Almost every film you see where medieval mass combat is portrayed has a scene with a massive arrow volley. You know the one where one side’s archers all release their arrows in a very high arc to rain down on the advancing front line of the other side’s foot soilders.
Is this a historically accurate military tactic or just Hollywood? And if it is historically accurate, can someone explain the benefit of doing this. Why is this any more effective than just instructing each archer to pick out a target and fire as they would when hunting or taget shooting?
Most of the mass fire is directed at a large group a goodly distance away. Considering that the skill-levels of your archers is going to vary by quite a bit, as is the quality and flight characteristics of the bow and each individual arrow, mass fire gives you a much better chance of disrupting the enemy’s charge. Plus, you are shooting at a moving target, which makes accurate fire even harder.
When they get close enough…then the better archers can select individual targets. Before they quickly scamper behind the stakes to avoid getting skewered by a bunch of very pissed-off horsemen!
An advantage of the volley of arrows is that, while the front of an advancing force can be easily shielded with armour, ranks further back are less protected, and are most vulnerable from things falling from above. The Roman ‘tortoise’ formation was capable of countering this, but relied on having a huge supply of armour, and particularly well-disciplined and well-trained troops.
A program on PBS a few weeks ago demonstrated how devastating such a tactic could be. Archers were expected to fire six arrows per minute and armies could have had thousands of archers. The show set up a small group of archers to fire at a patch of ground a reasonable distance away. After one minute, the area was entirely filled with arrows. It’s hard to see how anyone could have made it out unscathed.
In 1066, at the Battle of Hastings, Norman archers were largely ineffective until the end of the first day, when William backed off and ordered the archers to fire high. This inflicted heavy casualties on the English side, including (although Wikipedia says it is now thought not to be the case) the Saxon king Harold, pierced in the eye by an arrow.
However, do note that flaming arrows are mostly there for the “kewl special effects”. They were rarely used, and not in volleys, AFAIK. You’d fire off one or two to try and set the thatch roof of cottages on fire, for instance. Flaming arrows are very short range and inaccurate.
Another big factor is range. An arrow is obviously going to go a lot farther if you shoot it up at a 45 degree angle than if you selectively target an individual with a more horizontal shot.
I’m an archer. Using modern equipment, I can consistently hit a person at out to about 50 yards. (Modern bows have advanced cam systems and are made out of magnesium or aircraft aluminum.) My father carves his own bows from a single piece of wood. He is probably accurate out to about 25 yards. However, even his bow could probably shoot hundreds of yards effectively if the only targetting requirement was hitting a general area.
One thing I would think of is that formation fire might be more difficult to avoid… if a ‘swarm’ of arrows are all coming in at the same time – you can dodge the one that’s heading straight for you and get skewered by the next one over.
Yeah, although I’m in no way a good archer, beyond 100 yards it would take a lot of luck to aim at and hit a moving person. Arrows are fairly quick but they aren’t anywhere as fast as a bullet. Even at 50 yards the delay and wind deflection becomes a bit of a problem.
A moving infantry group would have to be fairly close before you could just pick someone off and if you miss you’re going to have a very pissed off guy with a sword near you (or if you hit him, his friends are going to want to speak to you). Arrows are better used in mass fire mode to thin out the group just like any other artillary piece.
Don’t forget about shock value. Psychologically, a soldier can deal with steady but moderate enemy fire, but if he’s moving forward and then suddenly WHAM a quarter of his unit drops dead, he may start to rethink that advance. It’s the same reason later armies used vollies of musket fire, and one reason modern armies use machine guns.
You don’t always have to kill your enemy to win. Usually, you just have to break him.
Yep. If not to deformed by impact. Arrows were scavenged by archers during lulls in the battle. It’s only polite to return property to its original owner.
Also, archers aiming high can loose their arrows from behind advancing infantry forces. With a little planning, the infantry could engage the enemy in the disorder just after it is hit by a volley of arrows.
I saw the movie Troy a few weeks ago, and it seemed like hundreds of arrows were shot during one of those volleys. Making all of those arrows must represent a significant investment. I assume when the arrow is deformed, the arrowhead is reused, right?
It’s usually the arrowhead that is deformed. Soft metal, impact with armor, etc. They would usually salvage whatever they could, but they could always just cut the arrowhead off and attach another one to the shaft.
Well, there are a couple of factors here (I saw the movie too)
First, Trojans were supposedly touted for their archery. I don’t remember reading that in The Illiad but considering Apollo himself was sniping away at the Greeks I wouldn’t be surprised. So for them I’m sure it is a pretty solid investment.
Second, the Trojans were able to situate most of their archers on a very high wall. This gave them great range, and combined with ground troops bogging down the Greeks, made them sitting ducks. I think something like 10,000 Greeks died on that particular day, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a large proportion of those casualties were due to arrows.
Some other interesting note another Doper (sorry, don’t remember who or the cite) mentioned was that Mongols notched their arrows in such a way that their opponents could not use them against them. In addition, Mongolian composite bows had better range than most opponents, so in some engagements european archers’ shots fell short, and the Mongols pelted them back with their own arrows :eek:
