The effects of missiles - how important were armour and shields?

[aligern]

it is logical that a distance the archer captains asked for controlled releases in order to conserve ammunition supply. Then when the opponent got closer they would order the equivalent of the 'mad minute' of the Old Contemptibles in 1914.  At that point the trajectory is flat, the target is large and the archers have to hold their nerve and shoot the opponents down.

It all then depends upon the archers holding their nerve. I they are experienced and brave the advancing troops will be suffering really powerful direct blows and some penetrations. They will not be able to look directly at the archers as they advance. It is then a question of who cracks first.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

The whole discipline of volley shooting (for archers) seems to have depended upon plenty of practice at landing their arrows on the space called for - at ranges over 60-80 yards this would involve a curving trajectory for anything less powerful than a ballista, and for rear ranks of a deep archer formation to participate a curving trajectory and shooting on command rather than attempting to sight the target would be required.

The analogy I would use is a Second World War artillery barrage.  While the chance to hit using direct fire at close range was indeed individually much higher than the chance to hit firing indirectly at a distance, indirect fire allowed more guns to participate (Mike Target, Uncle Target, etc.) and would put a greater weight and concentration of fire on the target, which was what did the damage.  Archers similarly needed to do their job before the enemy got to close range, and the way to do this was to drop a lot of missiles in a limited space quickly, which meant shooting in practised concentrations on command.  What was needed of the individual was to put his missile within a certain ground radius of the overall aiming point, no more and no less than that: his comrades would all be doing the same.  This kind of massed archery broke formations and caused confusion (and casualties) among opponents, and one can see Derby at Auberoche (1345) directing his archers to concentrate on knots of Frenchmen who were forming up and getting organised, shifting target when sufficient disorganisation had been achieved.

In essence, effective massed archery relied on a concentration of shooting on a called point of delivery.  Experienced officers would know the rates of advance (Nick has mentioned these) and the flight times for various distances, so would aim to have the volley arrive when the target did - individual accuracy would not be a factor, because the individual did not need to aim, merely to follow his training.  (We may note that experienced archers could be remarkably accurate, 700 Arabs losing an eye at the Yarmuk courtesy of Armenian archery and Italians being amazed that English archers in 1361 or so could put an arrow in a man's eye at considerable distances.)

This kind of massed shooting relied on accurate calling by the 'target designating officer', and there were ways to beat it.  Diodorus tells us that at Cunaxa Clearchus ordered his men to speed up the pace of their advance when the Persians shot their first volley, and the Greeks progressively increased in speed as they closed, avoiding any casualties or loss of order from shooting.  The Persian troops facing them were made of less stern stuff than Dave's re-enactors and took to their heels before contact could be made.  (This is analogous to 'salvo chasing', altering course towards the last enemy salvo, a technique used with success by some light cruisers when shadowing the enemy fleet - it worked when the enemy's shooting was accurate, because they corrected in the wrong direction.)  Such occasions were, however, the exception rather than the rule: usually the attacker just pressed on and took his lumps.

I think it is important that we understand the nature of volley-shooting for archers, as otherwise we shall tend to underrate the effectiveness of volley shooting at range - and overrate it at closer distances when the attacker was starting to get inside the 'reaction loop' and the archer unit as a whole would have difficulty bringing their arrows down so close to friendly lines.

In the big battles, the infantry blocks normally slowed and bunched just before charging to contact. Partly for protection against archery using collective shields and partly in anticipation of the shock of impact to the fore.

Thanks, this is much as I would expect, although historical originals being pelted by clothyard shafts at greater ranges might start to bunch and put the brakes on a bit earlier, as the first shafts began to bite.

... Other interesting points are that they clearly aimed at the horses and that, if the Spanish had been charging seriously, they couldn't have been stopped at 12 paces IMO (even dying horses would have covered that distance at a gallop before falling.  Perhaps the Spanish intended to intimidate them rather than get tangled up with them, as they were really wanting to fight with the French Gendarmes?  The Spanish may have been in more than one rank, so the front rank probably took a higher casualty rate percentage wise - this may have had an effect in checking their advance.

If the period is early 16th century, I believe multiple ranks for cavalry were still in vogue, so a concentration on the front rank would be an effective 'stopper'.  If the crossbows actually shot at 12 paces as opposed to shooting at, say, 20 paces so that the equine casualties piled up at 12 paces, the Spanish cavalry must have been progressing at a trot or at most a canter rather than a gallop - suggesting that the 'pursuit' was more concerned with keeping order than with going all-out to catch the gendarmes, although the latter were also probably not moving with great rapidity.  One of the things that strikes me about pre-gunpowder warfare is that much of it seems to have been carried out at a pace we would regard as leisurely.

[Mark G]

so just to recap on the salient points here.

two examples of cavalry stopped by archery - Agincourt and the early Montluc.  once at long range, the other at close.

in both cases, the worst affected target is the horse not the rider.

ergo

two examples that armour in period works
- and both periods see changes designed to alter this balance - the French dismount (no horses to target), and the late medieval / early renaissance sees metal horse barding shaped to deflect incoming arrows.

[Dave Gee]

Perhaps we should consider cost as a factor. Why supply so many soldiers with shields if they are mostly ineffectual? Looking at some data on logistics from the Jewish Wars around 70 AD I would say that shields were considered to be important enough to justify shipping them along with the grain and water.

[Imperial Dave]

Good point

I would suggest that shields are quicker, easier and cheaper to make than armour for one! Also you get a lot of bang for your buck with a shield....melee defensive help, melee offensive help, projectile defensive help and a big psychological boost if nothing else! Again as a reenactor, having "fought" in a hand to hand melee (in a shieldwall!), having a shield along with a helmet and hand protection were the base minimum items you would want to take on the field with you. 

[Nick Harbud]

Perhaps we should consider cost as a factor. Why supply so many soldiers with shields if they are mostly ineffectual? Looking at some data on logistics from the Jewish Wars around 70 AD I would say that shields were considered to be important enough to justify shipping them along with the grain and water.

I reckon a shield is a distinctly useful item....

....but probably more so for hand-to-hand fighting rather than as protection against missiles, unless it is the heavy pavise type.  Personally, I reckon the best defense against massed missile fire is to move, either out of range or to close with the pesky individuals shooting at me.

[Nick Harbud]

it is logical that a distance the archer captains asked for controlled releases in order to conserve ammunition supply. Then when the opponent got closer they would order the equivalent of the 'mad minute' of the Old Contemptibles in 1914.  At that point the trajectory is flat, the target is large and the archers have to hold their nerve and shoot the opponents down.

It all then depends upon the archers holding their nerve. I they are experienced and brave the advancing troops will be suffering really powerful direct blows and some penetrations. They will not be able to look directly at the archers as they advance. It is then a question of who cracks first.
Roy

Don't forget the timing of all this.  The horsemen charge at 10yds/sec, which means they take 24 seconds to cross the 240yds from extreme range to contact.  At 7s/volley this gives 3 volleys, bearing in mind that the archer will take time to draw his melee weapon.  (No bayonets for a couple of hundred years.)  The crossbowmen are in an even worse state and would be lucky to get off 2 volleys before they find themselves in the thick of it.

Of course, the archer can laugh at his opponent if he has had the forethought to set up behind a wall, stakes, muddy field or two rolls of razor wire... 

[Justin Swanton]

In the big engagements, we would be brigaded together with other archer companies and organised into mass shooting/volleys. In these occaisions, mostly without hills to help, we were almost exclusively shooting over our own troop blocks into the enemy until they engaged in hand to hand. This meant that the ranges we shot at were normally no closer than 30-40 yards. Generally we could get off quite a few volleys from long range to the time it was "danger close" for our own troops.

Having done archery in my youth I'm curious - what was the draw weight of your bows and were your arrows weighted and padded on their tips? I used a 45 pound recurve bow and at 30 yards the arrow trajectory was nearly flat.

[Imperial Dave]

In the big engagements, we would be brigaded together with other archer companies and organised into mass shooting/volleys. In these occaisions, mostly without hills to help, we were almost exclusively shooting over our own troop blocks into the enemy until they engaged in hand to hand. This meant that the ranges we shot at were normally no closer than 30-40 yards. Generally we could get off quite a few volleys from long range to the time it was "danger close" for our own troops.

Having done archery in my youth I'm curious - what was the draw weight of your bows and were your arrows weighted and padded on their tips? I used a 45 pound recurve bow and at 30 yards the arrow trajectory was nearly flat.

The arrows had blunts (rubber) on them making them quite "front heavy". We occaisionally used sharps but only for target practice shooting, never in combat! We also used a variety of fletchings, sometimes even using flu flus to stop the range being too extreme when we where in a small area (we have done archery "fights" in castle courtyards before now!

The bows we used were longbow type (5-6 foot) although with laminated materials being used. One of the chaps we used to have in the group did a homemade bow from a yew tree branch, knobbly knots and all left in!

Our group generally had 35-45 lb draw weights depending on the individual's strength defining which draw weight to go for 

[Erpingham]

Don't forget the timing of all this.  The horsemen charge at 10yds/sec, which means they take 24 seconds to cross the 240yds from extreme range to contact. 

This is much too fast, even on good going.  Rogers in his extended article on Agincourt, using various manuals from 18th- 20th century, concludes a charge from 325 yds would take 90 seconds, 275 yds 76 seconds.  This is because the charge starts at a halt and, like later cavalry, we know that men-at-arms didn't go immediately to the charge but stepped up to it.  Indeed, they may not have "charged" faster than a fast trot.  The fastest gallop Rogers quotes is 440 yds/min - British 20th century regulations.

In terms of the effect of mud, he notes Austrian cavalry tests from the 19th century which showed a trot speed of 150-160 m/min, down from a regulation 225 m/min, in soft going.  Rogers ultimately estimates the charge would have taken 2 1/2 to 3 minutes to contact.  From these figures, the English could have hit the French with 15 volleys with ease.  Whether they did or not is another question   Note that the slow start allows the English early volleys to hit a slow moving target.  When the cavalry have picked up speed, the trajectory is flattening out, making target speed less of an issue.

[Patrick Waterson]

I reckon a shield is a distinctly useful item....

....but probably more so for hand-to-hand fighting rather than as protection against missiles, unless it is the heavy pavise type.  Personally, I reckon the best defense against massed missile fire is to move, either out of range or to close with the pesky individuals shooting at me.

Which is probably quite correct, although one does not always have the option, or (like the Gauls at Telamon and Olympia) may not think one has.  A dinky little buckler such as Cretans used would have obvious limitations as a missile-stopper, but the scutum, hoplon and thureos were all considered good missile-stoppers by their contemporaries, apart from the Gallic variety which was fine against missiles from the front but was criticised by classical authors as being a) to small to protect the whole Gaul properly and b) too flat to allow protection against anything coming in at an angle other than directly ahead.

Failing the ability to close with and destroy those irritating missilemen, the next best option is to have a fair-sized assemblage of wood and leather (or at a pinch woven osiers) that one can line up and duck behind.  Going to a full pavise, gerrhon of even mantlet obviously provides the best protection, and in sieges, where melee was not usually going to be a factor until the ladders went up on the walls, shooters used these in preference to shields.  For assaults (i.e. where one did not have time for a siege) they locked shields and moved in to bash gates and/or undermine walls.

I would suggest that we can differentiate between the pavise/mantlet/gerrhon, which provides 95-99% protection (100% if you close the slit), the 'large shield' of the scutum/hoplon/thureos variety which provides about 75% protection (more if one crouches or holds it up), the 'medium shield' such as the pelta or heater or Gallic thureos or Saxon round shield which gives maybe 50% protection (more if held up and/or used to deflect missiles) and the 'small shield' such as the targe or buckler which really is only capable of conferring meaningful protection in a one-to-one melee; against missiles one might generously allow it to provide perhaps 25% protection (apparently at Culloden some Highland targes stopped bullets, e.g. Lord George Murray's).  If desiring greater simplicity, we could conflate these into three categories: 'mantleted', 'shielded' and 'unshielded'.

[Nick Harbud]

This is much too fast, even on good going.  Rogers in his extended article on Agincourt, using various manuals from 18th- 20th century, concludes a charge from 325 yds would take 90 seconds, 275 yds 76 seconds.  This is because the charge starts at a halt and, like later cavalry, we know that men-at-arms didn't go immediately to the charge but stepped up to it.  Indeed, they may not have "charged" faster than a fast trot.  The fastest gallop Rogers quotes is 440 yds/min - British 20th century regulations.

Are you sure about this?  I mean...

325 yards in 90 secs = 3.33 m/s
275 yards in 76 secs = 3.34 m/s
440 yards in 60 secs = 6.77 m/s

By contrast, Roger Bannister (without horse) could run 1760 yards in 240 secs = 6.77 m/s.

According to Wikipedia horse speeds are as follows:
Trot = 13 km/h = 3.6 m/s
Canter = 16-27 km/h = ~7 m/s
Gallop = 40-48 km/h = 11-13 m/s

According to The Artillery Officer's Assistant 1848, cavalry is expected to make the first half mile at the trot, the next quarter mile at a canter and the final 440yds at the gallop.  Incidentally, this worthy manual recommends loosing 2 rounds of case shot in the final 350yds, which seems eminently achievable, given that a well-practiced crew should be able to manage 3 rounds of case shot/minute.

[Erpingham]

Are you sure about this?

Well, I'm not an expert but what I've read (and just now checked on the internet) is that Rogers' figures are pretty sound for heavy cavalry.  Trots were around 220-250 yds a minute, gallops 330-440 yds a minute.  Some online sources estimate lower (as did Charles Grant in the Wargame).  I'm not sure of the reasons but I'm guessing they were slower partly because a cavalry horse is carrying a lot more weight than a recreational riding horse (and Roger bannister) partly because they were keeping in formation.  As to charge length, it probably varied according to doctrine but 18th-20th century cavalry could deliver their charge from 200-300 yds from a halt, so it is plausible that the French cavalry could deliver a respectable charge from a long bowshot.

[Nick Harbud]

Well, I'm not an expert but what I've read (and just now checked on the internet) is that Rogers' figures are pretty sound for heavy cavalry.  Trots were around 220-250 yds a minute, gallops 330-440 yds a minute.  Some online sources estimate lower (as did Charles Grant in the Wargame).  I'm not sure of the reasons but I'm guessing they were slower partly because a cavalry horse is carrying a lot more weight than a recreational riding horse (and Roger bannister) partly because they were keeping in formation.  As to charge length, it probably varied according to doctrine but 18th-20th century cavalry could deliver their charge from 200-300 yds from a halt, so it is plausible that the French cavalry could deliver a respectable charge from a long bowshot.

Should we be starting a new topic on the ability of infantry evaders to outrun charging cavalry?   

[aligern]

I am with Erpingham that the charge takes longer than Nick is estimating. I doubt that medieval knights had the degree of practise that 19th century cavalry had, nor the sub unitisation that gave control. the leaders have to move out slowly so that the other nobles can move with them , or rather just behind them, in appropriate sequence. It is then likely that they move forward slowly so that the whole mass can keep together, only moving to faster speeds for the last 50 yards? to gain the impetus of momentum. If they went at the gallop from the beginning they would arrive in disorder and good order is  vitally important. Add the slowing effect of the mud and there is plenty of time for controlled volleys
Incidentally the Arab chronicler of the Pecheneg v Byzantine battle that I cited in the article on Huns in a recent Slingshot has the Byzantine charge being stopped by the shooting of stationery Petcheneg horsemen.

As to shields the Byzantine manuals seem to think that forming a wall of shields is an important defence against archery. Also, there is a question of how the shield is held. If it is held outwards by a central grip then a smallish shield covers a large area of the body. It also keeps penetrating missiles away from the body , even if they do break through the face of the shield.
Roy