Archery

[Nick Harbud]

It occurs to me that a major difference between the French and English practices in the HYW is that English troops were largely paid for on fixed term contracts or indentures for months or years, whereas the French, until the reforms of 1439, relied upon feudal obligation or freelance companies of écorcheurs who lived on appâtis (protection money).

Now most of the time a longbowman would not be required to use his longbow in a battle.  He would be doing other things that would nevertheless require someone with a military bearing and certain level of physical fitness.  When you are paying real money for your soldiery, you can pick someone who is physically fit rather than some broken-down peasant who simply fancies a change from the plough.  One good way of judging fitness is to ask the applicant to shoot a few clothyards from a longbow.

[Patrick Waterson]

Starting them young helps. See here for India's two-year old archer.

[Mark G]

Didn't the Scots deploy at 250 yds at Duplin moor, to stay out of lb range initially
(not that it helped)

[Erpingham]

I haven't been able to find a source for a stop at 250yds, but I've only got a couple of the original sources available.  Most reconstructions don't mention a distance but some sort of halt can be surmised by the fact that the Scottish commanders held a council of war before their attack, which ended badly.

[Patrick Waterson]

As did the attack ...

[Erpingham]

As did the attack ...

Indeed.  The two events seem intimately connected.

[Bohemond]

I have only just spotted this thread, which is so long as to make it difficult to follow. The mixture of individual experience, historical and technical analysis, and attempts to link them to wargames rules make it even more confusing! But, FWIW my contribution is that archery falls into many different categories, horse and foot, ancient and modern (i.e. Longbow), galling or killing, impact on morale and order, etc. In the period which I know best, I consider that English archery wounded at long range, especially unarmoured men and horses, causing disruption, and even 'flight to the front'. Armoured men and horses were much less at risk, though. We know that the French were using pavises by 1364, in order to get close quarters (successfully). The introduction of horse armour, especially steel, made a horseman near to invulnerable, though. Hence the choosing of Knights for the cavalry charge at Agincourt and delaying until the Lombards arrived at Verneuil (1424). The stakes invented by Henry V were meant to offset this threat. Did longbow arrows go through armour? Yes, but we must be very careful to consider when and how. I suggest, only at very close range as in the melee at Agincourt. The primary effect of archery, in any period was to disorder and reduce morale, I believe. Shooting too fast could prove a real disadvantage, as the arrow supplies could run out. A good commander prepared against this, of course.

[Erpingham]

My fault for tacking a new discussion onto an old thread - difficult choice to know whether to keep everything together on a topic or create multiple shorter threads.  Apologies.

Anyway, glad to have Mr Bennet in the house (as those young hip-hopsters say).

[Mark G]

Invented stakes?
I rather thought they came via the ottomans.

[Erpingham]

Invented stakes?
I rather thought they came via the ottomans.

It is a plausible speculation that the idea for archer's stakes reached the English via stories of the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396.  However, the Gesta account implies they were improvised on the march to Agincourt, so the supposed chain of events would be that the army commanders had heard of stakes before they left England but only after they Henry had finished at Harfleur and decided to march to Calais would the need to use them have been implemented.

[Patrick Waterson]

FWIW my contribution is that archery falls into many different categories, horse and foot, ancient and modern (i.e. Longbow), galling or killing, impact on morale and order, etc. In the period which I know best, I consider that English archery wounded at long range, especially unarmoured men and horses, causing disruption, and even 'flight to the front'. Armoured men and horses were much less at risk, though. We know that the French were using pavises by 1364, in order to get close quarters (successfully). The introduction of horse armour, especially steel, made a horseman near to invulnerable, though. Hence the choosing of Knights for the cavalry charge at Agincourt and delaying until the Lombards arrived at Verneuil (1424). The stakes invented by Henry V were meant to offset this threat. Did longbow arrows go through armour? Yes, but we must be very careful to consider when and how. I suggest, only at very close range as in the melee at Agincourt.

This makes good sense to me, at any rate.

The primary effect of archery, in any period was to disorder and reduce morale, I believe.

The Biblical period was one in which archery seems to have vied with chariotry for the top combat arm slot: my own impression of the general tenor of this period is that archery was intended to produce casualties and chariotry was intended to disorder and break morale.  The numbers given in the period sources suggest large and hence deep armies, and deep archer formations could pack considerable punch, literally darkening the sky with their arrows.

Merneptah in his battle against the Tehenu (Libyans) and Temehu has his archers work over the enemy for a long period - apparently six hours - before moving into decide the battle.

"Meanwhile the bowmen of His Majesty spent six hours destroying them ..." (Great Karnak Inscription, line 33)

"Meanwhile, when the wretched chief of Rebu (Libya) was in haste to flee to his land
a number of people from the enemy [...] blows of the daggers (snn.w, sidearms).
Now the chariot warriors, who were upon His Majesty's spans, placed themselves behind them
[in order to] fell with the arrows which were brought to kill [...] every [...]" - idem lines 37-39

This gives (me at least) the impression of an enemy broken by sustained archery and then pursued by chariotry.  Archery appears to be considered as the premier combat arm in most cultures and situations during this period: the Amarna letters have many exhortations to "send archers!" without mention of other troops types (except when Pharaoh writes to a foreign king to remind him that Egypt's chariots are lvery numerous').

With the development of armour and shields which were arrow-resistant at most ranges, and melee systems that overwhelmed anything that had come before, the classical era broke this mould.  Archers persisted, but as a subsidiary combat arm, and despite the noteworthy impact of several mounted archer cultures did not regain their cutting-edge position until the English and to a lesser extent the Burgundians and finally the French popularised the longbow in the late Middle Ages.  During the interim, archery was indeed principally employed to create disorder and reduce morale - and on occasion to sting opponents into ill-considered attacks which would be dealt with by one's combined combat arms.