As I note in my Slingshot review of Mike Loades' book The Longbow, the author reinterprets the traditional longbow "arrowstorm". Instead of long range volleys, Loades believes short range flat trajectory shooting was both prefered and more effective (though he does allow long range shooting on occassion). Nick harbud has suggested elsewhere it may make a suitable topic for discussion. So here is a summary of the argument from pages 67-8 of the book.
- Co-ordination of volleys would be difficult, especially at short range
- Archers used a fairly intuitive method of allowing for a moving target – this couldn't be done in massed volleys
- A parabolic arc of shoot would increase depth of target area but a lot of that area would be space or easily defended by shields.
- Long range parabolic volleys weren't an effective use of scarce ammunition – more effective would be shooting into the front rank at shorter range
- Descriptions of volley shooting don't specify range and could apply at 50yds as well as 200yds.
- Shooting parabolic volleys from the flanks would not create the crowding-in from the flanks which sources record.
- Shooting at will would create less predictable patterns of attack (i.e. the arrows wouldn't come in waves) which would be more unnerving.
If this theory is right, then it alters the way we look at certain key battles. But is it right? It certainly flies in the face of much "received wisdom". Rather than launch into the debate, I'll leave it there for comments.
with a 40 pound bow one can hit a target 100 yards away with precision. The English longbow had draw weights estimated in excess of 100 pounds, so shooting at target frontally at 150 or even 200 yards shouldn't pose a problem.
The problem with frontal flat-range trajectory shooting is that it permits only one rank of archers or possibly two to shoot, as they are in the way of the ranks behind them. To get massed fire one has to aim high and clear the archers in front. This was the limitation of the sling, which, although it could outrange a bow, could not be used for mass volleys and hence was condemned to being a skirmisher weapon.
Well put, Justin.
The 'intuitive aiming problem' could be overcome by having a master archer - who would be very skilled at distance judging and deflection shooting - call the range where he wanted the volley to
land. ("
Ten score!") The archers, who would have practised this sort of thing, would then use an inclination and draw intended to dump their volley at that range, letting fly on the command: "
Loose!"
To look at some of the Loaded arguments (I am aware these are summaries rather than the actual discussion):
Quote
Shooting parabolic volleys from the flanks would not create the crowding-in from the flanks which sources record.
Might this be a slight mis-interpretation of the lineup at, say, Agincourt? The English army had archers, men-at-arms, archers in alternating contingents. The archers shoot straight ahead; the men-at-arms do not shoot. The archers cause casualties, casualties get in the way of advancing opponents, the advancing opponents tend to sidle off towards their compatriots facing the men-at-arms because that way they do not get tripped by struggling wounded or have to tread on them. Result: the advance is channelled towards the men-at-arms, not be design but by effect.
Quote
Long range parabolic volleys weren't an effective use of scarce ammunition – more effective would be shooting into the front rank at shorter range
This seems to confuse 'efficient' with 'effective'. Long-range shooting is not particularly efficient - you need a lot of arrows to incapacitate a few opponents - but it is effective, in that it disorders and channels the advance, which is the overall effect you need. The single volley at close range was effective in the gunpowder period but not before.
Quote
Shooting at will would create less predictable patterns of attack (i.e. the arrows wouldn't come in waves) which would be more unnerving.
I can see where this idea comes from, having watched a score of re-enactors shoot at a score of re-enactors at close range and come to exactly this conclusion. Transfer the idea to a battlefield where thousands are shooting at thousands and it falls down. The volley is in fact the 'unexpected' phenomenon because it arrives all at once when one's attention is on advancing and one's helmeted gaze is at or near ground level: individual shooting produces a spatter of arrows which, because continuous, is predictable (like rain - you do not know when or where each raindrop will land, but you do know to keep your umbrella up). If watching a volley rather than one's superior or one's standard, one will tend to slow and stumble and/or get bumped into by those who are not watching it, which makes for some nice confusion when the volley arrives.
Might as well consider the other points.
Quote
Co-ordination of volleys would be difficult, especially at short range
Archers used a fairly intuitive method of allowing for a moving target – this couldn't be done in massed volleys
The Master Archer would take care of both aspects.
Quote
A parabolic arc of shoot would increase depth of target area but a lot of that area would be space or easily defended by shields.
But holding a shield up is quite tiring, especially when advancing, and seeing ahead becomes a problem. Less of the area is 'space' than one might think because the arrows are coming in at an angle, not vertically, and hence anything sticking up from the ground (people) has an increased chance of being hit (which is why in cricket the wicket is vertical).
I shall leave matters there as Nick has been very busy of late and may need a few days before he can set to with a will to present his perspective. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 21, 2014, 12:18:16 PM
The 'intuitive aiming problem' could be overcome by having a master archer - who would be very skilled at distance judging and deflection shooting - call the range where he wanted the volley to land. ("Ten score!") The archers, who would have practised this sort of thing, would then use an inclination and draw intended to dump their volley at that range, letting fly on the command: "Loose!"
Quote
This is one that Loades specifically refutes. He says that you draw and shoot in one movement and with a heavy bow rather than a reenactor version or Hollywood prop, you can't hang around at full draw waiting for somebody to shout loose. He is talking from experience and, IIRC, Robert Hardy says something similar from his. It seems more likely that someone in charge might order "Knock" to bring an arrow to the string and "Shoot" to bring up the bow and loose an arrow. Not that we know who those in charge were - we only surmise their existence. Volleying would then take place as a rhythm until someone shouted "Fast". If it took place at all,of course :)
Quote
Quote
Shooting parabolic volleys from the flanks would not create the crowding-in from the flanks which sources record.
Might this be a slight mis-interpretation of the lineup at, say, Agincourt? The English army had archers, men-at-arms, archers in alternating contingents. The archers shoot straight ahead; the men-at-arms do not shoot. The archers cause casualties, casualties get in the way of advancing opponents, the advancing opponents tend to sidle off towards their compatriots facing the men-at-arms because that way they do not get tripped by struggling wounded or have to tread on them. Result: the advance is channelled towards the men-at-arms, not be design but by effect.
There is some dispute, of course, about where the archers were at Agincourt. We have the traditional AH Burne archer wedges between divisions splitting the battle line in three with archers on the flanks, the Jim Bradbury/Matt Bennett idea that all the archers were on the flanks and hints from Anne Curry about their being mixed retinues in the line i.e. that there were numerous bodies of archers mixed in the front line. I'm not sure anyone has come out and really articulated the implications of the mixed retinue idea (Curry doesn't seem to have) so you may be scoring a first Patrick :) . However we cut it up though, there do seem to be a lot of archers to the flank to which Loades argument could be applied.
Quote
This is one that Loades specifically refutes. He says that you draw and shoot in one movement and with a heavy bow rather than a reenactor version or Hollywood prop, you can't hang around at full draw waiting for somebody to shout loose. He is talking from experience and, IIRC, Robert Hardy says something similar from his. It seems more likely that someone in charge might order "Knock" to bring an arrow to the string and "Shoot" to bring up the bow and loose an arrow.
Sounds fine to me. Give the range, call the 'knock' and then the 'loose' ('loose' rather than 'shoot' because it encourages a smooth release). Incidentally, my experience is that with a very strong pull bow one can hang on at full draw for about three seconds without problems provided one has drawn to the maximum extent possible (basically the right shoulder), but after that length of time limbs start to get quivery and one really needs to let go. With an Egyptian chariot bow draw (right hand reversed, draw to right shoulder) one can hang on rather longer - the bow becomes like a chest expander and one can more or less 'lock' the position.
Quote
However we cut it up though, there do seem to be a lot of archers to the flank to which Loades argument could be applied.
Which is all well and good provided we appreciate the potential for volleys from any direction to hinder the advance by littering some parts of the ground with casualties and the probable tendency of attackers to avoid the obstacle and join the queue for the untrammelled passage toward the defending men-at-arms. This would replace the traditional sociological explanation with a merely physical one. ;)
For clarification, this effect would perhaps be most noticeable when arrows were coming from the front, as they would tend to put down casualties mainly around the aiming point, which would be in a direct line ahead of the archers. The creation of 'obstructions' would tend to divert the flow of oncoming attackers, and every volley would add to the extent of the obstruction, which would channel the advance more noticeably. Arrows coming in from a flank (hard to achieve until the attackers are within spitting distance of the defenders) might or might not have the same obstruction-producing effect, so we might be able to agree with Mr Loades on that particular point.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 21, 2014, 03:39:10 PM
Give the range, call the 'knock' and then the 'loose' ('loose' rather than 'shoot' because it encourages a smooth release).
Not being an archer, I was going on what I'd read. One shoots a bow, the loose is just the act of releasing an arrow. So unless you are holding at full draw, rather than in the "ready" position with the bow downward, your hypothetical commander would shout "Shoot".
On the Agincourt question, I also think the sociological explanation is Victorian myth-making. Two things are probably happening - one the tendency to aim at the command centre of an enemy formation ( partly sociological but partly because a direct approach was decisive) and a bit that, as you say, the front ranks were being disrupted more in some places than others - those areas couldn't advance as quickly.
This points out the danger of taking the evidence of. re enactors because of the spurious certainty that handling replica kit gives. It is especially deceptive when conclusions are drawn from 20 reenactors versus 20 other reenactors (as has been said here). In a medieval battle the likelihood is that there will be one or at most a few attacks. Saving up arrows is generally pointless as the opportunity to shoot will not cone again and the job is to degrade the opponent as much as possible. The available time on target is generally short. if covering 200 yards an opposing infantry force will take about two and a half minutes. A cavalry charge will cover the killing zone in fifteen seconds. On that basis holding to 50 yards is pointless . As Jim Webster frequently says 'a charging horse will cover 30 yards even when dead' Starting shooting at oncoming forces has to be done early to commence the disruption process. English archers trained how todo this with clout shooting at a cloth on the ground and at different ranges. I suppose the first two ranks could do this at a flat trajectory, but the chaps behind have to do this under a system of command. Of course accuracy is a problem if there are twenty of you, but when 3000 men in an archer wing shoot the beaten zone will easily cover the target which is in itself large enough to mean that it is hard to miss. In effect the archers commence a barrage at 200 yards reducing range at each shot.
Roy
Seeing as how I'm being quoted as an authority I think the 30 yards comes from John Keegan, the Face of Battle but this is from memory
An example of what can happen is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garcia_Hernandez#cite_note-4
"Bock's dragoons charged a square belonging to a battalion of the 6th Light. The French held their fire too long. Their volley killed a number of horsemen, but a mortally wounded horse carrying a dead dragoon crashed into the square like a battering ram. The horse fell, kicking wildly, knocking down at least a half-dozen men and creating a gap in the square. Captain Gleichen rode his horse into the gap, followed by his troopers. The square broke up and most of the men surrendered."
The 'held their fire too long' does fit in nicely with Roy's point
Jim
I am firmly in the 'flat trajectory' camp ... the whole point of the herce formation was imo to enable such direct shooting from massed ranks.
Phil
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 21, 2014, 11:48:56 AMThe problem with frontal flat-range trajectory shooting is that it permits only one rank of archers or possibly two to shoot, as they are in the way of the ranks behind them.
Do we know how many ranks deep archers normally used?
I am aware that Livio speaks of the English being four deep at Agincourt, though without IIRC specifying whether this is the archers, the men at arms, or both. But this is the only mediaeval testimony I think I have come across. Elizabethan writers do suggest that archers deployed in much greater depth; Sir John Smythe writes that archers may stand eight or ten deep and shoot overhead, and Thomas Styward's Pathwaie to Martial Discipline suggests that bows should be placed behind calivers, which also implies overhead fire. But that might be explained by a change of tactics.
We might be able to get a rough estimate by using the frontage at Agincourt and the English OB, allowing the men-at-arms to have 3' per man frontage and deploy four deep and dividing the archers by the remaining space, which should give an idea of their depth.
Trusting the venerable elder on the mountaintop, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#English_deployment), you have 7000 longbowmen and 1500 men at arms. Total width of the English battleline is 750 yards. Deploy the men at arms 4 deep and you are left with 375 yards, which means the archers deploy about 18 deep.
That arrowstorm would dim the sun!
Even if one adjusts the men-at-arms to 8 deep, we still have perforce rather more than two ranks of archers. This does rather suggest that massed volleying on command was the preferred, and indeed only, method of employing English longbow archery at any significant distance.
It may be significant that a simile used in the late Middle Ages was 'falling thicker than arrows in an English battle'. I regret having forgotten the precise attribution.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 22, 2014, 08:31:45 PM
It may be significant that a simile used in the late Middle Ages was 'falling thicker than arrows in an English battle'. I regret having forgotten the precise attribution.
Shot from haquebusses and coulovrines were said to be flying thicker than arrows at an English battle at the siege of Neuss, cited I think in Vaughan's bio of Chuck the Bold.
It seems inescapable that shooting started at long range with a dropping shot and then progressed t,o a flat trajectory using only the front ranks at close range. Working at long range is the best explanation of the effect at Crecy where the French crossbowmen are destroyed and of the effect on massed cavalry at the same battle.
It is oft quoted, but Warnery in his 18th century memoirs advises that against the Turks European foot should not hold back their volley, but open at long range because the more the charge is disrupted the better. The same would hold against knights.
Roy
I agree with this.
Flat trajectories are efficient but by their very nature strictly limit the number of ranks which can shoot effectively - or at all. Curved trajectories not only add range but add many more ranks of archers who can participate, and the aiming problem can be solved by a combination of practice and a single controller (Royal Navy and Russian naval gunnery experts in 1905-1910 found that use of similar principles, albeit with technology in place of the master archer, revolutionised the ability to hit targets at a distance).
None of this prevented English archers from being expert individual marksmen. This marksmanship was however most effectively employed against individuals on raids and in sieges rather than in open battle. When advancing opponents got to direct shooting (level trajectory) range it was probably time to retire behind the stakes or billmen rather than risk becoming a dead hero. Of course, if the other side got to direct shooting range
and then stopped the front ranks of archers could have a field day.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 23, 2014, 06:19:35 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 22, 2014, 08:31:45 PM
It may be significant that a simile used in the late Middle Ages was 'falling thicker than arrows in an English battle'. I regret having forgotten the precise attribution.
Shot from haquebusses and coulovrines were said to be flying thicker than arrows at an English battle at the siege of Neuss, cited I think in Vaughan's bio of Chuck the Bold.
Thanks, Andreas.
Le Baker describes Oxford at Poitiers telling his men to change their aim from shooting at the French cavalry (where the arrows were bouncing off their breastplates) to shooting at the horses. Sounds like direct fire and aimed shooting to me.
Again, at Agincourt, advancing on foot, the French are desrcibed as having to close their visors and as turning their faces away as they advanced ... you don't need to close your visor against a dropping shot.
Most commonly in the main phase of the war in France, English archers prefer a broken position ... lining a hedge or sunken road e.g. ... where organised multi rank indirect shooting would have been unlikely.
What was different about how English archers fought was their lethal use of flat trajectory aimed fire, it seems.
Phil
Given the comments made about the ability to keep using a bow with a heavy draw weight for any significant period of time, perhaps there was something of an informal rank relief for those cases where direct fire was possible?
An archer would loose three or four arrows and then fall back behind the next man allowing him to be in the front rank.
No evidence whatsoever, pure uniformed speculation, but it might fit better with defending a hedge
Jim
When shooting as part of my reenactment group, we were taught to start the draw by knock the arrow with the bow pointing to the ground. The next step was then in one smooth motion, raise the bow whilst drawing the string back and "unconsciously" aiming and releasing as soon as the full draw was achieved. We were taught never to "hold" a fully drawn bow as this made for a poor shot (accuracy) and poor power. Additionally we shot at 45 degrees when employed as an archer block and only really flat shot when in skirmisher mode. Intervening troops and level ground severely limit your opportunities for flat shooting unless you are facing the enemey and prepared to be charged!
Quote from: yesthatphil on April 23, 2014, 01:00:30 PM
Le Baker describes Oxford at Poitiers telling his men to change their aim from shooting at the French cavalry (where the arrows were bouncing off their breastplates) to shooting at the horses. Sounds like direct fire and aimed shooting to me.
Again, at Agincourt, advancing on foot, the French are desrcibed as having to close their visors and as turning their faces away as they advanced ... you don't need to close your visor against a dropping shot.
Most commonly in the main phase of the war in France, English archers prefer a broken position ... lining a hedge or sunken road e.g. ... where organised multi rank indirect shooting would have been unlikely.
What was different about how English archers fought was their lethal use of flat trajectory aimed fire, it seems.
Phil
It's quite possible, and more effective, to have both, i.e. the rear ranks aim high at extreme range and then the front 2 ranks shoot when the enemy comes within direct aim range, about 150 - 200 yards. If the rear rankers are good they can aim higher for a shorter range, dropping arrows on top of the advancing enemy whilst the front rankers shoot them from straight ahead. You can't hold your shield in two places at once.
at Towton doesn't one side advance in the mist and snow, volley and then retire so that the opponents waste their arrows on empty space? If so that presupposes. shooting at ling distance, not aimed shots at fifty yards.
None of the arguments so far would prevent the longbowmen shooting both at close and long ranges as appropriate.
Roy
My point is not what was possible ... it is what was special about the English bowman of the Hundred Years War and his arrowstorm ... and the answer in the contemporary accounts clearly points to flat 'in your face' trajectory aimed shooting rather than indirect, unaimed blanket shooting of the kind practised in the ancient world (against which armour was pretty much proof) ...
FWIW I wouldn't automatically equate the archery in the WotR with that of 100 years earlier in France. Numbers were different, training/professionalism was different (and for most, no doubt, motivation was different)
Phil
Also the proportion of archers may have been different as well
Jim
Quote from: yesthatphil on April 23, 2014, 06:45:00 PM
My point is not what was possible ... it is what was special about the English bowman of the Hundred Years War and his arrowstorm ... and the answer in the contemporary accounts clearly points to flat 'in your face' trajectory aimed shooting rather than indirect, unaimed blanket shooting of the kind practised in the ancient world (against which armour was pretty much proof) ...
I think we are getting Brahmin-and-elephant syndrome, in that each belief (long range indirect volleys and close range aimed shooting) is correct, but it is wrong to insist that either would be used to the total exclusion of the other.
We can pick clear examples of aimed shooting and also clear examples of indirect volley shooting called by a master archer. Both were in the English archers' repertoire and we should not deny either. Each had its place.
Presuming the English archers went in for direct fire only, I'd be interested in how they deployed at Agincourt. Presuming on 7000 archers, that's a frontage - at two ranks deep - of about 3,5 km, or more than two miles. I take it the character of the battlefield is pretty much settled as being a 750 yard wide strip of open land between the woods of Tramecourt and Agincourt. Where does one put the archers? (all over the place according to the Wiki map which I don't find very convincing, and even then one can see it doesn't add up to 3500 yards)
I think English archers will have used both flat and indirect volleys rather than the rear ranks just standing and watching, even limited help is still help. Remember we still shoot "roving marks" which if they are practicing for anything it has to be for indirect fire. (At a roving marks the group shoot at a stick in the ground at a unmeasured distance, the archer must shoot upwards and never with a flat " aimed" shot. You score by having arrows landing as near to the stick as possible).
The importance of organisation/ professionalism plus the size of arrow stockpiles must be part of why the English archers had such an effect on the battlefield.
Tim
QuotePresuming on 7000 archers, that's a frontage - at two ranks deep
Whoever suggested just 2 ranks deep? That's something you have presumed into the equation. I don't think the standard formation was 2 ranks deep. Nor do I think flat trajectory aimed shots are limited to just the first two ranks (again your presumption which I wouldn't accept for a moment): I think Matthew Bennett has demonstrated well enough that the herce was likely a way of drawing men up each rank slightly offset so as to allow multi rank aimed shooting (see the diagram in 'Agincourt') ...
I think you need to look at more than wikipedia on this topic before being convinced one way or the other.
QuoteI think we are getting Brahmin-and-elephant syndrome, in that each belief
You might well be ... I am looking at what is key to the game changing effect English archers had (rather than extrapolating some sort of
same old/same old). Obviously English archers could shoot lofted shots and aimed shots (I didn't sign up to the SoA forum to find that out ;) ) What I believe is the game changer is that they used defensive terrain and overlapping ranks in order to deliver a much greater intensity of aimed frontal shooting (such as will knock you back/make you shy/make you close your visor) than had been experienced previously (and which the French found it difficult to cope with despite the fact that generally the armour was proof against it) ...
I think this is directly addressing the issue Anthony set up in the opening post.
Phil
Hello all,
Sorry to drop in a topic and run but had to make a sudden trip. However, debate has raged OK without me. One topic I feel equipped to comment on is the Agincourt wiki, as I'm one of its regular editors (i.e. I spend time stopping people vandalising it). It is generally OK but weak in parts. It has an interesting overview of the numbers debate and this leads to a slightly confusing situation in the infobox. It has a diagram of a deployment that doesn't match the prefereded deployment solution in the text (if someone can produce a copyright free diagram that does reflect the text better, let me know and I'll swap them).
Also worth a look is English Longbow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow This one is again better in places than others (its a good example of wiki's open edit style, with poor paras interspersed with good). It is weak on tactics, stronger on collecting published experiments. I also contribute to this one - mainly stopping Welsh editors trying to rename it Welsh longbow :)
How does this deployment that permits more than two ranks to shoot direct at flat trajectory work?
A line of men with an arm length between them takes a little over a yard per man. Behind them is a line of men offset so that there is an archer in the gap. That gives two men shooting per yard. A man in a third rank , again offset, is now behind the next front rank man, he cannot shoot. Perhaps someone can explain how three or more ranks can shoot flat trajectory?
If you relly squash together you might just get three men per yard, but it gets dangerous because the third man has his bow entirely behind the first two and that gets really dangerous.
Crushed together.
If a man has a 40 inch chest he has, let us say, a depth of 8 inches, but needs another foot as the right arm to the elbow is horizontal in the drawing of the string. That implies two men per yard , paked in and then behind them an offset rank could shoot in the gap, but the gap would have to be six inches so not quite two men per yard in the front. Packed in these chaps could operate at three per yard. That would deploy 7000 men at say two miles of frontage.
Roy
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2014, 01:58:53 PM
We were taught never to "hold" a fully drawn bow as this made for a poor shot (accuracy) and poor power.
Absolutely correct for drawing to the right ear. I have found that drawing to the right shoulder (really as far as you can go) is different - try sometime. This is best done with a reversed grip on the string - palm towards you - otherwise the release can be problematic because the fingertips brush whatever you are wearing. What put me onto this was some depictions of Egyptian chariot archers doing the same.
Quote
Additionally we shot at 45 degrees when employed as an archer block and only really flat shot when in skirmisher mode. Intervening troops and level ground severely limit your opportunities for flat shooting unless you are facing the enemy and prepared to be charged!
This sounds like exactly what I would expect. Thanks, Dave.
Quote from: yesthatphil on April 24, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
Whoever suggested just 2 ranks deep? That's something you have presumed into the equation. I don't think the standard formation was 2 ranks deep. Nor do I think flat trajectory aimed shots are limited to just the first two ranks (again your presumption which I wouldn't accept for a moment): I think Matthew Bennett has demonstrated well enough that the herce was likely a way of drawing men up each rank slightly offset so as to allow multi rank aimed shooting (see the diagram in 'Agincourt') ...
So how many ranks would this permit? And hence how many archers would shoot per yard of frontage?
Quote
What I believe is the game changer is that they used defensive terrain and overlapping ranks in order to deliver a much greater intensity of aimed frontal shooting (such as will knock you back/make you shy/make you close your visor) than had been experienced previously
Direct shooting had been around for as long as bows: it was not something new brought in by English archers. Cretans became famous for it, and it seems to have been the primary technique for mounted archers throughout their existence. And how would this 'much greater intensity of aimed frontal shooting' differ from what Genoese crossbowmen doing a 'foot caracole' could provide? Please explain, as I am interested.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 24, 2014, 11:21:21 AM
Absolutely correct for drawing to the right ear. I have found that drawing to the right shoulder (really as far as you can go) is different - try sometime. This is best done with a reversed grip on the string - palm towards you - otherwise the release can be problematic because the fingertips brush whatever you are wearing. What put me onto this was some depictions of Egyptian chariot archers doing the same.
Interesting, never tried drawing to the shoulder.
As an additonal comment we always used a 2 or 3 fingered draw although I did see some archers using a thumb draw which I didnt like at all
Interesting to note the accounts of the draw technique in the Wikipedia article Anthony mentioned (and helps to maintain - good work, Anthony).
Quote
A record of how boys and men trained to use the bows with high draw weights survives from the reign of Henry VII.
[My yeoman father] taught me how to draw, how to lay my body in my bow ... not to draw with strength of arms as divers other nations do ... I had my bows bought me according to my age and strength, as I increased in them, so my bows were made bigger and bigger. For men shall never shoot well unless they be brought up to it.
—Hugh Latimer.
What Latimer meant when he describes laying his body into the bow was described thus:
the Englishman did not keep his left hand steady, and draw his bow with his right; but keeping his right at rest upon the nerve, he pressed the whole weight of his body into the horns of his bow. Hence probably arose the phrase "bending the bow," and the French of "drawing" one.
—W. Gilpin.
This 'chest expander' style of drawing - sorry,
bending - seems very similar to the method I fell into more or less by accident.
Interesting, my taught style was an amalgam of the two.
I was taught to "push out" with my left arm (straightening it as I went) and at the same time raising the bow up to eye level and drawing the left arm back all in one smooth movement
Having limited knowledge and experience of archery, I have a question for the more knowledgeable members of our society. I was wondering how flat the trajectory of the English warbow was at ranges of 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards, etc. A flatter trajectory means a lower angle of departure for the arrow and, as has been previously discussed, that would affect the ability of multiple ranks to fire at once. Consideration of the trajectory at various ranges might help to understand the tactical utilization of the longbow.
My own experience is with a 45 pound bow. At 100 yards you are sighting the target directly using a sighting pin with the bow raised a little, giving the arrow a slight curve in its flight. I imagine that at that range, a 100+ pound longbow would shoot an arrow in an almost straight line. At 200 yards there would be a noticeable parabolic curve, but I think you would raise your bow appreciably only at a greater range.
One thing to keep in mind is that the extent to which you raise your bow is in inverse proportion to the extra distance the arrow travels. In other words, raising the bow a little will make the arrow travel much further; raise the bow a little more by the same increment and the distance the arrow travels will increase, but by less. The point is reached where you raise the bow and the distance the arrow travels hardly changes. Raising the bow after that decreases the distance the arrow travels.
This useful when doing overhead shooting at extreme range: if you raise the bow to approximately the right elevation, the arrows will all tend to land in the same place, even if the angle the bow is raised varies slightly between one shot and the next.
45 degrees is the optimum angle of elevation for a bow to achieve maximum distance.
Decrease the angle and the arrows travel less distance, increase the angle and they drop shorter but with a much better vertical "dropping" effect
In terms of distance on the flat shot, I have used traditional longbows from 35 to 45lbs in draw-weight and it all depends on the type of arrow you use and the fletching used but I think we have covered this aspect of archery esewhere recently
Quote from: Holly on May 07, 2014, 08:08:59 AM
Decrease the angle and the arrows travel less distance, increase the angle and they drop shorter but with a much better vertical "dropping" effect
Did anyone count the number of seconds for a maximum range shot to hit the ground or target?
Any thoughts as to the approximate range cut-off point when this approach would cease to be useful? With 45 degrees giving maximum distance, and flight time being presumably about the same for angles above 45 degrees, one can see this approach working for a number of volleys and coming in (as Dave points out) at a steeper angle each time, which the targets (opponents) may not anticipate. If the targets are slowed as a result of the first couple of volleys then one can really get to work with subsequent volleys, making the most of the 'killing zone'.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 07, 2014, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 07, 2014, 08:08:59 AM
Decrease the angle and the arrows travel less distance, increase the angle and they drop shorter but with a much better vertical "dropping" effect
Did anyone count the number of seconds for a maximum range shot to hit the ground or target?
Any thoughts as to the approximate range cut-off point when this approach would cease to be useful? With 45 degrees giving maximum distance, and flight time being presumably about the same for angles above 45 degrees, one can see this approach working for a number of volleys and coming in (as Dave points out) at a steeper angle each time, which the targets (opponents) may not anticipate. If the targets are slowed as a result of the first couple of volleys then one can really get to work with subsequent volleys, making the most of the 'killing zone'.
Duration of arrow shot will depend on the weight of the arrow used along with the power of the bow (and archer!). I think last time I measured speed of shot for our reenactment group was around 100fps for rubber blunt "flu flu" fletched arrows and around 200fps for steel tipped speed fletching from the top of my memory. Therefore if you shoot with said steel tipped, speed fletching "combat" arrows its around 1-2 seconds for a 100yards, 3-4 seconds for 200 yards and 5-6 seconds for 300 yards.
Re the angle of shot, we constantly adjusted our angle of fire when shooting into combat as the opposing infantry advanced to contact with our own infantry. In this kind of instance it was always angled and indirect. If we had chance before the reenactment engagement, we would also pre-determine range of shot taking into account lay of the land, weather/wind direction and our own ability!
This information from Saxton Pope may be useful :
A light arrow from a heavy bow, say a sixty-five pound yew bow, travels at an initial velocity of one hundred and fifty feet per second, as determined by a stopwatch.
Shooting at one hundred yards, such an arrow is discharged at an angle of eight degrees, and describes a parabola twelve to fifteen feet high at its crest. Its time in transit is of approximately two and one-fifth seconds.
Shooting straight up, such an arrow goes about three hundred and fifty feet high, and requires eight seconds for the round trip.
There is also a graph in the Great Warbow that shows a 190m. range needs a 30 degree elevation.
As the archers among us have already pointed out, ranges below maximum can be achieved by increasing or decreasing the elevation of the bow. It would be theoretically possible for the first two or three ranks to continue to flatten their trajectory but subsequent ranks to switch to steeper elevation when shooting a flattening trajectory over their comrades became uncertain. We can imagine that a target at 100yds might be receiving both flat trajectory and plunging shots at the same time. However, this is another area we have insufficient evidence on, so how one might co-ordinate such shooting must remain speculative.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 07, 2014, 12:10:37 PM
This information from Saxton Pope may be useful :
A light arrow from a heavy bow, say a sixty-five pound yew bow, travels at an initial velocity of one hundred and fifty feet per second, as determined by a stopwatch.
Shooting at one hundred yards, such an arrow is discharged at an angle of eight degrees, and describes a parabola twelve to fifteen feet high at its crest. Its time in transit is of approximately two and one-fifth seconds.
If nothing else I am both pleased with my memory and the corroboration of my own observations with the info above.... pretty close although I didnt specifiy the angle of dangle for the shots!
Re the measurement of velocity there are a few specialist units for doing this accurately such as
http://www.amazon.com/Sports-Sensors-Inc-ASR362-Arrowspeed/dp/B000BZ1L66
I have a simple tripod mounted version
To answer the questions regarding longbow ballistics, I have programmed all this into a spreadsheet. Using Hardy & Strickland's Arrow 2 data (96g arrow shot at ~60m/s) you arrive at the following:
100m requires 9 degrees elevation, maximum height reached is 4.5m (~15 ft).
200m requires 22 degrees elevation, maximum height reached is 22m (~70 ft)
Range at 45 degrees is ~270m, approximately the same as the maximum achieved by re-enactors with very powerful longbows.
Note that although both middle and long distance trajectories are pretty flat, the 200m shot is likely to be more affected by wind.
Hope this helps.
Thank you, gentlemen.
I find Saxton Pope's figures intriguing:
Quote
Shooting at one hundred yards, such an arrow is discharged at an angle of eight degrees, and describes a parabola twelve to fifteen feet high at its crest. Its time in transit is of approximately two and one-fifth seconds.
Shooting straight up, such an arrow goes about three hundred and fifty feet high, and requires eight seconds for the round trip.
The arrow going straight up decelerates to zero then increases speed according to gravity. This seems to add about five seconds to the flight time. If an arrow is shot at, say, 70 degrees or so, am I right in thinking it will decelerate, but not to zero, but rather in much the same way as an arrow following a 45-degree trajectory?
I am not sure Patrick, there must be a "tipping point" at which the arrow decelerates to zero or near zero but this may not necessarily be just 90degrees to the horizontal
I think that the arrow decelerates at a proportional rate at degrees of angle above 0 to the horizontal till it eventually reaches near zero at a certain angle
Quote from: Holly on May 07, 2014, 06:53:26 PM
I am not sure Patrick, there must be a "tipping point" at which the arrow decelerates to zero or near zero but this may not necessarily be just 90degrees to the horizontal
falling back on the O level Physics here but I don't think it falls to zero unless you shoot it pretty much straight up. Assuming a still day, you've got three force vectors; shooting, drag and gravity. You need to resolve those three to get trajectory, which should be essentially parabollic. But don't ask me how to do that - they make computer programmes for that :)
This is my thinking, too (and probably the same O-level physics): provided the arrow is still moving forward, even parabolically or hyperbolically, it does not lose time and energy dropping its speed to zero under the effects of gravity. At angles above 45 degrees the flight time should be about the same as for 45 degrees and the 'total gravity impedance' or net drag from this still-not-really-understood force should thus be about the same until one reaches the very-near-90-degrees mark.
Some day someone will presumably fit a really small accelerometer with an on-board recording chip to an arrow and resolve the question.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 07, 2014, 06:59:59 PM
falling back on the O level Physics here but I don't think it falls to zero unless you shoot it pretty much straight up. Assuming a still day, you've got three force vectors; shooting, drag and gravity. You need to resolve those three to get trajectory, which should be essentially parabolic. But don't ask me how to do that - they make computer programmes for that :)
Pah! O level (or even GCSE) physics is totally inadequate for solving this problem as it takes no account of air resistance. The maths covering this was outlined in my Slingshot article on trebuchet/bombard ballistics. Basically one ends up with a 2
nd order non-linear differential equation that requires a numerical solution. You are correct that there are computer programs for this sort of thing. Indeed, in those countries where shooting the wildlife from a great distance using a high-powered rifle is considered good sport, one can use a smartphone app that takes into account not only gravity and drag, but also humidity, wind strength and coriolis effects. However, I have it programmed into a spreadsheet using a Runge-Kutta 4
th order solution, which I reckon is generally good enough.
What was the question? Oh yes, trajectories of arrows shot to 200m.
Using the arrow cited above, there are two trajectories where the arrow will travel 200m; 22 degrees and 63 degrees. The flatter trajectory reaches its target in ~4.3s whereas the high trajectory missile will take ~9.8s. The effect of the additional travel distance on final velocity is marginal. In both scenarios the missile slows from 60m/s leaving the bow to ~45m/s at target. The high trajectory is really high, reaching ~115m from the ground. It will be much more affected by any wind, both because wind speed increases the further one is from the ground and also because any wind will act upon a high trajectory arrow for roughly twice as long as a flatter trajectory.
As outlined in other threads, the target will also move twice as far during the travel of the high trajectory arrow, making judgement as to where it might be somewhat trickier. (Incidentally and slightly off-topic, the electronics in modern fire-and-forget guided anti-tank weapons try to allow for this in their targeting and are somewhat better at it than a medieval archer.)
These are major considerations in judging the effectiveness of the arrowstorm.
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 09, 2014, 06:22:27 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 07, 2014, 06:59:59 PM
falling back on the O level Physics here but I don't think it falls to zero unless you shoot it pretty much straight up. Assuming a still day, you've got three force vectors; shooting, drag and gravity. You need to resolve those three to get trajectory, which should be essentially parabolic. But don't ask me how to do that - they make computer programmes for that :)
Pah! O level (or even GCSE) physics is totally inadequate for solving this problem as it takes no account of air resistance. The maths covering this was outlined in my Slingshot article on trebuchet/bombard ballistics. Basically one ends up with a 2nd order non-linear differential equation that requires a numerical solution. You are correct that there are computer programs for this sort of thing. Indeed, in those countries where shooting the wildlife from a great distance using a high-powered rifle is considered good sport, one can use a smartphone app that takes into account not only gravity and drag, but also humidity, wind strength and coriolis effects. However, I have it programmed into a spreadsheet using a Runge-Kutta 4th order solution, which I reckon is generally good enough.
What was the question? Oh yes, trajectories of arrows shot to 200m.
Using the arrow cited above, there are two trajectories where the arrow will travel 200m; 22 degrees and 63 degrees. The flatter trajectory reaches its target in ~4.3s whereas the high trajectory missile will take ~9.8s. The effect of the additional travel distance on final velocity is marginal. In both scenarios the missile slows from 60m/s leaving the bow to ~45m/s at target. The high trajectory is really high, reaching ~115m from the ground. It will be much more affected by any wind, both because wind speed increases the further one is from the ground and also because any wind will act upon a high trajectory arrow for roughly twice as long as a flatter trajectory.
As outlined in other threads, the target will also move twice as far during the travel of the high trajectory arrow, making judgement as to where it might be somewhat trickier. (Incidentally and slightly off-topic, the electronics in modern fire-and-forget guided anti-tank weapons try to allow for this in their targeting and are somewhat better at it than a medieval archer.)
These are major considerations in judging the effectiveness of the arrowstorm.
Impressed :)
Nick, your explanation had me reaching for the strong coffee to make sure I understood it all :) Makes complete sense and all we need to do now is test it all out in a field! 8)
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 09, 2014, 06:22:27 AM
Pah! O level (or even GCSE) physics is totally inadequate for solving this problem as it takes no account of air resistance. The maths covering this was outlined in my Slingshot article on trebuchet/bombard ballistics. Basically one ends up with a 2nd order non-linear differential equation that requires a numerical solution.
I'm glad it was my education and not my memory that was deemed inadequate :) Thanks for that Nick. If nothing else it shows how difficult it would be to co-ordinate the shooting of two groups, one shooting straight to the target, the other using the indirect route. If this was done, the rear ranks at least may have been shooting at will at the estimated range, which might work on
en masse by creating a beaten zone but would be low on accuracy.
So, does the above argument support the archers shooting on only a flat trajectory?
If so, and if we still have a problem with the length of an archer line that cannot operate more than three deep then there a couple of solutions.
One is that Phil is right and the archers shoot shallow and are perhaps six deep, but that they shoot off say 20 arrows and then interchange with the back ranks who then shoot.
I wonder how the maths of this plays out, but it would seem feasible because longbows shoot so fast.
The other is that shooting overhead is not so problematic as the redoubtable Erpingham implies. Some support for this comes from the Strategikon where the rear ranks of an infantry formation (and indeed of cavalry units) shoot overhead at advancing enemies. I think that this may be more effective than suggested in earlier posts because it is not the beaten zone that matters, but the killing zone and that is much bigger because it is nine foot high for a mounted opponent and five foot high for a foot target.
That means that an arrow that is targeted at landing 100 yards away will hit any cavalryman for that 100 yatds, even though the beaten zone might be only from 90 to 100 yards.
I await the comments of the mathematically able!
Roy
Two points. One to correct an impression that I have given the noble Aligern. I don't think overhead shooting is impossible or even implausible. What I think is difficult is co-ordinating that shooting with front ranks shooting on a flatter trajectory. Not only do the rear ranks not see the target (or not fully) but the time to target of their shots is much longer. Laying down a barrage across a beaten zone therefore would suggest itself for any rear rankers, and there is little need to do that by volley.
The other on formations. Smythe, the great longbow advocate in the later 16th century, was clear that seven or eight ranks was the deepest you should deploy longbows to be effective. He had served with longbowmen, so his view has some weight, even if he is sometime after the era we are considering. So, in the Sixteenth century, no one was thinking of longbows in very thin lines (except deployed in a skirmish lines before the main body)
And given that the longbowmen of the late sixteenth century would have been part of a continuous tradition of 'Harry the Fift' and 'Agincourt', not to mention the Wars of the Roses, one would imagine that what served for Smythe had also served for previous generations.
The verdict of history seems to be that archers function best as a battlefield arm when grouped together in depth, as this is the configuration adopted by the effective archer nations of history (by 'effective' I mean those who conquered rather than those who were conquered). Grouping in depth requires indirect shooting, and effective indirect shooting requires practice - plenty of it.
We are told that an Egyptian archer was required to shoot 200 shafts per day to stay in practice. What we are not told is how many of these were shot in company with his fellows in order to familiarise everyone with trajectories, beaten zones and flight times at various ranges and enemy rates of advance. Egyptians did not have the advantage of calculus, or of the customary Euler or more recent and precise Runge-Kutta methods of solving differential equations. What they did have was a lot of practice - and a lot of validation on the battlefield.
The use of archery in depth was near universal in the Biblical period: the Hebrews, despite their ambidextrous Benjaminites, seem to have been the main exception, unless their armament configuration changed over time. Despite the increasing predominance of the armoured spearman and cavalryman in the Neo-Assyrian period, the last great Biblical power, the Persian Empire, used archery in depth up to the time of its war against the Greeks in 480-460 BC. Thereafter the picture is less clear: for centuries, the archer seems to be mainly a skirmisher, with some few bodies of formed archers playing a subsidiary role while the spear and lance and then the pilum and gladius dominate the battlefield.
Beginning with the Sassanids and the later Roman empire, massed archery on foot begins something of a limited revival, which is largely buried underfoot by the barbarian invasions (although the Byzantine use of mixed formations and its imitative Arab counterpart survive to the era of the Crusades). It is left to the English to develop the highly effective longbow characteristically used by the Welsh into an effective system, which seems once again to use volleying, or at least shooting, indirectly in depth to cover a beaten zone.
Did the Welsh pioneer this system? Or did the English recognise the potential of the longbow for indirect shooting, devise the system and train their own and Welsh archers in its use?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 09, 2014, 11:39:55 AM
It is left to the English to develop the highly effective longbow characteristically used by the Welsh into an effective system, which seems once again to use volleying, or at least shooting, indirectly in depth to cover a beaten zone.
Did the Welsh pioneer this system? Or did the English recognise the potential of the longbow for indirect shooting, devise the system and train their own and Welsh archers in its use?
Just checking, but do we have much info on the use of Welsh longbows
en masse? Our main stuff about Welsh longbows seems to be about short range, aimed shooting (I'm thinking Gerald of Wales in particular). It is possible that massed archery in depth comes more continental traditions or even crusading experience (talking hypothetically here - I don't know if there is any evidence that points that way). One might suggest a developmental process that involved an Anglo-Norman heritage that featured archery, being impressed by the Welsh and their powerful bows, having seen techniques that used massed archery elsewhere and having a flash of inspiration to put all that together.
That is a thought: the man who would have been in a position to put all this together was Edward I, who had been on crusade in 1271-2, conquered Wales in 1277, 1283, 1287-8 and 1294 (the Welsh were persistent fighters) and took an army into Scotland in 1298 in which the longbow system showed as having been developed, much to the dismay of William Wallace.
Although Warwick had used archery effectively against northern Welsh rebels at Maes Moydog in 1295, Edward's first expedition into Scotland had culminated in the Battle of Dunbar (1296), which was essentially a cavalry fight. Falkirk seems to have been the first clear use of the English system of massed longbow archery. It seems quite possible that Edward had the system set up and ready to go at Dunbar (guessing here) but it was not used because the English cavalry managed to win unaided. At Falkirk Wallace's schiltroms curbed the cavalry's enthusiasm and the archers got their chance.
Edward I thus remains my favoured choice as a likely deviser of the English longbow volley system, or perhaps as the adopter of a system one of his lords (Warwick??) had devised.
I understood that massing longbows was a tactic developed through the Scots and 100 yes war, rather than something which emerged fully formed.
I recall something about using greater numbers to shoot off opposing crossbowmen who were massed in turn to counter this.
As an aside, we used to practice speed shooting and on occasion could get 6-7 shots off in a minute. That would constitute heavy repetitive volleys but the accuracy definitely suffers and the munitions run out pretty quickly too!
Quote
Nick, your explanation had me reaching for the strong coffee to make sure I understood it all :) Makes complete sense and all we need to do now is test it all out in a field! 8)
Well, quite a number of the re-enactors have tried this out in the field and have come to the same conclusions as the maths suggests - high trajectory fire is not as accurate as low trajectory. Loades also notes that none of the medieval illustrations of archers show them using high trajectory in pitched battle, although they are depicted using it for siege or naval situations. As Loades points out, this is not proof it did not happen, but it is hardly an argument in favour. Overall, Loades believes that the poor chances of hitting anything at long range (irrespective of the trajectory chosen) means such fire would have been strictly limited in order to conserve ammunition. The maths also supports this view.
Regarding depth and frontage of massed archers, I tend to view a deep formation as being entirely feasible, but not capable of delivering any higher density of missiles per yard of frontage than a shallower line of musketeers. Considering first a two-deep line of musketeers. Each musketeer requires 2 ft frontage and the second rank can fire between the shoulders of the first giving an overall density of 1 shooter per yard of frontage. (One could increase this to 1.5 shooter/yard by having a third rank kneeling in front, but let's not explore that just yet.)
Now to work a longbow, I am informed, requires a minimum 2 yards free space to left and right. Therefore, a single rank requires 8 ft per bowman. However, I think it entirely feasible for second and subsequent ranks of bowmen to shoot through the considerable gaps left by the forward ranks. With, say 4 ranks, one has a density of 0.5 shooters per yard and no one firing overhead. What the maximum practical number of ranks might be I shall leave to others.
Of course, with this somewhat loose formation, one should probably also consider what happens when it is contacted by a charging enemy. Do the ranks all close up? Is it possible for individuals to dodge out of the way or otherwise evade? Or are the archers dead meat?
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 10, 2014, 08:20:26 AMNow to work a longbow, I am informed, requires a minimum 2 yards free space to left and right. Therefore, a single rank requires 8 ft per bowman.
That makes sense if the archer holds his bow horizontal and parallel to the line when nocking an arrow and pulling to full draw. A longbow is about 6 feet in length. If each archer held the bow horizontal and at right angles to the line when reloading then the archers could deploy with the files about 3' apart, but there would have to be more space between one rank and the next. Total number of archers capable of low trajectory fire would probably come out at about the same.
re-enacting is different to real life but I don't recall having 8 feet of space around me when we fought as an archer block, more like 4-6. Of course that was firing overhead/angled trajectory mainly.
Oh and regarding closing up when faced with a charge...we didn't like being charged!!!! ::)
Again, turning to the sixteenth century sources, detractors felt that the longbow was a cimbersome weapon, needing considerable elbow room. The idea in some wargames rules of close-order longbowmen is a flight of fancy. If we take the idea of a herse of longbows being distinctive by being spaced out, this fits and would be condusive to more ranks being able to see and shoot directly.
As to what happened when longbowmen were charged, it probably depended on who was charging. They were vulnerable to cavalry in the open because of the speed of attack but the slower pace of an infantry attack meant that they had a good chance of stopping it closing unless it was well shielded or armoured. It is possible they compressed their ranks to make a more solid formation but I don't think we have specific reference to it.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 10, 2014, 09:36:48 AM
As to what happened when longbowmen were charged, it probably depended on who was charging. They were vulnerable to cavalry in the open because of the speed of attack but the slower pace of an infantry attack meant that they had a good chance of stopping it closing unless it was well shielded or armoured. It is possible they compressed their ranks to make a more solid formation but I don't think we have specific reference to it.
Depends on the period we are talking about but as an early medieval archer, we were armed with sword and buckler and when we were charged and stood our ground, we styed in loose formation and didn't close up. We fought as individuals in the absence of large shields and big pointy sticks! :)
Quote from: Holly on May 10, 2014, 07:08:03 PM
We fought as individuals in the absence of large shields and big pointy sticks! :)
And billmen?
Hi Patrick. Do you mean did we have billblocks supporting us? We never fought alone but in most of the battles we staged the archer blocks had to fend for themselves if contacted
This is one of the things I have wondered about regarding billmen - most people seem to deploy them with archers on either side, but would it make more sense to put the archers in front and run them back past or even through the billmen when opponents got close with intent? At Towton, for example, one gets the impression of continuous archer front lines at the beginning of the battle.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 11, 2014, 10:13:26 AM
This is one of the things I have wondered about regarding billmen - most people seem to deploy them with archers on either side, but would it make more sense to put the archers in front and run them back past or even through the billmen when opponents got close with intent? At Towton, for example, one gets the impression of continuous archer front lines at the beginning of the battle.
I've thought a great deal about where longbowmen were in a battle and concluded we are a bit stuck in rigid stereotypes caused by Burne's interpretations of the "herse" and his detractors desire for a equally firm counter position. So, I'm quite happy to see wings of archers in some places and other formations on others. At Towton, it seems pretty clear at least some archers were deployed forward to start the battle, even if it was effectively a skirmish screen. Groups of archers were also advanced at Homildon/Humbleton. In Burgundian battles, archers could be pushed forward too. So I think we can be sure that the English could deploy a screen of archers if they wanted to, possibly sent forward from larger bodies.
Both,
the archer blocks I fought in were placed in different positions in different battles. Sometimes we were on the wings and sometimes we were behind the main men at arms and billmen.
I have to reiterate that the battles I participated in an actual archer block were all medieval in nature. Any dark age battles where I participated as an archer was as a screen
Quote from: Holly on May 09, 2014, 11:05:47 PM
As an aside, we used to practice speed shooting and on occasion could get 6-7 shots off in a minute. That would constitute heavy repetitive volleys but the accuracy definitely suffers and the munitions run out pretty quickly too!
Ammunition supply is a constant problem throughout history. When I was in the US Army, admittedly some time ago, there is a constant emphasis on controlling rate of fire to avoid wasting ammunition. During training, we were placed on the firing line at the range by squads and would engage multiple targets at various ranges as a groups of targets were popped up by a somewhat sadistic range officer. During the first exercise, every squad wasted ammo by having the entire squad engage every group of targets regardless of the range. We soon learned to have the best marksman engage the long range targets, generally at 200 or 300 m, and then would have the entire squad engage targets in the hundred meter range. I think the same thing would've applied to massed archers in both the medieval and ancient eras.
Every archer would have a limited supply of arrows and the chances of resupply during battle were probably low. In order to maintain a steady rate of fire, not all the archers in the unit would engage the enemy at the same time. This is a possible explanation for the depth to archer units as this would allow a significant number of archers to fire simultaneously while maintaining a reserve ready to engage the enemy as the first group of archers depleted ammo or became tired. They might've even been some type of rotation system that would allow the archer unit to maintain a steady rate of fire.
An important point to remember is that firepower isn't the total number of shots downrange, but the number of aimed shots during a given time.
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on May 12, 2014, 05:11:59 PM
An important point to remember is that firepower isn't the total number of shots downrange, but the number of aimed shots during a given time.
Up to a point: longbows did not have foresights and backsights and opponents did not take cover on the battlefield, but progressed in nice big (and often slow) formations that would have been a mortarman's dream.
Arrows also lost their killing force after a certain distance, so it made sense for everyone to let go under the guidance of the master archer as soon as the enemy came within killing distance, as although one could send six or more arrows per minute, the rate of massed shooting would be less than individual shooting and nobody would get through their inventory before the attack ran its course.
Arrow resupply for English archers took two forms: once an enemy attack was beaten off, it would take them some time to reform and attempt another, so the archers could recover some shafts from the battlefield, but more reliable and much swifter was to have men and boys take arrow bags round the archers
in situ so that they could each be given a couple of handfuls to add to anything they still had.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 12, 2014, 08:49:42 PM
Arrow resupply for English archers took two forms: once an enemy attack was beaten off, it would take them some time to reform and attempt another, so the archers could recover some shafts from the battlefield, but more reliable and much swifter was to have men and boys take arrow bags round the archers in situ so that they could each be given a couple of handfuls to add to anything they still had.
For which we have evidence of the first but not for the second. There seems no evidence of anyone involved in battlefield resupply, or of stashing reserve supplies on the field. Mentions of collecting arrows may imply organised parties or just individuals scavenging what they could. I've seen lots of mentions of "boys" who carried arrows in modern accounts but I can't recall any such in period records. "Boys" served in medieval armies but usually as servants to men-at-arms.
One of the sometimes overlooked aspects of the English liking to deploy archers on the defensive was arrow supply. Archers expecting to be in static positions could carry more personal supplies of arrows than those expected to run about a lot. Arrows bags could be dumped at the feet of the archer or emptied and the arrows stuck in the ground.
And just to bring the discussion into the 21st century check out the article, "The A-10 and Agincourt" at https://medium.com/the-bridge/cedc52d8a4ae