More thoughts on longbow tactics

[RichT]

For what it's worth (which may not be much at all) I've been rereading William Barriff's Military Discipline, a typical 17th C (1635) Aelian-inspired tactical treatise. 

He has musketeers eight ranks deep, matching the pikemen. Deep formations of musketeers are even more of a problem than deep formations of archers since there is no question of indirect fire, and he has a lot (a LOT) of drills for giving fire, most of which boil down to front rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear, second rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear and so on. Retiring to the rear was either to the flanks of the formation, or between the files.

Observations:
- the slow rate of fire of musketeers compared to archers might well require a totally different set of drills so there may be no relevance to archers' practice. On the other hand, maybe there was some continuity, it's just that there are no records of earlier practice?
- these drills so far as I know don't appear at all in literary accounts of battles, so if it wasn't for the existence of the manuals, we would have no hint that they existed.

For Hellenistic (etc) light infantry, so far as I know there's no evidence for how (or if) missiles were delivered from deep formations aside from the various occasions where lights shoot or throw over heavy infantry in front, where it is usually a question of javelins or thrown stones (where it is more obvious how it worked).

So comparative stuff isn't much help really.

[Justin Swanton]

For what it's worth (which may not be much at all) I've been rereading William Barriff's Military Discipline, a typical 17th C (1635) Aelian-inspired tactical treatise. 

He has musketeers eight ranks deep, matching the pikemen. Deep formations of musketeers are even more of a problem than deep formations of archers since there is no question of indirect fire, and he has a lot (a LOT) of drills for giving fire, most of which boil down to front rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear, second rank advance, give fire, retire to the rear and so on. Retiring to the rear was either to the flanks of the formation, or between the files.

Observations:
- the slow rate of fire of musketeers compared to archers might well require a totally different set of drills so there may be no relevance to archers' practice. On the other hand, maybe there was some continuity, it's just that there are no records of earlier practice?
- these drills so far as I know don't appear at all in literary accounts of battles, so if it wasn't for the existence of the manuals, we would have no hint that they existed.

For Hellenistic (etc) light infantry, so far as I know there's no evidence for how (or if) missiles were delivered from deep formations aside from the various occasions where lights shoot or throw over heavy infantry in front, where it is usually a question of javelins or thrown stones (where it is more obvious how it worked).

So comparative stuff isn't much help really.

It is curious that the hellenistic manuals don't give any hint of shooting drill for lights whereas the 17th century manuals do have detailed shooting drills. Is it possible skirmisher archers and slingers shot overhead only to extreme range, then just the front rankers at close range, then everyone again at extreme range once behind the line of HI? That wouldn't require any drill other than filtering back between the files of the heavies, for which a drill was laid down.

Thinking about it, I suspect there was no drill for rotating ranks of direct LOS shooters as there was no need for it. Indirect fire at extreme range would cover an area about 200 - 250 yards away with good range accuracy. Skirmishers could probably shoot indirectly to a shorter range with tolerable accuracy. As the enemy drew nearer the front rankers only would shoot using direct LOS fire but would have very little time to do so. An enemy 100 yards away advancing at a brisk 6km/h (why would they dawdle?) would reach the lights in a minute, and the lights need that time to withdraw through the heavies and permit the latter to double files from open to intermediate formation and be ready to receive the enemy attack. Light troops by and large seem to have been used to screen heavy infantry from other lights, each indulging in a desultory exchange of extreme range fire, and to support HI from the rear and to cover the flanks, all shooting from extreme range with some close range direct fire if necessary.

Which of course has diddly squat to do with English longbowmen. 

[Erpingham]

The complex multi-rank drills for muskets do seem to be a late phenomenon, caused by the need to keep up a steady fire with slow-firing weapons.  Longbows and even crossbows shot faster. 

[Justin Swanton]

The complex multi-rank drills for muskets do seem to be a late phenomenon, caused by the need to keep up a steady fire with slow-firing weapons.  Longbows and even crossbows shot faster.

Muskets could indulge only in direct LOS fire and, as you point out, were very slow firing, thus requiring a rotation system of ranks to maximise their effect.

Which leaves the question of how longbowmen managed. AFAIK they didn't rotate ranks (arrows stuck in the ground seem to preclude that). Which leaves the front ranks ducking down after shooting, but there's no evidence for that.

[Erpingham]

Which leaves the question of how longbowmen managed. AFAIK they didn't rotate ranks (arrows stuck in the ground seem to preclude that). Which leaves the front ranks ducking down after shooting, but there's no evidence for that.

They could have assumed, in circumstances where the commander had the luxury/problem of so many archers they can't all be deployed in optimal thin lines, that you used your surplus sub-optimally and just used them to add weight to the barrage, rather than accurate targetting.

Again, we should remember standing around with arrows in the ground didn't happen all the time.  There were times when archers were moving and shooting on the offensive.  Were things more fluid then?

[Patrick Waterson]

Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.

I think you are right about that, not least because massed archery was not exactly a Hellenistic speciality.

[Jim Webster]

Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.

I think you are right about that, not least because massed archery was not exactly a Hellenistic speciality.

But obviously the Persians did manage it

[Dangun]

In any case, the Hellenistic manuals are only explicit about 8-deep files and matching the width of the heavy infantry in circumstances when the light infantry are exactly half as strong as the heavies and are standing deployed behind the phalanx:

And it makes sense that you can deploy deeper in this situation because, since they are behind pike, the trajectory is necessarily higher/more indirect.

[Patrick Waterson]

Overall, it seems to me that massed archery tactics are something the Hellenistic era couldn't teach medieval Europeans.

I think you are right about that, not least because massed archery was not exactly a Hellenistic speciality.

But obviously the Persians did manage it

Oh, yes.  Thermopylae.
Persian: "Our arrows will darken the sun."
Spartan: "Good, then we shall fight in the shade."

If that does not indicate massed archery, then what can?

Alex at Issus had to - or chose to - pick up his pace when the first Persian arrows started coming down.  Interestingly, he had deployed so as to have his Cretans in position to work over the opposition, but when the Persians opened up that went out of the window and Alex immediately ordered the charge.  Alex had evidently concluded that the Persians were going to win the preparatory shooting phase, therefore let us get straight into charge movement and melee.  It worked: apparently the Persians were unable to call their shots well enough to hit the rapidly accelerating Macedonian cavalry - Alex had presented them with a targetting calculus problem  instead of an arithmetical shooting solution.

The above suggests the Persians were able to deliver missiles in volume, and volume on a limited frontage indicates depth.  So yes, good observation, Jim.

I am not going to suggest that our hypothetical English master archers habitually browsed through Achaemenid military manuals , just that there were particular ways of handling massed archers in depth which would eventually occur to people attempting to use them.

[Erpingham]

I am not going to suggest that our hypothetical English master archers habitually browsed through Achaemenid military manuals , just that there were particular ways of handling massed archers in depth which would eventually occur to people attempting to use them.

If we want to talk Achaemenid archery tactics, I suggest another thread, which will excite the interest of the larger number of members interested in this period.  I must confess, I'm not aware of the system used by the Persians to control their archers, but, as we don't know what medieval English archers did, we couldn't compare to see if they came up with the same idea anyway.

I must admit, now we've started comparing ancient manuals, I'm surprised that Byzantine practice has not been called forth.  They certainly used overhead shooting and a regular command structure. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I must admit, now we've started comparing ancient manuals, I'm surprised that Byzantine practice has not been called forth.  They certainly used overhead shooting and a regular command structure.

That is because some of us (notably myself) have been commenting without thinking the matter through.

[Mark G]

Dare one suggest that if we must seek a classical comparator for English 14thc longbow tactics, we should at least seek a successful one.

Persians at themopolae is all well and good, but the English occasionally won a battle which is recorded well.  The persian archers always seem.to be ineffective, with the mounted nobles winning battles, or sheet numbers winning campaigns.

Even Egyptian shields seem to be enough to stop the Persian archery.  Steel plate seems debatable against English longbow men.  Other than both needing (entirely different) arrows, I cant see any value whatsoever in the comparison.

[Justin Swanton]

Dare one suggest that if we must seek a classical comparator for English 14thc longbow tactics, we should at least seek a successful one.

I suppose one dare seek even an unsuccessful one since the thread is really about archers shooting effectively in deep formations (well, more than 2 - 3 ranks deep). This implies a spotter of some sort who estimates the range of the enemy and times the volleys that are necessarily overhead hence blind. The Persian archers at Issus were unsuccessful as Alexander's unexpected charge threw the spotters off their stride. But the principle is the same.

[Patrick Waterson]

I would agree that we are looking at potentially similar techniques as opposed to seeking identical results.  The Egyptians had quite a few successes to their name, although the only account which emphasises archery is Merneptah's victory over the invading Libyans in which Egyptian archers work over the enemy for six hours.  It should be pointed out that Egyptian accounts are not detail-rich and we do not have an Egyptian Holinshed or Le Baker or Froissart.

Achaemenid actions are similarly source-starved, our principal account of Achaemenid archery being from the early stages of the Battle of Plataea, when the Spartans and Tegeans, presumably like their Libyan counterparts opposing Merneptah, were huddled together behind their shields enduring a gradual but remorseless attrition.

What we do have is significant numbers of archers shooting in depth, and we can consider what means would be employed to direct and regulate such shooting.

[Mark G]

Sorry you too, but that is just too shallow.

If you are seeking to compare ineffective low powered short draw then that would he fine, but the evidence in this thread for long bow tactics is quite specific and does not tally at all.

Longbows are clearly a penetration weapon, specifically for armour and horses, quite probably only used for direct shooting on a flat trajectory, with a possible usage as a mass long range weapon only when shooting off other missile troops.
The evidence for indirect volleys seems limited to either large, dense bodies of unarmoured men that you can probably identify from their pikes anyway, or other missile troops.

Against knights, either on horse or foot, it's a quite different case, and so far the only evidence for indurect volley there seems to be based on the men having to fit in somewhere.
It ignores the full body movement required for a longbow, which is entirely different from the static cheek draw of the persians, and it completely overlooks the possibility that not all English archers were shooting at once.

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.