"Archers in Melee" Topic

Writing in Slingshot, Nick Harbud concludes:

It follows that our wargames rules should consider any archers contacted by melee troops in the open to be dead meat.

Do you agree?

Depends on the precise meaning of "contacted".

Depends upon the circumstances, relative force ratios, etc.

Agincourt is a prime example of that not working out the way one would usually expect.

As said above….. "it depends".

All of these questions on archery have so many variables. Time, place, situation, training, unit, etc, all come together with so many other things to consider that you really have to consider each situation on it's own, and not jumble them all together to try and make some sweeping conclusion. as the author seems bent on doing.

In what context was that statement made? I.e is at blanket statement for any and all archers during the ancient or medieval period or does he focus more on a particular conflict. What historical evidence is put forward to support this?

Now Cretan archers supporting a Seleucid army will probably not do well against Republican Roman legionaries who make contact but English or French archers from the last decades of the 100YW would be a very diffrent matter. By then the retinue/ordonnace archers are wearing brigandines, plate leg armour, mail sleeves and collars together with a sallet protecting the head and are effectivly as better protected than any "melee troops" at Hastings 1066. Armed with sword & buckler, hand & half swords, archers mauls and the odd polearm they are more than able to stand their ground when fighting together with their supporting men-at-arms.

Another example would be Swedish armies of the later 15th century, all of whom were "archers" (or crossbowmen) who just happend to be as well equipped for close combat as they were for missile combat.

You know, "always" rules always do one thing – suck for historical accuracy,

Once in Meleee they should b treated as the equivalent class they were historically.

Hell, even TSR's Chainmail got that right.

<Holding back the DWS comments>

DWS = Dripping With Sarcasm.

Samurai arcers were fully armoured and equiped warriors.

The fate of archers contacted by melee troops is going to depend heavilly on how those archers are equipped.

Debunking the myths…

link

"Archers were defeated by cavalry
Archers were not sent fleeing by a cavalry charge. Not that they could stop one either; there is no recorded instance in history where archers halted a cavalry charge in battle with arrows alone. Yet once the cavalry met with the archers they were not met with fleeing, cowardly wretches but with staunch fighting men, prepared to fight toe to toe with their attackers using hand held weapons. Which leads into the next myth…

Archers did not need to fight in hand to hand combat
You better believe they did. The English archer was renowned for his ability to fight in hand to hand combat and often did, bolstered by dismounted knights and squires among their formations. It was this tactic that made the archers so devastating in war. Later on archers were mounted as well not to shoot from horseback but to increase their mobility and logistic speed when on campaign."

no

Cannot agree with Nick Harbud's proposition. Archers in English medieval armies had nasty sharp bladed daggers and lead weighted mauls. Not being encumbered by plate armour, they would be quite nimble as well as being very strong (ever tried drawing a warbow) so a good whack with the maul might stun a " melee" opponent and the dagger would finish them off.

Close combat is a team event.

So cohesion, training, and experience can trump equipment.

Just because you know how to use a bow, crossbow or handgun does not magically make you worse in close combat.

What matters is training, morale, armour, armament, formation etc.

Here in Kentucky we say
It's not the size of the dog in the fight,
It's the size of the fight in the dog.

No. For the reasons already well said above….

You cannot make a one size fits all rule. I rather expect that Norman archers at Hastings would flee if Saxons with spear and shield got too close whereas Late XVth century English archers in jacks and some pkate would be a toght proposition for other footmen, especially considering that the melee troops are going to have to endure withering close range shooting as they close.
Persian archers against Greeks at Plataea fought bravely but ineffectively when the Greeks closed.

In the open, empirical data would suggest a resounding YES! The OP suggests "in the open" means over relatively flat good going. No defenses. No nothing. He also already suggests that the archers got contacted. Not how they got contacted or by what type of troop other than melee troops. So, like I said at the beginning. YES. If they get contacted as in get into melee with enemy melee troops, it is all over but the crying.

OK. I think basically the statement is that archers in melee will preform poorly compared to melee troops, and BROADLY speaking I believe this view is correct.

Ranged troops are trained and armed to fight at range, heavy armour was an exception rather than the rule, and melee weapons would largely be limited to side arms to be used for emergency self defense.

Agincourt is NOT a typical example of archers versus knights or archers in melee. Agincourt is not an example of archers standing up to a cavalry charge at all. The English defended their archers with stakes in the ground and their own dismounted knights. The archers at Agincourt's contribution to the victory was the VITAL manner of breaking up the charging French by shooting down the more lightly armoured knights and men at arms and killing horses. They then supported the men at arms fighting the exhausted and scattered French.

An example without the stakes and men at arms would be Patay.

Ranged troops are trained and armed to fight at range,

Yes, but not necessarily to the exclusion of other military skills. After all, our forebears were at least as intelligent as ourselves, and can be assumed to have understood the disadvantages of one trick ponies

First of all, are we talking about just archers on foot? Because many mounted archers were also armoured and had lances and such like.
Archers in the Hundred Years War were well armed and armoured and quite willing and able to engage in close combat.
They are not at all the same as unarmoured guys sniping from rocks.
Likewise, Muslim archers of the Caliphate were usually on horseback and quite able to fight hand to hand.
Mongols had bows and also lances and were armoured.
Janissaries are another example.
What about Persian Immortals? Also heavily armoured.

If unarmoured archers is the rule, there seem to be rather a lot of exceptions.

Blanket statements like that are never accurate. Troops and their capabilities varied widely. The first thing that came to my mind were the Persian Immortals, but Dexter beat me to it. As I recall, the Immortals put up a commendable fight against the Spartans at Platea.

Interestingly I see a lot of figures of archers and other missile troops with sidearms – a fair number with swords and hand axes – Roman and Byzantine for example.

Presuming those aren't all errors by manufacturers, it would appear that those archers had at least some capability for melee combat.

Define 'Archer'.

I am given to understand that the role of troops on the WotR field is blurring as research reveals that there were not usually 'Bow' and 'Bill' but rather troops carrying both kinds of weapon, but who swapped as the situation required.

That is what I am coming to realize too. "Archer" does not imply a shooter, and as time moved on the term was fadingly so. As firearms gained in common use and importance, an "archer" would become an infantryman with a guisarme. And if he had a bow at all it would be kept with his "stuff" in camp. By Roger Ascham's time (Henry VIII), he could lament the poor quality of shooters in the realm compared to "former times" when they were stout and practiced enough to hold the respect of their enemies. Interestingly, Ascham also holds forth on their melee capabilities, when with mauls and other hand weapons the yeomen of former times could "beat down their enemies withal"….

"It follows that our wargames rules should consider any archers contacted by melee troops in the open to be dead meat." [Citation needed]

I find it curious that so few posts mentioned actual battles where this situation was documented. It seems like most people based their opinion on how the troops were equipped, rather than the results of real battles. Does anyone know if Harbud argued from equipment or results in his article?