Longbow - the arrowstorm revisited

[Erpingham]

As I note in my Slingshot review of Mike Loades' book The Longbow, the author reinterprets the traditional longbow "arrowstorm".  Instead of long range volleys, Loades believes short range flat trajectory shooting was both prefered and more effective (though he does allow long range shooting on occassion).   Nick harbud has suggested elsewhere it may make a suitable topic for discussion.  So here is a summary of the argument from pages 67-8 of the book.

- Co-ordination of volleys would be difficult, especially at short range
- Archers used a fairly intuitive method of allowing for a moving target – this couldn't be done in massed volleys
- A parabolic arc of shoot would increase depth of target area but a lot of that area would be space or easily defended by shields.
- Long range parabolic volleys weren't an effective use of scarce ammunition – more effective would be shooting into the front rank at shorter range
- Descriptions of volley shooting don't specify range and could apply at 50yds as well as 200yds.
- Shooting parabolic volleys from the flanks would not create the crowding-in from the flanks which sources record.
- Shooting at will would create less predictable patterns of attack (i.e. the arrows wouldn't come in waves) which would be more unnerving.

If this theory is right, then it alters the way we look at certain key battles.  But is it right?  It certainly flies in the face of much "received wisdom".  Rather than launch into the debate, I'll leave it there for comments.

[Justin Swanton]

with a 40 pound bow one can hit a target 100 yards away with precision. The English longbow had draw weights estimated in excess of 100 pounds, so shooting at target frontally at 150 or even 200 yards shouldn't pose a problem.

The problem with frontal flat-range trajectory shooting is that it permits only one rank of archers or possibly two to shoot, as they are in the way of the ranks behind them. To get massed fire one has to aim high and clear the archers in front. This was the limitation of the sling, which, although it could outrange a bow, could not be used for mass volleys and hence was condemned to being a skirmisher weapon.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well put, Justin.

The 'intuitive aiming problem' could be overcome by having a master archer - who would be very skilled at distance judging and deflection shooting - call the range where he wanted the volley to land.  ("Ten score!")  The archers, who would have practised this sort of thing, would then use an inclination and draw intended to dump their volley at that range, letting fly on the command: "Loose!"

To look at some of the Loaded arguments (I am aware these are summaries rather than the actual discussion):

Shooting parabolic volleys from the flanks would not create the crowding-in from the flanks which sources record.

Might this be a slight mis-interpretation of the lineup at, say, Agincourt?  The English army had archers, men-at-arms, archers in alternating contingents.  The archers shoot straight ahead; the men-at-arms do not shoot.  The archers cause casualties, casualties get in the way of advancing opponents, the advancing opponents tend to sidle off towards their compatriots facing the men-at-arms because that way they do not get tripped by struggling wounded or have to tread on them.  Result: the advance is channelled towards the men-at-arms, not be design but by effect.

Long range parabolic volleys weren't an effective use of scarce ammunition – more effective would be shooting into the front rank at shorter range

This seems to confuse 'efficient' with 'effective'.  Long-range shooting is not particularly efficient - you need a lot of arrows to incapacitate a few opponents - but it is effective, in that it disorders and channels the advance, which is the overall effect you need.  The single volley at close range was effective in the gunpowder period but not before.

Shooting at will would create less predictable patterns of attack (i.e. the arrows wouldn't come in waves) which would be more unnerving.

I can see where this idea comes from, having watched a score of re-enactors shoot at a score of re-enactors at close range and come to exactly this conclusion.  Transfer the idea to a battlefield where thousands are shooting at thousands and it falls down.  The volley is in fact the 'unexpected' phenomenon because it arrives all at once when one's attention is on advancing and one's helmeted gaze is at or near ground level: individual shooting produces a spatter of arrows which, because continuous, is predictable (like rain - you do not know when or where each raindrop will land, but you do know to keep your umbrella up).  If watching a volley rather than one's superior or one's standard, one will tend to slow and stumble and/or get bumped into by those who are not watching it, which makes for some nice confusion when the volley arrives.

Might as well consider the other points.

Co-ordination of volleys would be difficult, especially at short range
Archers used a fairly intuitive method of allowing for a moving target – this couldn't be done in massed volleys

The Master Archer would take care of both aspects.

A parabolic arc of shoot would increase depth of target area but a lot of that area would be space or easily defended by shields.

But holding a shield up is quite tiring, especially when advancing, and seeing ahead becomes a problem.  Less of the area is 'space' than one might think because the arrows are coming in at an angle, not vertically, and hence anything sticking up from the ground (people) has an increased chance of being hit (which is why in cricket the wicket is vertical).

I shall leave matters there as Nick has been very busy of late and may need a few days before he can set to with a will to present his perspective. 

[Erpingham]

The 'intuitive aiming problem' could be overcome by having a master archer - who would be very skilled at distance judging and deflection shooting - call the range where he wanted the volley to land.  ("Ten score!")  The archers, who would have practised this sort of thing, would then use an inclination and draw intended to dump their volley at that range, letting fly on the command: "Loose!"

This is one that Loades specifically refutes.  He says that you draw and shoot in one movement and with a heavy bow rather than a reenactor version or Hollywood prop, you can't hang around at full draw waiting for somebody to shout loose.  He is talking from experience and, IIRC, Robert Hardy says something similar from his.  It seems more likely that someone in charge might order "Knock" to bring an arrow to the string and "Shoot" to bring up the bow and loose an arrow.  Not that we know who those in charge were - we only surmise their existence.  Volleying would then take place as a rhythm until someone shouted "Fast".  If it took place at all,of course

Shooting parabolic volleys from the flanks would not create the crowding-in from the flanks which sources record.

Might this be a slight mis-interpretation of the lineup at, say, Agincourt?  The English army had archers, men-at-arms, archers in alternating contingents.  The archers shoot straight ahead; the men-at-arms do not shoot.  The archers cause casualties, casualties get in the way of advancing opponents, the advancing opponents tend to sidle off towards their compatriots facing the men-at-arms because that way they do not get tripped by struggling wounded or have to tread on them.  Result: the advance is channelled towards the men-at-arms, not be design but by effect.

There is some dispute, of course, about where the archers were at Agincourt.  We have the traditional AH Burne archer wedges between divisions splitting the battle line in three with archers on the flanks, the Jim Bradbury/Matt Bennett idea that all the archers were on the flanks and hints from Anne Curry about their being mixed retinues in the line i.e. that there were numerous bodies of archers mixed in the front line.  I'm not sure anyone has come out and really articulated the implications of the mixed retinue idea (Curry doesn't seem to have) so you may be scoring a first Patrick .  However we cut it up though, there do seem to be a lot of archers to the flank to which Loades argument could be applied.

[Patrick Waterson]

This is one that Loades specifically refutes.  He says that you draw and shoot in one movement and with a heavy bow rather than a reenactor version or Hollywood prop, you can't hang around at full draw waiting for somebody to shout loose.  He is talking from experience and, IIRC, Robert Hardy says something similar from his.  It seems more likely that someone in charge might order "Knock" to bring an arrow to the string and "Shoot" to bring up the bow and loose an arrow.

Sounds fine to me.  Give the range, call the 'knock' and then the 'loose' ('loose' rather than 'shoot' because it encourages a smooth release).  Incidentally, my experience is that with a very strong pull bow one can hang on at full draw for about three seconds without problems provided one has drawn to the maximum extent possible (basically the right shoulder), but after that length of time limbs start to get quivery and one really needs to let go.  With an Egyptian chariot bow draw (right hand reversed, draw to right shoulder) one can hang on rather longer - the bow becomes like a chest expander and one can more or less 'lock' the position.

However we cut it up though, there do seem to be a lot of archers to the flank to which Loades argument could be applied.

Which is all well and good provided we appreciate the potential for volleys from any direction to hinder the advance by littering some parts of the ground with casualties and the probable tendency of attackers to avoid the obstacle and join the queue for the untrammelled passage toward the defending men-at-arms.  This would replace the traditional sociological explanation with a merely physical one. 

For clarification, this effect would perhaps be most noticeable when arrows were coming from the front, as they would tend to put down casualties mainly around the aiming point, which would be in a direct line ahead of the archers.  The creation of 'obstructions' would tend to divert the flow of oncoming attackers, and every volley would add to the extent of the obstruction, which would channel the advance more noticeably.  Arrows coming in from a flank (hard to achieve until the attackers are within spitting distance of the defenders) might or might not have the same obstruction-producing effect, so we might be able to agree with Mr Loades on that particular point.

[Erpingham]

Give the range, call the 'knock' and then the 'loose' ('loose' rather than 'shoot' because it encourages a smooth release).

Not being an archer, I was going on what I'd read.  One shoots a bow, the loose is just the act of releasing an arrow.  So unless you are holding at full draw, rather than in the "ready" position with the bow downward, your hypothetical commander would shout "Shoot".

On the Agincourt question, I also think the sociological explanation is Victorian myth-making.  Two things are probably happening - one the tendency to aim at the command centre of an enemy formation ( partly sociological but partly because a direct approach was decisive) and a bit that, as you say, the front ranks were being disrupted more in some places than others - those areas couldn't advance as quickly.

[aligern]

This points out the danger of taking the evidence of. re enactors because of the spurious certainty that handling replica kit gives. It is especially deceptive when conclusions are drawn from 20 reenactors versus 20 other reenactors (as has been said here). In a medieval battle the likelihood is that there will be one or at most a few attacks. Saving up arrows  is generally pointless as the opportunity to shoot will not cone again and the job is to degrade the opponent as much as possible. The available time on target is generally short. if covering 200 yards an opposing infantry force will take about two and a half minutes. A cavalry charge will cover the killing zone in fifteen seconds. On that basis holding to 50 yards is pointless . As Jim Webster frequently says 'a charging horse will cover 30 yards even when dead'  Starting shooting at oncoming forces has to be done early to commence the disruption process. English archers trained how todo this with clout shooting at a cloth on the ground and at different ranges. I suppose the first two ranks could do this at a flat trajectory, but the chaps behind have to do this under a system of command.  Of course accuracy is a problem if there are twenty of you, but when 3000 men in an archer wing shoot the beaten zone will easily cover the target which is in itself large enough to mean that it is hard to miss. In effect the archers commence a barrage at 200 yards reducing range at each shot.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Seeing as how I'm being quoted as an authority I think the 30 yards comes from John Keegan, the Face of Battle but this is from memory
An example of what can happen is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garcia_Hernandez#cite_note-4

"Bock's dragoons charged a square belonging to a battalion of the 6th Light. The French held their fire too long. Their volley killed a number of horsemen, but a mortally wounded horse carrying a dead dragoon crashed into the square like a battering ram. The horse fell, kicking wildly, knocking down at least a half-dozen men and creating a gap in the square. Captain Gleichen rode his horse into the gap, followed by his troopers. The square broke up and most of the men surrendered."


The 'held their fire too long' does fit in nicely with Roy's point

Jim

[yesthatphil]

I am firmly in the 'flat trajectory' camp ... the whole point of the herce formation was imo to enable such direct shooting from massed ranks.

Phil 

[Duncan Head]

The problem with frontal flat-range trajectory shooting is that it permits only one rank of archers or possibly two to shoot, as they are in the way of the ranks behind them.

Do we know how many ranks deep archers normally used?

I am aware that Livio speaks of the English being four deep at Agincourt, though without IIRC specifying whether this is the archers, the men at arms, or both. But this is the only mediaeval testimony I think I have come across. Elizabethan writers do suggest that archers deployed in much greater depth; Sir John Smythe writes that archers may stand eight or ten deep and shoot overhead, and Thomas Styward's Pathwaie to Martial Discipline suggests that bows should be placed behind calivers, which also implies overhead fire. But that might be explained by a change of tactics.

[Patrick Waterson]

We might be able to get a rough estimate by using the frontage at Agincourt and the English OB, allowing the men-at-arms to have 3' per man frontage and deploy four deep and dividing the archers by the remaining space, which should give an idea of their depth.

[Justin Swanton]

Trusting the venerable elder on the mountaintop, Wikipedia, you have 7000 longbowmen and 1500 men at arms. Total width of the English battleline is 750 yards. Deploy the men at arms 4 deep and you are left with 375 yards, which means the archers deploy about 18 deep.

That arrowstorm would dim the sun!

[Patrick Waterson]

Even if one adjusts the men-at-arms to 8 deep, we still have perforce rather more than two ranks of archers.  This does rather suggest that massed volleying on command was the preferred, and indeed only, method of employing English longbow archery at any significant distance.

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[aligern]

It seems inescapable that  shooting started at long range with a dropping shot and then progressed t,o a flat trajectory using only the front ranks at close range. Working at long range is the best explanation of the effect at Crecy where the French crossbowmen are destroyed and of the effect on massed cavalry at the same battle.
It is oft quoted, but Warnery in his 18th century memoirs advises that against the Turks European foot should not hold back their volley, but open at long range because the more the charge is disrupted the better. The same would hold against knights.
Roy