More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Erpingham]

Saying that, because the persians were in deep formations, they had to have  "a spotter of some sort who estimates the range of the enemy" and then saying that this must also apply to English longbowmen is an argument built on sand. 

Mark's point about how do we know the English all shot at the same time is a fair point.  However, we don't have any references to fresh archers replacing ones who had shot all their arrows, or being held in reserve.  Certainly, in some battles like Poitiers or Agincourt it is either implicit or explicit that all the arrows had been used, which suggests all the archers took part.  But it is possible that, in some battles, not all the archers were engaged (leaving aside where less than the whole army was engaged).

As to space considerations required by longbows, internet images of massed shoots suggest that 4-6ft frontage is workable and probably six foot between ranks.

[RichT]

So to summarise:

We know nothing at all about how Persian massed archery worked - no idea as to depths, direct or indirect shooting, 'fire control', or anything else.

We know nothing at all about how Hellenistic massed archery worked or even if it existed, other than the vague reference to light infantry eight ranks deep in the tacticians.

We know nothing at all about how Medieval longbow massed archery worked, and only think it must have existed because otherwise it would be hard fitting everyone in.

We might know something about how Byzantine massed archery worked but if we (collectively) do, because it's covered in Byzantine manuals, we (individually) don't, because nobody has read them.

We know in detail how massed musketry worked, but agree that it's a different thing and not applicable at all to archery.

The rest is groundless speculation.

My own piece of groundless speculation is that, in the absence of any evidence for spotters, master archers, controlled fire by ranks and such like, there are two likely possibilities:

- loose skirmish formations in which shooters made their way to the front, took a few shots, and rotated back. Everyone gets a go, but only the front one or two are shooting at any one time. In high time pressure situations (receiving chargers) those at the front would stay put (hopefully) and shoot as fast as possible.
- deep close formations using indirect shooting in which approximate range was good enough, and everyone would take their cue from the archers in front of and alongside them to put arrows into roughly the right place, no doubt accompanied by a lot of "How far do you reckon, Will?", "Long shot, Harry. A bit higher." - that sort of thing.

[Erpingham]

We might know something about how Byzantine massed archery worked but if we (collectively) do, because it's covered in Byzantine manuals, we (individually) don't, because nobody has read them.

From INFANTRY VERSUS CAVALRY THE BYZANTINE RESPONSE Eric McGeer , talking about the Praecepta Militaria,

"If indeed the όπλΐται and the μοναυλάτοι were crouched over their fixed spears, the archers would have been able to shoot over their heads all the more easily, even to within very short range as the enemy drew near. Most unfortunately, our author does not give any details as to how archers stood, how they were commanded, or what their rate of shot was expected to be in battle. "

Not a lot of help.  Interesting isn't it that no-one bothered to record, even when we have manuals, exactly how you control archers shooting.

[Dave Knight]

How much do you need to be able to see to shoot at a massed target?

[Patrick Waterson]

I suggest that you do need an example of successful power bows as the comparator, because they are quite different weapons and you are drawing false conclusions from poor comparisons.

Well, no, not really.  The difference in range is not such as to constitute a different weapons system (as with bows vs. javelins) and the power of bows relative to period armour is much more significant than the power of bows in an absolute sense.

Saying that, because the persians were in deep formations, they had to have  "a spotter of some sort who estimates the range of the enemy" and then saying that this must also apply to English longbowmen is an argument built on sand.

I thought we had reached that conclusion for each system independently; I was just commenting on an apparent or assumed commonality of practice for commonality of situation.

Mark's point about how do we know the English all shot at the same time is a fair point.  However, we don't have any references to fresh archers replacing ones who had shot all their arrows, or being held in reserve.  Certainly, in some battles like Poitiers or Agincourt it is either implicit or explicit that all the arrows had been used, which suggests all the archers took part.  But it is possible that, in some battles, not all the archers were engaged (leaving aside where less than the whole army was engaged).

Although specific references to archers held out of engagement  do not exactly leap out at us, as with fresh archer replacements.  It anyway makes more sense to use every missileman one has unless the foes are so few and/or weak that one can win with a fraction of one's missile capbility.

Interesting isn't it that no-one bothered to record, even when we have manuals, exactly how you control archers shooting.

Indeed.  Archery seems to be a poor relation in most of these manuals, which appear to be written by champions of the arme blanche.  Where are our classical or even late mediaeval Smythes when we need them?

[Mark G]

If the difference in range is irrelevant to archery, why did the saracens have different long and short range arrows?

[Justin Swanton]

How much do you need to be able to see to shoot at a massed target?

Nothing at all if you can shoot blind to a specific range, which is easiest at extreme range (and with your bow elevated to 42 degrees you are definitely shooting blind).

[Patrick Waterson]

If the difference in range is irrelevant to archery, why did the saracens have different long and short range arrows?

This seems to miss the essentials, which are: if shooting en masse and indirectly, the chaps in the back ranks cannot see the target and therefore need some form of guidance and 'fire control'.  This applies whether the target is at 150 or 250 or even 350 yards, and whether one is using 'sheaf' or 'flight' arrows (the Saracens were not the only ones with lighter arrows for longer ranges).

Exactly how much guidance they get, and from whom, is somewhat open to speculation.  It is conceivable that the Achaemenids, for example, simply had the responsible commander order a trumpet sounded, drum beaten or order shouted when he judged the archers to be within range and then left them to shoot as they saw fit.  This level of inefficiency might even have worked, given their seeming penchant for very deep formations.  But if they wanted to engage a closing target, or close a target themselves, they would need someone to call the new ranges otherwise their 'beaten zone' would soon cease to overlap the target.  So to a considerable extent the amount of control and 'fire direction' will depend upon what kind of opponent one is fighting: two armies with plenty of archers who are content to shoot it out at extreme range until the arrows are gone and then close for a decision will need less 'range control' than an army which customarily faces opponents who habitually close from the outset.

[Nick Harbud]

I suppose there's no evidence for Medieval longbowmen as to depth, intervals, ranks or files (presence of)? I had always assumed, based on nothing in particular - shallow, open order, and loose (no formal ranks/files - though maybe a shooting line for those at the front doing the shooting).

Napoleonic musketeers, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, were allocated a two-foot frontage.  Modern longbow reconstructors reckon an archer needs an additional 1-2 yards on either side to work his weapon.  However, it should be noted that the looser one makes a single rank, the larger the gaps between archers, which would enable more ranks to have LOS on the target. 

Incidentally, there is no pictorial evidence of medieval archers firing at high trajectory except during sieges or naval battles.  That does not prove they did not do it, but simply that there are no pictures supporting the argument that they did so.

Regarding the supposed improvements in accuracy of high trajectory shooting, the maths does not support this.  A target at 200 metres can be reached using trajectories of approximately 22° and 63°.  Changes in either of these trajectories result in a range change of approximately 5 metres per degree.  Of course, the higher trajectory shot travels to greater altitude (more than 120 metres versus 23 metres) which would subject it to greater wind deflection, as well as a greater travel time (9.7 secs versus 4.7 secs.)  Against a moving target, both of these could be significant.  In 10 seconds, charging foot might travel 50 metres, whereas galloping cavalry would cover at least 120 metres.

[Patrick Waterson]

Incidentally, there is no pictorial evidence of medieval archers firing at high trajectory except during sieges or naval battles.  That does not prove they did not do it, but simply that there are no pictures supporting the argument that they did so.

Do we actually feel any need for pictures when we have the account of the Battle of Towton in which it appears that every archer in at least the Lancastrian army discharged every arrow he had at extreme range?  This could not have been achieved with anything but a high trajectory.

Napoleonic musketeers, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, were allocated a two-foot frontage.  Modern longbow reconstructors reckon an archer needs an additional 1-2 yards on either side to work his weapon.

1-2 yards or 1-2 feet?  I cannot see a longbowman needing a 5'-8' frontage in order to operate!

However, it should be noted that the looser one makes a single rank, the larger the gaps between archers, which would enable more ranks to have LOS on the target.

True.  However if you have men operating direct-trajectory shooting between other men it creates a distinct likelihood of 'friendly shaft'.  Direct trajectory shooting over other men (who do something useful like temporarily kneeling to get out of the way) is much less risky.

[Mark G]

this is all very reminiscent of the argument that legionaries engaged in long range skirmishing and the pila was used at maximum ranges.

we have a powerful armour / shield penetrative weapon.
it loses penetrative power (and some accuracy) the longer the range to target.
it loses the ability to pick the point of impact (the weak point in the armour) the further from target.
but it technically can reach a much further range than that which it has maximum penetrative effect.

therefore, lets ignore the weapon's key superiority point (penetration), and focus on theories about how it could be used un--aimed and at longest ranges, and lets ignore the evidence of people who use it now, and just use what we can imagine being possible from our readings or history a thousand years earlier.

to assist undertanding of why you need yards not feet space to wield this things, some short videos.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=english+longbows&&view=detail&mid=2CD539CDC1BD1159E7712CD539CDC1BD1159E771&rvsmid=15EACB30582BFF44548515EACB30582BFF445485&FORM=VDQVAP

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=english+warbows&&view=detail&mid=E59B805324D3597EBAB3E59B805324D3597EBAB3&&FORM=VRDGAR

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=english+warbows&&view=detail&mid=E4DA1E69C272AF3D718DE4DA1E69C272AF3D718D&&FORM=VDRVRV

for the last one, take note of the ranged penetration of the heaviest bow !

if you can do that by aiming and letting them come on to you, why waste your arrows and time with unaimed long range shots unless the target is unarmoured (horses or other bowmen)?

[Dangun]

for the last one, take note of the ranged penetration of the heaviest bow !

What was the range? I missed that bit.
Although the trajectory was obviously completely flat.

[Patrick Waterson]

this is all very reminiscent of the argument that legionaries engaged in long range skirmishing and the pila was used at maximum ranges.

Is it?  I think this is barking up a completely different tree.

to assist undertanding of why you need yards not feet space to wield this things, some short videos.

Well, the only reason seems to be that our direct-shooting modern users insist on having their ammunition out of reach so they have to step over to collect a new arrow.  Any reason for this?

for the last one, take note of the ranged penetration of the heaviest bow !

Goes through 14th century replica plate as if it were tinfoil.  Even so, I doubt that either archer would have been accepted for a Commision of Array, let alone a retinue.  Their accuracy at point-blank range was not impressive.

Mark's argument seems to be that since penetration is best at point-blank range, the weapon should be used only at point-blank range.

if you can do that by aiming and letting them come on to you, why waste your arrows and time with unaimed long range shots unless the target is unarmoured (horses or other bowmen)?

This is essentially what Buford, the rebel commander at Waxhaws (AD 1780), thought.  He found out that it did not work in practice.  (Apologies for an out-of-period example, but the principle is the same - a single volley at the last moment will not stop a fast-moving mounted target.)  To stop oncoming cavalry, it is necessary to whittle down their numbers, break up their formation and slow them down so that they become a mess rather than a charge.  Then, if they come to point-blank range, you can shoot them off their horses.  But if you let them close with speed and cohesion, one volley will not stop them, however cost-efficient it may be in empty saddles.

One might incidentally observe that the best way to stop a cavalry charge is in fact to shoot the horses.  Even this, if left too late, can be counterproductive, as a dead horse still has momentum.  From 50 yards away this is of no consequence.  From 10 yards away the hurtling body can break a formation.  There is every reason to open up on charging cavalry as soon as they are in effective range, and for bows this means shooting indirectly.  It also means judging arrow flight times against opponent rate of advance accurately, but that is another story.

[Erpingham]

Well, the only reason seems to be that our direct-shooting modern users insist on having their ammunition out of reach so they have to step over to collect a new arrow.  Any reason for this?

The main reason actually seems to be not impeding one another.  There are numerous images and videos of "massed" shoots and it is very difficult to see how they could be effectively be conducted with 1-2 feet between archers. 

[RichT]

The main reason for the extra space is the nocking and start of the draw, in which the bow is held at an angle, almost parallel to the ground or at least at 45 degrees (the three videos all show this well) - which would result in a lot of entanglement in a close formation. It is possible to nock and draw with the bow held vertically but it is very awkward - if it were essential to pack in to two feet per man I expect archers could do it, but they would certainly prefer the more natural action in the videos (and for a heavy bow, this might in fact be essential - a straight draw is done much more with the arm).