Archery

[Erpingham]

It is important to note, as Nick does, that not all archery traditions are the same.  If you read Saxton Pope on Indian (as in Amerian) archery, he notes the skills of Ishi the archer are at short range snap shooting - he wasn't as good a target shot as Pope himself.  Samurai archery technique, which was practiced mounted and on foot, was much more deliberate than the Hungarian type we've been discussing.  European longbow shooting was different again.

As to the range of archery, Nick and I disagree on the normal engagement range for longbows.  However, I do think the general principle that a lot of archery occured closer in than we tend to think is probably true.  Read archery books and there is a lot of emphasis on how far a bow can shoot (it is quite testable) and this may obscure what normal battlefield effective ranges were.

[Duncan Head]

However, I do think the general principle that a lot of archery occured closer in than we tend to think is probably true.  Read archery books and there is a lot of emphasis on how far a bow can shoot (it is quite testable) and this may obscure what normal battlefield effective ranges were.

Each side had about five or six hundred men, and they set up their shields in lines about a hundred and twenty yards apart ... both sides began shooting arrows at the arranged signal ... After that each side moved their shields closer, but just as they were about to shoot at each other at close range, word was passed from Yoshifumi's side to that of Mitsuru, 'There is no fun in today's battle if each of us makes his war-band engage with arrows. You and I alone should try to test each other's skill...'.

from Konjaku Monogatari XXV.III; two 10th-century Japanese infantry forces exchanging shots from behind shield-walls. The initial range is about 120 yards; then the intention was clearly to move to closer range, although in this case it didn't happen.

[Mark G]

Bad news for those who slam the DB systems for not allowing long enough range archery, I think.

[Patrick Waterson]

As to the range of archery, Nick and I disagree on the normal engagement range for longbows.  However, I do think the general principle that a lot of archery occurred closer in than we tend to think is probably true.  Read archery books and there is a lot of emphasis on how far a bow can shoot (it is quite testable) and this may obscure what normal battlefield effective ranges were.

This may also depend upon the type of formation shooting.  Shallow formations and skirmishers will tend to get in close because it is harder to secure hits at a distance.  Deeper formations will be happier with longer-ranged shooting because they can 'beat' an area and whatever the enemy in that area does, he gets hit by some arrows.

The kind of rapid shooting Lars practises is optimised for shorter ranges.  That said, I recall that at the Yarmuk 700 Arabs are said to have lost an eye to Armenian archery, which suggests one of two things: Armenian bows being accurate but weak at short ranges, or the shooting being almost at the limit of range but the Arabs having an incurable habit of looking up.

I would not be too worried about Lars' ability to put arrow points into wooden dummies wearing mail.  As Nick points out, a good gambeson would do much to enhance protection.  One recalls accounts of the Crusades in which mailed Europeans marched on with numerous arrows sticking out of them.  The points caught in the mail without penetrating the gambeson.

[Imperial Dave]

Incidently, the fistful of arrows (a good title for a film if ever I heard one!) comes up in reference time and time again especially amongst native American Indian archery histories

[Patrick Waterson]

That is true: in Stephen Ambrose's Crazy Horse and Custer the author recounts various tales and incidents of Sioux being able to discharge six arrows with such rapidity that the last was in the air before the first had hit the ground.  However he also notes that Crazy Horse used a Winchester by preference and got off his horse to shoot because "he wanted to make sure he hit what he aimed at".

The 'fistful of arrows' also occurs at Orchomenus (86 BC) when Roman  legionaries close with Pontic archers who use 'handfuls of arrows' to strike back - suggesting the Romans managed to close just as the Pontic types were getting ready to shoot another 'clip'.

"... and their archers, being hard pressed by the Romans, so that they had no room to draw their bows, took their arrows by handfuls, struck with them as with swords, at close quarters, and tried to beat back their foes ..." - Plutarch, Life of Sulla 21.3

[aligern]

Excellent ppoint there Patrick.mI had seen this incident as indicating that the archers did not have decent swords, but it makes sense if the archers are caught 'loading' and that Plutarch has just misinterpreted their actions.

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

I've split the remainder of the thread into a new topic 'The Hoplite Phalanx'. All OK with it?

[Jim Webster]

Don't want to be a party pooper but wouldn't it be better to shift what looks like a good old controversy about hoplite warfare into an appropriate thread and keep this one for archery?  Could Patrick or someone with the appropriate admin permissions do so?

My humble apologies. My first 48 hours on these forums coincided with me running out of an important medication that stops my heart racing and... well, you can see the result. I'll shut up.

The rest of us can do this even when we're on our medication, don't worry about it 

Jim

[Erpingham]

My humble apologies. My first 48 hours on these forums coincided with me running out of an important medication that stops my heart racing and... well, you can see the result. I'll shut up.

No, don't shut up - I want to read what you are saying.  In particular, I know we have some quite interestingly different views on hoplites and take different positions on underarm/overarm, othismos, normal number of ranks, how Spartans placed their age categories within a phalanx, whether the linothorax is a genuine piece of Greek equipment or a modern invention and many more.

Issue as always is how long to let us wander down interesting side roads and when to decisively split into two different threads.  My nerve usually goes first

[Patrick Waterson]

I've split the remainder of the thread into a new topic 'The Hoplite Phalanx'. All OK with it?

Nicely done, Justin - and in the process saving the nerve of one of our more distinguished members.

[Imperial Dave]

I've split the remainder of the thread into a new topic 'The Hoplite Phalanx'. All OK with it?

Nicely done, Justin - and in the process saving the nerve of one of our more distinguished members.

its when they start saying venerable rather than distinguished you want to worry! 

[Chuck the Grey]

That is true: in Stephen Ambrose's Crazy Horse and Custer the author recounts various tales and incidents of Sioux being able to discharge six arrows with such rapidity that the last was in the air before the first had hit the ground.  However he also notes that Crazy Horse used a Winchester by preference and got off his horse to shoot because "he wanted to make sure he hit what he aimed at".

Patrick, out of curiosity do you remember on what page(s) in  Crazy Horse and Custer details about Sioux shooting with such rapidity appears.

The 'fistful of arrows' also occurs at Orchomenus (86 BC) when Roman  legionaries close with Pontic archers who use 'handfuls of arrows' to strike back - suggesting the Romans managed to close just as the Pontic types were getting ready to shoot another 'clip'.

"... and their archers, being hard pressed by the Romans, so that they had no room to draw their bows, took their arrows by handfuls, struck with them as with swords, at close quarters, and tried to beat back their foes ..." - Plutarch, Life of Sulla 21.3

The reference from Plutarch is interesting. I don't remember reading that. I especially found the description about the archers being so close pressed that they were unable to draw their bows.

[Erpingham]

its when they start saying venerable rather than distinguished you want to worry! 

If it's good enough for Bede, it's good enough for me

[Patrick Waterson]

Patrick, out of curiosity do you remember on what page(s) in  Crazy Horse and Custer details about Sioux shooting with such rapidity appears.

Chuck, it is on page 39 (first complete para) and reads as follows:

"Most Indians became amazingly proficient; Colonel Richard Dodge stated that a Plains Indian could 'grasp five to ten arrows in his left hand, and discharge them so rapidly that the last will be on its flight before the first has touched the ground , and with such force that each would mortally wound a man ...' "

According to his endnote, he gets this from Hassrick, Royal B., The Sioux: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society, Norman, Oklahoma 1964.

I misremembered it slightly: it is five to ten arrows, not specifically six.