Archery

[willb]

The following site
http://www.archerylibrary.com/
has a number of texts on archery

in particular the 1515 book in chapter IX has the following
"For good archers the range should be three hundred paces. Nevertheless I have formerly seen shooting at four hundred paces, but it must be admitted that the archers were first-class ones (bons exquiz archiers)."

The 1801 book mentions clout shooting starting at a range of  11 score yards (Chapter X section 6) and finishing at a range of 9 score yards.

The Arab archery text seems to indicate a maximum of 150 yards for aimed fire, but recommends 45 bow lengths.

[Mark G]

Gunmen are much cheaper than good bowmen, you cam train them to be competent in a week.  It takes years for bowmen, and they expect to be paid accordingly

[aligern]

Things are always a bit more complex. Might I suggest that there is a considerable difference between the effects of long range dropping shots on unarmoured men and horses versus well armoured men. A mass shoot of say 10,000 arrows is going to cause a body of say 1000 horse ( unarmoured) real grief, whereas against a body of 1000 dismounted men at arms the effect would be much less.

[Erpingham]

We know, from both reconstructions and textual evidence that ranges over 300 yards were obtainable.  There were targets at over 300 yds on archery fields, so some at least practiced at those ranges.  One of the problems Nick's article did show though is wargamers become obsessed with things like longest range, rather than normal battlefield ranges.  We know English longbowmen could lob long shots into the enemy ranks at range - this was a deliberate tactic and is even recommended in sixteenth century manuals (they called it gadding the enemy) in order to disrupt and annoy the enemy into attacks.  I think Nick's idea is that this is a bit trivial in effect, so lets drop it.  Lets concentrate on what they did that really made an impact.  This is where he and the traditionalists part company.  At what point did effective shooting begin?  If you believe what he refers to as reconstructors, its a flat trajectory in the 50 -100yds area.  Traditionalists will vary.  I'd say 150-200 but someone following say Robert Hardy would probably be 250-300 yds.  There are lots of other differences about what is going on, but in terms of wargaming effect (rather than modelling actual behaviour), this range thing is the critical one.  Is there a cumulative degradation as the enemy advances on the longbowmen or is it like reaching a certain distance and running into a wall of arrows?

[willb]

While we can debate the effectiveness of distant shooting the only way to determine its effectiveness is to test it.  In order to do so about 100 plywood man sized targets would need to be made and arranged in a formation 8 to 10 deep each occupying a 3 foot by 3 foot square.  There are also devices that can measure the impact to determine the penetrating ability.

The 1801 book also states that the angle of fire should be 45 degrees in the section on stance.

[Patrick Waterson]

There are lots of other differences about what is going on, but in terms of wargaming effect (rather than modelling actual behaviour), this range thing is the critical one.  Is there a cumulative degradation as the enemy advances on the longbowmen or is it like reaching a certain distance and running into a wall of arrows?

A. H. Burne's description of the opening volley at Crecy suggests both:

"Everything was ready, nothing had been overlooked and, although at extreme range the archers could reach the bottom of the valley with their shafts, orders were, it seems, issued that their fire [sic] was to be witheld till the Genoese were in decisive range.  The Genoese slowly crossed the valley and started to ascend the gentle slope to the hostile position.  As they advanced occasional shafts were discharged, as was the custom with these crossbowmen, but they all fell short.  Not till they were within 150 yards of the motionless line in front of them did their enemy respond.  Then a sharp word of command rang out and instantly the heavens were, it appeared black with the swarm of arrows discharged from the trusty English longbows.  The result of this discharge, striking the closely-knit lines of the Genoese, was devastating."

If this description is closely source-based (Burne used Jean le Bel and Geoffrey le Baker), it suggests immediate effect, a 'wall of arrows'.  Conversely, at Blanche Taque where the English longbowmen were crossing a ford no more than eleven men wide, they outshot a force of perhaps 3,000 crossbowmen (or at least 3,000 foot including crossbowmen) who were ready and waiting for them.  The longbowmen were not initially in a position to deliver effective shooting (despite the longbow being held to outrange the crossbow) until much of the way across the ford, so they accepted their losses up to that point and then shot in a manner which quickly degraded their opponents, reducing them to an ineffectiveness which allowed the longbowmen to defile to the edges of the ford and let through some files of cavalry, which drove through - with archery support - to defeat French knights defending the riverbank.

The course of this action implies a significant amount of overhead shooting by the English archers - but only once they had enough men in range to make it worthwhile.

So degradation or immediate deconstruction seems to depend upon the intensity of shooting rather than the type.

[Patrick Waterson]

And do look at Bill's Archery Library site for gems such as this one:

As to the diftance to which an arrow can be fhot from a long bow, with the beft elevation of forty-five degrees, that muft neceffarily depend much both upon the ftrength and flight of the Archer; but in general the diftance was reckoned from eleven to twelve fcore yards[47].

According to NEAD, an Archer might fhoot fix arrows in the time of charging and difcharging one mufquet.

Arrows are reckoned by fheaves; a fheaf confifting of twenty-four arrows[48]. They were carried in a quiver, called alfo an arrow-cafe, which ferved for the magazine. Arrows for immediate ufe were carried in the girdle. In ancient times phials of quicklime, or other combuftible matter for burning houfes or fhips was fixed on the heads of arrows, and fhot from long-bows. Arrows with wild-fire, and arrows for fire-works, are mentioned among the ftores at Newhaven and Berwick, 1ft of EDWARD VI.

To protect our Archers from the attacks of the enemy's horfe, they carried long ftakes pointed at both ends: Thefe they planted in the earth, floping before them. In the firft of EDWARD VI. three hundred and thirty of thefe ftakes were in the ftores of the town of Berwick ; there were alfo at the fame time eight bundles of Archers' ftakes in Pontefract Caftle.

And

THE following defcription of an Archer and his accoutrements is given in a MS. written in the time of QUEEN ELIZABETH.
" Captains and officers fhould be fkilful of that moft noble weapon; and to fee that their fol-diers, according to their draught and ftrength,
have good bows, well nocked, well ftringed, everie ftring whippe in their nocke, and in the myddes rubbed with wax,—brafer and
fhutting glove,—fome fpare ftrynges trymed as aforefaid; every man one fheaf of arrows, with a cafe of leather, defenfible againft the
rayne, and in the fame fower and twentie ar-rows; whereof eight of them fhould be lighter than the refidue, to gall or aftoyne the enemy
with the hail-fhot of light arrows, before they fhall come within the danger of their harquebufs fhot. Let every man have a brigandine or a
little cote of plate, a fkull or hufkin, a maule of lead, of five feet in length, and a pike, and the fame hanging by his girdle, with a
hook and a dagger; being thus furnifhed, teach them by mutters to march, fhoote, and retire, keeping their faces upon the enemy's. Sumtime
put them into great numbers, as to battell ap-parteyneth, and there ufe them often times practifed till they be perfect ; for thofe men in
battell ne fkirmifh cannot be fpared. None other weapon maye compare with the fame [of this] noble weapon."

Following a description of prizes contended for by the Royal Company of Archers in Scotland, we have:

All thefe prizes are fhot for at what is termed rovers; the marks being placed at the diftance of one hundred and eighty-five yards.

Befides thefe there is another prize annually contended for at butt, or point-blank diftance, called the Goofe. The ancient manner of fhooting for this prize was,—a living goofe being built in a turf-butt, with his head only expofed to view; the Archer who firft hit the goofe's head was entitled to the goofe as his reward. But this cuftom, on account of its barbarity, has been long ago laid afide; and in place of the goofe's head, a mark of about an inch diameter, is affixed upon each butt; and the Archer who firft hits this mark is captain of the butt-fhooters for a year.

Also:

ROGER ASCHAM, who wrote a treatife on this art in the year 1544, mentions the bracer or leathern guard worn by Archers upon the left arm, to prevent it from being cut by the ftring of the bow. But he recommends fhooting without any bracer, as its ufe may be fuperfeded by giving the bow a greater bend ; that is about nine inches. The fhooting glove was like the bracer, the fame as at prefent. The bow-ftring was made either of filk or hemp.

The bow he recommends to be made out of the bole of a eugh tree, and its ftrength fuch that the Archer could with moderate exertion draw an arrow to the head. The arrow was made of oak or birch, and was of different fizes, according to the different purpofes it was intended for; its length generally from twenty-feven to thirty-two inches ; the longeft were ufed in war.

He recommends a goofe's feather for the fhaft, as better than any other. The head of the arrow differed very much from the modern ones. Thofe ufed in fhooting at the marks fomewhat refembling a pine apple, fmooth at top, but furrowed longitudinally.

For war they ufed fharp heads without any barb
.

The arrow was always drawn to the ear when they fhot at fhort marks. At long marks or rovers, it was then neceffary on account of the elevation, to be drawn to the breaft.

The Archers did not fhut either eye when they took aim ; nor did they look at the arrow, but at the mark only.

[Erpingham]

A. H. Burne's description of the opening volley at Crecy suggests both: "Everything was ready, nothing had been overlooked and, although at extreme range the archers could reach the bottom of the valley with their shafts, orders were, it seems, issued that their fire [sic] was to be witheld till the Genoese were in decisive range.  The Genoese slowly crossed the valley and started to ascend the gentle slope to the hostile position.  As they advanced occasional shafts were discharged, as was the custom with these crossbowmen, but they all fell short.  Not till they were within 150 yards of the motionless line in front of them did their enemy respond.  Then a sharp word of command rang out and instantly the heavens were, it appeared black with the swarm of arrows discharged from the trusty English longbows.  The result of this discharge, striking the closely-knit lines of the Genoese, was devastating." If this description is closely source-based (Burne used Jean le Bel and Geoffrey le Baker), My recollection is it is broadly similar (being at work I can't check) but IIRC 150 yds is Burne's estimate.  However, note the fact that "these crossbowmen" discharge shafts at long range (damned foreigners didn't know any better) but our stout yeomen responding to "sharp word of command" do for them with their "trusty" longbows.  In fact, the crossbowmen seem to be operating under command, taking ranging shots then advancing closer co-ordinated by shouts.  The big difference between them is the English have been standing around and have plenty of time to judge ranges whereas the Genoese are having to improvise an attack off the march.  They clearly weren't prepared for the arrowstorm which descended upon them, however. Additional edit : I've now been through my sources on this.  Burne is actually primarily using Froissart here.  Neither le Baker or le Bel are as extensive.  The general view is of quite a short contest but perhaps less abrupt than Froissart - a few volleys were exchanged and the crossbowmen gave way.  On range, le Baker is the only one other than Froissart to comment  when he says the crossbowmens arrows couldn't reach the English (though he does then speak of a hail of crossbowbow bolts, so clearly they were shooting).    Generally the view is that the crossbowmen were in range.  Burne's 150 yds seems to be his own guess - I couldn't find it in the half dozen sources I have access to.  Villani makes the point the English were shooting three shots to the Genoese one and the weight of shot turns up in several independent traditions.

[Andreas Johansson]

One could make one's archery rules as simple as this; the archers advance and anyone in the way either charges or withdraws.  Alternatively you could use some dice (or the Optio equivalent.)

Not archery, but the War of the Spanish Succession set "Twilight of the Sun King" makes it's musketry rule simply this: units subject to musket fire must test morale.

[Andreas Johansson]

A slightly odd set of comparisons but the general principle is fair - archers in an open field which provided good going for cavalry were unlikely to stop them.  Archers behind stakes or pits or ditches or with some terrain advantage (like a hedge or standing in a marsh) have a pretty good chance.

This is something I feel many rules get wrong. In DBMM, frex, English longbowmen rarely if ever bring, much less plant, their stakes, being justifiably confident in their ability to repel all and any mounted by archery alone.

[tadamson]

A slightly odd set of comparisons but the general principle is fair - archers in an open field which provided good going for cavalry were unlikely to stop them.  Archers behind stakes or pits or ditches or with some terrain advantage (like a hedge or standing in a marsh) have a pretty good chance.

This is something I feel many rules get wrong. In DBMM, frex, English longbowmen rarely if ever bring, much less plant, their stakes, being justifiably confident in their ability to repel all and any mounted by archery alone.

Since archers stakes only appear in the Agincourt campaign..  a good historical result.   

[Jim Webster]

Mind you, are we missing a point here? Pretty well ANY infantry can stop cavalry if they're behind a hedge or carefully emplaced stakes.

The only advantage archers have is that they can do damage to the cavalry milling about on the other side of the stakes at less risk to themselves than can spearmen.

Jim

[Erpingham]

Mind you, are we missing a point here? Pretty well ANY infantry can stop cavalry if they're behind a hedge or carefully emplaced stakes.

The only advantage archers have is that they can do damage to the cavalry milling about on the other side of the stakes at less risk to themselves than can spearmen.

Jim

I think the point was that archers shouldn't be able to stop well motivated cavalry in good going by shooting alone.   I wouldn't make it an absolute but I'd make that the default in rule writing.  Andreas has opined that this is not the case in DBMM.  Doubtless we can be informed about WRG 6th, 7th, Optio and many others to see which match this.  In particular we might consider Nick's suggestion - does removing long-range shooting make a difference to the result?

[Patrick Waterson]

One feature of longbow archery that occurs in a number of battles, notably Halidon Hill (1333) and Agincourt (1415; behold - an anniversary!) is the way attacking infantry is funnelled away from the archers towards the men-at-arms.

This tends to be explained as going for the men with the big ransoms, but if the oriflamme is up or the attackers are Scots, ransoms are not a consideration.  It would seem that volleys of longbow arrows had a slowing and disorganising effect on attackers ahead of them, which may have encouraged following ranks to tack on to the parts of the assault which were going forward without let or hindrance, namely those opposite the men-at-arms.

The effect is thus that longbow archery can slow and divert an infantry assault - although in the two examples quoted the ground was not particularly favourable for the attackers.  A cavalry assault delivered with sufficient sloth should also encounter the same phenomenon, the more so as horses tend to be more vulnerable to missiles than armoured men and a downed horse is more of an impediment than a downed man.

Putting alternate contingents of men-at-arms and archers in line meant that attackers always had the course of least resistance open to them, namely going for the men-at-arms.  A line purely of archers would have slowed attackers but would probably not have diverted them so successfully.

I think the point was that archers shouldn't be able to stop well motivated cavalry in good going by shooting alone.   I wouldn't make it an absolute but I'd make that the default in rule writing.  Andreas has opined that this is not the case in DBMM.  Doubtless we can be informed about WRG 6th, 7th, Optio and many others to see which match this.  In particular we might consider Nick's suggestion - does removing long-range shooting make a difference to the result?

WRG 6th has a single list for English armies of the Hundred Years' War period, divided into Early (1310-1350), Middle (1350-1400) and Late (1400-1455) periods.  Archers only have stakes in the last period (post-1400).

The French are represented by the Mediaeval French (1330-1445) and French Ordonnance (1445-1494) lists, with the Mediaeval French list being further subdivided into Early (1330-1400), Middle (1400-1418) and Late (1418-1445).  Knights throughout this period have the SHK classification, which essentially represents post-1350s plate; shields start to be discarded c.1400.

We thus have four potential match-ups: Early English vs Early French (1339-1350), Middle English vs Early French (1350-1400), Late English vs Late French and Late English vs Ordonnance French.

In each case, the standard arrangement would involve 18 figures of SHK (or 9 SHK ahead of 9 HC serjeants; same thing for shooting purposes under these rules) approaching 24 figures of LMI or LHI with LB.

Assuming contingents deploy 480 paces apart, events would march as follows: the French knights advance by 80-pace moves (same as light infantry) and after 3 moves come to 240 paces away from the English line, which is within the 280 pace long range of longbows.  These shoot at half effect at long range, so 12 figures count, dropping (assuming random factors are equal) 16 of France's chivalry in the dust (or mud, or grass).  Next move brings the attackers to 160 paces distant, and another round of shooting has the same effect.  32 knights out of 360 is not affecting French morale or effectiveness except for a -1 on reaction tests, which at this juncture does nothing, and removal of one figure (representing 20 men lost).

Next move, the French are at 80 paces and the archers are shooting at full effect.  31 French go down, which means a -3 on reaction tests, one of which is coming up for being shot at three turns in succession.  Another figure has also bitten whatever is on offer at ground level.  Hence the sixth move begins with the French testing reaction: they anyway want to charge, and have been shot at, so they roll once for the two tests and add in all relevant modifiers.  Assuming an average 3d6 roll (11), the relevant modifiers are: advancing (+1), three half-casualties per figure from shooting last period (-3) and doubtless a general in line of command within 150 paces (+1) and flanks and rear all secure (+1).  They charge without becoming impetuous, taking shots as they come in - which proves crucial, dropping another 15 knights and inflicting a -2 on the upcoming melee factor, which causes them to lose the melee hands down: lance vs HI or MI = 4; charging +1; 2 half-casualties per figure from shooting this move -2; final factor 3 for 9 figures - their opponents have 4 for 2-handed weapon against SHK; final factor 4 for 12 figures.

Assuming the French random factor is +1 (they are 'B' class) and the English random factor is 0, 9 figures at 4 do 18 casualties; 12 figures at 4 do 24 casualties and the French lose the melee.  Without the last round of shooting as they close they would win the melee (28 vs 24).

In the WRG 6th system, what decides the issue is the close-range shooting, specifically in the final move as the knights charge.  However this is decisive only because of the attrition taken on the way in from shooting at longer ranges, which reduces the number of figures attacking so that they take a -2 rather than -1 penalty to their melee factor.

So ... well-motivated cavalry in good going cannot be stopped by shooting alone in WRG 6th, but by shooting and carrying a big stick.   Note that in the Late period, English archers switch from the maul to the falchion and buckler, and this makes stakes imperative for stopping knights.  Not saying this is how and why things went as they did historically, but this is how it goes under WRG 6th.

[RichT]

I expect this is old news (haven't read the whole of the thread) but a thought on range and accuracy is that lateral (left-right) accuracy is of little concern and that the main cause of missing when shooting at a body of men would be shooting over or under (too short or too long). At point blank range or below (ie the range at which an arrow shot horizontally would still hit the target) aiming is easy - just shoot level and aim in roughly the right direction. Beyond this range it becomes necessary to a) estimate the range correctly and b) apply the correct elevation (which in the days before sights were used would be some rule of thmb like aligning knuckles or a mark on the bow). Any error in either of these steps will make the arrow fall short or go long and of course the higher the elevation the less the chance of an incorrectly judged arrow hitting the target anyway (in that a slightly long shot at low elevation is still likely to hit as it drops below head height). A body of men eight deep might present a horizontal target of only eight yards (by two yards vertically). At long range with high elevation, dropping an arrow onto an eight yard deep target would be exceedingly difficult. When shooting en masse I expect an experienced captain could call out the estimated range, but even so there would be a lot of variation in range accuracy of arrows shot (and needless to say, the better trained the archers, the smaller the variation would be). This is why the accuracy curve drops off dramatically as it gets beyond about 50 yards (and also one reason why more powerful bows are more effective - the more powerful the bow the longer its point blank range and the further it can shoot at low elevation). High elevation shots are also largely falling under gravity and will have little penetrative power. This is the same general principle as applies to long range fire in later eras too of course - muskets too are most effective when all you need to do is 'level your piece' and fire, and the greatest cause of musketry inaccuracy was shooting over the target, rather than lateral (left-right) misses.

So far as wargames go I've no opinion on whether current rules are 'right' or not. Depending on level of abstraction range is already irrelevant in some rules (DBx, Lost Battles). This is surely a case where design for effect is better than design for cause - if the ranges in existing low abstraction rules are changed then the effectiveness of archers will be altered unless loads of other parts of the rules are also rejigged, so if the overall effectiveness of archers in the given rules seems right, then leave ranges alone. Don't know if it does though. One problem with archery (or any missile/skirmishing combat) is that it is largely attritional, and current rules don't do attritional effects well in general (because of the avoidance of bookkeeping). Another way to represent long range fire is to give low quality troops a much greater reduction in effectiveness at long range than high quality troops (or depending on how you like to do things, make max range dependent on troop quality not weapon type).