Archery

[Jim Webster]

I wondered at the shield issue.
Was one of the issues the fact that shields had shrunk, disappeared or had been replaced by larger, heavier shields.

I'm not sure that Longbowmen ever faced enemy infantry where everyone had a shield as large and substantial as a hoplon or scutum.
The use of pavises may have come in not because shields were useless, but because large shields were no longer carried as a matter of course.

I too was a little surprised at the frontage per man needed to fire a longbow. 6' on either side seems more than a little excessive

Jim

[Erpingham]

On shields etc.  I wouldn't necessarily agree with Nick that the pavise was effective against longbows because it was heavier.  I think it was substantial but not necessarily heavier made.  It's big strength, to me, was its size.  Also on shields, the fact that "ordinary" shields were shot through at short range shouldn't be massively surprising.  Read the discussion above on Native American archery - their bows were recorded as shooting through shields too.  To see this as a major issue may be assuming that they were supposed to be effective at short range and were failing, as opposed to they were adequate at stopping arrows at what were normal engagement ranges.

On the frontage needed for longbows, other views I've seen suggest you need a minimum frontage of six feet to use one.  The close-order archer longbowman is probably a wargames myth.

[aligern]

How in heavens name does one need six feet to use a longbow. Look at the arrow slits in casles, look at the density of longbows in illustrations. Three feet maximum.
Roy

[Erpingham]

How in heavens name does one need six feet to use a longbow. Look at the arrow slits in casles, look at the density of longbows in illustrations. Three feet maximum.
Roy

It is, I believe, a question of how one knocks an arrow and draws the bow.  The bow is held on the left side at an angle (45 degrees?).  The bow is 6ft long.  That makes the archer at least four feet wide.  Shooting from arrowslits was done stood back from them - most arrowslits I've seen are fairly wide inside.  However, I recommend asking the archers among us exactly how this all works.

[Justin Swanton]

You don't need to hold a bowstaff parallel to the ground to shoot. Keeping it vertical or near vertical at all times is fine. The only conceivable reason one might have for holding the bow in a horizontal position is to nock an arrow, and this part of the Lars Andersen video shows you don't need to change the angle of the bow for that.

BTW it is this section of his video that impresses me the most: he is shooting arrows at targets about 100 yards away and knocking them down with the force of his arrows. That means speed shooting with power.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am 6' tall (exactly).  Using a 6' bow to draw for a level shot means the lower end of the bow is 1' off the ground before, and slightly higher during, the draw.  It does not need to be anything other than vertical.  Any archer of 5' or greater height could similarly use the bow vertically or (if he wanted to keep the end well clear of the ground) at a slight slant well within his 24" or 36" personal frontal lebensraum.

I suspect the idea of holding the bow at a slant may have derived from the inadequate musculature of re-enactors compared to the beefier build of ye olde English yeomen, because holding the bow at a slant makes a 'chest expander' draw much easier.

[Erpingham]

Thanks Justin and Patrick for the practical experience.  Part of the problem we have is realistic depictions of knocking arrows are rare in the pictoral record.  The main convention was to show the bow at full draw or having just shot.  Ditto, realistic images of medieval troops in combat formation are not exactly common, so an image of a longbow formation is hard to judge.  So we tend to draw on modern experience. 

I've never been an archer, so I have to form my impressions from the work of others and images of them in action.  The angled nock certainly seems to be used quite widely by modern longbow shooters (including Warbow shooters).  The usual spacing of a shooting line does appear to be about three feet apart (or more).  Shooting in multiple ranks doesn't seem to be practiced (not that I've seen images of) so can't easily judge how modern archers would handle that.

Talking of depth, one issue the short-range volley school do need to explain is why longbowmen drew up in depth if only the first two or three rows could shoot on a flat trajectory.  In the sixteenth century, we see John Smith stating the best formation for longbows is no deeper than seven or eight.  We also, incidentally see Robert Barret saying that that longbows are "cumbersome tying weapons in a throng of men" because "they requireth such elbow room", which suggests they needed to be in looser order than arqubusiers.   It is not implausible that medieval longbowmen drew up in similar formations (deeper perhaps if ranged on a slope).

[Justin Swanton]

This passage from the article caught my eye:

Firstly there is the simple argument that hitting any target becomes more difficult when it is further away. In the late 18th and early 19' centuries a number of researchers undertook trials to quantify this effect by having groups of musketeers fire at canvas screens sized to represent bodies of infantry or cavalry. The results of this work is described in B.P. Hughes' book Firepower. The resultant curve is shown above and approximates to an inverse square relationship. Now it is possible to argue that a smoothbore musket is quite different and individually much less accurate than a longbow. However, it is unlikely the shape of the curve for an equivalent group of archers would be very different and, as we shall discuss below, other factors might have a larger effect.

There are several points to note here. First that a musket's hitting power depends on its ball travelling at speed, a speed which drops off the further the non-aerodynamic ball travels through air. So long-range shooting with a musket, say by holding it up a 45 degrees, is ineffective.

Secondly that no two powder charges in a musket's barrel are the same. Each time a musket fires, the powder charge propels the ball at different velocity, which makes all the difference to accuracy at long ranges.

Thirdly, concerning bow accuracy at long ranges. On a battlefield the target is a wide swathe of men all at about the same distance from the shooter, and with a depth of several metres - quite a few metres in the case of cavalry. For a massed volley to hit the target, left-to-right aiming is not important; what matters is that the range be accurate.

Now someone who does archery will know that increasing the range of an arrow means raising the bow, and that at short ranges raising the bow slightly will make the arrow go a good deal further. But at long ranges raising the bow even substantially changes little the distance the arrow travels. Here are some diagrams to illustrate:

The archer shoots at short range, his bow only slightly raised.

The archer raises his bow a little and the range increases dramatically.

The archer raises his bow by a substantial margin. There is an increase in range, but not that much.

The archer raises his bow by an appreciable margin again. There is hardly any increase in range.

Hence, once an archer knows the extreme range of his bow, he can be sure of hitting a target several metres deep at that range, even if he doesn't see the target and doesn't raise his bow to exactly the same angle each time. This accuracy is further enhanced by the fact that the archer has the same position at full draw each time he shoots and so gives each arrow the same force when he looses, unlike the musket. This makes accurate overhead long distance shooting quite feasible.

[Justin Swanton]

There is a possible objection to this which in fact is an enhancement of the technique.

The objection runs as follows: no two archers have the same drawing strength and no two bows are the same (or at least weren't until mass production). Hence each longbowman will have a different extreme range. Weaker archers with lighter bows will shoot shorter distances, stronger archers with heavier bows will shoot further.

The response: after practice each archer will know his own extreme range to within a few yards. When a company of archers is formed, the company captain will know which archers can shoot further than others. It would be natural for him to classify his archers according to their range, say Group A who can shoot to 220 yards, Group B to 200 yards, Group C to 180 yards, and so on.

In the course of the battle, the captain judges when an advancing enemy is within the extreme range of Group A and orders them to shoot. A few seconds later he gives the order to Group B, then to Group C. This means that the enemy will be peppered with arrows for, say, 100 metres of their advance, at which point Group A (in the front rank) can switch to direct fire (if they haven't already done so).

This all precludes the possibility that experienced archers could accurately judge the angle they held their bows without seeing the target and drop arrows on a target at any range. Archers who hunt do not use a sight but have a 'feel' for the range and aim instinctively. They know, rather than calculate, at what angle to hold the bow at 50 or 100 yards. Nothing precludes longbowmen from having this same instinctive knowledge, and shooting overhead with accuracy at less than extreme range.

[Erpingham]

As is the way of things, I've been drawn into rereading Sir John Smythes views on longbows (in Certain Discourses)  and, given Nick's bringing in musketry experiments to build an archery model, thought Smythe's views might be of interest.  For those unfamiliar with Smythe, his style is of a "grumpy old man" with occassional cynical humour.  He is very pro-longbow and tends to play down gunpowder weapons but he had seen both in action.  Here he is on the relative casualty causation of archers and firearms :

For this I know (as it is before declared) that Harquebuziers, if they be led by skilfull Conductours, are not to giue anie volees of shot aboue three, or foure scores 〈...〉, nor Mosquettiers any volees of bullets aboue eight, ten or twelue scores, at anie squadrōs of horsemen or foot∣men in motion; and yet that too farre, vnlesse their lea∣ders doo thinck rather to terrifie their Enemies with smoke and noyse, than with anie hurt of the bullets. Whereas Archers reduced into their conuenient formes, being in so great numbers (as aforesaid) doo dimme the light of the sunne, darken the ayre and co∣uer the earth with their volees of arrowes, eight, nine, ten and eleuen scores distant from them; in such sort as no numbers of Mosquettiers, Harquebuziers, or Argolettiers, nor yet squadrons of Launces nor of footemen,* being so ill armed as in these dayes they are, shalbe found able to abide the incredible terrour of the shot of such infinite numbers of arrowes. For there is no doubt but that Archers with their volees of ar∣rowes, will wound, kill, or hurt aboue an hundred men and horses, for euerie one that shalbe slaine or hurt, by the volees of so great numbers of Harquebu∣ziers and Mosquettiers, as are before mentioned.

and (in the before mentioned part) gives his reasons for why archers cause more casualties

[Archers] doo direct their arrowes in the shooting of them out of their Bowes with a great deale more certaintie, being with∣in eight, nine, tenne, or eleuen scores, than anie Har∣quebuziers or Mosquettiers (how good soeuer they bee) can doo in a much neerer distance, by reason that Mosquettiers & Harquebuziers failing in their points and blancke, doo neither kill nor hurt (vnlesse it hap∣pen as the blind man shooting at the Crowe;) besides that, in their points and blancke, through the imper∣fections before declared, they doo verie seldome hit, whereas contrariwise the arrowes doo not onelie wound,* and sometimes kill in their points and blank, but also in their discents & fall; for if in their discents they light not vpon the Enemies faces, yet in their lo∣wer discents they light either vpon their breasts, bel∣lies, codpeeces, thighes, knees or legges, and in their lo∣west discent, and fall euen to the verie nailing of their feete to the ground, which with the terrible comming of the arrowes in the eyes and sight both of horsemen & footmen, causeth in thē a wonderful feare & terror.

Now, we are dealing with an archery advocate in the final years of longbow usage.  He is mainly describing his experience, rather than previous practice (although he does make interesting historical asides and quotes the combat experience of people he has met who served in earlier years).  However, he is consistent in his view that archers are used in depth (not too much or the ranks shooting from the back can't judge the target properly), the strikes from "descents and fall" of arrows are important and an effective engagement distance is between eight and eleven score paces.  He is doubtless a traditionalist in both his own terms and in those of Nick's article

[aligern]

Archery  training consists of shooting at targets at different ranges, thus the archer learns the angle of his individual  bowshot that is necessary to reach a range.  The archer  captain does not have to parse the men into groups of different ability, only to shout the range and give the order to loose. The arrows will then head for the target. They will be in a band that covers the target. The accuracy of the shoot is dependent upon an experienced captain's judgement of range and timing.
Of course that judgement requires experience of the time equation that involves the rate of advance of the target , wind conditions and the effect of the lag between order,draw and release. One does wonder if Achaemenid Persian archers, who were used to opponents who stood  and shot back were so thrown by Greeks who ran at them that they could not adjust the range of a ten deep formation down fast enough to get shots on target. Against charging French cavalry the archer captains would have to adjust range very quickly to track them.
And yes it is perfectly possible to shoot a bow whilst holding it vertical

Roy

[Erpingham]

And yes it is perfectly possible to shoot a bow whilst holding it vertical

Roy

The actual point was about nocking and drawing.  The laying of a bow at an angle to shoot doesn't seem to be a European foot archery thing, though may have been used by horse archers (I don't know). 

Area effect archery is always going to be more effective against a static target because of the amount of flight time of the arrow translates into a considerable distance on the ground.  It is possible that in the "command fire" model the "master archer" could allow for target speed so that his bombardment landed in the right place  but the faster the speed, the less leeway for error.

And I'd be failing in my duty not to point out we have no evidence of the existence of these "master archers" or a system of shouted range commands.  In fact, command and control amongst longbowmen is a bit opaque all round.

[Justin Swanton]

And yes it is perfectly possible to shoot a bow whilst holding it vertical

Roy

The actual point was about nocking and drawing.  The laying of a bow at an angle to shoot doesn't seem to be a European foot archery thing, though may have been used by horse archers (I don't know). 

Hungarian horse archer reenactors hold the bow at an angle when nocking but straight when shooting.

[barry carter]

Sir Thomas Erpingham's "Nestroque!" is the only command that comes to mind - whatever it may mean.

[aligern]

But the English armies do have archer captains...do I recall they are vintenars? in which case they would have atound 20 men. If an army is fielding thousands of archers it must have either a command substructure or standing orders (or customs) that would do VIth edition WRG proud, or both. You can't have the men launching volleys without control because the general must know that he still has shots in his locker. He cannot afford to have the archers shoot off all their arrows at some distant target and then retire.
This is also an issue at the heart of my contentions on how horse archers operate. There the general must expend arrows in a controlled manner to most effect. and not be found to be without missiles at a crucial juncture. Patrick and I were recently looking at the operation of Belisarius' army. in a battle in which his men expend their arrows and then have to withdraw but quite clearly have some arrows left that they cannot shoot effectively because they are compressed together in retreat. That suggests that they retain some shots even though tactically they are out of ammunition.

Roy