Ancient/medieval archery - a rethink

[Arlequín]

Actually I find  a spaniard using the word crikey far more amazing than this bow and arrow fellow.

To be fair to him though as I said earlier in tribal warfare they run about shooting their bows albeit less circus act. There are a few gems in the minefield with what he is saying its just very bad signal to noise with too much ego added.

Well you might if I was Spanish... I'm just an Inglés who lives and works here. 

Point taken though and on the basis that there is little new under the sun, you can probably guarantee that competent archers were able to do some/all/more than what he demonstrated, but their opinion of any facet's practicality would be obtained through experience... some of which would be bitter.

Given that Europe appears to have moved towards massed bows etc from skirmishing with them, does sort of imply that methods were lost or discarded in the Old World at least and gives us the idea that such troops were relatively static. Those areas where skirmishing or 'individual combat' is the norm do tend to be far more mobile and fast moving.

As I hinted at before, 19th Century Apache raiders would have found some of those techniques quite simple, compared to what they (maybe) did themselves, while an archer at Agincourt would have probably found them pretty useless.

[levied troop]

Ian Mortimer's book '1415: Henry V's Year of Glory' described an Agincourt where English archers ran forward to attack initially and then appear to shelter behind men at arms, running forward 30 or so yards to shoot several arrows at the French before running back to regain shelter.  I rather dismissed this as rubbish (particularly as Mortimer repeats the idea, of high piles of French dead needing to be clambered over, that I think John Keegan effectively disproved years ago) but this video shows how it might have been done.

Except I really don't think it was, the English longbow strikes me as an 'area effect' weapon for large battles.  Some may have used such techniques in smaller skirmish affairs and the idea of archers holding several arrows in one hand seems feasible but this isn't a total rethink of medieval archery.

[DAVE A]

Give him a helmet, sword and mail shirt, 48 arrows, starve him for a few days, give him dysentry and put him in a muddy field. Then see how much he can jump about!   

[Patrice]

Ian Mortimer's book '1415: Henry V's Year of Glory' described an Agincourt where English archers ran forward to attack initially and then appear to shelter behind men at arms, running forward 30 or so yards to shoot several arrows at the French before running back to regain shelter.

Interesting; but does it means they were running and shooting individually and very fast as in the video? I would rather think it means that small units of longbowmen moved swiftly forward (still forming an unformal line), shot arrows, and then quickly retreated in good order. I've seen it done a few times by English HYW/WOTR re-enactors without breaking formation.

But in the Dark Ages and 12th-13th century, some bowmen (with less powerful bows, and not organised in units but mixed with other infantry and small knights retinues) probably moved individually in the fighting to shoot at rather close range.

[Arlequín]

I'm not sure 'order' is the word I would use, but a 'formed mob' rather than an 'unformed mob' for sure. Rush forward to a reasonable range, fire rapidly, then fall back behind the men at arms to get more arrows... repeat as often as able. Certainly judging by the 'idea' we have of Towton, that was the tactic used by the Yorkists to goad the Lancastrians (who were apparently facing into a blizzard and unable to achieve the same range) to give up their high ground and attack.

I've never encountered anything to suggest archers were 'store mannequins' and incapable of a fair degree of mobility and flexibility. However to get the best out of their weapon, stationary shooting at a massed body of men, where no aiming is really required, is obviously the best situation (as it is for any missile weapon in truth). The one advantage of the bow is that you can draw it on the move without any real disadvantage. It's much more problematic to wind a windlass, or use a crow's foot with a crossbow, or indeed load a handgun, while trying to advance; once loaded is a different matter of course.

[Vermis]

Well, here we go. It took a day or two but here's something not-entirely-unexpected: Professional archer completely shreds Andersen's video

He seems to be usin facts over vitriol, so I'm inclined to believe him.

That was beautiful.

But a quick scan over some of the comments reminds me that humanity is doomed.

[Arlequín]

As I understand it the 'double draw' mentioned in Scurv's link is exactly the method used to draw a 'English warbow', judging by examination of human remains of archers.
 

[Gibby]

Bit of a bump, but I just got linked to this video:



A skeptical response to Lars' original. I thought the same thing about him basing so much on ancient/medieval art - the artists weren't likely to be professional archers, much like contemporary depictions of archery are a bit dodgy in some cases.

[Atheling]

I'm not sure 'order' is the word I would use, but a 'formed mob' rather than an 'unformed mob' for sure. Rush forward to a reasonable range, fire rapidly, then fall back behind the men at arms to get more arrows... repeat as often as able. Certainly judging by the 'idea' we have of Towton, that was the tactic used by the Yorkists to goad the Lancastrians (who were apparently facing into a blizzard and unable to achieve the same range) to give up their high ground and attack

I concur.  .

Darrell.