More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Mark G]

Civility suffers when stupidity refuses to acknowledge it is mistaken.

[Justin Swanton]

Here is a group of archers using longbows. Notice that they avoid tilting their bows when placing an arrow (in order not to inconvenience the other archers) without that cramping their style at all. Notice also how close together they are able to stand and shoot. They simply don't need a lot of lateral space.

Here are some other examples of longbow shooting. In all of them holding the bow parallel to the ground is just a convenient way of placing the arrow on the left hand side and is not part of the drawing technique, which would work just as well with the bow held vertically:

First example
Second example
Third example
Fourth example

[Erpingham]

Maybe it is we see distances differently, but the archers in the Dunster video seem to stand between 3ft apart - a frontage of about 4ft, which is what was said earlier.

I'm not sure what the others videos are supposed to tell us, except that if these archers shot differently, they'd stand differently.  Unless we actually have evidence that archers shot differently, this isn't really much help.  We may perhaps have exhausted this line of enquiry.

[Mark G]

Oh Justin, are you just wilfully refusing to acknowledge the most basic point that is being made.

your first video shows grannies in fancy dress with bows.
it shows folk making cheek draws.
it does not matter that they are called longbows in the title, they are not the same weapons that were carried into battle in the 100 years war. 

those are victorian hobby bows
they are NOT warbows,
they are not high draw weight longbows.

this is fundamental to the problem you are causing - a simple refusal to understand that draw weight is central to the difference between the English longbow and other bows.

your video could perfectly well be used to show that the Persians could indeed stand side by side and in depth and have some sort of archery formation.

it is entirely irrelevant to a discussion on the subject which you started, about English longbow tactics in the 100 YW.

can you really not grasp that there is a difference?

[Erpingham]

To put it more civily, IMO, the  Dunster castle video involves British Longbow Society bows, which must be of Victorian sporting design and draw no more than 70lbs.  The English Warbow society calls for a minimum of 70lb draw weight for men.  Most experienced shooters use weapons over 100lb draw weight.  There are also technical differences between bow profiles (or so I read - I don't understand the significance of this) . 

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

To be frank I cannot understand what all this nonsense is about.

The Dunster Castle video is no evidence at all. Even good modern re-enactors - such as Company St.George - would struggle to draw a true longbow to the ear, if it was over 70lb draw weight. Lt takes a lifetime of practice to build up the muscles and the technique.

It is a well known fact that to draw a 70lb+ longbow you need to bend and brace your legs swing the bow up to loose the shaft (not shoot or fire it) at a target.

With regards to formations - we are all getting hung up about a fixed density - primarily because we are (mostly) wargamers and have a fixation about frontages and depths. Your average HYW vintner adopted whatever formation was appropriate at the time. In some instances no-doubt the archers would almost be in what we'd term skirmish formation, in others they'd be shoulder to shoulder ready to fight in melee (I'd also argue that as the centuries progressed the English archers got 'heavier' equipment, and more prepared to get into hand to hand combat). Would this change in formation have effected their shooting? Probably, but again it depends upon circumstance.
There is also the now widely accepted view that actually the archers typically deployed in a staggered line so each had a gap of one man in-front of him.  So the formation looked like a chequered board if looked at from above. This gives the archer room to not only loose his bow, but also plant his own stake in-front of him.
Hence where the idea that English archers deployed in a 'harrow' formation comes from - if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.

Now ... what was this thread originally about?

[Jim Webster]

- if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.

Now ... what was this thread originally about?

Just to look at the first one, note how the teeth are offset so the soil 'swirls' as you harrow through it.

However some harrows are show with the teeth square, in straight ranks and files. The second picture shows how such harrows were used.

[Jim Webster]

- if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.

Now ... what was this thread originally about?

Just to look at the first one, note how the teeth are offset so the soil 'swirls' as you harrow through it.

However some harrows are show with the teeth square, in straight ranks and files. The second picture shows how such harrows were used.

first picture didn't show, the one above is the second so here, hopefully, is the first

[Patrick Waterson]

Is your contention that archers would have two different techniques, one for when they have lots of space and one for when they are in close formation?    So our archer learns his trade at the village butts but is retrained in a completely new technique to fight in close-formation?

Not for English archers, but if I remember rightly the French francs archers initially attempted to do exactly this with at best indifferent results.

Or perhaps German - Burgkmair was German but is thought to have been with Maximillian in the Low Countries at times.

PS  While we are talking Burgkmair, to illustrate changing battle image conventions, note how he has handled the unit of longbowmen in the background of this image of the Battle of the Spurs

A block multiple ranks deep rather than a few individuals.

And looking more like a battle formation.  One could almost interpret it as a wedge ... interesting.

[Patrick Waterson]

Maybe it is we see distances differently, but the archers in the Dunster video seem to stand between 3ft apart - a frontage of about 4ft, which is what was said earlier.

They stand with variable spacing.  If we take individual height to be about 6', then several are standing 2' apart (one third of apparent height) while a few on the fringes stand 3' to 4' apart (half height or slightly more).  The latter may be more a feature of personality than convenience of shooting.

What does the video prove? Essentially that archers with long bows (even if not 70+ pounders) can stand and shoot at a frontage of 3' per shooter.  The next question is how applicable a formation adopted by under-70-pound bow users is to one used by over-70-pound archers.

Here are two 'experts'.
Expert 1 (John Turton).  First video on the list. Observe the emphasis he puts on the leg-bending, back-pulling technique.
https://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Draw+English+longbow&v=sDraLdefXnA
Expert 2 (Kevin Hicks). Observe how his footwork is barely discernible.
https://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Draw+English+longbow&v=EvKJcxa8x_g

Note how neither requires much by way of individual frontage.

[aligern]

Aetius has made the key point here, the archers likely formed up as densely as they were told to and adopted an appropriate shooting style for that density.  The harrow formation is also a point well made, giving density of shot because the archers are not physically next to one another and an effective placement of stakes.
Roy

[Erpingham]

With regards to formations - we are all getting hung up about a fixed density - primarily because we are (mostly) wargamers and have a fixation about frontages and depths. Your average HYW vintner adopted whatever formation was appropriate at the time.

While I agree on the variable formation to fit the task in hand, I doubt the decision was taken at such a low level.  If you deploying 1000 archers, would you want 50 random deployments through the unit?

There is also the now widely accepted view that actually the archers typically deployed in a staggered line so each had a gap of one man in-front of him.  So the formation looked like a chequered board if looked at from above. This gives the archer room to not only loose his bow, but also plant his own stake in-front of him.
Hence where the idea that English archers deployed in a 'harrow' formation comes from - if you have ever seen an old horse drawn harrow - it is a grid pattern with a spike at each intersection.
So plenty of room to draw the bow to loose it straight or with a dropping shot.

While I agree with this (except perhaps the stakes part, on which I'm undecided) Mark knows well that this is only one explanation of a herse  I don't think that argument about offset pegs actually works - I've not seen a picture of a medieval harrow with this arrangement.  The fundamental point with all herse meanings, though, is open work, which does suggest a herse formation was more open than the close-order formations of close combat infantry.  I also agree that such a formation could condense itself if in melee - it only needs the spacing to shoot effectively.

Now ... what was this thread originally about?

It's a long time ago but I think it was about how the shooting of longbowmen in deep formations could be co-ordinated

[Erpingham]

And looking more like a battle formation.  One could almost interpret it as a wedge ... interesting.

It does look odd - I thought it looked like the archers were engaging a unit to the flank.  The orientation of the standards, however, suggests it is facing the way it is shooting.  I suspect again this is a compositional detail - he should have shown the body facing down the hill but compositionally he needed it as it is.  He has placed a few archers shooting down the hill so the viewer instantly clocks these are archers.

[aligern]

   http://www.kja-artists.com/assets/harrowing_jc.jpg
I looked at this and thought that it looked square with the tines in line as they go, but then looking at the way the harrow is connected to the horse it should pull at an angle and thus have the spijes offset.

Another hecevinterpretation is that it is a deployment with wedges of archers , sometimes shown as wedges of say 400 men, sometimes a front of many small say 20 man wedges.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Here's another example, showing the more normal fixing on one of the sides.  They also come with attachments to two corners (for example, see the well known one in the Tres Riche Heures).



I don't think, in light of this, the Luttrell Psalter one is meant to be drawn by the corner.