More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Erpingham]

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

I 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

[Jim Webster]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Mark G]

Wouldn't each banner be under a noble of some sort?

[Patrick Waterson]

Probably more the other way round, but yes.

[Erpingham]

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. 

[Dangun]

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.

[Dangun]

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?

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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'.

[Dangun]

I appreciate the responses, but I remain confused by the differences.

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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'.

Anthony 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.)