vs. javelins) and the power of bows relative to period armour is much more significant than the power of bows in an absolute sense.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 25, 2018, 09:06:47 AM
Saying that, because the persians were in deep formations, they had to have "a spotter of some sort who estimates the range of the enemy" and then saying that this must also apply to English longbowmen is an argument built on sand.
I thought we had reached that conclusion for each system independently; I was just commenting on an apparent or assumed commonality of practice for commonality of situation.
QuoteMark's point about how do we know the English all shot at the same time is a fair point. However, we don't have any references to fresh archers replacing ones who had shot all their arrows, or being held in reserve. Certainly, in some battles like Poitiers or Agincourt it is either implicit or explicit that all the arrows had been used, which suggests all the archers took part. But it is possible that, in some battles, not all the archers were engaged (leaving aside where less than the whole army was engaged).
Although specific references to archers held out of engagement do not exactly leap out at us, as with fresh archer replacements. It anyway makes more sense to use every missileman one has unless the foes are so few and/or weak that one can win with a fraction of one's missile capbility.
QuoteInteresting isn't it that no-one bothered to record, even when we have manuals, exactly how you control archers shooting.
Indeed. Archery seems to be a poor relation in most of these manuals, which appear to be written by champions of the
arme blanche. Where are our classical or even late mediaeval Smythes when we need them?
If the difference in range is irrelevant to archery, why did the saracens have different long and short range arrows?
Quote from: Dave Knight on June 25, 2018, 05:44:48 PM
How much do you need to be able to see to shoot at a massed target?
Nothing at all if you can shoot blind to a specific range, which is easiest at extreme range (and with your bow elevated to 42 degrees you are definitely shooting blind).
Quote from: Mark G on June 26, 2018, 07:16:56 AM
If the difference in range is irrelevant to archery, why did the saracens have different long and short range arrows?
This seems to miss the essentials, which are: if shooting
en masse and indirectly, the chaps in the back ranks cannot see the target and therefore need some form of guidance and 'fire control'. This applies whether the target is at 150 or 250 or even 350 yards, and whether one is using 'sheaf' or 'flight' arrows (the Saracens were not the only ones with lighter arrows for longer ranges).
Exactly how much guidance they get, and from whom, is somewhat open to speculation. It is conceivable that the Achaemenids, for example, simply had the responsible commander order a trumpet sounded, drum beaten or order shouted when he judged the archers to be within range and then left them to shoot as they saw fit. This level of inefficiency might even have worked, given their seeming penchant for very deep formations. But if they wanted to engage a closing target, or close a target themselves, they would need someone to call the new ranges otherwise their 'beaten zone' would soon cease to overlap the target. So to a considerable extent the amount of control and 'fire direction' will depend upon what kind of opponent one is fighting: two armies with plenty of archers who are content to shoot it out at extreme range until the arrows are gone and then close for a decision will need less 'range control' than an army which customarily faces opponents who habitually close from the outset.
Quote from: RichT on June 21, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
I suppose there's no evidence for Medieval longbowmen as to depth, intervals, ranks or files (presence of)? I had always assumed, based on nothing in particular - shallow, open order, and loose (no formal ranks/files - though maybe a shooting line for those at the front doing the shooting).
Napoleonic musketeers, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, were allocated a two-foot frontage. Modern longbow reconstructors reckon an archer needs an additional 1-2 yards on either side to work his weapon. However, it should be noted that the looser one makes a single rank, the larger the gaps between archers, which would enable more ranks to have LOS on the target.
Incidentally, there is no pictorial evidence of medieval archers firing at high trajectory except during sieges or naval battles. That does not prove they did not do it, but simply that there are no pictures supporting the argument that they did so.
Regarding the supposed improvements in accuracy of high trajectory shooting, the maths does not support this. A target at 200 metres can be reached using trajectories of approximately 22° and 63°. Changes in either of these trajectories result in a range change of approximately 5 metres per degree. Of course, the higher trajectory shot travels to greater altitude (more than 120 metres versus 23 metres) which would subject it to greater wind deflection, as well as a greater travel time (9.7 secs versus 4.7 secs.) Against a moving target, both of these could be significant. In 10 seconds, charging foot might travel 50 metres, whereas galloping cavalry would cover at least 120 metres.
Quote from: NickHarbud on June 27, 2018, 05:08:03 PM
Incidentally, there is no pictorial evidence of medieval archers firing at high trajectory except during sieges or naval battles. That does not prove they did not do it, but simply that there are no pictures supporting the argument that they did so.
Do we actually feel any need for pictures when we have the account of the Battle of Towton in which it appears that every archer in at least the Lancastrian army discharged every arrow he had at extreme range? This could not have been achieved with anything but a high trajectory.
QuoteNapoleonic musketeers, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, were allocated a two-foot frontage. Modern longbow reconstructors reckon an archer needs an additional 1-2 yards on either side to work his weapon.
1-2 yards or 1-2 feet? I cannot see a longbowman needing a 5'-8' frontage in order to operate!
QuoteHowever, it should be noted that the looser one makes a single rank, the larger the gaps between archers, which would enable more ranks to have LOS on the target.
True. However if you have men operating direct-trajectory shooting between other men it creates a distinct likelihood of 'friendly shaft'. Direct trajectory shooting
over other men (who do something useful like temporarily kneeling to get out of the way) is much less risky.
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)?
Quote from: Mark G on June 27, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
for the last one, take note of the ranged penetration of the heaviest bow !
What was the range? I missed that bit.
Although the trajectory was obviously completely flat.
Quote from: Mark G on June 27, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
this is all very reminiscent of the argument that legionaries engaged in long range skirmishing and the pila was used at maximum ranges.
Is it? I think this is barking up a completely different tree.
Quoteto assist undertanding of why you need yards not feet space to wield this things, some short videos.
Well, the only reason seems to be that our direct-shooting modern users insist on having their ammunition out of reach so they have to step over to collect a new arrow. Any reason for this?
Quotefor the last one, take note of the ranged penetration of the heaviest bow !
Goes through 14th century replica plate as if it were tinfoil. Even so, I doubt that either archer would have been accepted for a Commision of Array, let alone a retinue. Their accuracy at point-blank range was not impressive.
Mark's argument seems to be that since penetration is best at point-blank range, the weapon should be used only at point-blank range.
Quoteif 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)?
This is essentially what Buford, the rebel commander at Waxhaws (AD 1780), thought. He found out that it did not work in practice. (Apologies for an out-of-period example, but the principle is the same - a single volley at the last moment will not stop a fast-moving mounted target.) To stop oncoming cavalry, it is necessary to whittle down their numbers, break up their formation and slow them down so that they become a mess rather than a charge.
Then, if they come to point-blank range, you can shoot them off their horses. But if you let them close with speed and cohesion, one volley will not stop them, however cost-efficient it may be in empty saddles.
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.
QuoteWell, the only reason seems to be that our direct-shooting modern users insist on having their ammunition out of reach so they have to step over to collect a new arrow. Any reason for this?
The main reason actually seems to be not impeding one another. There are numerous images and videos of "massed" shoots and it is very difficult to see how they could be effectively be conducted with 1-2 feet between archers.
The main reason for the extra space is the nocking and start of the draw, in which the bow is held at an angle, almost parallel to the ground or at least at 45 degrees (the three videos all show this well) - which would result in a lot of entanglement in a close formation. It is possible to nock and draw with the bow held vertically but it is very awkward - if it were essential to pack in to two feet per man I expect archers could do it, but they would certainly prefer the more natural action in the videos (and for a heavy bow, this might in fact be essential - a straight draw is done much more with the arm).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 28, 2018, 08:11:58 AM
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
Quote from: Jim Webster on June 28, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
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 (http://warbowwales.com/#) 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.
Quote from: Mark G on June 27, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
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 (https://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk?t=104).
Quote from: Erpingham on June 28, 2018, 02:53:25 PM
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
QuoteHistorical 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 28, 2018, 04:31:40 PM
QuoteHistorical 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/tPVb37A.jpg)
QuoteFrom 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?
Just a couple of examples of longbows, arrows on left side.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.sagittaimperiali.it/pages/doc/arcieri_ungheresi/image026.jpg)
(http://everypainterpaintshimself.com/article_images_new/BurgkmairBasilskildx1.jpg)
Quote from: Erpingham on June 28, 2018, 05:49:41 PM
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?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 28, 2018, 02:53:25 PM
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. :)
QuoteOne 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.)
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteOne 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 28, 2018, 04:31:40 PM
QuoteHistorical 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 29, 2018, 08:58:36 AM
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteOne 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?).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 29, 2018, 10:22:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 29, 2018, 10:22:13 AMNo 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 :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 29, 2018, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 29, 2018, 10:22:13 AMNo 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.
'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.
Quote from: RichT on June 29, 2018, 12:17:50 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 29, 2018, 12:44:23 PM
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.
Quote from: RichT on June 29, 2018, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 29, 2018, 12:44:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 29, 2018, 03:38:58 PM
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.
Quote from: RichT on June 29, 2018, 03:53:43 PM
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?
Quote from: RichT on June 29, 2018, 03:53:43 PMI 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.
(https://i.imgur.com/rw9OzvQ.gif)
Or we could settle it like gentlemen...
(https://i.imgur.com/94z7nfU.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/VDK5tBu.gif)
(it's the weekend, what can I say?)
Quote from: Erpingham on June 29, 2018, 08:58:36 AM
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?
QuoteWhat 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.
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 29, 2018, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 29, 2018, 08:58:36 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Erpingham on June 30, 2018, 11:26:45 AM
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.
QuoteAnother 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?
Quote from: Mark G on June 30, 2018, 08:15:24 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Mark G on June 30, 2018, 09:02:00 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteIs 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
(https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/dp/web-large/DP834057.jpg)
A block multiple ranks deep rather than a few individuals.
Civility suffers when stupidity refuses to acknowledge it is mistaken.
Here (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+to+shoot+English+Longbow+arrow+right+side&&view=detail&mid=B2D1BCB89E49DB30D747B2D1BCB89E49DB30D747&&FORM=VRDGAR) is a group of archers using longbows. Notice that they avoid tilting their bows when placing an arrow (in order not to inconvenience the other archers) without that cramping their style at all. Notice also how close together they are able to stand and shoot. They simply don't need a lot of lateral space.
Here are some other examples of longbow shooting. In all of them holding the bow parallel to the ground is just a convenient way of placing the arrow on the left hand side and is not part of the drawing technique, which would work just as well with the bow held vertically:
First example (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+to+shoot+English+Longbow+arrow+right+side&&view=detail&mid=5879483F657D6A26C3765879483F657D6A26C376&&FORM=VRDGAR)
Second example (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+to+shoot+English+Longbow+arrow+right+side&&view=detail&mid=B5B19811E90EE10B9A0CB5B19811E90EE10B9A0C&&FORM=VRDGAR)
Third example (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+to+shoot+English+Longbow+arrow+right+side&&view=detail&mid=D232DB2C8B28010E4E86D232DB2C8B28010E4E86&&FORM=VRDGAR)
Fourth example (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+to+shoot+English+Longbow+arrow+right+side&&view=detail&mid=32407587AFFCCB8E6F0332407587AFFCCB8E6F03&&FORM=VRDGAR)
Maybe it is we see distances differently, but the archers in the Dunster video seem to stand between 3ft apart - a frontage of about 4ft, which is what was said earlier.
I'm not sure what the others videos are supposed to tell us, except that if these archers shot differently, they'd stand differently. Unless we actually have evidence that archers shot differently, this isn't really much help. We may perhaps have exhausted this line of enquiry.
Oh Justin, are you just wilfully refusing to acknowledge the most basic point that is being made.
your first video shows grannies in fancy dress with bows.
it shows folk making cheek draws.
it does not matter that they are called longbows in the title, they are not the same weapons that were carried into battle in the 100 years war.
those are victorian hobby bows
they are NOT warbows,
they are not high draw weight longbows.
this is fundamental to the problem you are causing - a simple refusal to understand that draw weight is central to the difference between the English longbow and other bows.
your video could perfectly well be used to show that the Persians could indeed stand side by side and in depth and have some sort of archery formation.
it is entirely irrelevant to a discussion on the subject which you started, about English longbow tactics in the 100 YW.
can you really not grasp that there is a difference?
To put it more civily, IMO, the Dunster castle video involves British Longbow Society bows, which must be of Victorian sporting design and draw no more than 70lbs. The English Warbow society calls for a minimum of 70lb draw weight for men. Most experienced shooters use weapons over 100lb draw weight. There are also technical differences between bow profiles (or so I read - I don't understand the significance of this) .
To be frank I cannot understand what all this nonsense is about.
The Dunster Castle video is no evidence at all. Even good modern re-enactors - such as Company St.George - would struggle to draw a true longbow to the ear, if it was over 70lb draw weight. Lt takes a lifetime of practice to build up the muscles and the technique.
It is a well known fact that to draw a 70lb+ longbow you need to bend and brace your legs swing the bow up to loose the shaft (not shoot or fire it) at a target.
With regards to formations - we are all getting hung up about a fixed density - primarily because we are (mostly) wargamers and have a fixation about frontages and depths. Your average HYW vintner adopted whatever formation was appropriate at the time. In some instances no-doubt the archers would almost be in what we'd term skirmish formation, in others they'd be shoulder to shoulder ready to fight in melee (I'd also argue that as the centuries progressed the English archers got 'heavier' equipment, and more prepared to get into hand to hand combat). Would this change in formation have effected their shooting? Probably, but again it depends upon circumstance.
There is also the now widely accepted view that actually the archers typically deployed in a staggered line so each had a gap of one man in-front of him. So the formation looked like a chequered board if looked at from above. This gives the archer room to not only loose his bow, but also plant his own stake in-front of him.
Hence where the idea that English archers deployed in a 'harrow' formation comes from - if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.
Now ... what was this thread originally about????
Quote from: Aetius-last-of-the-Romans on July 01, 2018, 10:35:00 PM
- if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.
Now ... what was this thread originally about????
Just to look at the first one, note how the teeth are offset so the soil 'swirls' as you harrow through it.
However some harrows are show with the teeth square, in straight ranks and files. The second picture shows how such harrows were used.
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 02, 2018, 07:13:06 AM
Quote from: Aetius-last-of-the-Romans on July 01, 2018, 10:35:00 PM
- if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.
Now ... what was this thread originally about????
Just to look at the first one, note how the teeth are offset so the soil 'swirls' as you harrow through it.
However some harrows are show with the teeth square, in straight ranks and files. The second picture shows how such harrows were used.
first picture didn't show, the one above is the second so here, hopefully, is the first
Quote from: Erpingham on July 01, 2018, 10:38:21 AM
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?
Not for English archers, but if I remember rightly the French
francs archers initially attempted to do exactly this with at best indifferent results.
QuoteOr 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.
And looking more like a battle formation. One could almost interpret it as a wedge ... interesting.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 01, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Maybe it is we see distances differently, but the archers in the Dunster video seem to stand between 3ft apart - a frontage of about 4ft, which is what was said earlier.
They stand with variable spacing. If we take individual height to be about 6', then several are standing 2' apart (one third of apparent height) while a few on the fringes stand 3' to 4' apart (half height or slightly more). The latter may be more a feature of personality than convenience of shooting.
What does the video prove? Essentially that archers with long bows (even if not 70+ pounders) can stand and shoot at a frontage of 3' per shooter. The next question is how applicable a formation adopted by under-70-pound bow users is to one used by over-70-pound archers.
Here are two 'experts'.
Expert 1 (John Turton). First video on the list. Observe the emphasis he puts on the leg-bending, back-pulling technique.
https://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Draw+English+longbow&v=sDraLdefXnA
Expert 2 (Kevin Hicks). Observe how his footwork is barely discernible.
https://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Draw+English+longbow&v=EvKJcxa8x_g
Note how neither requires much by way of individual frontage.
Aetius has made the key point here, the archers likely formed up as densely as they were told to and adopted an appropriate shooting style for that density. The harrow formation is also a point well made, giving density of shot because the archers are not physically next to one another and an effective placement of stakes.
Roy
QuoteWith regards to formations - we are all getting hung up about a fixed density - primarily because we are (mostly) wargamers and have a fixation about frontages and depths. Your average HYW vintner adopted whatever formation was appropriate at the time.
While I agree on the variable formation to fit the task in hand, I doubt the decision was taken at such a low level. If you deploying 1000 archers, would you want 50 random deployments through the unit?
QuoteThere is also the now widely accepted view that actually the archers typically deployed in a staggered line so each had a gap of one man in-front of him. So the formation looked like a chequered board if looked at from above. This gives the archer room to not only loose his bow, but also plant his own stake in-front of him.
Hence where the idea that English archers deployed in a 'harrow' formation comes from - if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.
While I agree with this (except perhaps the stakes part, on which I'm undecided) Mark knows well that this is only one explanation of a
herse I don't think that argument about offset pegs actually works - I've not seen a picture of a medieval harrow with this arrangement. The fundamental point with all
herse meanings, though, is open work, which does suggest a
herse formation was more open than the close-order formations of close combat infantry. I also agree that such a formation could condense itself if in melee - it only needs the spacing to shoot effectively.
QuoteNow ... what was this thread originally about????
It's a long time ago but I think it was about how the shooting of longbowmen in deep formations could be co-ordinated :)
QuoteAnd looking more like a battle formation. One could almost interpret it as a wedge ... interesting.
It does look odd - I thought it looked like the archers were engaging a unit to the flank. The orientation of the standards, however, suggests it is facing the way it is shooting. I suspect again this is a compositional detail - he should have shown the body facing down the hill but compositionally he needed it as it is. He has placed a few archers shooting down the hill so the viewer instantly clocks these are archers.
http://www.kja-artists.com/assets/harrowing_jc.jpg
I looked at this and thought that it looked square with the tines in line as they go, but then looking at the way the harrow is connected to the horse it should pull at an angle and thus have the spijes offset.
Another hecevinterpretation is that it is a deployment with wedges of archers , sometimes shown as wedges of say 400 men, sometimes a front of many small say 20 man wedges.
Roy
Here's another example, showing the more normal fixing on one of the sides. They also come with attachments to two corners (for example, see the well known one in the Tres Riche Heures).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Simon_Bening_-_September.jpg/220px-Simon_Bening_-_September.jpg)
I don't think, in light of this, the Luttrell Psalter one is meant to be drawn by the corner.
I am sure that tactically all the vintners would have been consulted as to what the most appropriate formation was for their own formations (now you are being nit-picky) - ideas that medieval armies were led by pure command & control is another Victorian fallacy. These were experienced junior officers and anyway the commanders of various the 'battles' would assess the lay of the land and take advice.
On the harrow or herse - there are many, many period pictures! That is a poor excuse.
But possible the most interesting is a C12th Flemish Psalter illustration of showing a wedge shaped harrow - that aligns the concept of the word herse and the much discussed formation of archers and dismounted men-at-arms at Agincourt etc.
(once I can work out how to add images I'll do just that!)
NB: A harrow with its spikes in line is only doing half its job!
Thanks
The video does not prove a 3 foot spacing, Patrick, because it does not show the warbow being used.
Again, this is unbelievably basic stuff that you seem incapable of understanding.
Warbow cannot be drawn by arm strength alone, therefore any 'Example' of bows drawn by arm strength is wrong and irrelevant.
Quoteideas that medieval armies were led by pure command & control is another Victorian fallacy.
But they weren't some kind of anarchic collective either. I really doubt that small unit commanders were consulted on formations and tactics. Experienced officers though, we agree.
One triangular harrow
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-glGXB9uGeRE/VSd1lTCZTzI/AAAAAAAAEwA/IowiMnC3xCE/s1600/h%C3%A4tta%2Boch%2Bharv.jpg)
As Mark has said, harrow pictures are common - I don't think it adds much to produce images of square ones. But this is a rare example of a triangular one.
We can discuss herse formations if you wish but I suggest we'll not settle the issue - no-one else has.
My point is more that you need space to plant stakes and move among them.
If each archer plants a stake in front of him and they are deployed in 'solid' ranks - you end up with lines of stakes which would present a difficulty in moving between them for the archers.
If we follow the idea that a harrow formation was used and that the points of the harrow represent stakes, then you en up with a checkerboard deployment which is looser than a more traditional 2 foot infantry spacing. So allows more room to draw bows etc.
I would argue that if the archers were threatened by cavalry, they retire back to expose a field of planted stakes. Well disciplined and locally led troops would be able to do this almost at the last minute - leaving the charging cavalry with the option to pull up short (and be shot at) or carry on ahead into the stakes.
NB: I am not suggesting that any medieval army was some sort of collective - even the Swiss Cantons and the Hussites appointed tactical army and battlefield commanders - my point is that given a certain task, a veteran vintner would know how best to deploy his men dependent upon the task, the nature of the terrain and the opposition he faced. I doubt that a battle commander would get involved at that level of detail.
Thanks
There is also a wedge shaped harrow illustrated in the Duke of Berry's Book of Hours - 1410 AD - the one that shows an archer scarecrow in the background drawing his bow - admittedly on the level - but off to the side ;D
Although we disagree on the tactical flexibility of small unit commanders, we agree on a lot otherwise.
On stakes, I'm not fully convinced of the idea that there was a field of stakes, instead of a band of stakes in front of the position. This is the only image of stakes in battle I know
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/NikopolisSchlacht.jpg/300px-NikopolisSchlacht.jpg)
It shows the Battle of Nicopolis, so they aren't longbowmen, but the impression is of a band of stakes. But the field of stakes has an appeal.
We should also clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that the pegs in our upside-down harrow represent men, not stakes. The term is used by Froissart long before the English were using stakes.
Anthony, I don't think that you and Mark differ materially on the nature of the staked terrain. Field or band is much the same. What there is not, is a tight row or fence of stakes.
Was most amused by your statement that as the illustration was of Nicopois , 1396 AD that the bows could not be longbows........indeed the likeness of the armies in the picture to the actual forces at Nicopolis is hardly any at all, its full of inagination based on XVth century European kit and cannot be used to tell us about Nicopolis, late XZiVth century or XVth century practice. Unfirtunately t doesn't really tell us how the English laid out stakes, though it is suggestive.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on July 02, 2018, 03:21:26 PM
Unfirtunately t doesn't really tell us how the English laid out stakes, though it is suggestive.
Roy
Agreed. It doesn't prove anything, but it is the only pictoral evidence AFAIK. There are some burgundian archers seemingly standing behind stakes but they are in a single line so doesn't tell us much. Also, its not clear they are the archers stakes - a picture in the same sequence showing cavalry lances also has them behind similar stakes.
A couple of thoughts on what seems to be emerging in the most recent posts:
1) As per Mark's suggestion, the herce/herse could be a diamond or wedge shape; having a corner as the front might give the formation's component archers greater individual space than a line on the same frontage. Anyone who still has that marvellous old invention known as graph paper and a pencil might try putting in a wedge's worth of dots to see if this actually works. If so, it represents a good way of compacting an effective number of archers into a usable frontage.
2) Stakes planted by or for archers would presumably be planted either in a straight line with several rows or in a chevron with several rows. The latter would presumably be more effective at channelling cavalry away from archer formations if planted ahead of the line or inhibiting the cavalry's progress if the archers fell back through the stakes.
Regarding command, I am inclined to agree with Anthony simply because of my conviction that such coordination is actually quite easy to achieve with one person - er - calling the shots. In non-major-battle situations (ambush, raid, assault on a small town) I would expect the vintenars and their experience and judgement would have a much more significant input on their subunit's functioning.
I think the Nicopolis image is most enlightening - I've never seen it before - thank you for the introduction.
A couple of points:
1) there were Burgundian crusaders at Nicoplolis and I'd assume that the mtd archers (war or longbow armed) would have accompanied their men-at-arms (as part of their 'Lance') on the Crusade. And Burgundian archers certainly had stakes - in fact they may have introduced stakes to the English.
So what we are seeing could well be a historical interpretation of a longbow/stake defense system in action.
2) from my reading of the illustration, the stakes are very definitely planted out in a field or band rather than strict rows. They also appear staggered (or that just my wishful thinking) and are also planted in depth, so again this would support the theory that the archers planted their individual stakes in front of their own personal positions - deep back into the formation.
In addition it looks to me that the archers in the picture have indeed 'stepped back' to reveal the stake-field as the enemy cavalry approach. NB: whilst the cavalry do not look like Ottomans they might of course be Serbs. Just a thought.
In fact, if they originally deployed in a more open formation to aid shooting, then when stepping back - ready to receive an enemy, they might well close ranks. I'd suggest that this is where their Vintenars (thank you Patrick) would certainly play an important role.
All supposition of course, but personally I think the illustration proves a lot of points.
Many thanks
Mark
Is it possible to establish which side is which in the Nicopolis illustration?
In the lower register, at the left, men with blond, brown and red hair are being given a hard time in front of a potentate dressed unlike the usual depiction of a western king. Would it be right to assume these are Frankish (western) prisoners of the Turks? To their right, men in western-looking shifts are being man-handled along, seemingly as prisoners. In each case, the gold-armoured infantry are doing the unpleasantness.
Does this indicate that the men in gold armour who feature so prominently as archers are in fact the Sultan's janissaries? If so, the picture may be granting us more insight into the dispositions of an Ottoman army's elite archers (and the mass of sipahis behind them) than those of Burgundy.
That said, the ilustrator has westernised their armour, so it is conceivable that he may also have somewhat westernised their techniques. If so, the stakes may still provide some insights.
QuoteIs it possible to establish which side is which in the Nicopolis illustration?
As it was the western cavalry who encountered the archers behind the stakes, so I presume the archers are meant to be the Ottomans. Note they have they have recurved bows. The rest of their kit looks "Romanised" western style (details are hard to see because of the colour scheme - we might note in passing how the artist has stressed the difference between the two sides by the use of colour). The illustration is by Jean Colombe and is French c. 1475.
I won't quote Mark at length but in response to some points
The origin of longbowmens stakes - I've never heard the idea that the Burgundian archers had stakes first. A common theory, I think first suggested by Matt Bennett, is that the Nicopolis experience was circulated quite widely in elite circles by the multi-national survivors. Senior English commanders were involved with the French and Burgundian commanders diplomatically and militarily in the years before Agincourt, so could easily of learned of this tactic then.
Herses - We should be careful with this one. English herse formations are not often mentioned and when they are it isn't clear what is meant. Alfred Byrne is responsible for the belief that the English always fought in herses and that herses were wedge shaped (actually a hollow wedge, like a lambda). Jim Bradbury comprehensively debunked this back in the 1980s, though he concluded that herse meant a defensive hedgehog. The English continued to use what they called a herse in the sixteenth century, when it was a rectangular formation, wider than it was deep.
Fields of stakes - I think we are actually largely in agreement. The question really is whether the archers planted the stakes in a band in front of their position and withdrew behind it, or whether they stood in a field of stakes and only withdrew when attacked. I don't think we have the evidence to be sure. There are, incidentally, some who do see the stakes as providing a palisade or fence. Clifford Rogers is a prominent proponent.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 03, 2018, 08:51:39 AM
Fields of stakes - I think we are actually largely in agreement. The question really is whether the archers planted the stakes in a band in front of their position and withdrew behind it, or whether they stood in a field of stakes and only withdrew when attacked. I don't think we have the evidence to be sure. There are, incidentally, some who do see the stakes as providing a palisade or fence. Clifford Rogers is a prominent proponent.
I suppose the advantage of standing within the field of stakes are firstly, the enemy might not be entirely sure you have planted stakes. (Which could be important on the times when you've not had time to ;) )
Secondly you are that bit nearer the enemy when it comes to bow range
Disadvantages, streaming back through the stakes when you're attacked will lose your archers valuable time shooting at the rapidly closing enemy
Looking at the Nicopolis illustration more closely I agree that the archers are probably Turks (Janissary troops most probably).
However, it is an interesting depiction of stakes "in action". It was (I remember) of course the idea that the Burgundian crusaders took the concept of stakes to defend archers from their encounter with the Turkish Jannissaries.
With regards to the use of the herse formation by English troops - I agree that there is no conclusive proof of what it was or how it was used.
Contemporary illustrations of harrows show them as very often tapered squares or triangles (in fact the earlier depictions of harrows in heraldry are all triangular as far as I can find). So there is a logical association between the term and the formation (in my mind at least).
I am not convinced by Jim Bradbury's arguments as they are primarily aimed at de-bunking the theory of triangles/wedges of archers between lines of dismounted men-at-arms, as often illustrated in Oman & the like etc. But in the end as the harrow also is very 'spiky' like a hedgehog, there are plenty of other interpretations.
I am not aware of the Clifford Rogers argument - but the logic of a barricade of stakes makes no real sense to me - having re-enacted with bows and stakes, it is actually quite time consuming to plant stakes and you do need space to do so (swinging the mallets etc.). Deploying them in a barricade would also much more time-consuming than just interspersed among the archers I'd argue and would cause you an issue when needing to advance out from behind them.
But all this is really hypothetical speculation ... but interesting stuff
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
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 ;))
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!]
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 06, 2018, 09:15:46 AM
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. :)
QuoteOn 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.
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 06, 2018, 07:05:07 AM
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. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/7ZpFelR.png)
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 08, 2018, 09:33:45 AM
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
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?
Quote from: Dangun on July 08, 2018, 02:23:12 PM
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.' ::)
Indeed. :)
Quote from: Dangun on July 08, 2018, 02:23:12 PM
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!
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 08, 2018, 09:53:38 AM
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.
QuoteHaving 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.
QuoteBurne 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 09, 2018, 10:05:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 09, 2018, 07:24:55 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 09, 2018, 10:05:36 AM
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.
Quote
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]
Quote from: Patrick Waterson link=topic=3443.msg43969#msg43969
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.
Quote from: Dangun on July 10, 2018, 06:00:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 09, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 09, 2018, 07:24:55 PM
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.
QuoteReduced frontage - true but greater depth.
And hence greater impact if everyone is shooting ahead, which would seem to be the default condition.
Quotereduced 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.
Quoteconcentration - 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.)
QuoteOn 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.
What sort of space per archer within your deployment?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Mark G on July 10, 2018, 08:43:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 10, 2018, 09:26:14 AM
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.
I'll take this in stages if I may
QuoteI 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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 11, 2018, 08:29:07 AM
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteBut 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.
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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 11, 2018, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 11, 2018, 08:29:07 AM
QuoteIf 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
QuoteDiminishing 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"?
Quote from: Erpingham on July 11, 2018, 11:18:32 AM
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.
QuoteAlso, 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 11, 2018, 11:05:16 AM
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
Quote from: Erpingham on July 11, 2018, 08:29:07 AM
I'll take this in stages if I may
QuoteI 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 (https://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Draw+English+longbow&v=EvKJcxa8x_g). 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.
QuoteIt does change the number who can shoot to one side, potentially quite dramatically.
Which, is of course, the purpose.
QuoteWe 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.
On the subject of depth, here are a couple of photos of longbow archers using what I presume are authentic poses when using heavy warbows. I've put a scale in feet next to them and have presumed each archer is about 5 1/2 feet tall when standing straight. They do seem to need 6 feet depth to shoot comfortably, and a minimum of at least 5 feet to not interfere with the archers before and behind them..
(https://i.imgur.com/M93NeWJ.jpg)
Justin, more graphic wizardry :)
Could you put the one on the left (I've watched this video - that's a 130lb bow) side by side with a copy of itself? He's pretty square on so this would show us how much play there is between ranks at a 6ft spacing and allow us to judge whether there is enough room.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 12, 2018, 09:24:19 AM
Justin, more graphic wizardry :)
Could you put the one on the left (I've watched this video - that's a 130lb bow) side by side with a copy of itself? He's pretty square on so this would show us how much play there is between ranks at a 6ft spacing and allow us to judge whether there is enough room.
Here you go. :)
For comparative purposes I've given spacings for 6, 5 and 4 feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/QmevDHZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JbN4NJE.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/AhE7AiQ.jpg)
Excellent. Rather tight on 5ft but looking possible at 6ft.
Thanks.
So are we actually agreed on an open 6 foot (+) spacing?
Or does Patrick still want to assert his 3 foot spacing?
Quote from: Mark G on July 12, 2018, 01:57:35 PM
So are we actually agreed on an open 6 foot (+) spacing?
Or does Patrick still want to assert his 3 foot spacing?
If the files were offset then 3 feet per rank would work fine.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 12, 2018, 06:18:13 PM
Quote from: Mark G on July 12, 2018, 01:57:35 PM
Or does Patrick still want to assert his 3 foot spacing?
If the files were offset then 3 feet per rank would work fine.
So yes. :)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 12, 2018, 06:18:13 PM
Quote from: Mark G on July 12, 2018, 01:57:35 PM
So are we actually agreed on an open 6 foot (+) spacing?
Or does Patrick still want to assert his 3 foot spacing?
If the files were offset then 3 feet per rank would work fine.
surely the area taken up by each man is going to be the same
I think there is some talk at cross purposes here. Patrick cannot believe that the archers used a 3ft depth in their files, because it has been demonstrated comprehensively above that it is impossible. He must therefore be talking about frontage. The suggestion of Justin (which i think patrick is seconding) is that, if you offset the files, you create more room for the archers in each rank. So, although the frontage is 3 ft, the lateral gap between archers is 5ft (ish). With a 6ft depth, this allows the necessary elbow room.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 13, 2018, 07:46:13 AM
I think there is some talk at cross purposes here. Patrick cannot believe that the archers used a 3ft depth in their files, because it has been demonstrated comprehensively above that it is impossible. He must therefore be talking about frontage. The suggestion of Justin (which i think patrick is seconding) is that, if you offset the files, you create more room for the archers in each rank. So, although the frontage is 3 ft, the lateral gap between archers is 5ft (ish). With a 6ft depth, this allows the necessary elbow room.
This would be the case if files were offset; I however see the
ranks rather than the files as being offset (incidentally a property of a wedge such as we have been discussing), which gives archers the rearward elbow room which Kevin Hicks demonstrates is required by the full body draw technique ('putting your back into it'). Laterally, an archer can live with 3' of individual frontage because he is side-on to the enemy (12" to 18" frontage) and adds at most 12" of upper arm and elbow (for a 6' person) during the process of drawing. Archers below 5'6" in height could get away with 24" individual frontage, but we can say 3' to be on the safe side and allow for handy arrows stuck in the ground, etc. His more extensive rearward requirements (c.5'6" as Anthony calculated) are met by offsetting the ranks.
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 12, 2018, 06:55:03 PM
surely the area taken up by each man is going to be the same
Yes; the area occupied becomes a long diamond rather than a square. In effect we lop the corners off the individual 3'x3' squares (asymmetrically, as 'right' triangles rather than isosceles) and add them onto the front and rear. This allows our archers to have plenty of stretch forward and aft while they stand sideways-on to the enemy.
My apologies to the group. Looks like we are back to total disagreement again.
Patrick, your space calculations are still wildly out. Your offset ranks may allow six feet of space front and rear but only two feet laterally. By your own admission the archer is 12-18 inches wide. This just isn't enough space to operate in. Allowing the offset to open the lateral gap and sticking with 6ft depth gives you room and may make it possible for three ranks to use direct shooting.
However, we seem to have passed well beyond the original discussion of command and control and we are stuck in the mud. Time to discuss something else, either to do with longbows or in another topic altogether.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 13, 2018, 09:04:08 AM
Patrick, your space calculations are still wildly out. Your offset ranks may allow six feet of space front and rear but only two feet laterally.
I do not see how this would be the case: if ranks with 3' individual frontage are offset, they keep the 3' individual frontage. I was just pointing out that smaller archers would in theory need no more than 2' individual frontage. My apologies if this appeared to state that a 2' individual frontage was
used - not my intent at all.
QuoteAllowing the offset to open the lateral gap ...
My ranks are offset. Your files are offset. I am not sure we can offset both.
QuoteHowever, we seem to have passed well beyond the original discussion of command and control and we are stuck in the mud. Time to discuss something else, either to do with longbows or in another topic altogether.
I thought tactical formation and procedure relevant to comand and control, but if Mr Clipsom feels we have played out the subject, we can bring it to a close.
Just for interest (before we leave the subject), here are some scaled diagrams of archers with offset ranks. There is a 3' space between the midpoint of each rank. An archer at full draw measures about 4 1/2 feet from arrow tip to right elbow. I've added scales in feet.
In this diagram the men in each rank are 3' apart. Rather a tight squeeze even with the offset:
(https://i.imgur.com/kEiLwae.png)
In this diagram the men are 4' apart.
(https://i.imgur.com/RIRiXnX.png)
And here the men are 5' apart.
(https://i.imgur.com/8N10PIA.png)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2018, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 13, 2018, 09:04:08 AM
Patrick, your space calculations are still wildly out. Your offset ranks may allow six feet of space front and rear but only two feet laterally.
I do not see how this would be the case: if ranks with 3' individual frontage are offset, they keep the 3' individual frontage. I was just pointing out that smaller archers would in theory need no more than 2' individual frontage. My apologies if this appeared to state that a 2' individual frontage was used - not my intent at all.
You have misunderstood my objection. On a 3ft frontage, at least 12 inches is archer. The gap between any two archers is therefore at most 2 ft. Your offset ranks have a 2ft channel to operate in. It's not enough.
Fortunately, Justin has produced a diagram that illustrates the point. The most plausible of those illustrated is probably Justin's third one. It also shows how you can offset both ranks and files. You could certainly shoot two ranks directly in this formation, possibly three.
I wonder if we could prevail upon Justin to redo the 3' individual frontage diagram with alternate ranks exactly behind each other (as they are in the 5' diagram). At present they appear to be subject to drift. I would like to see what difference this makes to elbow space.
I would suggest that well-disciplined archers could form up tighter than poorly-disciplined archers, and individual frontage in an archer formation may depend somewhat on discipline.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 13, 2018, 12:35:13 PM
You have misunderstood my objection. On a 3ft frontage, at least 12 inches is archer. The gap between any two archers is therefore at most 2 ft. Your offset ranks have a 2ft channel to operate in. It's not enough.
Thank you for the clarification. But is not the operating space for any given archer is not the 2' gap in the rank ahead but the 3' space in the archer's own rank?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2018, 07:50:53 PM
I wonder if we could prevail upon Justin to redo the 3' individual frontage diagram with alternate ranks exactly behind each other (as they are in the 5' diagram). At present they appear to be subject to drift. I would like to see what difference this makes to elbow space.
As requested. This time I looked for an image of an archer with a more realistic pose.
(https://i.imgur.com/mpO5ett.png)
Thank you kindly, sir.
I am of course going to leap to the conclusion that each archer has sufficient elbow-room laterally as well as in depth; it looks to me as if one can draw a line perpendicularly outward from any archer's right shoulder (i.e. towards the right of the screen) and for at least 18" this line is free of any obstructions.
Individual frontage becomes significant when estimating the extent of a deployment. Get it wrong and estimates of numbers suffer badly; the bigger the battle, the worse any distortion becomes. It looks to me as if 3' individual frontage and 6' individual depth (the latter obtained by offsetting ranks) is the keynote for deploying longbowmen. (This, it wil be noted, differs from my initial assumption that longbowmen could occupy a 3'x3' individual box.)
If I see any reason to revise this conclusion it will be revised. For now, it looks to me as if whether longbowmen deploy in a line, wedge or anything else, 3' lateral spacing and 6' depth spacing (both figures including the archer himself) is realistic and the best offer so far.
If this was indeed how longbowmen fitted together historically, it suggests an emphasis on indirect shooting, with direct shooting as a last resort. This in turn has implications for engagement ranges and in particular the range band at which longbow formations were most effective.
QuoteBut is not the operating space for any given archer is not the 2' gap in the rank ahead but the 3' space in the archer's own rank?
On a 3ft frontage, the gap between archers is 2 ft, whether its your rank or somebody elses. Please refer to the videos referenced above for the space a warbow archer needs. In that maximum two foot gap ahead are limbs and bows as part of the shooting process and, in some variants of our formation, a big stake. I'll stick with a 4 ft minimum frontage. At least you've acknowledged the six foot depth requirement :)
Thank you Justin for another useful graphic. It is a very clean view, good for demonstration purposes, though we should envisage a rather more cluttered working environment with arrows stuck in the ground or lying in their arrow bags at the feet of the archers. The archers themselves would be a little bulkier than these svelt chaps, with swords and bucklers and arrows in belts, plus perhaps padded armour. There might also be field defences and the tools to make them.
Just to get a good an idea as possible of real spacings, here are archers with 4 feet between men of each rank and 3 feet between ranks.
(https://i.imgur.com/BLECOGM.png)
Quote from: Erpingham on July 14, 2018, 09:08:54 AM
On a 3ft frontage, the gap between archers is 2 ft, whether its your rank or somebody elses.
Which frankly seems to me to be wide enough for a forward-pointing arm and a bow. Is the imagined space requirement for a bow being turned on its side while an arrow is nocked? If that is the case, how could anything less than a 6' gap suffice? Or is there some other space-consuming element?
Quote... in some variants of our formation, a big stake.
Although would it not make more sense for the archers to shoot from behind a stake pattern rather than risk self-molestation from their own defences?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2018, 07:29:38 PM
Is the imagined space requirement for a bow being turned on its side while an arrow is nocked? If that is the case, how could anything less than a 6' gap suffice? Or is there some other space-consuming element?
Why would you need to hold the bow parallel with the ground, which is what your comment implies?
Has anyone involved with this thread done much, if any, bow shooting? It all seems rather blundering around in the dark when it comes to the realities of archery to me.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 15, 2018, 09:02:09 AM
Has anyone involved with this thread done much, if any, bow shooting? It all seems rather blundering around in the dark when it comes to the realities of archery to me.
I will confess that I have not done any archery. But in this internet age, it does seem that everyone who has has made a video of it and shared it, so we are not quite as in the dark as all that. Most importantly, we have examples of people shooting the right sort of bows on video. Experience of archery with other types of bow may mislead.
We are indeed back to exactly where we were at least half a down pages ago.
Patrick and Justin refuse to believe you cannot hold a warbow perfectly vertical while drawing, therefore they will only accept arguments that make a narrow man frontage.
Everyone else has seen these things being used by chaps bending and twisting and therefore accept a wider spacing is needed.
P and j will ignore or deny any evidence cited that contradicts them.
The thread is ended where it began, as every one of these always does. It's just a question if how many more pages of repetition it will take.
There is a pattern.
Justin has an idea and seeks confirmation he is right by starting a thread on his new idea(usually phrased as a question seeking his idea as the answer).
Pat finds an ancient source to support the theory (often totally anachronistic to the topic).
Others point out basic conceptual mistakes on the idea, p and j then dismiss those criticisms of pretend they are not raised, and we are off.
I don't think it helps really to personalise but I think there are methodological differences in many of these arguments. Usually we have a range of types of evidence to hand; contemporary, analogy, reconstruction, science. In this case, we are very short of direct evidence and we have to rely on our other sources. We have to rely on speculation more. Unfortunately, the lack of a contemporary core can be taken as a chance for free-form thinking, ignoring the evidence from our other sources :(
Anyway, we are a bit stuck in the mud on this one now. We have gone beyond the original questions about how use of the weapon was co-ordinated on the battlefield without resolving them and have ventured into the equally thorny area of how the troops were deployed. We have, I hope, demonstrated that a lot of "facts" about longbow warfare are theories which have hardened to dogma and they have stopped perfectly rational authors from thinking things through (I think the question of the relative space taken up by men-at-arms and archers is a classic of this). Hopefully, those who have stuck with us thus far will have a greater appreciation of the uncertainties, even if they found no answers.
Quote from: Mark G on July 15, 2018, 10:08:14 AM
Patrick and Justin refuse to believe you cannot hold a warbow perfectly vertical while drawing, therefore they will only accept arguments that make a narrow man frontage.
That is just so amusing, given the actual statements in the thread so far.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 15, 2018, 09:02:09 AM
Why would you need to hold the bow parallel with the ground, which is what your comment implies?
My point precisely. And yet 3' of lateral space is considered by some inadequate space for a longbowman's operation.
QuoteHas anyone involved with this thread done much, if any, bow shooting?
Yes. My instructor actually told me I was a 'natural archer'. (He did not, unfortunately, add 'natural marksman'.) What I have not done is shooting in formation, but I think I can make a shrewd guess at the space required.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 15, 2018, 11:20:43 AM
We have, I hope, demonstrated that a lot of "facts" about longbow warfare are theories which have hardened to dogma and they have stopped perfectly rational authors from thinking things through (I think the question of the relative space taken up by men-at-arms and archers is a classic of this). Hopefully, those who have stuck with us thus far will have a greater appreciation of the uncertainties, even if they found no answers.
As with recreating any 'lost' military system, logic meets guesswork part-way but establishing the boundary between them can be a challenge.
For interest as they are shooting warbows.
(https://i.imgur.com/HrOXyz5.jpg)
Thanks, Nik.
QuoteFor interest as they are shooting warbows.
Great picture Nik. Incidentally, note the archer on the left and how his kit bulks him out, as discussed above.
I don't think we will get any further on the frontage discussion as the same evidence is being interpreted differently. We may, perhaps, console ourselves with the fact that no-one else seems to have settled this one either.