Arrowstorming and norming

[Erpingham]

Longbow tactics are one of those wonderful subjects that keep on giving for the medieval military historian, professional or amateur.  Always an audience.  Never any certainty.  So, while I contemplate Roy Boss' urgings to write a Slingshot article about it, here is a little thing exercising me at the moment.

Leaving aside the question of how they were deployed, there are two main schools on the use of longbows by English armies.  The conventional one is usually called an arrowstorm (I have yet to discover the origin of this term).  It focuses a great deal on range, rate of shooting and the deadly effect of the armour-piercing war arrow at all ranges.  Arrows are shot "wholly together" in great volleys, falling like hail or snow on bodies of men, punching through weak points in armour and striking unarmoured bits, relying on chance more than accuracy.  The language of the artillery barrage is used a lot - "barrage", "beaten zone", "time on target effect".

The newer theory, which was first published by Mike Loades but seems to have come from his interactions with the warbow community, revolves around flat trajectory shooting.  The arrow storm has been misunderstood, arrows didn't really fall like hail, they flew flat.  Battlefield, as opposed to siege or naval warfare, never saw arrows rise much above horizontal flight.  For example, here is a comment from Dr Toby Capwell, one of the advocates of the new model

At Agincourt, the continuous barrage of arrows – forming a straight, level, head-on sheet of steel (in reality English archers did not shoot at high elevation or in volleys) – was so thick that it caused the French, as battle participants  Jean Waurin and Jean Le Fèvre describe, 'to bow their heads so that the arrows would not penetrate the visors of their helmets'

Engagement ranges were 100yds or less and most shooting was done at 50 yds and under.  Extremely rapid shooting was used at these short ranges but it was aimed at individuals.  Again, here is a blogger interviewing Toby Capwell

One of the interesting points you have raised relates to the English archers at the Battle of Agincourt, and how precisely they and their famous longbows were used on the battlefield. In several video presentations you have shown they used their weapons as a point offensive weapon-similar to a rifle, (rather) than, say, an area denial weapon- where a massive arrow storm just saturated large areas of the field.

The reason for the short range, according to advocates, is that longbows were very poor against armour except at very short ranges.  The best armour was basically arrow proof.  The archers' only chance against such men was a rapid number of strikes to cause non-lethal injury and shake morale and accurate targeting of weak points, especially the face/visor.

I don't intend in this post to really look at the evidence for either theory, though I would note they rely quite heavily on evidence beyond the contemporary sources.  Arrowstorm is very 20th century warfare – barrages, rapid fire, beaten zones, enfilades.  Loades theory is very "experimental recreation" led.  There are some interesting questions to ask about tactical evolution – in battles of of the 14th century, for example, the battlefield was not dominated by plate armoured dismounted knights but cavalry and less well armed infantry, so would anti-armour tactics be the priority then or would other tactics be used?

Another interesting point, at least from an SOA point of view, is reflecting the difference between the two tactical ideas in rules and on the table.  Should we massively reduce our archery ranges?  Reduce the vulnerability of armoured targets?  Emphasise reduction in morale or offensive capability of armoured targets under short-range longbow attack, rather than allow damage?  Rely less on attritional effect and more on acute impact? Some of this will depend on abstraction and how rules handle any type of combat (e.g. are they morale driven?) but other things like engagement ranges and "safe" distances from the enemy might apply across a spectrum of rule types.

Anyway, I think that demonstrates one of the uncertainties of longbows and how we reflect them in wargames.  As always, comments and ideas welcome.

[Imperial Dave]

Just  thought then. If you have massed longbow do they wait until the last minute before firing at heavily armoured targets en masses or start firing at longer distances and hope to cause some confusion as the clankies get closer...?

[RichT]

Without really knowing anything about it, I suspect that, boringly enough for advocates of one school of thought or the other, it varied, and it depends.

As a rule, effective or ideal battlefield ranges of weapons (firearms we are most familiar with) tend to be way shorter than maximum ranges. I imagine there would be good arguments for reserving shooting to point blank (which for a longbow is what - 60 metres or so?) or below. On the other hand, there must also have been cases, depending on the target and the tactical situation, where more speculative long range shooting was appropriate.

I've seen people quoting stats that armour penetration does not fall off greatly wth range; and anyway as a general rule I'm sceptical of technical explanations for battlefield behaviours.

Do we know at what ranges practising at the butts was usually carried out? Presumably that would reflect battlefield needs.

In wargames terms, also boringly, I wouldn't make any changes, partly because we don't know the answers, partly because I think such details can't be usefully modelled.

[Erpingham]

Do we know at what ranges practising at the butts was usually carried out? Presumably that would reflect battlefield needs.

Good question.  If only it had a simple answer   We seem to lack much actual information on how far pairs of butts were apart (they often came in pairs, so you could shoot at one then back to the other).  Roth in With a bended bow reckons 160-220 yds, but gives an example of 13 score tailors yards.  Also how far forward from the butt did you stand - 5 yds, 10?  160-220 fits well with 16th century figures on battlefield ranges (see the Longbow fantasy topic).  But things could have been different by then.  However, Christine de Pizan seems our earliest source to specify a distance to the butts for English archers c. 1410 at 600ft, which aligns quite well.  The 15th century L'Arte d'Archerie gives an example of butts 100 paces apart.  These are probably single paces, as the author moves on to say a good target shooting distance is 300 paces but really good archers manage 400 (I'm guessing he is talking prick/clout shooting here).

which for a longbow is what - 60 metres or so?

I've read in posts online a figure around 75yds but it would depend on the bow and the archer.  The 100 paces range quoted above is in the context of flat trajectory archery but not true point blank as it allows some elevation.

Add : I was suspicious of Roth's 13 score yds apart butts, as I thought I knew the figure.  It is in fact for a competition shot between "pricks" in 1478.  These were just posts set in the ground, not a permanent butt arrangment, and were used for prick shooting (funny that) not target (or, as it would have been called in 1478, mark) shooting.

[Anton]

I'd be minded to think that the archers effort was intended to produce shock stopping their opponents tactical move. How well this worked depended on the archers and the circumstances.  Not helpful at all I know.

[gavindbm]

I suppose I am interested to know what the thoughts and theories are about how longbow fire effected the troops shot at.  Did they slow down but continue to move forward (or did they stop)?  Did it lead to disorder in the ranks and reduce cohesion (but on its own that is perhaps not going to be decisive)?  Did it cause troops to move to the side (so no longer straight forward)...and thus more bunching and movement towards the troops not shooting?

Is there any battlefield evidence...e.g. that English men-at-arms fought hand-to-hand against French/Scots but the archers much less rarely engaged hand to hand as the French/Scots failed to reach them (and/or only fought hand to hand once the French/Scots were wavering)?

[Erpingham]

I suppose I am interested to know what the thoughts and theories are about how longbow fire effected the troops shot at.  Did they slow down but continue to move forward (or did they stop)?  Did it lead to disorder in the ranks and reduce cohesion (but on its own that is perhaps not going to be decisive)?  Did it cause troops to move to the side (so no longer straight forward)...and thus more bunching and movement towards the troops not shooting?

Big topic.  As usual the evidence isn't as specific as we would like.  Overall, my take would be that archers could disperse other archers but rarely cracked close order infantry.  Possibly never if the latter were advancing.  Homildon Hill does show the Scots shiltron disintegrating under shot because it wants to keep its defensive position rather than advancing.  Extending this, it could be said that holding a position unless you had the weight of shot to keep the enemy at bay was risky.  But so too was advancing, as it could lead to disorder, especially if being shot at. 

Cavalry was another interesting question - the disruptive effect of archery on cavalry even at longer ranges was noted.  On the other hand, archers stopping charging cavalry was rare, unless they took advantage of terrain which robbed the cavalry of momentum.

Is there any battlefield evidence...e.g. that English men-at-arms fought hand-to-hand against French/Scots but the archers much less rarely engaged hand to hand as the French/Scots failed to reach them (and/or only fought hand to hand once the French/Scots were wavering)?

I don't think there is much evidence of archers doing well against close order troops in a frontal attack and they were probably avoided.  That was the job of the men-at-arms, the bills, later the pikes.  Famously, the archers attacked the disordered French men-at-arms at Agincourt but it's not a common occurence from the sources I've read.

[Nick Harbud]

Much of this ground was already covered in my Slingshot article 'Behind the Curve'.  So, I shall make this brief.

Mike Loades makes persuasive arguments for a flat trajectory based upon both examination of pictures (high angle archery is not depicted outside of a siege setting) and practical experimentation (it tends to be a lot easier to hit a target using a flat trajectory).

If one assumes that archery is conducted by mass volley with the target being the unit as a whole rather than individuals, then the proportion of missiles hitting men at different ranges should have a similar profile to mass musketry.

There is a suggestion by some that using a high angle trajectory is more accurate than flat one, but an examination of the ballistics does not support this.  The scatter resulting from, say, ½ degree differences in individual discharge angle tend to produce similar results at the target irrespective of high or flat trajectory.  Furthermore, the travel time of the missile is significantly greater with a high angle shot, which introduces additional inaccuracy at all ranges (because the target can move further whilst the arrow is travelling towards them).

Missile velocity (and by extension, momentum, kinetic energy and penetrative power) at different ranges was examined in the article and by others elsewhere.  Protecton provided by plate armour, brigantines (small plates sewn into a fabric garment) and other types of armour has been examined by several parties.  Mark Stretton's work detailed in Secrets of the English Warbow gives a reasonable comparison.

The same author has also conducted experiments to simulate the practicalities of engaging charging foot and mounted targets.

From a wargaming aspect, many rules give archery in general and longbows in particular an effect comparable to going over the top at the Somme, or at least a Napoleonic musketry duel.  If one believes this is reasonable, then the wargame tends to resemble such later period battles.  If one takes the contrary view, then there is an argument for abolishing all distance missile fire and incorporating it within the close combat/melee results.  You pays your money and takes your choice.

[Erpingham]

high angle archery is not depicted outside of a siege setting

True enough, though if we are going to take medieval art literally, archery duels were fought at ranges of about six feet and armies consisted of a couple of dozen men.  While the source evidence is not as clear as we would like (when is it ever?), a pervasive image is of high volumes of arrows falling like rain/hail/snow and clouds of arrows shading the sun.  Cliches no doubt but likely to persist in the face of reality?   


I think he is on stronger ground with his arguments from effectiveness - armour penetration, accuracy, ammunition economy.  Even then, he is perhaps unduly focussed on men-at-arms in full armour on foot as the target, rather than considering a range of tactical circumstances and opponents. 

Overall, I think he is right to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy and draw attention away from an obsession with range (Hardy was a devil for this)  and to highlight the probable truth that most archery was at shorter ranges.  However, there is plenty of evidence for high angle shooting in certain circumstances and that archers trained to shoot accurately at longer ranges.  By the 16th century, this type of longbow shooting probably predominates in a field battle, at least in part because the hard-hitting shorter range stuff was being performed by firearms.   

   

[Imperial Dave]

as an aside, we did some experiments with reenactors way back when.....getting a fully armoured man at arms to walk towards a longbowman firing on a flat trajectory with rubber tipped flu flu arrows. I can say that although we couldnt tell if the armour would be pierced by the arrows if actually sharps but they did manage to 'slow' the MAA down somewhat and at 25 yards made to stagger under impact 

[DBS]

One significant implication, it would seem to me, is frontage and depth of the archers.

If archers are conducting high angle fire at some distance, then one can perhaps envisage a certain depth of formation allowing more than one or two ranks to fire with some effect (though probably not TOO many additional ranks, as the archers presumably need to have some sight of the enemy to estimate range in a semi meaningful manner).

However, and happy to be told re-enactors, etc, have proved this concern false, it seems to me that with low trajectory direct fire, one would be pushed to have more than one or at a pinch two ranks firing accurately and safely.  Even muskets were typically limited to two or three ranks, and achieving three sometimes required the front rank to kneel or stoop, which would not be an option with bows, leaving aside that the act of firing a bow requires more significant arm movements than firing (as opposed to loading) a musket.  And muskets usually fired in controlled volleys, which would not seem to be a sensible or necessary option for archers, any more than for magazine armed riflemen in most circumstances.

So, if they are correct about low trajectory fire, that seems to imply a very shallow formation, or perhaps a shallow archery crust at the front of a deeper melee formation, into which the archers can swiftly fall back after a mad minute vs the approaching French, though I am not aware of the latter being reflected in contemporary accounts, so may be a typical wargamer over extrapolation!

[Erpingham]

Here's a couple more quotes, this time from the Royal Armouries (probably both written by Thom Richardson)

The effectiveness of plate armour
Ballistic testing of longbow arrows against plate armour remains controversial. Recent research has confirmed the experiments of the 1970s, that 2mm of medieval plate armour could resist any medieval arrow or crossbow. Our experimental work at Ridsdale in 1996 (Royal Armouries Yearbook 3, 1998, 44-9) supports Peter Jones's earlier work, and Matheus Bane's more recent research. To the contrary, much of the work suggesting the longbow arrow could pierce plate is theoretical rather than practical (P. Bourke and D. Wetham's article in Arms & Armour 4, 2007, 53-81 has been roundly criticised and generally condemned) but work by the highly respected archer and broadcaster Mike Loades, Longbow, Oxford 2013, continues to support the armour piercing longbow theory as do Mark Stretton and his circle (H.D. Soar, M. Stretton and J. Gibbs, Secrets of the English war bow).

From <https://royalarmouries.org/stories/our-collection/agincourt-600-the-defeat-of-armour/>

This predates the well known tests against a replica breastplate by Tod Todeleschi and Toby Capwell, who argue even more for good quality plate being arrow-proof.

Rethinking the longbow
While the bows have 'become' more powerful than we used to think, the 'arrowstorm' beloved of English archery enthusiasts has diminished. We used to talk about resupply of arrows as if it was a natural and simple process, but the Privy Wardrobe accounts show otherwise.
Each archer had two sheaves of arrows to last a campaign, and would probably go into battle with just one of them. So all the statistics of how many arrows an archer can shoot in a minute are very much put into perspective by realising that such an arrowstorm could last just three minutes, then the arrows were gone. Once we are aware of that, we can see it happening in the sources: at Poitiers in 1356 the English archers ran out, and tried to recover spent arrows. At
in 1461 the Lancastrian archers ran out of arrows, and suffered the indignity of having the Yorkists shoot their own arrows back at them. So the vision moves away from darkening the sky with arrows like the Persians' at Thermopylae towards a smaller number of accurately aimed arrows shot from very powerful bows by highly skilled and practised professional archers.

From <https://royalarmouries.org/stories/our-collection/longbows-of-agincourt/>

Personally, I'd say the implication is of controlled shooting rather blanket "spray and pray" tactics.  Towton is an odd example to choose - this seems to be a major piece of evidence of long range, ill controlled shooting.

[Imperial Dave]

hence saving your ammunition and only firing when you can see the whites of their eyes......

[DBS]

Personally, I'd say the implication is of controlled shooting rather blanket "spray and pray" tactics.  Towton is an odd example to choose - this seems to be a major piece of evidence of long range, ill controlled shooting.

Would agree.  To be clear, when I was sceptical above of controlled volley shooting, I meant more in the idea that archers would be firing specific volleys on command, as opposed to some sort of, Wait for it, wait for it, let them get closer.... now!  Fire at will, pick your targets, make every shot count, etc...."  In other words, control start (and possibly cessation) of fire, but not necessarily have "Draw, loose!"  But of course I could be utterly wrong.

The other limiting factor I suspect, even for the most conditioned and Hardy archer (SWIDT?) must have been muscle strain.  You run out of arrows in three minutes, but are also knackered.

[RichT]

As an archer (lapsed) and a pedant (active), can I insist on archers 'shooting' not 'firing'?

So the vision moves away from darkening the sky with arrows like the Persians at Thermopylae

But it's worth pointing out that our (or at least, my) understanding of ancient archery is even worse than that of Medieval archery. There isn't really good evidence for Persians darkening the sky, except as an in-advance threat, and it's not clear whether Persians engaged in mass high trajectory volley shooting or low level aimed shots either. Whichever it was, they seem to have been totally ineffective, at least in the battles described by Greeks.