SoA Forums

Quote from: Erpingham on March 14, 2025, 10:01:52 PM

QuoteThe beaten zone at extreme range isn't 200m but more like a dozen or two dozen metres since all the arrows/bolts are shot to pretty much the same distance. So there's a eye of the hurricane once past the 200m mark and before reaching the 100m mark of direct line-of-sight shooting.

Do you have a source for this single long range shot Justin? Or is it a speculative idea?

The mechanics of parabolic flight isn't speculation. You can use a number of online parabolic trajectory calculators, this one for example. They don't take into account air resistance but that will not substantially affect the result.

I set the projectile velocity at a rate that would give a maximum range of about 300 metres, pretty much the maximum range of a longbow. Then entering in shooting angles in 5 degree increments, I got this:

5° - 53.55m
10° - 105.46m
15° - 154.18m
20° - 198.21m
25° - 236.22m
30° - 267.05m
35° - 289.76m
40° - 303.67m
45° - 308.36m
50° - 303.67m
55° - 289.76m
60° - 267.05m
65° - 236.22m
70° - 198.21m
75° - 154.18m
80° - 105.46m
85° - 53.55m

Notice that between 40° and 50° there is a range difference of less than 5 metres. Below 40° and above 50° the range varies increasingly until you get 50 metre differences. That's how a parabolic flight path works.

I've had some experience with archery. You can't see the target if the bow is elevated much above 15° or so.

This means there is a range vacuum somewhere between 15° and 40° where an archer can't shoot accurately, even to distance. Archers are obliged to shoot at maximum range and then wait until the target reaches sighting range. They can try lobbing arrows between those ranges but then "aiming" is just guesswork.

Define accurately.

I practised with a longbow most weekends for several years as part of a reenactment archer unit.

We could hit a unit sized ...er...unit after an initial sighting shot repeatedly from around 200 yards and closing even over intervening troops.

Ok we aren't talking massed bodies here as the units tended to be small in most reenactment battles but I took part in the Battle of Tewkesbury reenactment show several times where we had around 2-3000 combatants

In some respects, flat shooting is harder as it's difficult to get massed volleys unless you are in a thin line

Quote from: Imperial Dave on March 15, 2025, 07:25:22 AMDefine accurately.

I practised with a longbow most weekends for several years as part of a reenactment archer unit.

We could hit a unit sized ...er...unit after an initial sighting shot repeatedly from around 200 yards and closing even over intervening troops.

Ok we aren't talking massed bodies here as the units tended to be small in most reenactment battles but I took part in the Battle of Tewkesbury reenactment show several times where we had around 2-3000 combatants

In some respects, flat shooting is harder as it's difficult to get massed volleys unless you are in a thin line

Could you accurately hit a closing target from extreme range to 100 yards regardless of where in that range the target was? How did you aim?

Don't forget you are aiming at bodies of men not individuals so it's a different mechanism to say target shooting.

Also all the bowmen have different strengths and abilities but en masse we were confident of hitting a body of men repeatedly after the initial sighting shot

Aiming is a practice thing. It's more to do with modifying the amount of pull or strength used along with the elevation of the bow and what the wind is doing rather than "sighting" 

I think the gist of Justin's article is that the single range is hypothetical, not source based. I've never been an archer but have studied historical archery a bit. We know, for example, that longbowmen shot at various ranges at rovers on their practice grounds, even if their village butts were a fixed distance apart.  The technique for aiming an elevated bow was called underhand shooting - you sighted under your hand rather than over it.  But we are drifting into longbow stuff, which wasn't the intention.

As to massed targets, we are clear that is practically our interest.  It was Ekdahl's interest too and the Battle of Wisby was in his minds eye (even though it didn't involve the Teutonic Order, who didn't conquer Gotland until a few decades later).

It seems to me one issue, possibly generated by his Wisby image, is his tactic assumes a static enemy. Barwicke, in his faintly silly example, at least assumes the enemy will advance.  I'd assume a faster target like cavalry would be an issue for any long range shooting.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 15, 2025, 09:42:56 AMI think the gist of Justin's article is that the single range is hypothetical, not source based.

We have Vegetius:

QuoteThe archers and slingers set up scopae, bundles of twigs or straw for marks, and generally strike them with arrows and with stones from the sling-staff (fustiablus) at the distance of six hundred feet. - De Re Militari: 2.23

600 Roman feet is about 200 yards, i.e. the maximum range of bows and slings (more or less). Which implies that it's easier to be accurate - to the point of hitting a bundle of twigs - when shooting to extreme range.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 15, 2025, 09:42:56 AMI've never been an archer but have studied historical archery a bit. We know, for example, that longbowmen shot at various ranges at rovers on their practice grounds, even if their village butts were a fixed distance apart.  The technique for aiming an elevated bow was called underhand shooting - you sighted under your hand rather than over it.  But we are drifting into longbow stuff, which wasn't the intention.

Please do carry on.    What applies to longbowmen probably applies mutatis mutandis to other kinds of archers.

Not necessarily Justin. 

War bows are an entirely different athletic process to crossbows and composite bows.

It follows that aiming is going to be different because of the draw process being so different.

Correct. For example you don't "hold" the draw when using a longbow whereas a composite/recurved bow you can

Quote from: Mark G on March 15, 2025, 10:35:27 AMNot necessarily Justin. 

War bows are an entirely different athletic process to crossbows and composite bows.

It follows that aiming is going to be different because of the draw process being so different.

I suppose you could put marks on the bowstaff below the hand to help sight to longer ranges. But what do I know?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 15, 2025, 10:08:59 AM600 Roman feet is about 200 yards, i.e. the maximum range of bows and slings (more or less). Which implies that it's easier to be accurate - to the point of hitting a bundle of twigs - when shooting to extreme range.

Christine de Pisan, in her paraphrase/update of Vegetius, says that the English practice at the butts at 600 feet range.  Our earliest record of the range of a longbow.  The passage is often confused because the translator rendered the French buttes as barges, for some reason. 

Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 15, 2025, 10:08:59 AMPlease do carry on.

I'm not sure - talking longbows could have its own topic very easily (and probably already has).  One interesting thing not often mentioned is that, in our earliest longbow shooting manual (French, late 15th century), a method of training archers to keep their trajectories low is mentioned.

If you wish to become a good archer you must practice in two ways, namely, at the butts under the screen, and at a target. For it is easier to learn to shoot by shooting under the screen, than in any other way, and in order that you should know how the screen if fixed, I will tell you. The screen should be placed across the range, half way between the butts, the bottom edge being one foot abort the ground for every ten paces there is between the butts. Thus if the butts are one hundred paces apart, the screen would be ten feet high, and the bottom edge should have bells on it, so that even if the feather of the arrow should touch it, one may know it by hearing the bells ring. And the said screen should be at least half an aune in depth, so that no mistake may be made.

Going back towards the crossbow, one source which does mention the weapon in comparison to others is Fourquevaux's Instructions for the Warres (title of English translation).  The author was a champion of the crossbow against the harquebus and, in the style of the English Bow v. Gun arguments, makes comparisons.  The most useful to our present purpose may be this comment

And although the Harquebusier may shoote further, notwithstanding the Archer and Crossebow man will kill a C. or CC. pases off, aswell as the best Harquebusier : and sometime the harnesse, except it be the better, can not hold out : at the uttermost the remedy is that they should be brought as neere before they do shoote as possibly they may, and if it were so handled, there would be more slaine by their shot, then by twice as many harquebusiers,

Fourquevaux is writing in the 1540s and it is fair to say that his harquebus was a much better weapon than the early versions in our period. But interesting to note he refers to both long and short range use of crossbows here.  We might note that neither the longbow or crossbow is particularly effective against "the better" armour at a hundred paces plus and hence the need to get in closer.

QuoteI'm not sure - talking longbows could have its own topic very easily (and probably already has).  One interesting thing not often mentioned is that, in our earliest longbow shooting manual (French, late 15th century), a method of training archers to keep their trajectories low is mentioned.

If you wish to become a good archer you must practice in two ways, namely, at the butts under the screen, and at a target. For it is easier to learn to shoot by shooting under the screen, than in any other way, and in order that you should know how the screen if fixed, I will tell you. The screen should be placed across the range, half way between the butts, the bottom edge being one foot abort the ground for every ten paces there is between the butts. Thus if the butts are one hundred paces apart, the screen would be ten feet high, and the bottom edge should have bells on it, so that even if the feather of the arrow should touch it, one may know it by hearing the bells ring. And the said screen should be at least half an aune in depth, so that no mistake may be made.

Interesting. This looks like a training technique to help the archers rangefind by getting used to the appropriate bow elevations at different distances.

Before moving on, I thought I'd share these from a discussion on MyArmoury forum (a great place to find information crossbows, including reconstruction tests, BTW). These are from the researches of Jean Henri Chandler, former HEMA instructor, game designer and generally knowledgeable on late medieval German military matters.

"One invitation from Strasbourg to Rottweill in 1494 said that targets at 90 ells distance had to be hit 4 times out of six shots to qualify to enter the tournament. That was a 20 cm target. By our estimate it worked out to 102 meters distance. Other invitations from Strasbourg earlier in the 15th Century worked out to targets at 70-90 meters.

Another invitation (1549 from Landshut) said that the target (shown as a circle on the invitation as being about 18 cm) had to be hit 8 times out of 12 shots at a distance of 96 Landshuter cubits, which works out to 43 meters. Once qualified the shooters would have 24 shots at the target. The same invitation specified 260 cubits distance for the arquebus target.

In a letter in 1408 the Teutonic knights Komptur of Elbing mentioned a 'safe distance' of 300 ells from a defended castle against crossbows, with different ranges listed for culverin and hand-büschen.

In an earlier manuscript (Chronicon terrae Prussiae) from 1326 they listed a safe distance of 250 ells. So apparently the weapons got a bit more dangerous. Or possibly the ell meant a different unit of measure then. The Chronicler doesn't specify.

In a document from 1427 (just before attack by Hussite armies), the city of Wroclaw specified that certain defensive outworks be built at the limit of crossbow range from the wall, which they listed as 600 cubits, which works out (possibly) to about 270 meters. "


Cubits and ells are probably dependent on translation here but the real problem is which ell or cubit is referred to.  Broadly speaking, German ells/cubits were approximately two feet long (it varied from town to town). The French version, the aune, was approximately the same as an English ell, at 44 inches. Jean Henri presumably has evidence that a Landshutter ell was particularly shorter than the German average.

Why the good burgers of Wroclaw (or Breslau as it was at the time) chose a longer distance than the Teutonic knights did, I don't know. I suspect this was about heavy crossbows suitable for defence of walls, rather than generic crossbows for the field with shorter ranges.

Note again the levels of accuracy that a marksman could achieve at around the 100 metre mark, remembering the previous comment that most people wouldn't be this good.

So, where does that leave us with Ekdahl's range bands?  They seem broadly comparable, though perhaps a slightly higher "impact" shooting range is justified. 

Quote"One invitation from Strasbourg to Rottweill in 1494 said that targets at 90 ells distance had to be hit 4 times out of six shots to qualify to enter the tournament. That was a 20 cm target. By our estimate it worked out to 102 meters distance. Other invitations from Strasbourg earlier in the 15th Century worked out to targets at 70-90 meters.

Another invitation (1549 from Landshut) said that the target (shown as a circle on the invitation as being about 18 cm) had to be hit 8 times out of 12 shots at a distance of 96 Landshuter cubits, which works out to 43 meters. Once qualified the shooters would have 24 shots at the target. The same invitation specified 260 cubits distance for the arquebus target.

Which makes the Landshut archers (landshutters?) pretty awful marksmen. They'd be eaten alive by the Rottweillers. 

Just a small point. I think that medieval distance measurements would tend towards 'natural' distances, such as the length or breadth of a finger or thumb , just as measuring by paces or the length of a forearm or palm. Some of these measurements are still with us, measuring horses. Thus , when being trained a man would grip the bow in a certain way and probably decide on elevation by counting which finger was in conjunction with the distant target. Training would work just as it did with the old SMLE, the recruit kept a constant aim and then aimed off for his and his bow's deviation. Shooting a WwII rifle without using the graduated sight ( which takes time ) was a matter of the foresight Or the muzzle blocking out portions of the target, the more distant a target was the more of the target the shooter would block out.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on March 18, 2025, 09:51:01 AMJust a small point. I think that medieval distance measurements would tend towards 'natural' distances, such as the length or breadth of a finger or thumb , just as measuring by paces or the length of a forearm or palm. Some of these measurements are still with us, measuring horses. Thus , when being trained a man would grip the bow in a certain way and probably decide on elevation by counting which finger was in conjunction with the distant target. Training would work just as it did with the old SMLE, the recruit kept a constant aim and then aimed off for his and his bow's deviation. Shooting a WwII rifle without using the graduated sight ( which takes time ) was a matter of the foresight Or the muzzle blocking out portions of the target, the more distant a target was the more of the target the shooter would block out.
Roy

My guess is that that would work up to about 100 yards or so, after which the bow needs to be raised so much the hand is no longer any use as a sight. It seems that an experienced archer could shoot by feel to any distance, but the mechanics of parabolic flight tell me he had an easier time shooting to an accurate distance when at extreme range.