Archery

[Justin Swanton]

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

Sounds like bad Latin: "And ours!" (correctly spelt 'Nostraque')

[Erpingham]

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

Whatever it means, it had nothing to do with shooting.  Waurin and Lefevre say it was the signal to attack.  What happens after he says it is that the English army advances.  They won't start shooting for some time.

[Patrick Waterson]

But the English armies do have archer captains...do I recall they are vintenars?

Both vintenars and centenars appear in accounts, or so secondary sources lead me to believe.  Hence every 20 men, and every 100 men, would have an officer controlling their activities, although shooting could easily involve a higher chain of command.

I would be surprised if some person of eminence were not acting as 'forward observer' for the archers of each wing and perhaps even the whole army.

Cross-period analogies are always a bit risky, but in WW2 British artillery could shoot by section (4 guns), battery (8 guns), regiment (24 guns) or the entire divisional artillery (72 guns).  Radio nets and simple codes (e.g. 'Mike target!' for a regimental shoot; 'Uncle target!' for a divisional shoot) could produce a barrage on a desired objective of the strength and concentration required in a comparatively short time (e.g. "Request stonk [map reference]" would bring down a standard concentration).  Voice commands for archers need be no more complex, e.g. "Ten score! Nock! Draw! Loose!"

[Erpingham]

But the English armies do have archer captains...do I recall they are vintenars?

Both vintenars and centenars appear in accounts, or so secondary sources lead me to believe.  Hence every 20 men, and every 100 men, would have an officer controlling their activities, although shooting could easily involve a higher chain of command.

Indentured retinues didn't have vintenars - they were an arrayed archer thing.  I suspect that command in retinues was held by men holding men-at-arms rank, but whether they were in the same proportion would be hard to demonstrate.  There are some who think vintenars were just administrative officers.  I would be a bit dubious of this.  Incidentally note Smythe's reference to "conductors" as decide the range at which the target was engaged.  Conductors are what we'd call company level officers.

Cross-period analogies are always a bit risky, but in WW2 British artillery could shoot by section (4 guns), battery (8 guns), regiment (24 guns) or the entire divisional artillery (72 guns).  Radio nets and simple codes (e.g. 'Mike target!' for a regimental shoot; 'Uncle target!' for a divisional shoot) could produce a barrage on a desired objective of the strength and concentration required in a comparatively short time (e.g. "Request stonk [map reference]" would bring down a standard concentration).  Voice commands for archers need be no more complex, e.g. "Ten score! Nock! Draw! Loose!"

Channeling the great artillery officer A.H. Burne are we?   Forgive me if I think this may be taking analogy too far.

[barry carter]

Once again its the same old problem - either nobody before c.1550 bothered to write the important (to us) details down or some thoughtless individuals "recycled" the paperwork.
As a researcher on the subject of medieval and early post med. food I struggle constantly with this. We have surviving recipes, but virtually no evidence that anyone ever cooked them, let alone ate them!
The best we can do is research all the information we can obtain, study it as rigorously as is humanly possible and then............ speculate.
At least some of the mid sixteenth century English drill manuals help give us an insight into how things may have developed over time and thus help our blundering in the historical gloom.

[Erpingham]

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

Sounds like bad Latin: "And ours!" (correctly spelt 'Nostraque')

Interesting but what would it mean?  The alternative transliteration is "Nescieque", if that is any better.  It is being heard by a Burgundian and spoken by a man from Norfolk if that helps.

[Mark G]

I'm just wondering in the point I think Jim made, that the French never sent a formation where everyone had a large shield against longbow men.

They did send in formations where the front was protected by pavaisiers though.

Doesn't that support the idea that archery was based on short range flat shooting?

Also, the big longbow victories of crecy and Agincourt, they were both against unarmoured horses, and the terrain also being a factor.
That possibly suggested a short term tactical change to enable longer range plunging archery while the mud / pots etc delayed the charge?

[Patrick Waterson]

Channeling the great artillery officer A.H. Burne are we?

You never know ...

Forgive me if I think this may be taking analogy too far.

In any sort of detail, yes, granted, it is.  In terms of very general principles, e.g,. Smyth's 'conductor' calling the shots, and the possibility of calling some or all of the available arrow-power and bringing it down where one wants it with quick and easy commands, it may have an echo.

I'm just wondering in the point I think Jim made, that the French never sent a formation where everyone had a large shield against longbow men.

They did send in formations where the front was protected by pavaisiers though.

Doesn't that support the idea that archery was based on short range flat shooting?

Not really: armies throughout history (well, on and off throughout history) have used gerrhons and other pavise equivalents, but mainly during sieges, and one of the features of a siege is that you are usually receiving the opponent's offerings from above.  So if pavises are popular, the odds are that the army concerned expects to be besieging a lot of castles.  Taking pavises into the field to mitigate the effects of an arrowstorm is an added bonus - one that made an occasional appearance in the Wars of the Roses, with the added refinement at one battle of the pavises being "as full of threepenny nails as they might stand," so that when the shooters - which I believe were longbowmen in this instance - were attacked in melee, "they would cast them down, and none might come at them but that he mischief himself," the details of which are left to the reader's imagination.  However this innovation was not attended by success and never really caught on.  I also get the impression that pavises started dropping out of armies as battles - with direct-shooting crossbowmen on both sides - became more frequent in the French-Italian Wars following 1495.

Also, the big longbow victories of crecy and Agincourt, they were both against unarmoured horses, and the terrain also being a factor.
That possibly suggested a short term tactical change to enable longer range plunging archery while the mud / pots etc delayed the charge?

Only two small French contingents at Agincourt were mounted, the vast majority being on foot.  At Crecy, the Genoese crossbowmen took the initial brunt of the longbow volleys before they could return effective shooting with their crossbows, which suggests they were being hit bu a considerable volume of missiles at a range to which they were not accustomed (wet strings would not have helped, either).  Then the French chivalry rode in, apparently also managing to get in each other's way, and the sheeting shafts made havoc in their ranks too (the change to post-1350s plate had not occurred in 1346).  One gets the impression that intense plunging archery was the norm.

[Mark G]

Shooting off the enemy missile does seem to be the first order of business.  I'm nit sure we can extrapolate that to assume long range fire against melee troops though.

[aligern]

Mark, I am pretty sure that the cavalry charges at Agincourt were made by men onnarmoured horses and they got through.nHorses will have been armoured at Crecy, but with mail and leather and felt, not plate.
Efen thogh the front rank of horse may be atmoured the back ranks will not have been and pkunging fire will have disrupted and disordered them. This is what Cumans do to the Achaean Frankish knights just after 1204. The top guys on their armoured horses are OK, but the lesser folk on unarmoured mounts are driven to distraction by dropping shots. You would not have to have much momentum to go deep enough into a horse to upset it.

Roy

[Nick Harbud]

Hi guys,

Glad everyone liked the article.  Whilst the above discussion is fascinating, it also treads a well worn path of arguement.  I would really like to inject a breath of fresh air by suggesting we try out a few games using our favourite rule sets, but with modifications to the archery.  I mean, it is a fairly simple matter in WRG 6^th/7^th to simply not play the Preparatory Shooting rules.  With DBx, one could also try a game or two without Distant Shooting, although I suspect one might need to look at some of the Superior/Inferior classifications as well as the melee supporting ranks for some types.  Of course, if that sounds too radical, one could simply try tinkering with the ranges.

Try it and see what difference it makes - better/worse, more/less reasonable, no great effect on outcome....

I would try this myself, but opponents are a bit thin on the ground around here.

[Patrick Waterson]

I would try this myself, but opponents are a bit thin on the ground around here.

I know what you mean ...

WRG 6th does not distinguish between preparatory and support shooting: it is all much of a muchness under 'Shooting', the only real distinction (apart from counting only half the figures for indirect/long range shooting) being that if a target moves like greased lightning or ends up in contact there is a -2 modifier (in 7th this evolves into the 'Skirmishing' modifier for preparatory shooting).  Hence the implementation of reconstructionist doctrine in WRG 6th would effectively abolish any range above short (80 paces for most bows, etc.).

This would make my sling-equipped Incas the deadliest army of them all.  This is probably anyway true under 7th Edition (one day we might put that to the test ) but 6th Edition raises the ugly head of the slinger and implicitly asks how the reconstructionists would deal with his shooting ranges and capabilities.

One of the early Slingshots has an article which states that Balearic slingers carried three slings and three sets of ammunition: one for long range (with small stones), one for medium range (with metal bullets) and one for close range, with fist-sized rocks.  Unfortunately the author does not cite a source for this.

Eliminating ranges above 80 paces or cutting out preparatory shooting, at least for archers, will have little effect on the big crunchy melee armies but will be deadly to archery-based armies, e.g. Hundred Years War English, who will accordingly just stock up on knights, billmen, handgunners, pikemen etc. instead of the now-useless archers.  Oriental armies, lacking their customary ranged capabilities, will be devastated, both psychologically and on the tabletop.  Crusaders everywhere will rejoice, knowing they are forever immune from harassment by archers while on the march.  Javelinmen can come into their own, winning Najera (aka Navarette) hands down.  Suddenly, warfare becomes very different.  And perhaps points values also ...

Seriously, how would the reconstructionist school of thought treat these particular points, namely the effective range(s) of slingers and the impact of archery at a distance before formations moved into direct trajectory shooting range, particularly at battles such as Najera?

[Jim Webster]

Patrick raises an important point

At the moment we tend to have rules which we feel produce a historical result.
If we change the rules and this produces a massive slew of ahistorical results then the changes need careful looking at.

I'm not saying that our current rules model archery correctly, but any changes might actually produce 'worse' historical results.

Jim

[Mark G]

I would favour something along the lines that medium to long range missiles would potentially introduce disorder into the target, but also potentially provoke them into a charge on shooter.

Id also want to see target priority for missile at med to lo g range being to aim at other shooters, ad I'm pretty convinced that the tactics show Shooting off' as the first order of business for missile troops.

And id save killing for close range, or even just subsume it into combat effectiveness - depending on the movement distances allowed.

[Erpingham]

I'm not saying that our current rules model archery correctly, but any changes might actually produce 'worse' historical results.

Jim

To be fair to Nick, I think that is behind his suggestion to carry out tests.

My worry in removing long range shooting effects and seeing what happens is what is being tested?  Is it the historicity of the short-range model or the flexibility of the players to adapt?