"Agincourt - crossbows" Topic

The other night I was watching an episode on the history channel called Knight Fight. This is the series with the guy who states he is with the special forces and is now "reliving" what it was like to be a warrior in the ancient and medieval times.

He was trying to demonstrate the rate of fire of the Longbowman vs the crossbowman. Of course we all know about this debate, but the crossbow they were using on the episode was a windlass crossbow.

Was that the only crossbow they used, or did they use other forms of the crossbow? At the battle of Agincourt that is. Forgive my question, I'm a bit weak on arms and armour after the crusader / Mongol era.

I don't believe so, since I would imagine those would have too slow a rate of fire compared to other models. Maybe they chose the windlass crossbow to make an extreme point, but that seems a bit daft to me. Then again, maybe the guys can really crank their windlasses quickly.

I believe windlass crossbows were usually more likely to be used during sieges, when very long range, and extra power was needed, e.g. to penetrate a pavise, or to fire over, or from a castle wall.

I think it would be much more likely to be one with a lever for cocking, and/or using your feet and body muscles to extend into the cocked position, if fighting in the field.

I'm not an expert on medieval crossbows though, so will look forward to the responses from others as well.

Hard to say exactly which type they would have used. You had the lever, the "belt", wherein you attached a claw-like arrangement. that was attached to a waist belt, to the string, put your foot in the stirrup, and stood up, thus cocking the bow, and a windlass arrangement. The catch is the guy shooting the longbow was doing it rather slowly. His arrows weren't availible, not being stuck into the ground, and he wasn't trying to get six arrows in the air at once, as it is said that medieval archers could do. I don't think his method of jumping into the air as he fired the arrow would have been something a medieval longbowman, standing in ranks, would have done, and his grouping of arrows was pretty poor. Medieval longbowmen were supposed to be able to hit a man-sized target at around 200 yards. His shots landed all over the place. His main skill seemed to be drawing a heavy bow and jumping into the air to make the arrow go farther, although I question that technique. But I would say that a rate of fire of 6-1 wouldn't be out of line. After all, they did use pavises at times to protect themselves from return fire. If thew were firing as quickly, or nearly as quickly, as a longbow, they wouldn't have had time to duck behind the pavis.

Hi

The crossbows at agincourt were simple self bow types with a stirrup in wood.

In this show, they do a lot of BS in this way. They constantly repeatt he 150 pound bow thing AND 300 yards, AND the guy they use as an expert is clearly using a bow in the 35 pound range.

And you are right, being able to hit a man at 200 yards WAS possible. But not every time, and not as part of a volley.

In the US army, the US marines, every rifleman carrys a weapon that shoots within 3 minutes of arc of the aim point. This means that they COULD hit a man in the chest every time. In fact both services only have a few individuals who really can hit that well.

I have a precise remington in 30-06 that shoots under a minute and COULD hit a man at 1000 yards…every time. But in the real world, outside of people like Carlos Hathcock, nope not usually.

Rememeber, anacdotal stories are the unusual and remarkable, not the every day. TV shows like to treat the extraordinary like the "every day".

News flash, Nut in the US walks into a business and shoots the place up. Not a newsflash, the other 320 million people in the US didn't get shot up.

Rocky

YouTube link this little video on YouTube is illustrative of the comparison of the weapons used at Agincourt.

The windlass spanned the 800+ lbs draw weights. Yes, a siege weapon and typically not used in field battles. Iirc, as I am not looking this up in any of my books, there are illustrations from the period, or soon after Crécy, that show the Genoese in that battle using windlass crossbows. But that is neither here or there: the artist didn't necessarily know what the correct equipment was.

Interestingly, the windlass was not that slow to use. The crossbow was stood upright, a foot holding it steady by stepping on the stirrup. The windlass was dropped over the butt of the stock; the hooks were fitted to the string, and in a few rapid cranks (with virtually no effort) the string was hauled back to the nut, a quick reverse on the cranks disengaged the hooks, and picking up the crossbow made it ready (a bolt was held between the teeth and was instantly dropped into the groove). The windlass didn't even have to be removed from the butt in order to shoot the weapon; but most likely it simply fell away to hang from the belt when the crossbow was picked up. Rate of fire was over two bolts per minute; which was about half the rate demonstrated in that YouTube video….

I thought the comparison was a bit hokey. But I wanted to check before passing judgement.

The show seems to imply archery was new in the medieval world and didn't happen any where else. That being said, at least they are airing historical shows.

What WAS new, was the percentage and large number of massed, close-order, DEEP archer formations. The English could field very large archer forces in thousands, where before medieval armies had archers and crossbowmen in hundreds, and usually in a comparatively thin line. Of course, the Scots and French followed the example of the English and occasionally almost matched the firepower of the Yeomen….

Deep ?

Frontage calculations suggest 2-3 ranks for virtually all English archer armies through the 100YW and WotR.

The mass use and the significant logistical support that provided tens of bowstaves and hundreds of arrows per archer were, I suspect, key.

ps

For the rest of you, Doug may be the best read person I know re medieval stuff (hence my desperate attempts to pick up on his points :-)

I would think that by Agincourt most crossbows would be steel prods (or composite) and windlass the norm for rewinding. I can't think of many contemporary 'goats foot' or 'cranequin' bows and even sporting bows were starting to abandon stirrups by the end of the 14th c.

ps Chris you are supposed to be studying other things, no more naff TV !!!!

Deep ?

Frontage calculations suggest 2-3 ranks for virtually all English archer armies through the 100YW and WotR.

I don't know which calculations you are basing this assertion on.

But Agincourt, even allowing the widest field of c. 1,000 yards, has at least twice those depths; and the field was probably much narrower than 1,000 yards, and there were closer to 8,000 archers, not 5,000.

With anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 longbowmen arrayed, you would need such a wide field to put them two or three ranks deep, that well over half of them would not even be in range to shoot at any attack focused on the men-at-arms: which was standard French tactics from Crécy on (at Crécy, the French "coasted around" the archer formations to attack the men-at-arms -- that's from Froissart). The point is: with a maximum reach with armor piercing bodkin shafts of c. 150 yards, the English archer formations had to be DEEP ones in order to make full use of all the archers brought to a given field, i.e. to get them all within range.

Long, thin lines only work against enemies directly to their front; which would mean that the French also be in long, thin lines. The original evidence does not support such tactics. (The English "four ranks" at Agincourt was the depth of the men-at-arms, not the archers; who were in too great of numbers to have been arrayed that thinnly anyway.)

"and there were closer to 8,000 archers, not 5,000."

According to Rocky:
"Most of the french are infantry, placing stakes for 5000 archers to hold off 300 mounted doesn't make much sense."
(15 Sep 2008 9:28 a.m. PST in the "Battle-line at Agincourt" thread)

Doug, could you and Rocky work out between you how many archers you think there were and then let us know?

Hi

We could fight about this or not. To what point. The issue was the unsubstantiated 2 ranks deep part.

And the concept of the new idea of having, in western europe, most of the army as missile.

Rocky

"We could fight about this or not. To what point."

Because, knowing the frontage available and the number of archers, we can work out how many ranks they need to be in to fit in the space.

"The issue was the unsubstantiated 2 ranks deep part."

Well, actually, there is also the unsubstantiated deep archer formation as well:
"What WAS new, was the percentage and large number of massed, close-order, DEEP archer formations."

Since (as I recall) none of the sources actually say how many ranks the archers were arrayed in, neither of these views is supported by evidence?

The evidence is Anne Curry's copious research into the original sources for the armies. And the English army is better documented by far than the French. Curry refutes the "old guys" arrival at c. 5K archers, by resorting to a comparison of muster rolls and known casualties and probable losses on the march to Calais. I find her logic wholely convincing; thus I have revised my belief in the sizes of the two armies based on her conclusions. Rocky evidently adheres to the traditional c. 5K for the English archers.

It doesn't change your points: more archers just means more depth.

But the archer depth is already over six ranks on a 1,000 yard frontage with only 5K archers. It is simple math: 250 yards occupied by the stated four ranks of men-at-arms, who numbered c. 900 to 1,000 (Curry says closer to 1,500, which makes no arguable difference in this situation): the remaining 750 yards gets 5K archers = 6.67 ranks deep. Narrow the frontage (which is very likely, given the less intense use of the fields by a smaller population at the time, i.e. larger woods) and increase the number of archers (likely, given Dr Curry's conclusions), and you have upwards of 17 or more ranks of archers!

(In our rules, English archers CAN shoot up to 16 ranks deep; we don't go beyond that, and I don't know of another historical case for archers shooting that deep; it seems to be a uniquely, and brief, English thing.)

(Damn! the Edit Bug nearly got me. I just had to hit the back button, and thank Bill, the edit window still contained my text, otherwise I would have lost my post! Beware the Edit Bug….)

deep archery formations would mean inaccurate and lower power shooting. the 9,000 would have been needed to do any damage then ? do the deep formations shoot by countermarch of some form ? missile troops are not generally deployed in deep formations. fewer archers with more accurate shooting is more likely in my book.

I don't get to watch much telly, so when I see a show that appears interesting, I take a break from reading / studying.
Besides, I didn't have the money to go out, so I had to be entertained somehow.

I appreciate everyones input. I'm not as familiar with this era so I'm not jumping into the debate.

…fewer archers with more accurate shooting is more likely in my book.

Well, you're obviously not believing the math: the numbers of archers present on a field with a given frontage; and the variability of both still means archers in the rear shooting who could not see, be it a few ranks or over a dozen.

It was the first form of "saturation" fire as later employed by artillery batteries. You increase the volume of missiles as much as possible: while the percentage of hits goes down, the number of hits goes up.

Aiming to hit a plate knight through his visor or where his armor joints are would be the preferred shooting of an archer marksman. But most archers were trained to volley fire on command: to hit the "clout" (cloth) laid out on the grass at various ranges by dropping their arrows onto it. Thus the hits in the vulnerable parts of a full harness would be flukes: but when you consider in excess of 125K rounds within less than five minutes, into a body of men numbering c. 6K, you can guess that a significant number of fluke shots out of all that saturation are going to occur.

(Up close, "pointblank", the front ranks no longer vollied, they aimed "for a wager", and the best shooters would be in front: those behind continued to volley shoot a high trajectory, dropping their arrows almost vertically. The combo of direct shots at the face and flanks -- due to forward projecting "wedge-shaped" formations that the archers adopted -- while being showered with bodkin points from above, must have been a horrific ordeal.)

It was the first form of "saturation" fire as later employed by artillery batteries.

It was hardly the *first* form of saturation fire.

Volleying with arrows in depth. I didn't mean that the English invented this, only stating that they did it deeper (more saturation) than anyone else before or since….

I still doubt the accuracy of your assertion. Didn't eastern armies use similar archer tactics? Mongols? Persians? …to name a couple.

Interesting Doug,

The likely places for the English line at Agincourt are about 1200m from edge to edge (the 'wooded' slopes fall away very steeply, so the width won't have changed). Monstrelet and others explicitly have the maa formations behind the archers (though he thinks there were 17,000). I make it 7,000 (Currey's number) at c 1m each just under 5 ranks and about as deep as any English battlefield.

eg Crecy has over 1500m frontage and a total of less than 6000 English in the battle line (c 3200 archers).

(The Persians shooting ten ranks deep is the deepest archery formation I can think of offhand).

Though, I don't think that the thinner ranks actually detract from the effect of archery fire Doug describes. Modern tests may tell us that Agincout period armour was pretty good at stopping arrows, but you are still getting hit time, after time, after time. That is enough to incapacitate most men. The massive supplies of arrows, bow staves, strings etc that the English ensured they had were there for a reason.

Tom..

Hi

Mike, I am just unwilling to repeat some of the older archery threads. You may remember them.

Grin.

Which misses the prinicples involved. I am not responsible for the TV shows and what they don't understand. in my time I have been misunderstood by TV critters as well.

Credible evidence has "proved" the field being 750 to 1000 yards, with a few "streachs" getting down to 200.

Sigh.

And doug defines "first" differently. He means "first in northern europe after the normons! Grin.

Having forgotten things like Byzantine thematic and tagmatic troops and the daughter states in italy doing massed volleys. None of them do more than 50% of the infantry, though, and perhaps a total of 35% of the whole army.

Which is what I think he is thinking. The usual numbers for Agincourt are 8000 total men, consisting of 6500 or so archers depending on which number someone wants to die for.

Plastic Viking, I have no idea why you think the shooting en masse would be "weaker".

Rocky

"Mike, I am just unwilling to repeat some of the older archery threads. You may remember them."

I do indeed and fascinating discussions they were too! I was not expecting you to repeat any of it – we can always link people to them if they want to read our lengthy debates!

However, I wasn't sure where Doug was getting his figure for the archers from and couldn't remember what you had said on the subject until I looked. I did think that highlighting the different views on numbers was pertinent to this discussion though. So thanks both of you for stating your cases.

As for me, I had always thought the figure was about 5,000. Clearly this is out of step with more up to date thinking, but there is still a range of possibilities from your 6500 up to Doug's 8,000.

"Grin."

Hear, hear!

Hmm so the English miraculously changed their traditional practice for this one battle? Clout shooting does not deliver if the archers have not practised at the place they find themselves shooting in and cannot see the target. 17 or more men deep means the formation is 25 metres or more deep. Would the back know what the front was doing ? Get 16 mates out and see what it looks like. Do they have FOO with a trumpet or something ? There is no evidence that archers shot on command after they were given leave to shoot. The target is moving, if it is a thin line it is very hard to hit.
All this makes it seem to me that rather than conjure up some katyusha-style archery bombardment is it not better to look at a way usual practice could be applied to this event ?
Archers need to see a target. The Burgundians had formations with archers behind pikemen but the pike men were trained to kneel so that the archers could shoot.If it was so easy to volley overhead why would they do that ?
The English had the French battle plan and expected the cavalry to come down both flanks. At Agincourt those flanks were wooded.The archers could be in oblique lines and in the wood edge thus allowing more across the field than with a simple calculation. Curry has assembled the paperwork for the campaign but only up to the point the march from Harfleur started. So by the time they arrive at the field the Engish are some number below.

Archers need to see a target.

Not if the drill includes the vets in front establishing the trajectory and angle: then the rear rankers merely have to copy that: they can see the upraised arms and bow staves in front and mimic; then on "loose!" they do so.

The Burgundians had formations with archers behind pikemen but the pike men were trained to kneel so that the archers could shoot.If it was so easy to volley overhead why would they do that ?

In our rules, that is called "immobile screened missile fire": the screen (pikemen) does not move, ergo the archers do not either.

"Screened missile fire" can move and shoot: that would require some kind of officer forward with the pike screen calling out the shots such that the archers in their front rank (behind the pike screen) can get the message, establish the angle and trajectory, and the rest of the archer ranks behind mimic.

Curry has assembled the paperwork for the campaign but only up to the point the march from Harfleur started. So by the time they arrive at the field the Engish are some number below.

Yes, but not that much below. Fighting was only minimal on the march, and ALL of the archers were suffering from being underfed. There isn't any indication in the narratives, though, that this took very many archers out of the line on October 25th.

(Btw, I apologize for the "8,000" archers: I misremembered Curry's "minimum figure" of 8,732 for the total English army and rounded down in my mind! She says the total army "at the battle" was "a few hundred either side of 9,000 men".)

The archers could be in oblique lines and in the wood edge thus allowing more across the field than with a simple calculation.

Except that the Gesta describes French cavalry escaping around the end of the English archers by riding through the woods. This would not be possible if significant numbers of the archers were lining the woods towards the French army.

"some kind of officer forward with the pike screen calling out the shots such that the archers in their front rank (behind the pike screen) can get the message, establish the angle and trajectory, and the rest of the archer ranks behind mimic."

Each archer is a different man with a different bow and arrow,they shoot differently to make the same mark. It would not work. much less that we have an account of it. Archers shoot by making an instinctive mental calculation from sight and their experience,not by getting range and azimuth from their FOO. The ones 25m back would anyway have to compensate for the range difference also. This model has become too complicated.

If there are archers at the wood edge it does not mean they block the woods completely. They would only be at the edge where they can shoot.

Now, about those crossbows……

Archer nations standardize the "warbow" of their armies. You can't effectively get reloads to work if every archer is shooting his bow at a different draw weight: the arrows must be standardized in order to make reloads work. (In earlier TMP discussions, Rocky Russo and I have emphasized this point; differing with others on what the standard draw weight actually was does not change this fact of standardization). Therefore, each archer had the same trajectory. When done "perfectly" a volley from 100 archers arrayed in a "box" 30 yards wide and deep, would drop all of their arrows in an area 30 by 30 yards at any range they could target.

Now, what about those crossbows? Any other questions not already covered? Btw, the volleying and standardization applies to crossbows as well.

If there are archers at the wood edge it does not mean they block the woods completely. They would only be at the edge where they can shoot.

I was misremembering, again. The Gesta actually says that some French cavalry (not without loss) escaped between the archers and the woods. This actually would make archers IN the woods not supported by any source I can recall….

Hi

I think, rich, I would rather have friendly discussion than arguments.

Deep archery units with indirect fire and saturating the area is "katusha" like. It isn't common, but it happened. In an ancients thread discussing this we had a friendly discussion. One gamer wants to work with DBA to reflect these different approaches. As I pointed out to him, it cannot be a "one size fits all" rule. Roman armies from the Tarquinni in the 8th century BC to sometime in the 5th century, only use archers in a skirmish formation where all shooting is individual. But at the beginning of the Dark ages the army starts changing. Such that by the classic Byzantine state, screened fire is common TO THAT ARMY.

But contemporary opponents do not.

Henry Vs armys did fire deep, but not screened. In a real fashion, though, archers deeper than 3 or 4 ranks just cannot see and skirmish. Even if the spear in front kneel down.

Rocky

I scribble again, the word argument is fine by me but its the spirit arguments are made in that is important. No 'English generals' mentality here I trust…. Its a pity we dont live round the corner fromeach other so it could take place over a pint, but here we are in cyberspace anyway.

The problem I have with the complex artillery modelsof archery is that the communication loop is unclear and slow.Much is made of the archer flinging arrows at the enemy nineteen to the dozen but if there is the delay of observation, adjustment , order and shoot again, in the noise of battle, thisrate drops dramatically,Perhaps to the point where the crossbowmen are not so disadvantaged as they are on paper? plus they may have protection.

In the 'Battle Formation Against the Alans' (Roman )there is a good example of massed missilefire being set up to stopa charging enemy.In this case the general is careful to ensure his missile troops can shoot and there sees tobe no concept of shooting at various times or ranges. it is just a case of 'On my command let hell break loose' If the English are going to get hit by a very nasty bunch of armed Frogs would they not want to pile on as many missiles as possible rather than mess about with shoot, observe, correct, command, shoot ?

When i mentioned 'weaker fire; i was referring to the arrows being less accurate and plunging. The damage not being as severe as aimed and on a flatter trajectory. By the way,shoootingover the heads of men in front also means one has a maximum depression problem – at point blank, suddenly most of the men cannot shoot !

By the way is screened shooting any different from saying indirect shooting ?

And you are correct: "fire at will" is two to three times faster than volley fire. But the point here is volume. When drilled for deep shooting, the sheer mass of incoming vollies is a form of "shock" attack. This cannot be attained by a thin line of marksmen shooting as fast as they can and aiming.

But in fact, both kinds of shooting, as I pointed out above, are not mutually exclusive: at long to maximum range the entire unit is lobbing at a high trajectory and there is no aiming or direct shooting, at, all. But once the target unit arrives at pointblank range (anywhere from 60 to 100 yards, depending on the power of the bows used), the front ranks are going to go to "fire at will" (the dude on the left, hehe), and it is aimed fire from now on, with the closer the enemy gets the more hits get through the armor. While the rear ranks are going to still shoot high and in volley.

A screened unit, when the enemy gets within pointblank range, is only going to do volley fire over the spear screen, which means no aimed, direct shooting. (Our rules don't make the distinction in effect between shooting screened or unscreened within c. 75 yards, other than to count any open order troops within that range as still open order, i.e. reflecting that half of the volley is still going to miss, even within pointblank range, because there is no direct shooting when screened.

Hi

Pviking, we have just been burned a few times when talking about the subject. Instead of "friendly over a pint", too many people just seem to get angry.

Anyway, back when we were young, we did a lot of testing on this subject. In my case, since you mention late roman, actually building martiobarbuli and then grabbing friends and finding how how difficult it was to teach them

One "high point" in the tests is giving one to a 100# girlfriend of one of the guys and her getting a thrill out of throwing, hitting the target and watching the wood explode from HER efforts.

Blowing things up can be satisfying.

Anyway, being an archer is the hard part, having a group all following the lead of a captain and shooting on angle isn't.

And you are right, up close they cannot shoot, but by then, it is difficult to have a game time scale where that close is also in melee.

With a gun, firing indirect due to the sectional density of the missle means that plunging fire, near straight up and then down, leaves the bullet with little energy. Arrow are much different. Slower, drag isn't as bad (it is an inverse/square relationship), plunging energy is nearly the same as direct. Even better, given the velocity, except really close, all arrow and bolts are "indirect" in any case.

Consider an initial velocity of 200fps, appx 70 meters per second, then gravity has it hitting the ground if fired direct …..half of 9.8m/s?

Rocky

Shock effect of 1 arrow arriving per2 yards square every, say 30 seconds to a minute ? If an arrow misses it ends in the ground. As opposed to several arrows arriving on a flat trajectory in every minute for every yard of frontage where a miss in the first rank can be a hit in the subsequent ones. It is difficult to see why katyusha volleys would be preferred, Doug. And, again, the attackers are moving, a missed volley is a bit of a disaster. Shock would be produced by a sheet of arrows dropping almost the whole front rank each time the archers shoot.

Volley is more like six arrows per minute. Less for crossbows, but not that much less.

As Rocky says, all bow and crossbow shooting is indirect except up close. Your concept of aimed shooting as somehow more effective is not realistic, if you think that aiming somehow increases the effectiveness. All aiming does is allow for a greater percentage of hits: but with only a fraction of the marksmen doing the shooting compared to volley fire. It really is a case of "lower percentage of hits, but a greater number of hits over all", when dense volley shooting is employed.

And a "sheet of arrows" does not drop that many targets each time the archers/crossbowmen shoot. It takes many hits for a significant percentage of them to take effect through the less protected parts in a harness of full plate….

Volley -means a simultaneous discharge of missiles. Do you mean the artillery-style archers are getting off 6 corrected shots a minute ?

Indirect shooting is usually defined as when the shooter cannot see the target, an intermediary gives him feedback.
Shooting with a bow is not indirect. One must see the arrow fly to get a feel for the correction necessary to get on target if it misses.

You seem to assuming a steeply falling arrow will always do more damage than one on a flat trajectory. Against men in complete armour this is unlikely. Again, a glancing hit from a flat shot may hit another man but plunging shots will hit the ground. Hits must do damage to stop the enemy viz. saracen archery peppering Franks till they looked like pincushions but not incapacitating the fighter.

Again-how can one arrow per 2 square yards per 30 seconds ( compare with say 8 arrows(minimum) for every front rank man when shot at by archers 4 deep in the same time.

Doug you just wrote that aiming decreases the effect of shooting a weapon ! It smacks too much of a theoretical construct. We really need some evidence for directed adjusted archery conducted by men in deep formations.

Volley -means a simultaneous discharge of missiles. Do you mean the artillery-style archers are getting off 6 corrected shots a minute ?

Yes.

As the best archers in the front are the ones correcting for all the indirect shooters who cannot see, this isn't hard to visualize as not only possible but practical. If the front rank archers are good at estimating range to, and speed of, the target and adjusting accordingly; and if the rear ranks are good at watching for the upraised bows in front and mimicking them; then the incoming volley is going to be on-target and dense. And c. ten seconds to accomplish a simultaneous discharge of missiles is well within the time required to execute the volley.

Indirect shooting is usually defined as when the shooter cannot see the target, an intermediary gives him feedback….Doug you just wrote that aiming decreases the effect of shooting a weapon! It smacks too much of a theoretical construct.

Not what I meant at all. "Indirect" as I use it simply means aiming the missile higher in order to reach the target: "pointblank" of course means the range within where the marksman can point and shoot (not having to perform estimation to hit the target). As the front rank marksmen are responsible for the aiming/correcting, and it is assumed that they are competent at it, they aim/correct for the entire unit behind them.

I don't think that deep volley fire is based on theory alone; but has evidence of battle frontages and known numbers of archers present. Agincourt is the clearest example supporting deep archery fire that I know of.

We really need some evidence for directed adjusted archery conducted by men in deep formations.

Rocky needs to chime here, if he has any original sources that address the training of archers in deep formations. I am primarily a medieval geek, and the missile fire rules we use were developed by Rocky Russo, not moi: I just took what he came up with and plugged it into the armies that I research.

And I have to say, from the 11th century to the end of the middle ages, I have not come across a single source that talks about how European armies trained and arrayed their bows and crossbows. We read of missile troops in front and on the flanks and rarely behind spearmen. We are some few times in possession of the battlefield and its implied dimensions.

Taken altogether we have implications rather than solid facts. And thus the ongoing fascination of trying to find out more….

So now you would have a 17 man file of archers who take the cue for their shot from the angle of the bow of the file leader. He could not speak to those behind because he has to be observing the fall of shot and handling his own bow.

No archer points and shoots. He has a bodily feeling for what should be done to put an arrow into a target and can adjust when he misses.Another person cannot do that for him. One looks at the target, not along an arrow or sniperscope.

Archers cannot loose all at the same time except by practising to draw simultaneously and then it will not be truly simultaneous. The bow is only briefly poised before the loose, especially with heavy bows. Could that be enough to let 16 ranks see at what angle they should shoot ? And the view they get is along the line of the draw so they would have to be good to pick out the file leaders bowstave and deduce the angle it was inclined towards them at.

So the point remains, how can they communicate a mental model of what others should do to get a hit ?

The problem here is that they are required to shoot in a very specific way which is contrary to the best and closest archery instruction we have from Robert Ascham(16Cen.). His ideal archer shoots instinctively at a target he can see, however high he must raise his bow to do so. The katyusha archer shoots under detailed command from another person at a target he cannot see. It is unlikley. How can we look at it to make it seem more likely ?

Calculating the ranks by dividing field width into the archers cannot solve this. BEcause only one deployment gives a depth of 17, at Agincourt.Crecy and Poitiers are won without the katyusha effect. Where does it come from, why is it necessary?the whole emphasis of the Agincourt campaign is for a repetition of the first two great victories. It hardly smacks of innovation. then if this great innovation is successful why is it dropped or becomes unmentionable throughout the Wars of the Roses where Englishmen are shooting the crap out of each other for years ?
One of the great features of the fighting at Agincourt was the wall of dead French. Is it not likley this was created by deadly shooting at the french front ranks. if the katyushas were so effective there would have been molehills of dead French systematically distributed over their advance.
Molehills of Frogs looking like hedgehogs, very Beatrix Potter..

Is there nothing more meaty in support of the katyusha archers other than a hypothetical deployment 17 deep ?

So now you would have a 17 man file of archers who take the cue for their shot from the angle of the bow of the file leader. He could not speak to those behind because he has to be observing the fall of shot and handling his own bow.

Essentially, yes. But it would be the first two to three ranks who would instantly establish the angle and trajectory: and a ripple to the rear ranks in a second or two as they copied the guys in front of them.

(In our rules we consider 16 ranks deep as the upper limit on depth.)

No archer points and shoots. He has a bodily feeling for what should be done to put an arrow into a target and can adjust when he misses. Another person cannot do that for him. One looks at the target, not along an arrow or sniperscope.

Really. I am an archer and I point and shoot. When the target is beyond pointblank range it becomes much harder to judge the necessary adjustments to hit. That's where experience and countless hours of training comes in, which I do not have. But a veteran of the HYW would have that, and would be a marksman in the front rank, doing the aiming for the whole unit standing at his back. The archers to the rear would be there to add volume to the arrow storm. All they have to do is be competent at loosing consistently, and copying the guys in front to get the angle and trajectory right. There is no aiming required for the ranks that cannot see the target.

Archers cannot loose all at the same time except by practising to draw simultaneously and then it will not be truly simultaneous. The bow is only briefly poised before the loose, especially with heavy bows.

Precisely the reason why the standard "warbow" was well within the maximum draw that an archer could pull. What he could pull a few dozen times before tiring would not be the warbow he used in battle. Rocky has convinced me that the standard warbow of the English, in fact all archer nations, is c. 70 lbs, not 100+ lbs as advocated by many. (We've had this discussion many times in recent years on TMP. TMP link scroll down to mid-page for links to most if not all of them.)

The problem here is that they are required to shoot in a very specific way which is contrary to the best and closest archery instruction we have from Robert Ascham(16Cen.). His ideal archer shoots instinctively at a target he can see, however high he must raise his bow to do so.

Roger Ascham (I often mix up our Roberts and Rogers myself :) ) is talking specifically about individual target practice. Only the best shots at all ranges would be placed in the front rank(s).

The katyusha archer shoots under detailed command from another person at a target he cannot see. It is unlikley. How can we look at it to make it seem more likely

I am not familiar with the term "katyusha archer". You keep referring to it, so you had better elaborate with a source for me to read. It might not even be the same thing the English were doing.

Calculating the ranks by dividing field width into the archers cannot solve this. BEcause only one deployment gives a depth of 17, at Agincourt.Crecy and Poitiers are won without the katyusha effect.

Aside from my possibly not understanding what you mean by the term "katyusha effect", I am of the opinion that neither Crecy or Poitiers were wide fields at all. For one thing, the rearguard in both battles was not in line with the other two battles, narrowing the field even more. It doesn't serve to look at the possible fields today and make conclusions about how wide the open ground was back then. And the sources do not tell us how deep the English armies were. Only a disbelief in indirect, deep volley fire formations would cause a student of those battles to look for as wide a field as necessary in order to keep the English archers only two or three ranks deep.

the whole emphasis of the Agincourt campaign is for a repetition of the first two great victories. It hardly smacks of innovation. then if this great innovation is successful why is it dropped or becomes unmentionable throughout the Wars of the Roses where Englishmen are shooting the crap out of each other for years ?

We believe it was SOP even before the HYW. I agree, aside from the stakes, Agincourt is a typical English field. There are no departures in any of the WotR battles either. It doesn't get mentioned because it was "the same old way" that the English had been fighting for the better part of two centuries.

One of the great features of the fighting at Agincourt was the wall of dead French. Is it not likley this was created by deadly shooting at the french front ranks.

the only source, the Gesta, to mention the walls/piles of French dead specifically places them as a result of the English men at arms stopping the French advance, while pressure from moving forward "inside" the French vanguard pushed the following ranks on top of the dead front rank. It is more likely that by the time the French arrived within melee range they were exhausted both from the muddy march in full plate, while subjected for 200 yards of that advance to repeated arrow vollies, and bleeding out from arrow wounds. The first rank went down rather quickly to the English men at arms, then more French men at arms got pushed forward and tripped over the dead, increasing the "wall" until it looked to the cleric of the Gesta that a man standing on it was twice as high as a man on the ground (even a couple of feet of "wall" depth to stand on would make that impression, so the exaggeration is understandable).

The problem remains. Evidence for deep formations of archers is lacking. Evidence for archers shooting at what they can see is not. Your ripple effect would increase error to the back so the eventual area the arrows landed in would be erratic. What is the point of practising accuracy when in battle such skill is to be negated?

You seem to confirm your own argument only by excusing lack of evidence. A standoff which leaves katyushas where they belong, on the eastern front.

There is no need to go to the other extreme and say opponents of deep formations require a field where files of 2 or 3 can stand. Perhaps 6 men can see through previous ranks which are spaced enough to allow shooting, especially if the taller are placed to the back. Add oblique formations and there is more space on the field than a simple line suggests.

Katyusha archers is my term for your suggestion that a group of archers in deep files will deliver something like a rocket launcher barrage.

I dont know why the weight of the bow is relevant – assume we mean a bow like those from Mary Rose (its all we have ) with 80-100lbs, range 250 yards or so.

Hi

PV…

In all your above posts you start with a prmise..as in "if this is true, then…"

The really short version is that in pretty much every case, your basic assumption is faulty, thus making the rest of the reasoning a waste of time.

It isn't just agincourt where the field precludes a thin line of archers who see. the idea that "proving" details has another basic problem of lack of logic. In muskets, we have fire by introduction, fire by extraction and so on describing the drill. And nothing for archers in deep formations.

So, we are left with, no archery took place!

I would direct you back to assyrian art for a depiction 3000 years old for such deep units.

Rocky

I would direct you back to assyrian art for a depiction 3000 years old for such deep units.

That's it? And interestingly, our rules have two Assyrian army lists which (guess what?) don't allow deep volley fire??

Can you provide references for our viking buddy that are a tad more in-period to this discussion? As I told him already: your research, your rules. I borrowed the results because they work: they produce historical results: I can't quote training manual sources, or trace the evolution from Byzantine to Italian to Northern European training for deep volley fire. I only have YOU to go on, for what's in our missile fire rules. So, give a little, if you don't mind….

The problem remains. Evidence for deep formations of archers is lacking.

It is implied by the study of the field of Agincourt. As I said, the math is simply 6.67 ranks to 15+ ranks of archer depth, depending on how many archers and how wide the field was in 1415: we KNOW the range of possible values for both. Indirect fire is required in order for all of the archers to be employed.

Where evidence is completely lacking is asserting that Henry V might have arrayed his army such that not all of his archers could have been brought to bear on the advancing French vanguard (you seem to be veering "dangerously" close to doing just that). So indirect fire was employed. To assert that this was some kind of innovation from the usual "thin line" shooting, is also without evidence to back it up.

Your ripple effect would increase error to the back so the eventual area the arrows landed in would be erratic. What is the point of practising accuracy when in battle such skill is to be negated?

No to both: copying the attitude of the bowman in front of you would not increase error. It would be no more erratic than the effects of any other mass of men working in concert. The point of practising accuracy is to reveal the truly talented marksmen in each group, so that they can take their place at the front and accurately judge the time-motion to aim properly.

Perhaps 6 men can see through previous ranks which are spaced enough to allow shooting, especially if the taller are placed to the back.

As archers were arrayed in a "checkerboard" formation -- with each archer shooting between the two men to his front -- it is apparent that three and part of four ranks could see well enough to get some visual information on the position of the target. Arrayed on sloping ground would, of course, make the entire question go away: everyone front to rear would be able to see. The same would be true of shooting at an enemy arrayed on higher ground than the archers. But to assume that the tallest archers would also be the worst shots is an ammusing assertion!

Add oblique formations and there is more space on the field than a simple line suggests.

Ah, the "wedges". We had this out too on the earlier threads: and I do ascribe to the archer lines being angled forward in order to achieve flanking fire into the advancing enemy. But even allowing for 45 degrees (which I doubt), you still end up with more than three ranks shooting at Agincourt even with 5K archers and 1K yards of field, especially when these "wedges" are shooting straight down the field, i.e. at 45 degrees to their own front.

I dont know why the weight of the bow is relevant – assume we mean a bow like those from Mary Rose (its all we have ) with 80-100lbs, range 250 yards or so.

Indirect volley shooting assumes that each archer uses the same draw weight: otherwise, the trajectory, as visually demonstrated by the raised bow stave and arm, would vary by draw weight! for example: a bow of 70 lbs raised higher to reach 125 yards than a 100 lb bow would have to, thus throwing off the archer behind if his bow was either weaker or stronger than the bow in front of himself.

I hope that the difference in shooting on a battlefield and from the deck and upper structure of a ship, can be appreciated. For one thing, it is likely that the bows on the warships of Henry VIII were for hand-picked (the best of the best) archers in the realm: this would allow for individuals pulling their best draw weight: there would be no deep volley shooting on a ship….

Hi

Doug, you missed my point. The assyrians are illustrated with alternating ranks of pavice and archer up to several ranks deep, this versus the original post about deeper than 2 and archers being able to see.

They weren't 8 plus deep. He was asserting 2.

Rocky

FAulty assumptions ? Which ones ? I say that what we have evidence for is different from what you suggest.

Why not take the evidence we have as the basis. Mary Rose bows are an example. So now these are inadmissible. As you like it, but it leaves you in fantasy land. Your argument that the Mary Rose bows are for shooting from ships masts and not for volley shooting could equally be seen to mean that these are weaker bows than normal. But the thrust of your argument is for standardisation of bows.

What evidence is there that all bows in England were standardised to the same draw-weight ? Your argument would seem to be that throughout the ages, apparently from Assyria onwards, bows have been made to a national draw-weight specification. Certainly, the Mary Rose bowstaves vary considerably.

To use Assyrian art when referring to Agincourt may not be the best way towards a solution, with problems of 2000 years of culture and technology difference and interpreting the art, so I think that one should be left out.

I still say there is no evidence for deep formations of archers shooting without seeing the target,where is it ?

A big failing with your model is that it appears to negate the accuracy of the archers, which was phenomenal -for example hitting a swinging watermelon at 200 yards with 4 out of 5 arrows as in an anecdote from Spanish -Portuguese war. And compulsory shooting at the village butts was shooting 200 yards or so at a visible target. Modern clout shooting is done to 180 yards and the earliest record of it is late 16th century. Still, the archers could see the clout and someone would signal their success or failure before the next shot. Why not take the simpler model, for which we have evidence over the complex one for which we have no evidence?

And by the way,I hope you are having a good Easter weekend over there.

A good Easter to you as well

So you are sticking with "no evidence". That's ignoring Agincourt, of course: which is evidence of both deep shooting and standard "warbow" draw weights (can't have the former without the latter). The other HYW battlefields are far less distinct than Agincourt: so, as I said, they are pretty much useless in assessing English frontage and number of archers. But Agincourt is not indistinct or that open to argument: it is 700 to 1,000 yards wide, and the best evidence, (by Curry's assessment) is 7,000+ archers at a minimum. That is evidence of deep shooting. Too bad you can't find a "manual" or some specific chronicler descriptions to go along with that, but there it is.

I asked Rocky to supply some medieval sources showing other examples of deep shooting, and he tells me (not just you) that I "missed [his] point."

I guess we are adrift, once again, on this recurring topic and its related tangents. No resolution or even elucidation. As I said, this is not my forté….

I think there is elucidation here because we can see in the light of day that the only evidence for indirect shooting is itself indirect.

The battle formation can be seen as problematic, the numbers are problematic because they relate to the formation and v.v.. This means anything built from this starting point is problematic. Nothing I have read impliesthe English bowmen had standard draw-weight bows at Agincourt.

What we have direct evidence for is the way archers shot at those times. If we impose upon them a form of shooting for which there is no evidence then we are again starting with a shaky foundation.

OK it may be a bit too logical for some and of, course as you rightly say, until Curry gets a move on and finds the English battleplan inscribed on the back of a long hidden receipt for very necessary replacement underpants there is no final resolution.

Just why would those Burgundian pikemen be kneeling if the archers could habitually lob shots over them ? The Burgundians were Anglophile and persuaded of the efficiency of the English longbow.The most likely answer is that longbowmen did not shoot indirectly.

I think there is elucidation here because we can see in the light of day that the only evidence for indirect shooting is itself indirect.

As is almost ALL of our evidence for determining the comparative effects of medieval warfare.

Take, for example, Anna Comnena's "classic" hyperbole: "The Franks cavalry charge would make a hole through the walls of Babylon." Thanks, Anna, for the description, but it aint useful when comparing it to earlier and later varients of the cavalry charge.

Nothing I have read impliesthe English bowmen had standard draw-weight bows at Agincourt.

I sympathize and agree: the dearth of detail is frustrating. Rocky has referred to sources, paraphrasing them in part to me over the years: that's why I think some of that might be useful here and now. But mainly, the reason why I accept deep volley shooting, and vis-a-vis standard draw weights for weapons used in such a manner, is based on his conclusions producing historical results. It's hard to argue with an accurate result!

Just why would those Burgundian pikemen be kneeling…?

Training, drill, for a specific type of coordination between the archers and the screening pike. The Scots had archers too, and there is never any evidence of them shooting from behind the pikemen, not even kneeling ones. I don't know of a single piece of evidence to indicate that English archery was ever screened by dismounted men-at-arms and (or) billmen: they always form up in front of and on the flanks of the battles of infantry. Why? The Burgundians did screened fire, why not the English? They just never did, is the only answer; we don't know why not. The Burgundian screened fire is "immobile"; the Italian varient is mobile: the Swiss also never develop any sort of screened fire, but only use their missile as a skirmish screen. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The most likely answer is revealed by knowing the effects of archery. And in replaying HYW battles, if the English archers are limited to "thin" fire, they get walked over, every, time, by the French. I greatly doubt, that Agincourt forms the only example of archery 8+ ranks deep….

Rocky:
"Credible evidence has "proved" the field being 750 to 1000 yards"
Doug:
"She says the total army "at the battle" was "a few hundred either side of 9,000 men"."

OK, let's do a few sums. Thinking about it, allowing 1 yard per file is very generous. A British battalion in the Napoleonic wars formed up at 22" per file. If 22" is enough room to fire a Brown Bess, it should be more than enough to shoot a longbow – particularly if the archers stand "sideways on" to shoot.

So, 9000 men on a frontage of 750 yards at 22" per file, gives 7 and a bit ranks deep.
On a frontage of 1,000 yards the same calculation gives 5 and a bit ranks deep.

Averaging this out gives a comfortable 6 ranks deep across the whole line, with the men-at-arms in 4 ranks with 2 ranks of archers in front of them.

No need for deep formations of archers at all.

That's just it, Mike we don't know how much spacing per man was normal. But one yard per man is the "standard" we use. It would be an interesting experiment to see how wide the spacing has to be in order to turn 180 degrees and pound in stakes.

Your example is still way deeper than plastic is wanting to argue for. He says 2 to 3 ranks, only. And anything deeper probably can't really see the target, especially if they are packed 22 inches wide per man….

What proves fairly standardized bow draw weights is the mass resupply of arrows. If you are going to do that, bow weight MUST be within 5 pounds of a standard or the arrows will just not work right. Shooting a 70 pound arrow from a 120 pound bow will cause some pretty bad effects.