More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Justin Swanton]

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.

That's clever, and would work.

[Erpingham]

Anthony seemed to suggest that indirect vs direct is moot because all shooting was at short distance, and so the trajectories were very flattish.

Anthony is actually a traditionalist, seeing the engagement proper starting when the enemy is in effective range.  Outside of this, you have the practice of "pricking" or "gadding", which is more a type of long distance skirmishing.  Actual engagement ranges possibly varied with target.  I suspect that archers engaged each other at an effective range but didn't march up to one another and let rip at point blank.  Archers wouldn't get to close to something that could suddenly charge them, I suspect.  Against an advancing enemy, I suppose they would be shooting until they had to drop their bows and take up their melee weapons.

Whether more archery in volume, as opposed to time, was engaged at short range is a nice question.  Personally, I tend to the idea that archers only shot at at a high rate as the target closed - we know high rate shooting was tiring and it ate through the ammunition supply, so why use it ineffectively?

[Erpingham]

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.

I think you are stretching the evidence here.  All we know is a body of archers was picked up by Oxford and led onto the flank of the French.  We can't say anything about formations from it.  It is, though, an example of a commander being able to assume command a body of archers directly.

[Justin Swanton]

Anthony seemed to suggest that indirect vs direct is moot because all shooting was at short distance, and so the trajectories were very flattish.

Anthony is actually a traditionalist, seeing the engagement proper starting when the enemy is in effective range.  Outside of this, you have the practice of "pricking" or "gadding", which is more a type of long distance skirmishing.  Actual engagement ranges possibly varied with target.  I suspect that archers engaged each other at an effective range but didn't march up to one another and let rip at point blank.  Archers wouldn't get to close to something that could suddenly charge them, I suspect.  Against an advancing enemy, I suppose they would be shooting until they had to drop their bows and take up their melee weapons.

Whether more archery in volume, as opposed to time, was engaged at short range is a nice question.  Personally, I tend to the idea that archers only shot at at a high rate as the target closed - we know high rate shooting was tiring and it ate through the ammunition supply, so why use it ineffectively?

There is a question of time: how long does it take for an enemy line at, say 250 yards, to reach you? If they don't waste time and come in smartly at 6km/h they will reach you in 2 minutes 30 seconds. If you start shooting at 100 yards you have just one minute to shoot. How many arrows can a longbowman loose in one minute? Not that many.

[Erpingham]

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.

That's clever, and would work.

I would suggest a note of caution here.  "Ripple shooting" seems very like the film Zulu to me and represents far more internal drill and organisation than I would think present in a body of longbowmen.  Most archery books I've read also suggest that you need your legs and lower back muscles to shoot a heavy poundage bow - could it be done effectively while kneeling?

[Justin Swanton]

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.

That's clever, and would work.

I would suggest a note of caution here.  "Ripple shooting" seems very like the film Zulu to me and represents far more internal drill and organisation than I would think present in a body of longbowmen.  Most archery books I've read also suggest that you need your legs and lower back muscles to shoot a heavy poundage bow - could it be done effectively while kneeling?

I would personally be in favour of front rankers kneeling after shooting to let rear rankers shoot. It's not a complicated manoeuvre: your rank shoots and immediately kneels - no command required - the next rank shoots and kneels, and so on to the last rank. The master sergeant then shouts "Stand!" and you all get up and nock another arrow. Simple and easy.

[Erpingham]

The master sergeant then shouts "Stand!" and you all get up and nock another arrow. Simple and easy.

Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer".  We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.

[Justin Swanton]

The master sergeant then shouts "Stand!" and you all get up and nock another arrow. Simple and easy.

Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer".  We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.

For any army (rather than a confused mob) if you are forming an organised line where specific contingents go in specific places then somebody has to be in charge of the contingents. It's natural and equally natural that the bods in charge also call the shooting. One thing to notice about armies in Antiquity is how hierarchically structured they were - to a certain extent that must have applied in the Middle Ages. I doubt the Burgundian Ordnance archers invented a command structure out of thin air. The Burgundian archers represent part of a move by European rulers in France and Burgundy to raise permanent standing armies in place of the former feudal levies (and resolve the problem of unpaid mercenaries).  That meant documented organisation but it doesn't mean the Burgundians were the first to think up a command hierarchy for an army.

[Erpingham]

For any army (rather than a confused mob) if you are forming an organised line where specific contingents go in specific places then somebody has to be in charge of the contingents.

I don't think this is being questioned - see earlier in the discussion

It's natural and equally natural that the bods in charge also call the shooting.

I disagree.  The leaders have been chosen by rank, not by archery prowess.  You might have a men-at-arms who is an ex-archer but you might get a young squire whose never seen a battle before.  For militia, you end up with a local landowner or, in a town, a draper or a butcher.  The leader is there to follow the instructions being received on things like starting to shoot, stopping shooting and moving and maybe target selection.  technicalities like ranges, wind etc. were probably in the hands of the archers themselves.

  That meant documented organisation but it doesn't mean the Burgundians were the first to think up a command hierarchy for an army.

We don't really have much more in terms of structure in a Burgundian ordnance army than a 15th century English one.  Yes it's organised into companies and lances of a set strength but it has precious few officers - one to command the company, another to command each lance.  No separate infantry officers or NCOs.

As to what Burgundian archer drill consisted of :

In like manner (they are to exercise) the archer with their horses, to get them used to dismounting and drawing their bows. They must learn how to attach their horses together by their bridles and make them walk forward directly behind them, attaching the horses of the three archers by their bridles to the saddle-bow of the page to whose man-at-arms they belong:, also to march briskly forwards and to fire without breaking rank. The pikemen must be made to advance in close formation in front of the said archers, kneel at a sign from them, holding their pikes lowered to the level of a horse's back so that the archers can fire over the pikemen as if over a wall. Thus, if the pikemen see that the enemy are breaking rank, they will be near enough to charge them in good order according to their instructions. (The archers must also learn to) place themselves back to back in double defense, or in a square or circle, always with the pikemen outside them to withstand the charge of the enemy horse and their horses with the pages enclosed in their midst.

No mention of any command structure beyond the lance commander conducting the exercise.  In this case, there are three archers per pikeman, so its possible all three ranks could see what they were shooting at.

One final point on Burgundian organisation that may be relevant.  Back in the pre-ordnance days in 1417, we have a Burgundian deployment plan.  In this, all the archers are drawn up on the wings of the vanguard, each wing commanded by a man-at-arms with a small banner.  This may parallel what the English were doing with their archer wings.

[Justin Swanton]

No mention of any command structure beyond the lance commander conducting the exercise.

Look at the size of a lance: the lance commander, a squire, two pages and two archers. 6 men in all of which only 4 actually fought. You don't need more than one commander for a unit of 6 men. If the Burgundian Ordnance were structured to this extent then it is hardly unreasonable to suppose a body of archers - say 50 men - would have a man-in-charge to organise how they shoot if organised shooting was more effective (which is was).

[aligern]

Can't say the idea of ranks shooting and then kneeling is very convincing at all. I fact the needle clicked to Wild flight of Fancy on the dial for that. Most likely archer ranks are offset so three men can shoot directly ahead, then, on comnand, all three ranks shoot straight ahead. Kneeling in front of a shooting man is pretty pointless as fall the archers shoot so rapidly that it is a waste of effort to shoot and then duck. Its very unlikely that the soldiers at Rorkes' Drift shot as in the film because it takes longer to kneel than it does to get another round off from a Martini Henry. The British had a perfectly good drill for double rank shoiting which involved aligning the second rank a little to the left . Much easier to do that with bows too.  The likely command is simply going to be the equivalent of 'Pour on the lead boys' . As someone very sagely observed earlier, the opponent covers the last 100 yards rather quickly. At that point the commanders couldn't give a damn about ammunition supply, they just need as much damage done as possible and to hold their men in place. For that 30 seconds or so they want every arrow they can get on the advancing target. Silly complex drills and holding bows at an angle is asking for trouble. Patrick can face a charging armed man on his knees if he wishes .
😉. Roy

[Erpingham]

No mention of any command structure beyond the lance commander conducting the exercise.

Look at the size of a lance: the lance commander, a squire, two pages and two archers. 6 men in all of which only 4 actually fought. You don't need more than one commander for a unit of 6 men. If the Burgundian Ordnance were structured to this extent then it is hardly unreasonable to suppose a body of archers - say 50 men - would have a man-in-charge to organise how they shoot if organised shooting was more effective (which is was).

Slight clarification needed here.  A 1473 ordonance lance had at least seven members, of whom 6 were combatants.  A man-at-arms, a coustillier, a page, three mounted archers and a pikeman.  Even the non-combatant had a role, holding the archers' horses. It may, like the 1471 ordonnance lance, have had an handgunner and a crossbowman on foot, but they are not mentioned.  The man-at-arms can't command the infantry in action as he is away with the other men-at-arms of his squadron.

However, your point is fair.  On rereading, the minimum unit which was exercised together was probably not a lance but a chambre of six lances.  If we go up a level and pull together all the archers in a squadron, there would be 75.  Could the squadron have spared a man-at-arms to command them, in the same way an English indentured retinue likely did?  Probably.

[Patrick Waterson]

One final point on Burgundian organisation that may be relevant.  Back in the pre-ordnance days in 1417, we have a Burgundian deployment plan.  In this, all the archers are drawn up on the wings of the vanguard, each wing commanded by a man-at-arms with a small banner.  This may parallel what the English were doing with their archer wings.

And it would not surprise me if, despite lack of specific official mention, the said commander called the shots in action.

Its very unlikely that the soldiers at Rorkes' Drift shot as in the film because it takes longer to kneel than it does to get another round off from a Martini Henry.

Mostly they are shooting in a single rank from behind low walls of mealie bags until the final stand around the redoubt.  Was Sir thinking of the film Waterloo (1970) and the British Guards volleying against the French Imperial Guards in the famous four-rank stand-and-shoot sequence?

Patrick can face a charging armed man on his knees if he wishes .

If it lets my rear rankers shoot them over my head, fine by me.   As previously mentioned, because of the opponent-diverting effect of longbow archery being charged directly is in any event unlikely.

[Dangun]

Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer".  We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.

A cold shower maybe, but helpful to segregate the sources from our imagination.

[Patrick Waterson]

Again, a reminder we have no evidence for a "master sergeant" or "master archer".  We have no evidence for archery drill until the Burgundian ordnance archers in the 1470s.

A cold shower maybe, but helpful to segregate the sources from our imagination.

Although in this case I wonder if it is not just segregating the sources from reasonable inference based on source-recorded activities.  It is highly unlikely that the Burgundians, who used mainly English (and Picard) archers, invented a drill for them out of nothing.  Ordonnances of this nature tended to be codification as much as innovation.

Anthony is pointing out, correctly, that we have no explicit references to the existence of a 'master archer' rank/office.  However we have implicit status from the accounts of wings of archers (or at Towton those of a whole army) shooting under the direct command of one man.  To infer 'master archer' status is thus a reasonable action, and to deny it unreasonable.  It seems to be one of those cases where apparent absence of evidence is merely because the evidence has a different label.

What we should avoid is any statement that a source 'mentions' a 'master archer' when in fact it is we who infer his presence from his archers' actions.