# How accurate was the battle style portrayed in The Patriot? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 16, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124 "2011-05-16T19:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/121 "2011-11-14T15:46:09Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > You cant say that a musket will give you a working soldier with very little training, and reconcile that with the amount of training and drilling it must have taken to field soldiers who wouldnt rout at the first charge or volley fired against them. Months vs years? It literally took over a decade to develop a good archer. And it’s not like standing ground in the face of the enemy was a new thing. You think incoming arrows aren’t scary? A charge of cavalry? A line of sword-weilding opponents? Keeping troops in line was a common need long before muskets. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/122 "2011-11-14T16:14:02Z")
At musket-firing range, you’d think crossbows would be a huge advantage in regards to rate of fire and accuracy. The Chinese had repeating crossbows centuries before, but even a Euro design with a winding mechanism and heavy bolt would’ve been feared. Unlike archery, you don’t need to be strapping or particularltly artful. Roman scorpions would’ve been a useful powderless companion to cannon as well. ---
**Author:** ![butler1850](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@butler1850](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butler1850)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/123 "2011-11-14T17:25:02Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > While I’ve never actually done it, I also imagine it’s a challenge to load a muzzle-loader while on the ground. Pouring powder down the barrel seems unlikely. Handling the priming rod is also awkward. I imagine that would greatly decrease the speed of reloads." Not to mention that the musket is 5 feet long, and nearly 10 lbs. A “cut down” musket (limited evidence of their use in the AWI) is only a few inches shorter. Reloading in a prone position would be nearly impossible, especially as the barrel begins to foul and you actually need to apply force to the rammer to fully seat the ball on the powder at the bottom of the barrel. > [@Irishman](#): > > Say a well trained crew can reload in 2 minutes. You can either have 1000 men fire 1 volley every 2 mins, you can have 500 men fire 1 volley every 1 min, or you can have 250 men fire 1 volley every 30 seconds. Which is most appropriate? Might depend on the engagement. On the other hand, if you fire off all in one volley, that 2 minutes everyone is reloading the enemy engages in a charge with bayonets. Plus there’s that morale factor of taking incoming fire faster than outgoing fire. “Damn, they’re getting off 4 shots to every one of ours.” FWIW, The British army standard was 3 round per minute. And it is exceptionally fast. A [video](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=brown%20bess%203%20shots%20minute&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CD8QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSJMbxZ1k9NQ&ctbm=vid&ei=6EfBTvDDHOG40AHBwtTXBA&usg=AFQjCNH1RUfe3-JxRi4a11WWO-UUr7w60Q&sig2=CmI96MUKa8G5hkrdv_KavQ&cad=rja) shows it being done under ideal conditions… which a battlefield was not. A man on a full run charging with his bayonet can cover a lot of ground in the (ideal) 33 seconds between shots. Having been on the receiving end of a charge in a reenactment, where I knew I wasn’t going to be actually bayoneted, and the other side wasn’t running full out, I can only begin to imagine how that would slow down the other side’s ability to load properly, make ready, then fire at the oncoming charge. I wanted to run, and I knew there was ZERO danger to my wellbeing. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/124 "2011-11-14T21:59:30Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > At musket-firing range, you’d think crossbows would be a huge advantage in regards to rate of fire and accuracy. The Chinese had repeating crossbows centuries before, but even a Euro design with a winding mechanism and heavy bolt would’ve been feared. Unlike archery, you don’t need to be strapping or particularltly artful. Roman scorpions would’ve been a useful powderless companion to cannon as well. You might think so, but guns didn’t come to replace bows or crossbows overnight. There was plenty of time where both technologies were used on the battlefield simultaneously. Guns won out over arrows, so there has to be some advantage. Crossbows, even with crank mechanisms, took time to reload as well. Part of Agincourt was the English longbowmen against the French crossbowmen, and how the longbows had longer range and higher rate of fire than the crossbows. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/125 "2011-11-14T22:16:24Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > You might think so, but guns didn’t come to replace bows or crossbows overnight. There was plenty of time where both technologies were used on the battlefield simultaneously. Guns won out over arrows, so there has to be some advantage. > > Crossbows, even with crank mechanisms, took time to reload as well. Part of Agincourt was the English longbowmen against the French crossbowmen, and how the longbows had longer range and higher rate of fire than the crossbows. I believe you are thinking of Crecy. > **[Battle of Crécy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy)** > > The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 in northern France between a French army commanded by King Philip VI and an English army led by King Edward III. The French attacked the English while they were traversing northern France during the Hundred Years' War, resulting in an English victory and heavy loss of life among the French. > The English army had landed in the Cotentin Peninsula on 12 July. It had burnt a path of destruction through some of the richest lands in France to within ... > [@](#): > > The first attack was from the crossbowmen, who launched a series of volleys with the purpose of disorganizing and frightening the English infantry. This was accompanied by the sound of musical instruments, brought by Philip VI for scare tactics. However, the crossbowmen proved completely useless; with a shooting rate of around 1–2 shots per minute, they were no match for the longbowmen, who could shoot five or six arrows in the same amount of time, and also had superior range due to their bows and elevation. Furthermore, their weapons were damaged by the brief thunderstorm that had preceded the battle, while the longbowmen had unstrung their bows until the rain stopped – in fact Froissart relates that they did not withdraw their bows from their covers or sheaths till the first volley from the Genoese failed: “Les archers anglois découvrent leurs arcs, qu’ils avoient tenus dans leur étui pendant la pluie”.[9] The crossbowmen also did not have their pavises, which would have provided cover for the men during the long reloading procedure but remained in the baggage train. Under the hail of English arrows, the Genoese crossbowmen suffered heavy losses and were unable to approach the English lines to where their crossbows would have been effective. Their commanders, including Doria, died trying to rally their men. Frustrated and confused, the crossbowmen retreated. The knights and nobles, upon seeing the mercenaries routed, hacked them down as they came back to their lines (“Kill this rabble impeding our way”). There were some battle-specific reasons the crossbows failed there - the English had the high ground, their strings were not wet, and the crossbowmen did not have their shields (pavises). But more significant than any of this, and perhaps the root cause, was the fact that the French at that time simply did not appreciate the proper use of mixed-arms tactics - symbolized by the fact that the French cavalry wasted their charge on their own mercenaries in disapointment over their “cowardice” (rather than recognizing that they had blundered in deploying them in these conditions) and were consequently completely disorganized when attacking the English. This arose from the continued primacy accorded to the heavy cavalry by the cult of chivalry. In contrast, the English, for all their lip service to that cult, adopted a set of tactics here and in other battles like Agincourt that maximized the strengths of _all_ of their troops. Perhaps under the right general, or under the right conditions, crossbows could have “worked” against bowmen - though the higher rate of fire was always going to be the bowman’s advantage. The fundamental French problem was not that of having inferior weapons, it was one of inferior battle tactics - they acted like amateurs versus professionals, and thus got beat. ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/126 "2011-11-14T22:42:29Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > At musket-firing range, you’d think crossbows would be a huge advantage in regards to rate of fire and accuracy. The Chinese had repeating crossbows centuries before, but even a Euro design with a winding mechanism and heavy bolt would’ve been feared. Unlike archery, you don’t need to be strapping or particularltly artful. With a crossbow, the shooter is still using his muscles to power the projectile. Using a windlass or similar mechanism to load a crossbow is much more tiring than loading a musket, in which the gunpowder is doing the work of propelling the projectile. If you were defending a fortification a musketeer can load and shoot long after a longbowman or crossbowman would be exhausted. Musketballs and gunpowder (depending on your exact situation) are cheaper to produce and transport than arrows or bolts. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/127 "2011-11-14T22:49:44Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > With a crossbow, the shooter is still using his muscles to power the projectile. Using a windlass or similar mechanism to load a crossbow is much more tiring than loading a musket, in which the gunpowder is doing the work of propelling the projectile. If you were defending a fortification a musketeer can load and shoot long after a longbowman or crossbowman would be exhausted. Musketballs and gunpowder (depending on your exact situation) are cheaper to produce and transport than arrows or bolts. My impression was that gunpowder was actually very expensive, relatively. Also, extremely tempermental to transport, store and distribute to your troops in all weathers - suffers from humidity moreso than arrows or bolts. “Keep your powder dry” being the operative expression … ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/128 "2011-11-14T23:34:37Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > My impression was that gunpowder was actually very expensive, relatively. Also, extremely tempermental to transport, store and distribute to your troops in all weathers - suffers from humidity moreso than arrows or bolts. “Keep your powder dry” being the operative expression … Yeah, but you don’t use much gunpowder per shot (of a musket at least, cannons are a different argument). The ball and powder required to shoot 100 shots from a musket could be carried by one man (although soldiers typically carried far less ammunition than this). Now imagine a soldier carrying 100 arrows. Not impossible, but a bit more difficult than the equivalent amount of musket shots. In addition, one of the bow’s chief advantages over the musket was its faster rate of fire, which requires even more ammunition. A soldier, boat, or a draft animal could carry more musket ammunition than bow ammunition, which is a huge logistical advantage. As you and other posters have pointed out, wet weather can wreck all sorts of weapon systems, including certain types of bows and crossbows. I added a qualifier in my previous post because depending on which society at which time period we are talking about, gunpowder certainly could be more expensive to produce than arrows. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124/129 "2011-11-15T14:44:10Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > Yeah, but you don’t use much gunpowder per shot (of a musket at least, cannons are a different argument). The ball and powder required to shoot 100 shots from a musket could be carried by one man (although soldiers typically carried far less ammunition than this). Now imagine a soldier carrying 100 arrows. Not impossible, but a bit more difficult than the equivalent amount of musket shots. In addition, one of the bow’s chief advantages over the musket was its faster rate of fire, which requires even more ammunition. A soldier, boat, or a draft animal could carry more musket ammunition than bow ammunition, which is a huge logistical advantage. > > As you and other posters have pointed out, wet weather can wreck all sorts of weapon systems, including certain types of bows and crossbows. > > I added a qualifier in my previous post because depending on which society at which time period we are talking about, gunpowder certainly could be more expensive to produce than arrows. It is true that lack of ammunition could and did interrupt the arrow storm. However, that’s a peculiarity of the high rate of fire. While I have not found a source for the capacity of medieval quivers, modern quivers have a capacity of 25-30 arrows (though the note is that this is “more suited to modern styles”): [http://www.reference.com/browse/longbow+quiver](http://www.reference.com/browse/longbow+quiver) The entry also notes: > [@](#): > > Quivers were not always employed by travelers in warfare, as a large number of arrows would often be supplied to groups of archers and stuck in the ground for more rapid shooting. I haven’t found a good cite as to how much your average archer would carry with him into battle, or be “supplied” in this manner for battle. This site states that at the battle of Crecy 7,000 archers shot an estimated half-million arrows, for a total of around 70 per man. [http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/crecy.htm](http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/crecy.htm) This site states that each archer was supposed to have with him 24 arrows at Agincourt: [http://archery.mysaga.net/archy3.html](http://archery.mysaga.net/archy3.html) That would tally with the “25-30” in the modern quiver. In contrast, a musketeer’s bandloier held 8-14 charges: > **[Bandolier of a Musketeer](https://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/weapons/Bandolier.html)** This “ready ammo” was supplemented by a powder horn or box, but I haven’t found a cite as to how much it carried other than one assertion that musketeers carried around 50 round’s worth in total. I have not found reference to how this supply would be supplemented from central stores, but presumably it would have been. Point here is that access to 'ready ammo" in quivers on bandoliers indicates that bowmen had about twice the shots instantly available. However, as their rate of fire was much higher, they would of course run out of that far sooner. Archers apparently had access in battle to around 70 arrows; musketeers, to approximately 50 shots. In summary, the fact that archers often ran out of ammo during battle while musketeers did not appears to be a function of the former’s much higher rate of fire, rather than the convenience of the latter’s ammunition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-was-the-battle-style-portrayed-in-the-patriot/582124.md?page=6)