Shooting wholly together

[Erpingham]

All ranks shot at the same time and at angles approaching 45 degrees so as to clear our lines. flat shooting is a last resort (and also a H+S nightmare)

I suspect that spectator satisfaction and health and safety may have been higher (and killing people lower) on your list of priorities than they were on a medieval battlefield, though

[RichT]

So it seems to be the case that:

- archers could shoot in deep formations (en masse, if not necessarily wholly together, if that is a point at issue) but only at targets that were (unlike Fr Dougal's cows) either big or far away. (Where big is exceptionally deep, or enfiladed).

- such archery was a long range, high trajectory, area effect weapon (not low trajectory aimed shots)

- at closer ranges (which still perhaps extends out beyond 100 metres) only the front rank(s) could shoot, at flat trajectories (unless as above the target was exceptionally deep or enfiladed).

Quantifying this, and depending on the relative effectiveness of low trajectory v. high trajectory shots (armour penetration etc), this would have the interesting effect that archers (at least those in deep formations) should be more effective at long range than they are at short range. Bottom-up wargame rules should reflect this - maybe they do?

All ranks shot at the same time and at angles approaching 45 degrees so as to clear our lines. flat shooting is a last resort (and also a H+S nightmare)

I suspect that spectator satisfaction and health and safety may have been higher (and killing people lower) on your list of priorities than they were on a medieval battlefield, though

Indeed - though even on the medieval battlefield, I expect killing one's own side was frowned on.

As a target archer, seeing all those photos of archers shooting with people standing in front of them gives me the willies.

[Imperial Dave]

To be clear we did use dummy points on the arrows......

[Erpingham]

To be clear we did use dummy points on the arrows......

You see, another difference then to now.

[Imperial Dave]

Quite. No one likes to see a human pin cushion at reenactment shows these days

[Anton]

Tastes change I suppose.

[Imperial Dave]

arrows are expensive

[Erpingham]

arrows are expensive

Warbow arrows particularly so.  Here's some example prices

    6 practice 3/8″ ash rough match within +-5lb spine and 70gr, self nock, 5″ shield fletching & machined bodkin – £90
    6 medieval 3/8″ ash, self nock, 6″ hand cut fletching – bound, machined/drop forged bodkin, rough match £120
    6 EWBS (and BLBS) Ash Standard arrow – £150-£200
    6 EWBS Ash Livery arrow – £165-240
    6 EWBS Quarter Pound (heavy military) arrow – £190-260

Arrows were, back in the day, rather cheaper because they were mass produced.  In 1415, the state was buying at 18d-24d a sheaf.  An archer was paid 6d a day.

[Imperial Dave]

crikey even more than in my day!

[Erpingham]

crikey even more than in my day!

Re-enactment arrows are much cheaper according to a quick Google - maybe a third the price of a livery arrow?  EWBS standard arrows all have to have hand-forged heads to medieval designs, which pushes the price up a bit.

[Imperial Dave]

there werent cheap when I was buying them but they seem to have jumped somewhat. However that said they are a handmade item

[LawrenceG]

arrows are expensive

Warbow arrows particularly so.  Here's some example prices

    6 practice 3/8″ ash rough match within +-5lb spine and 70gr, self nock, 5″ shield fletching & machined bodkin – £90
    6 medieval 3/8″ ash, self nock, 6″ hand cut fletching – bound, machined/drop forged bodkin, rough match £120
    6 EWBS (and BLBS) Ash Standard arrow – £150-£200
    6 EWBS Ash Livery arrow – £165-240
    6 EWBS Quarter Pound (heavy military) arrow – £190-260

Arrows were, back in the day, rather cheaper because they were mass produced.  In 1415, the state was buying at 18d-24d a sheaf.  An archer was paid 6d a day.

So that is roughly 6 arrows for a day's pay.

Current day's pay for an infantry private after 26 weeks "probation" is about £59.

[LawrenceG]

Quantifying this, and depending on the relative effectiveness of low trajectory v. high trajectory shots (armour penetration etc), this would have the interesting effect that archers (at least those in deep formations) should be more effective at long range than they are at short range. Bottom-up wargame rules should reflect this - maybe they do?

I think "should" is putting it a bit strongly and the emphasis should be on the "depending".

Aimed shots at short range may be more effective than (aimed shots at long range plus unaimed shots at long range).

Remember that at longer ranges, even a low trajectory needs to be quite high to reach, and accuracy drops off. 

[LawrenceG]

Collating Holly's experience:

we shot 'blind' on command in volley

We would be charged to fire on the opposing rear units of the enemy or the other archer blocks.

When we trained we would try for a minimum of 10 shots a minute but on the field it would be a lower rate due mainly to stock of arrows

bow units were drawn up 2 or 3 ranks deep with a decent amount of spacing so that there was room to nock and draw arrows. All ranks shot at the same time and at angles approaching 45 degrees so as to clear our lines. flat shooting is a last resort (and also a H+S nightmare)

Given the shallow formation depth and the spaced out formations seen in the photos, were you really shooting "blind" i.e. unable to see the target?

If angles were always "approaching 45 degrees", how did you control range? Or did you only do this at targets that were at the corresponding range?

What was the range of those bows?

[Erpingham]

Without playing down Dave's experience, reenactors shoot "safety" arrows from quite weak bows.  Techniques are also safety related, from what Dave says (flat shooting a last resort).  Even with warbow shoots, when doing a massed "Agincourt shoot", they don't use much depth of formation, presumably because it is risky having anyone shooting blind.

Interestingly, the problem of shooting your own side in the back is rarely mentioned in medieval and Tudor sources, and even then as a caution to avoid putting the archers too far back so they aren't shooting blind at unknown distances.  The only battle I recall where English archers are said to have shot their own side in the back was Bannockburn and the point being made was putting archers at the rear was misuse of the capabilities.