Arrowstorming and norming

[Erpingham]

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).

To return to the 16th century for the moment, it was usual to place archers behind firearms in mixed formations precisely because they could shoot overhead.  In this case, we are talking of forming the back two ranks of four or five.

John Smythe (who else) states his favoured archer formation is a hearse (i.e. oblong) of 25-35 wide and up to seven deep. 

I'm not aware of anything clear on longbow formations depth wise from earlier centuries though.

Add : We might consider the Burgundian pike/archer formations, with a rank of pikes and behind them three archers per pikeman, so perhaps three rows shooting over the kneeling archers.

[Mick Hession]

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.

Another example of "spray and pray" I came across recently. In 1512 the earls of Ormond and Kildare met in St. Patrick's cathedral in Dublin. A quarrel broke out between Ormond's retinue and the citizens of Dublin, Kildare's partisans, and the latter "discharged a volley of arrows at them, and shooting at random, some of their arrows stuck in the images of the rood loft". The sacrilege resulted in an investigation by a papal legate who decreed as punishment that the mayor of Dublin must make a barefoot procession through the city every Corpus Christi thereafter.

The archers here were of course urban militia reacting to a sudden brawl rather than professional archers following orders so it probably doesn't advance the discussion much. But I like the story.

Cheers
Mick
 

[Erpingham]

Shoot out in the cathedral   I'm also a fan of this story.  It goes on to the tale of cutting a hole in a door and offering a hand through it as a sign of good faith, said to be the origin of the phrase "chancing one's arm".  This may, however, just be a legend.

[DBS]

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

'Tis a fair cop, my lord.

As for archery in churches, there was also the case of the new Norman abbot at one monastery (poss Glastonbury but I may be very wrong) who after the Conquest decided to enforce discipline on his reactionary and sinning monks by getting his crossbowmen to shoot down some of them in the church.  Even the most ardent clerical reformers imported by William and Lanfranc thought that was rather lacking in what passed for oecumenical spirit...

[Nick Harbud]

The sacrilege resulted in an investigation by a papal legate who decreed as punishment that the mayor of Dublin must make a barefoot procession through the city every Corpus Christi thereafter.

So, is this part of the modern job description?   

[Mick Hession]

The sacrilege resulted in an investigation by a papal legate who decreed as punishment that the mayor of Dublin must make a barefoot procession through the city every Corpus Christi thereafter.

So, is this part of the modern job description?   

No, the source goes on to say that the practice ceased with the Reformation.

[Erpingham]

Continuing my investigations, I came across this article from the Agincourt publishing avalanche of 2015.  I'm not always a fan of DeVries' style but this is actually pretty good I think.  There bits in here on whether everybody was wearing top class armour and the disruptive effect of the mud but the second half concentrates on what the sources say about armour effectiveness and longbows.  For whatever reason, the English sources are more likely to attribute armour-piercing effects to archers than the French, who tend to think the armour was effective protection.  We may note in passing references to clouds of arrows raining down.  Note also the effect of archery on horses.  This is one of the most consistent longbow effect descriptions, being found from the 1340s to the 1590s. 

[RichT]

We may note in passing references to clouds of arrows raining down. 

Can this be taken as indicative of any particular physical reality? Weather metaphors are common to describe the effects of missile weapons (a hail of bullets, a storm of shot etc) in periods where we know for sure it's just a colourful metaphor (cf. pushing metaphors... shhhhh...).

Also, are clouds of arrows on a par with Persian sun-blocking arrows - a boastful threat, rather than a battlefield reality? Do descriptions emphasising the effect and terror of arrows tend to come from the arrow-using side, while their targets tend to downplay them?

[Erpingham]

We may note in passing references to clouds of arrows raining down. 

Can this be taken as indicative of any particular physical reality? Weather metaphors are common to describe the effects of missile weapons (a hail of bullets, a storm of shot etc) in periods where we know for sure it's just a colourful metaphor (cf. pushing metaphors... shhhhh...).

Metaphors, of course, are not intended to literally represent physical reality but to sum up the essential nature of something.  A hail of bullets or a storm of shot express intensity and volume.  I'd suggest hail/rain/snow/obscuring the sun do the same.   Yes, its a literary cliche but I think contemporary people who had seen a longbow battle would recognise it.  This does not , however, mean I would accept the conventional barrage/machine gun metaphors as the correct interpretation.  Things were doubtless more complicated in reality.

Also, are clouds of arrows on a par with Persian sun-blocking arrows - a boastful threat, rather than a battlefield reality? Do descriptions emphasising the effect and terror of arrows tend to come from the arrow-using side, while their targets tend to downplay them?

Was it a boastful threat or a literary flourish contrasting stereotypical Persian arrogance with manly Spartan wit, demonstrating the superiority of civilised folk who fought face-to-face to cowardly barbarians who fought at a distance?  
I think the difference is the longbow ones aren't predictive or threatening, just a literary way of describing what is said to have happened.

Time for another quote, this one from a participant on the receiving end of longbow shooting

They held the higher ground and the Castillians the lower; and the arrows were so many
and came so thick that the crossbowmen did not dare to stoop to bend their bows. Many were already
hit by these arrows, and there were so many, that those who wore leather jerkins or surcoats seemed all
stuck with arrows. The standard and he who bore it were likewise riddled with arrows, and the standard
bearer had as many round his body as a bull in the ring, but he was well shielded by his good armour,
although this was already bent in several places.

No weather metaphors (Gutierez de Gamez has already used them earlier )  Note the effectiveness of the armour and the disruptive effect on the crossbowmen.  For those unfamiliar with the quote, De Gamez is the standard bearer.  The only indication of range is "they were so near them that they could easily tell the fair men from the dark."  So not at extreme range.

[RichT]

Metaphors, of course, are not intended to literally represent physical reality but to sum up the essential nature of something.  A hail of bullets or a storm of shot express intensity and volume.  I'd suggest hail/rain/snow/obscuring the sun do the same.   Yes, its a literary cliche but I think contemporary people who had seen a longbow battle would recognise it.  This does not , however, mean I would accept the conventional barrage/machine gun metaphors as the correct interpretation.  Things were doubtless more complicated in reality.

Yes - what I was driving at is that sometimes we see the suggestion that 'clouds of arrows raining down' means the arrows were descending like rain ie shot on a high trajectory, and were en masse ie were the result of volley shooting. But I think it's invalid to try to extract precise physical details from a metaphor - intermittent shots on a low trajectory could still be a cloud, rain or storm, if that's how it felt on the receiving end. I think we agree, then.

Military metaphor and the 'rhetoric of combat' are interesting subjects in themselves. I'm just reading The Washing of the Spears (which somehow I've not read before) and it is striking how Zulu masses boil, rage, black clouds swarming across the landscape (natural phenomena or, often, ants or locusts seem to be called to mind). European units march, deploy and fight. (The author admits in the preface that some of his language hasn't aged well.)

But presumably there doesn't seem to be such cultural bias in Medieval descriptions of arrow storms.

[Erpingham]

But presumably there doesn't seem to be such cultural bias in Medieval descriptions of arrow storms.

I've not really noticed.  Both the English and Burgundians certainly use the weather metaphors, but then these were longbow using nations.  Froissart, a Hainaulter, uses cloud and rain metaphors in his later editions.  In truth, it would be a bit of a research project to track the usage.  Probably a look through one of the collations of accounts (e.g. Agincourt) might be easier.  Be interesting what the purely French sources say.  Watch this space.

[Mick Hession]

You find those metaphors elsewhere - at the battle of Corcomroe between two Irish factions in 1317 (full account in http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=229.0) both sides  "let fly with stones and javelins, darts and arrows, reciprocally. By these first contributions was established a darkling dropping mist, a showering cloud of pebbles and of splintering shafts, that assailed their heads and arms and legs; yea, so thickly that the spears flying would split each other and, in the malice of that pelting rain, stones turn the slender arrows' points."

[Erpingham]

You find those metaphors elsewhere

Indeed.  There are, IIRC, Italian accounts of crossbow bolts falling like hail in one of the 13th century battles (Campaldino?).

Back, briefly, to my Agincourt search.  I found three French accounts using weather metaphors for English archery; the Religeux of Saint Denis (pre1422), The Chronique de Normandie (1460) and Thomas Basin (1471-2).

From these examples, I think that the use of these metaphors doesn't seem culturally specific. 

[RichT]

Interesting, thanks.

From these examples, I think that the use of these metaphors doesn't seem culturally specific.

Or that French and English had the same culture (more so than Greeks and Persians, or British and Zulus).

[Imperial Dave]

certainly up until the 14th C