Longbow - the arrowstorm revisited

[Patrick Waterson]

I agree with this.

Flat trajectories are efficient but by their very nature strictly limit the number of ranks which can shoot effectively - or at all.  Curved trajectories not only add range but add many more ranks of archers who can participate, and the aiming problem can be solved by a combination of practice and a single controller (Royal Navy and Russian naval gunnery experts in 1905-1910 found that use of similar principles, albeit with technology in place of the master archer, revolutionised the ability to hit targets at a distance).

None of this prevented English archers from being expert individual marksmen.  This marksmanship was however most effectively employed against individuals on raids and in sieges rather than in open battle.  When advancing opponents got to direct shooting (level trajectory) range it was probably time to retire behind the stakes or billmen rather than risk becoming a dead hero.  Of course, if the other side got to direct shooting range and then stopped the front ranks of archers could have a field day.

It may be significant that a simile used in the late Middle Ages was 'falling thicker than arrows in an English battle'.  I regret having  forgotten the precise attribution.

Shot from haquebusses and coulovrines were said to be flying thicker than arrows at an English battle at the siege of Neuss, cited I think in Vaughan's bio of Chuck the Bold.

Thanks, Andreas.

[yesthatphil]

Le Baker describes Oxford at Poitiers telling his men to change their aim from shooting at the French cavalry (where the arrows were bouncing off their breastplates) to shooting at the horses.   Sounds like direct fire and aimed shooting to me.

Again, at Agincourt, advancing on foot, the French are desrcibed as having to close their visors and as turning their faces away as they advanced ... you don't need to close your visor against a dropping shot.

Most commonly in the main phase of the war in France, English archers prefer a broken position ... lining a hedge or sunken road e.g. ... where organised multi rank indirect shooting would have been unlikely. 

What was different about how English archers fought was their lethal use of flat trajectory aimed fire, it seems.

Phil

[Jim Webster]

Given the comments made about the ability to keep using a bow with a heavy draw weight for any significant period of time, perhaps there was something of an informal rank relief for those cases where direct fire was possible?
An archer would loose three or four arrows and then fall back behind the next man allowing him to be in the front rank.
No evidence whatsoever, pure uniformed speculation, but it might fit better with defending a hedge

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

When shooting as part of my reenactment group, we were taught to start the draw by knock the arrow with the bow pointing to the ground. The next step was then in one smooth motion, raise the bow whilst drawing the string back and "unconsciously" aiming and releasing as soon as the full draw was achieved. We were taught never to "hold" a fully drawn bow as this made for a poor shot (accuracy) and poor power. Additionally we shot at 45 degrees when employed as an archer block and only really flat shot when in skirmisher mode. Intervening troops and level ground severely limit your opportunities for flat shooting unless you are facing the enemey and prepared to be charged!

[Justin Swanton]

Le Baker describes Oxford at Poitiers telling his men to change their aim from shooting at the French cavalry (where the arrows were bouncing off their breastplates) to shooting at the horses.   Sounds like direct fire and aimed shooting to me.

Again, at Agincourt, advancing on foot, the French are desrcibed as having to close their visors and as turning their faces away as they advanced ... you don't need to close your visor against a dropping shot.

Most commonly in the main phase of the war in France, English archers prefer a broken position ... lining a hedge or sunken road e.g. ... where organised multi rank indirect shooting would have been unlikely. 

What was different about how English archers fought was their lethal use of flat trajectory aimed fire, it seems.

Phil

It's quite possible, and more effective, to have both, i.e. the rear ranks aim high at extreme range and then the front 2 ranks shoot when the enemy comes within direct aim range, about 150 - 200 yards. If the rear rankers are good they can aim higher for a shorter range, dropping arrows on top of the advancing enemy whilst the front rankers shoot them from straight ahead. You can't hold your shield in two places at once.

[aligern]

at Towton doesn't one side advance in the mist and snow, volley and then retire so that the opponents waste their arrows on empty space? If so that presupposes. shooting at ling distance, not aimed shots at fifty yards.
None of the arguments so far would prevent the longbowmen  shooting both at close and long ranges as appropriate. 
Roy

[yesthatphil]

My point is not what was possible ... it is what was special about the English bowman of the Hundred Years War and his arrowstorm ... and the answer in the contemporary accounts clearly points to flat 'in your face' trajectory aimed shooting rather than indirect, unaimed blanket shooting of the kind practised in the ancient world (against which armour was pretty much proof) ...

FWIW I wouldn't automatically equate the archery in the WotR with that of 100 years earlier in France.   Numbers were different, training/professionalism was different (and for most, no doubt, motivation was different)

Phil

[Jim Webster]

Also the proportion of archers may have been different as well

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

My point is not what was possible ... it is what was special about the English bowman of the Hundred Years War and his arrowstorm ... and the answer in the contemporary accounts clearly points to flat 'in your face' trajectory aimed shooting rather than indirect, unaimed blanket shooting of the kind practised in the ancient world (against which armour was pretty much proof) ...

I think we are getting Brahmin-and-elephant syndrome, in that each belief (long range indirect volleys and close range aimed shooting) is correct, but it is wrong to insist that either would be used to the total exclusion of the other.

We can pick clear examples of aimed shooting and also clear examples of indirect volley shooting called by a master archer.  Both were in the English archers' repertoire and we should not deny either.  Each had its place.

[Justin Swanton]

Presuming the English archers went in for direct fire only, I'd be interested in how they deployed at Agincourt. Presuming on 7000 archers, that's a frontage - at two ranks deep - of about 3,5 km, or more than two miles. I take it the character of the battlefield is pretty much settled as being a 750 yard wide strip of open land between the woods of Tramecourt and Agincourt. Where does one put the archers? (all over the place according to the Wiki map which I don't find very convincing, and even then one can see it doesn't add up to 3500 yards)

[TimR]

I think English archers will have used both flat and indirect volleys rather than the rear ranks just standing and watching, even limited help is still help. Remember we still shoot "roving marks" which if they are practicing for anything it has to be for indirect fire. (At a roving marks the group shoot at a stick in the ground at a unmeasured distance, the archer must shoot upwards and never with a flat     " aimed" shot. You score by having arrows landing as near to the stick as possible).
The importance of organisation/ professionalism plus the size of arrow stockpiles must be part of why the English archers had such an effect on the battlefield.
Tim

[yesthatphil]

Presuming on 7000 archers, that's a frontage - at two ranks deep

Whoever suggested just 2 ranks deep?   That's something you have presumed into the equation.   I don't think the standard formation was 2 ranks deep.  Nor do I think flat trajectory aimed shots are limited to just the first two ranks (again your presumption which I wouldn't accept for a moment): I think Matthew Bennett has demonstrated well enough that the herce was likely a way of drawing men up each rank slightly offset so as to allow multi rank aimed shooting (see the diagram in 'Agincourt') ...

I think you need to look at more than wikipedia on this topic before being convinced one way or the other.

I think we are getting Brahmin-and-elephant syndrome, in that each belief

You might well be ... I am looking at what is key to the game changing effect English archers had (rather than extrapolating some sort of same old/same old).  Obviously English archers could shoot lofted shots and aimed shots (I didn't sign up to the SoA forum to find that out  ) What I believe is the game changer is that they used defensive terrain and overlapping ranks in order to deliver a much greater intensity of aimed frontal shooting (such as will knock you back/make you shy/make you close your visor) than had been experienced previously (and which the French found it difficult to cope with despite the fact that generally the armour was proof against it) ...

I think this is directly addressing the issue Anthony set up in the opening post.

Phil

[Erpingham]

Hello all,

Sorry to drop in a topic and run but had to make a sudden trip.  However, debate has raged OK without me.  One topic I feel equipped to comment on is the Agincourt wiki, as I'm one of its regular editors (i.e. I spend time stopping people vandalising it).  It is generally OK but weak in parts.  It has an interesting overview of the numbers debate and this leads to a slightly confusing situation in the infobox.  It has a diagram of a deployment that doesn't match the prefereded deployment solution in the text (if someone can produce a copyright free diagram that does reflect the text better, let me know and I'll swap them).
Also worth a look is English Longbow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow  This one is again better in places than others (its a good example of wiki's open edit style, with poor paras interspersed with good).  It is weak on tactics, stronger on collecting published experiments.  I also contribute to this one - mainly stopping Welsh editors trying to rename it Welsh longbow

[aligern]

How does this deployment that permits more than two ranks to shoot direct at flat trajectory work?

A line of men with an arm length between them takes a little over a yard per man. Behind them is a line of men offset so that there is an archer in the gap. That gives two men shooting per yard. A man in a third rank , again offset, is now behind the next  front rank man, he cannot shoot.  Perhaps someone can explain how three or more ranks can shoot flat trajectory?

If you relly squash together you might just get three men per yard, but it gets dangerous because the third man has his bow entirely behind the first two and that gets really dangerous.
Crushed together.
If a man has a 40 inch chest he has, let us say, a depth of 8 inches, but needs another foot as the right arm to the elbow is horizontal in the drawing of the string. That implies two men per yard , paked in and then behind them an offset rank could shoot in the gap, but the gap would have to be six inches  so not quite two men per yard in the front. Packed in these chaps could operate at three per yard. That would deploy 7000 men at  say two miles of frontage.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

We were taught never to "hold" a fully drawn bow as this made for a poor shot (accuracy) and poor power.

Absolutely correct for drawing to the right ear.  I have found that drawing to the right shoulder (really as far as you can go) is different - try sometime.  This is best done with a reversed grip on the string - palm towards you - otherwise the release can be problematic because the fingertips brush whatever you are wearing.  What put me onto this was some depictions of Egyptian chariot archers doing the same.

Additionally we shot at 45 degrees when employed as an archer block and only really flat shot when in skirmisher mode. Intervening troops and level ground severely limit your opportunities for flat shooting unless you are facing the enemy and prepared to be charged!

This sounds like exactly what I would expect.  Thanks, Dave.

Whoever suggested just 2 ranks deep?   That's something you have presumed into the equation.   I don't think the standard formation was 2 ranks deep.  Nor do I think flat trajectory aimed shots are limited to just the first two ranks (again your presumption which I wouldn't accept for a moment): I think Matthew Bennett has demonstrated well enough that the herce was likely a way of drawing men up each rank slightly offset so as to allow multi rank aimed shooting (see the diagram in 'Agincourt') ...

So how many ranks would this permit?  And hence how many archers would shoot per yard of frontage?

What I believe is the game changer is that they used defensive terrain and overlapping ranks in order to deliver a much greater intensity of aimed frontal shooting (such as will knock you back/make you shy/make you close your visor) than had been experienced previously

Direct shooting had been around for as long as bows: it was not something new brought in by English archers.  Cretans became famous for it, and it seems to have been the primary technique for mounted archers throughout their existence.  And how would this 'much greater intensity of aimed frontal shooting' differ from what Genoese crossbowmen doing a 'foot caracole' could provide?  Please explain, as I am interested.