"Overhead Fire - how common?" Topic

hello!

can anyone enlighten me:

how common was overhead fire by bows, slings or artillery in antiquity and medieval times?
eg. how likely was a unit armed in that way to try to shoot over a unit in front of it?

thank you very much!

Archers and artillery maybe, but I think that it would be hard to use a sling with much effect from behind another formation.

The main problem was that if you did not know how far the enemy would be, you would be largely just wasting ammunition (which usually was not at hand in unlimited quantities, unlike in most games).

What happened in some instances (eg. with late Romans) was to add a number of archers directly to a unit of spearmen, deployed in the rear ranks. Depending on the depth of formation, they might not be able to see the enemy, but the officers in the front rank would be close enough to see them and be able to give commands for the archers in the rear.

As for artillery, it was a rather rare sight in field battles until 15th century and introduction of cannons on practical field carriages. Even then, those cannons definitely needed to be fired at low angle in order to be most efficient – mortars that were fired at high angle were siege weapons and would have been rather unpractical for field battles.

Griefbringer

but where there units shooting over friendly units that were between them and the enemy they were shooting at and that they were *not* in direct contact with?

like

EEEEEE (enemy unit)

FFFFFF (friendly unit)

FSFSFS (friendly shooter unit)

No. The only exception would be with the shooters placed on higher terrain so that they could see over the heads of the intervening friendlies; in that situation anyone could shoot, including slingers.

In my gaming, I only allow such shots at the enemy unit IF the friendly unit is closer to the shooters than it is to the enemy (not like in your diagram)….

1066.us

I think that Hwarang meant stone throwers and bolt firers. not just black powder artillery

Shooting from city walls or higher ground was the most likely times when firing over troops.

In these cases the line of sight would not be affected.

again: i mean "overhead fire by bows, slings or artillery in antiquity and medieval times" as stated in my first post.
artillery can be any kind of artillery. catapults, mortars, trebuchts etc.

so one would only overhead-fire from higher ground?

and, Doug, you are right, my graphic is wrong (probaby the auto-format messed it up).
this time with dots:

EEEEEE
.
.
.
.
.
FFFFFF
.
.
FSFSFS

I think that Hwarang meant stone throwers and bolt firers

Both of which were in general a rather rare sight in field battles. Perhaps with Roman scorpions and carroballistas notwithstanding – and these would have definitely been better used for observed fire than for shooting randomly over friendly units.

Griefbringer

Imagine how this had to work: in a computer game the missile troops just shoot into the melee and no friendlies EVER get hit! In RL, the friendlies would take as many hits as the enemy. So to overhead shoot, friendlies cannot be in the receiving area, and that means being able to SEE that the enemy is open for taking hits: ergo that means the missile troops behind have to be able to see. Without being in physical contact with the screening friendly unit, the missile troops cannot receive any orders regarding trajectory and angle to target; so the missile troops must be able to see, which requires being above the screening friendlies….

i would imagine that some rough estimate about the position of the enemy should be possible.

that most troops would not shoot into a melee is quite obvious. (also most wargame rules dont allow that)

anyway: what i really want to know is whether there is historic evidence for such overhead-shootings.

I believe it was very common, in answer to the original post.

"I believe" isn't evidence of the good idea. Of course shooting overhead is a good idea; but how do you do it? As units in deep or close order prevent vision beyond them (unless the rear guys are on higher ground), it is impossible to target enemy units out in front of the screen.

To answer the last question, no there is no historic evidence for missile units on the same level shooting overhead unless they are part of the screening unit/command, i.e. forming the rear ranks….

One of hte ancient Greek tactical manuals has reference to all missile armed infantry shooting overhead at every available opportunity.

Arrians order of battle vs the Alans has foot and horse archers and artillery lined up behind the infantry – one would imagine horse archers would have a natural ability to shoot overhead of infantry!

But none of them fire anything AFAIK says Mr Picky :)

Well, I never said "Fire" (having seen what happens to Daffy when he said that).

"At every available opportunity" leaves the determination of that rather vague, don't you think? And if they weren't using volley fire anyway, all archery would have been individuals picking shots at will; forming up on a slope was typically what an army tried to do, probably for this reason as well as a momentum advantage for the phalanx in the melee. Horsearchers are not going to be benefitted that much but I agree that any height advantage is better than none: the spears when held upright would still form an obstacle to shooting if not to sight….

Never said yuo did say "fire" Doug – but the original poster did, and it's all about him, not you :)

"At every available opportunity" is my paraphrase from memory, and I'm not sure what is vague about it – if you can reach the otehr guy with a missile then use it!

And of course it's individuals shooting if its not volleyed…..how is that important to whether they're shootign or not?

wow, thats picky indeed ^^

could you look up which manual that was? would be even more helpful.

thanks!

one would imagine horse archers would have a natural ability to shoot overhead of infantry!

Depending of course on how tall your horses are…

But effectively, they have the same advantage as infantry on higher ground – they will be more able to draw a line of sight to the infantry.

Griefbringer

does anyone have any evidence for this?

Not I….

Hi

The early iron age middle east had the better armies shooting from mixed tower shield/spear and bow units. The shield screening stuff.

Later, the Byzantines through the thema period, into the daughter states of the empire all used a mixed unit with scutati in front of bow.

The issue with volleys is arrows on target. AN archer with a line of view MIGHT snipe an individual, but this isn't a battle level idea. With mass volley, it is more like, say, later cannister in cannon. You give up a lot of individual accuracy to put a lot of rounds on target. But the cost is high in training.

I have not seen the greek sources suggesting this, however. And I cannot comment on if ashanti or something did it. But "romans" as byzantines did.

Rocky

I am led to believe that shooting overhead is it is explicitly mentioned in the Hellenistic manuals of Asklepiodotos, Ailian, Arrian and the Byzantine manuals of Maurikios and Leo VI.

AFAIK horse archers potentially shooting overhead is a deduction from placing them behind the infantry in Arrians order of battle vs the Alans..

Hi

Al…I have read the refrences in the later manuals, though calling them "hellenistic" can only lead to confusion.

I haven't seen the mention in the first three, nor can i think of an example on the field where it would look like massed overhead shooting in early greek stuff.

Rocky

Overhead shooting was common.

How about that; me and Aloysius agreeing on something. :-)

You forgot to mention the ballistae in Arrian's rear areas that fired over the troops in front at the Alans.

No overhead shooting on the same level? Come on Doug!

Well, show me, don't just say it: quote "chapter and verse", I'm ready to be convinced….

Doug feel free to expand you library by getting some of the works themselves – Asclepiodotus is in a Loeb translation paired with Onasanader & another who's name escapes me – his section on positioning of light infantry is in Ch 6.1 I think.

Arrian is also available in translation. I think the byzantine ones are too……..go forth and research my son….

Byzantine isn't the problem: as Rocky explained, the archers are attached as the rear ranks of the Scutati phalanx, shooting "screened" and in volley. This is both different from individual shooting at will (ancient practice as I understand it) and overhead from well behind the phalanx. That's what is being advocated here by you, it seems.

A couple of particular quoted references showing that kind of overhead shooting in ancient times is all I am asking for, not the whole shmeer added to my library!…

I'm not "advocating" anything – I answered the original question and expanded it a bit in response to you.

Your subsequent requirement for detail is beyond what I have.

I see. Well, you seemed to be in agreement with GRPitts., citing sources but not quoting them (I tend to like to provide quoted passages entire, whenever I claim something based on original sources, so that I do not get accused of merely asserting).

I wonder what GRPitts bases acceptance of, "overhead shooting was common", on? Perhaps in the original sources/narratives, we have a statement "the horsearchers were to the rear so that they could shoot overhead at the Alans": but essential details about the tactical situation are missing, e.g. the ground was sloped toward the Alans, making the overhead shooting practical.

I will require some pretty solid evidence, to convince me that Rocky and I have been mistaken all these years, to whit: that in ancient and medieval times archers were capable of shooting overhead without seeing the enemy, i.e. on the same level with the screening unit. Horsearchers, now, I have often wondered WHY NOT? But again, evidence is lacking that horsearchers/mounted crossbowmen ever did this routinely (an odd case without added, needed detail about the condition of the battlefield -- sloping ground -- does not create the tactic for all armies that have horsearchers!)….

Ok grasshopper:

Flavius Arrianus, The Expedition Against the Alanoi:

#14 – "On the left of the latter, holding the horn's (=wing's) furthest part [part], the Allies from Lesser Armenia, the Trapezountains' skirmishers and the Rhizian spear-carriers should be deployed. In front of [them] let the two hundred Apulians and one hundred of the Cyrenians be deployed so that the hoplites may be a projection in front of the javelin-throwers [so that the latter could] shoot over [them] from the furthes [part pf the horn (=wing)].

#21: "Let as many of these as are mounted archers stand near the legion so as to shoot over it".

There is absoloutely no doubt that you and Rocky are mistaken.

Have fun!

- Greg

Okay, I see very small numbers of "hoplites" mentioned as being out in front -- what, 300? This would be in a very thin line, i.e. easy to see over. And the horsearcher reference does not mention the ground at all, so that could have been a factor in being able to see easily over the spears in front. Two rather spotty references are a beginning; but hardly "absoloutely no doubt" that we are mistaken.

Rocky, what say you?

Whatever Doug.

I'd show you some of my home videos from the period bt you would probably say that they were edited.

lol!

- Greg

You have "home videos" of overhead shooting? I want to see.

That would be cool though, wouldn't it?

Trouble is, we would scrutinize and stop-action them to death, and STILL not agree on what we are seeing…. :)

That was my point Doug.

Your mind is made up, although it's completely void of any logic that I understand.

Think what you will. It's not my job to convince you, and personally, I really could not care less how you feel on the topic.

- Greg

I think thou dost protest too much, Gregory. Besides, two people with differing opinions who fail to convince each other both have their minds made up. (I do appreciate your quoting the two references, thanks for that.)

To get back to an earlier point:

i would imagine that some rough estimate about the position of the enemy should be possible.

But how good is a rough estimate to provide effective fire? If the enemy unit is 10 meters deep, and you end up mis-estimating the range by 20 meters, there probably would not be too many hits.

In theory you could send somebody to accompany the forward unit as a sort of "forward observer", and then have messengers running back and forth providing information about the enemy positions. Or to arrange for some sort of elaborate system of given signals with flags, but that would require lots of planning and training to make work.

If both the enemy unit and the friendly unit blocking line of sight are immobile, then the missile units would probably eventually manage to estimate their positions closely enough to be effective. If one of the units is moving, it would get harder, and even more so should both of them be actually moving.

In most cases, it would be a lot simpler just to move the missile units forward, so that they are straight behind (or in front) of the other friendly unit. Or to have them placed there in the first place.

Using mounted archers at the rear of the infantry line, in order to be able to see over the infantry line, might sound like a fine idea. However, it also means sacrificing the mobility of your mounted archers by parking them in a static position, instead of being placed on the flanks of the infantry to aggressively harass the enemy.

Griefbringer

It seems to me that the "indirect fire" of archers is easily done when on the defense. All you need to know is the range to a fixed point to your front. The English showed that skill any number of times during the HYW, albeit they were rarely firing from the rear rank.

I think that we give too little credit to the skills of not only the archers, but of the officers commanding them. The idea of massed archery is also one of area fire. Saturate a given area with arrows and something will hit.

Plus, my own belief is that such fire is more akin to modern H&I, Harrassment & Interdiction. Casualties are a fortunate by-product of the fire. The aim is to disrupt the formation and force the other side to either redeploy, slow down, or lose cohesion/integrity. Become disorganized.

Same thing as the Roman's use of Pillum just prior to impact, or the Frank's throwing axe, etc. Just fired from the rear of the formation.

It makes sense that you could maintain a steady volume of arrows against an approaching unit, and potentially cause some serious trouble, if not damage to them, especially if they were lightly or unarmored.

Just sayin'

The English showed that skill any number of times during the HYW, albeit they were rarely firing from the rear rank.

Never, in fact, on a level with the screening men-at-arms: I seem to recall Henry's archers shooting in support of the Black Prince's battle at Crecy, but Henry's battle was parked well above the Prince's battle and could see everything.

The idea of massed archery is also one of area fire. Saturate a given area with arrows and something will hit.

Again, not all that common, because it is drill intensive. I don't believe that any archers until the late Romans do volley fire in depth (there may be an exception or even two, but I can't think of one if there is).

The javelinmen, on the other hand, DO volley in depth, usually just before closing: the Romans, of course, excell at this….

Hi

Arrian is late roman.
Then, he describes the typical deployment of troops as

8 ranks of spear and pilum and ONE rank of archers.

Others do suggest full units of archers, but again, the confusion is that of calling things "Greek".

For most of us, this implies screened fire as, say Manitia or the hot gates.

Too often I suspect people like to try to be clever rather than informative. Or as I have said elsewhere, "heat but no light".

Rocky

Doug,

You missed my point. It's the sentence preceding what you quoted that is the modifier:

"It seems to me that the "indirect fire" of archers is easily done when on the defense. All you need to know is the range to a fixed point to your front."

You add:

"Again, not all that common, because it is drill intensive."

And how so? Archers are incapable of learning to draw and fire on command? It's a LOT less intensive to train archers than to train a Hoplite. Do you believe that Psiloi never drilled? That light troops and support troops never practiced their assignments prior to actual battle? Slingers never went out to a field and practiced their art? That's an extraordinary statement to make.

respects,

Mainly its the numbers and frontages involved: right up until the English do it, MOST armies number their archers in the hundreds, not massed thousands. There are Italian exceptions, and maybe some Iberian exceptions; but the most common frontage-to-numbers puts archers in open order and not very deep: even Hastings, with an extraordinary number of archers in the Norman army, on the known frontage, does not stack more than c. four ranks deep in open order (Hastings somewhat miscarries as an example anyway, because the English on a ridge were visible to all the Norman marksmen, no matter how deep they might have been arrayed). So volley shooting is irrelevant in such situations, and the archery becomes more like harrassing and skirmishing application, rather than destructive saturation.

The Psiloi can do either, skirmish or volley, depending on the numbers employed.

What you say about standing on the defensive is true; a prepared battlefield situation would allow the defending archers opportunity to get the range from their (immobile) position and the moment the enemy enters that predetermined ground they get hit with vollies, or at least a lot of individually shot arrows (in such a predetermined range-to-target scenario, I don't think that a lot of difference would be seen between volley and shoot-at-will). The biggest difference between drilled and raw (irregular) masses of archers would be their capability to form for battle on the spur, like at Agincourt and Crecy: although on the defensive, the ground wasn't chosen, the troops were not arrayed and prepped in their establishing optimum ranges: so these factors would have only been known quickly by troops thoroughly drilled as massed units who are also capable of maneuvering to a different placement and (or) facing.

Inclusive in the implied drill, is the ability to shoot when the target cannot be seen from many ranks to the rear: again, MOST armies don't ever face this drill expedient, because the numbers of marksmen is small enough that they easily fill the frontage with a thin line where every shooter can see the target….

that was insightful.
thanks everyone.