nope. it was a direct response to that Persian General boasting that his army had such a huge number of archers. guy should have taken classes in badassery before even talking to a spartan xD
MORNING HAS BROKEN, TODAY THEY'RE FIGHTING IN THE SHADE WHEN ARROWS BLOCKED THE SUN THEY FELL, TONIGHT THEY DINE IN HELL please understand this someone
If Xerxhes would have been clever, he would sent his troups and THEN let the archers shout their arrows! The Spartans can't fight and protect theirselves from skyattacks at the same time. I mean he doesn't seam to be the kind of guy that wouldn't sacrifice his soldiers .
2:10 or the archers would notice their comrades getting ready to shoot and thus get the message to do the same (basically, it would sort of be like a domino effect).
Imagine keeping a 150-180 lb. warbow at full draw for 10 seconds. Fuck, that would be punishing to your shoulders! Given the fact that an individual archer didn't need to aim at a specific target during a volley, they could just release as soon as they reached full draw. It would also be unwise for commanders to tire their archers out needlessly while the enemy is still at a distance so it's likely that they just gave their unit a specific volley command that tells the archers to begin their shooting process, nocking, drawing, and releasing at their own discretion, saving their strength for situations when the enemy is at a reasonable distance.
Yeah, they didn't have cams like modern compound bows. You're not holding them a la Helm's Deep (and it's understandable why that guy fired his early.) It also didn't make sense for Aragorn to wait until the Orcs were right in front of the walls to start shooting.
Thanks for the info. I especially appreciate how you point out that people today tend to look at video games, and movies as how things were done historically. At this point in my life, I don't yet shoot bows, although after I heal up from surgery, I intend to take it up. I've spent most of my 62 years of life in the military, and I've been downrange (I was in Baghdad, 2004). Most people don't understand the different types of weapons utilized in war, let alone the how and why for each. There are Standoff weapons, Medium Range weapons, and Close Quarters weapons. This isn't a hard and fast categorization however. Some weapons that are Standoff, can in a pinch be used as a Medium Range, or even (rarely) as a Close Quarters (Such as when Artillery is called in upon your own position. Called "Danger Close"). So, flexibility exists as to how and why each weapon might be used. Back when Archery was king, there weren't many Long Range Weapons, except in Siege Warfare, the Trebuchet, etc. The Bow, however, at least as I see it in history, certainly would fill the bill as a very efficient Standoff weapon, especially if they were using Bodkins, the armor piercing arrow of the day. They would thin out your enemy very efficiently until the enemy was right upon them, which was when the foot soldiers would have to defend them. I apologize for being so wordy. Thank you again for the information. Do you know if anyone has done a test of riveted chain mail? Justin Maddox madog.medic@hotmail.com
Many movies and some games show the flaw of volley shooting, yet they still stubbornly use it. With volley shooting, marching soldiers have a clear window for turtling behind shields and they can march freely when the archers are reloading (for some reason, it takes so long). Doesn't make much sense to use a tactic that is so easily countered... If you think about it - but I may be wrong, just speculating - shooting a constant stream of arrows forces the enemy to defend at all times, which hinders them in few ways (reduced visibility, communication, probably movement speed and maneuverability). PS: apologies if it was covered in the video, wasn't paying that much attention at some parts :(
If there is an army with many hundreds of archers, coordinating all of them to do volleys isn't really feasible. Realistically you'd wind up having subunits shooting simultaneously, with the overall effect being a continuous stream. Also, from personal experience, I can say that even if you do get about 10-40 people shooting in a volley, the arrows actually wind up being fairly spread out, due to differences in arrow speed, response time, etc. Also, a truly coordinated volley could be useful in an ambush.
A two-step "Nock" then "Loose" command seems very intuitive to me, with "Loose" prompting both the draw and release. There might be slight variations to how long each archer would draw and loose their arrows, but these would be relatively negligible and you would still produce constant volleys. Interesting idea!
The idea would have been to make the other guys keep their heads down while you take the initiative. Killing some would be an added benefit. Like the way submachine guns are used.
The points you make here have some backing in the scholarship around the battle of Agincourt. A guy who digs alot into that scholarship made a video regarding the arrows themselves : ruclips.net/video/NTpOmpL4tMI/видео.html Major point : The arrows meant for piercing armor would have shafts tapered from something like half an inch at the head, which made them a much more short ranged, direct-fire affair. Another video went over the expenses of arming a ship with crossbows, and a sheev of 40 bolts cost about twice as much as the actual bows. I doubt longbows and their arrows had a much better economy, frankly. Volleys of unaimed fire would have likely been extremely expensive.
I think it worked as a fireteam today. Over 100 m you wait for command. The officer or NCO won't ask to steady, ready or whatnot, just yells fire or identifies the target shortly and then fire. Under 100 meters you fire at will. The leader always has radio and a runner. If the radio fails, you still have a runner. Firing on command is instantaneous, most of the training is spent to instill the sense of coordination in the squad. You polish the boots with the same hand, same rhythm, march while always looking to align the whole line, even while turning. This kind of coordination can be learned. I'm talking about bigger confrontations, not patrols or something other. AND WOLOLO!
I would add that siege battles would definitely use a volley strategy on any side that had archers available. If defending inside, archers on battlements would use volley to break apart any rush towards walls and then break into targeted shots to pick off targets that broke off, fell or were in retreat. Distance volleys will also keep a siege force at a further distance and introduce a certain amount of chaos. Outside, a volley of arrows into a courtyard will both do random damage to horses, structures and people while clearing defenders from exposed positions on battlements to cover a rush to the gate or walls. Targeted sniping will keep the battlements clear, followed by another volley to rain destruction and chaos on whatever is again moving into the open courtyards.
My guess is that there would have been an initial volley of arrows followed by fire at will. A volley is easier to defend against with shields, but could have had a great impact as a prelude for a charge.
After playing a lot of total war games makes me question how archery used in war, is it realistic to volley arrow? This video gives some answer to the question regarding archery combat in war.
I think the only movie that drew the bow for as you've said; 'as long as a DBZ episode' was necessary is Gladiator. The scene where Commodus had the two men executed while being in between them.
The main advantage of volley fire, as with early gunpowder weapons, is that it causes a rather large number of foes to get hit and fall on the ground in one moment, possibly breaking up a formation and creating gaps or stopping a forward moving force dead in its tracks.
It is pretty rare but not uncommon for armies to go for a volley shot due to the enemies who are pretty unpredictable. This is shown through cannon and mortar fire. Also this rare use is due to the fact that arrows take time to be mass produced and if the enemy is not in formations. It is only when the enemy does not do a direct cavalry charge that volley shots are able to be done as archers would be a vulnerable target. A one shot volley is different but it should be shoot at will commands during a volley shot to deter the enemy. Testudo and other shield strategies can counter those attacks which is also another thing.
Cannons and mortars shoot in volleys because it is impossible to correct their shots otherwise. In the age of black powder volley fire was necessary because if one soldier fired first his comrades to the right and left would not be able to aim because of thick smoke
To my mind the main disadvantage of volley archery is that the time available for the enemy to respond to an arrow would be quite sufficient for him to take cover under his shield (since until the 14th-15th century, the shield was a standard piece of equipment for melee infantry and cavalry in most of the world). Hell, even dodging an arrow (e.g. when fighting in loose order) or blocking it with a polearm is very much possible. Actually, the Phalanxes of Macedon blocked enemy missiles by "waiving" their pikes (sarissae) left to right or in circles. Last but not least, the longer you keep the bow drawn the more your archers will be tired to no effect. The crossbow solves this by keeping the prod in tension by transferring it to the stock and trick, relieving the archer. But even in the case of crossbows, the longer the crossbow prod is kept in tension the more power is lost to the internal friction of the prod's material.
I can see an advantage to the coordination of volley fire with the advance of infantry or cavalry. If the defensive line you are attacking is "shields up" to ward off high angle volley fire, they can't form a shield wall against an assault. If 2nd line infantry attempts to provide overhead cover for the 1st line with their shields, they wouldn't be able wield spears to support the shield wall. Intermittent fire allows the defender to decide or reject the risk of defending against plunging arrows, while volley fire forces the defender to act the way you want him to at a possibly decisive moment. Similarly, volley fire could be used to cover with withdrawal of infantry/cavalry by forcing your enemy to react to your fire (putting their shields over their heads for instance) rather than pressing their attack on your forces. I think this goes to show the multiple uses archers could serve in an engagement rather than saying they served in anyone role (direct fire, volley fire or melee combat).
This is a well thought out and written argument. Do you know of any instances where combined arms were used? I'm specifically interested the use of archers and cavalry, as I imagine they could demolish any pike formation.
Zug Zug Nu! I have a question. What are the main differences in shooting with a rest, and shooting off the shelf? I noticed in a few of your videos some of your bows (especially your Sage) you opted not to get a rest, but instead shoot off the shelf. What are the pros and cons of each, and how do fletching and vanes interact with each?
Also, battles are just one place where you would use bows and arrows. During sieges, guerrilla/irregular warfare, and other fights vastly different tactics would be needed.
I always wondered why archers needed some order for every shot for the exact same reasons you pointed out. But I still could learn something new. Thanks for another informative video. どうもありがとうNu先生。 失礼が May I ask how your name is spelled in Kanji?
My mistake then. Since everything points to a japanese connection. The channel's icon, the document on the wall, both reassembling with the Japanese flag. Together with him calling himself "sensei", written in kanji as well. I just took it for granted without any further research. All things considered it is at least safe to say that he is interested in Japanese culture. Therefore it is not far fetched that he thought of a way to write his name in kanji.
In my humble opinion I think that was not done, my opinion is based on the fact of how expensive and complex it was to make arrows as well as maintain a good supplement of them in battle I see more archers as expert shooters equivalent to snipers where they used their power and equipment to attack specific targets at specific times in battles and where each fired independently although in formation.
Think of it like muskets, if you're a lone soldier shooting at a taget lets say 300 yards away with a brown bess then HA good luck you are gonna be there for a long time. But Linear tactics come into play when there's literally a wall of lead heading towards the target, SOMEONE is going to hit something! I think this can apply with archery as well. Long distance, volley firing would be logical.
I can definitely see how it'd be expensive, but two lines of archers firing and reloading one after the other would still supply an almost constant rain of arrows while also closing the gap of notching another arrow, while also shortening the length of the line if need be for communication or land constraints, but theres no way they would all aim and then fire at orders unless they had somewhat lighter bows as well as being at a distance making aiming needed for a volley, it could also help commanders in marking the battlefield for a point of refrence/distance, at least I think, but what do I know lol
The only problem with direct shooting is that you cant have the archers in ranks, because they cant shoot through each other or your other troops. When you have 1000 archers or even 250 they would have to be in a very long thin line in front of your other troops, meaning in EVERY battle you would be losing lots of your highly trained poorly armored archers trapped between the enemy and your soldiers when the melee started.
maybe you could use the archers to shoot from behind your frontline at enemy advancing troops in the beginning and then divide them into smaller units who skirmish around the flanks to either get the back of the infantry line or to harass enemy archers or cavalry in later stages of an engagement
Perhaps it was used as other mentioned as a way to force the other side to react, maybe move forward or backwards. Still, a volley of arrows will scare the heck out of most soldiers and I'm sure a few will be wounded since their shields are made of diamonds. Also wouldn't knocking an arrow be standard action for an archer. The equivalent of putting a bullet in the chamber? I would assume that an archer wouldn't just stand there waiting to a get a signal to knock since it doesn't really incur any serious cost to be 'pre-knocked'.
I can't see any benefit to archers loosing their arrows at exactly the same time, which goes against the mechanics of war-bow use, and which seems like a retrospective imposition from later musket use. That doesn't mean a group of archers might not be told to shoot a volley of arrows at an advancing (Crecy) or reticent (Agincourt) enemy, or that they would step forward and do so together, perhaps, as at Towton, retiring afterwards. But the contemporary depiction in Hollywood films of massed lines of archers (another retrospective imposition from later military tactics) holding war bows at full draw and then loosing their arrows at the same second to a command of 'fire!' is historically unsupportable and technically unmotivated if not impossible.
Maybe they did something like volley fire, because it could be used as an open fire... like you said in video. But the term volley came up later on with fire arms where it is needed. When you stay in formation with old style gun powder muskets or rifles, they produce a smoke cloud as soon as you fire. Because we are talking about old style gunpowder not modern nitro mixtures in rifles that burn with much less smoke and more power. But because of that smoke you had to aim and then fire all together because if you aim after your comrad next to you fires you can´t see anything anymore. Overall volley is a really good tactic in some cases, but mostly you would only waste arrows because the problem with volleys is that it is highly possible that one target gets hit by multiple arrows and those then stuck in one guy, while bullets even if multiple ones hit one guy, they hit through and the one behind him also gets hit with a bit slower bullets but still deadly...
Yes, you can aim and shoot together in a volley. I take part in Civil War historical events. Non Commission Officers shout along the line so that everyone else is ready and they all hear when to shoot
Shooting in volleys would carry the perhaps unintended psychological advantage of making it so the individual archer lost track of his arrow. Considering how we have studies showing that even modern day soldiers have a tendency to "aim high" due to the natural human instinct not to kill other people, this would be massively beneficial to the psyché of the average archer in battle. "Maybe that killshot was mine, maybe it was that guy next me". "That stray arrow that hit one of our own in the back was probably someone else's arrow". Losing sight of your arrow could be a disadvantage as well, as the individual archer has no way of correcting their aim, and have to rely exclusively on intuition and muscle memory to shoot accurately at varied distances.
this is why they practice clout shooting to gage distance adjusted by elevation or angel of shooting . in the movie kingdom of heaven you see they measure up and matk the battlefield- keeping track of your arrow when shooting into enemny lines og hundreds you gonna hit something and asuming the archers ranks are stacked and shooting dicfferent draw lenghts and arrow weigh they will lay down a blanket and the sight of falling men and beast or arrows in the ground help you calculate distance , having the enemy run into the rain
interesting point. though I recently heard of studies that suggest this reluctance to aim for the kill may purely be a modern phenomenon due to society drilling us to believe that killing people is a bad thing as we grow up (and then having to "unlearn" that belief when one becomes a soldier). in more ancient times, when death and conflict were more common parts of people's lives (including public torture/execution of criminals), this psychological block may not have been such a "problem".
Here's the thing. The idea that modern soldiers have a reluctance to aim due to a psychological phenomenon is outdated. This was written regarding troops in past wars, WW2, Korea and on. The U.S. military has studied this fact and has since devised new training methods that neutralize this effect. Modern infantry troops today no longer demonstrate this type of hesitation due to updated training methods.
You can co-ordinate volleys via assigning archery commanders. They wouldn't command 'all' archers, probably just large groups of them. As a close group of archers, it's easy to tell when bows are being armed, aimed, and loose. But it would require training! It's also far more effective in a large group, targeting another part of a large group, to target an area, not individuals.
I heard that a well trained archer could have three arrows land in the target area almost simultaneously. One by firing at a higher angle and two subsequent shots at lower angles. Now this is just what I heard in a show obviously.
Speaking of archers in melee after reading some comments. I wonder if they were expected to know how to fight in melee. Also if any gear was actually issued to them besides bows and arrows. Such as, melee weapon, armor, boots etc. It's all too interesting.
They were. Only archers who were drawn from the peasantry and were generally untrained outside of existing hunting skills would be poorly equipped, but even then they would have knives and daggers for utility. Archers levied as an actual fighting force received more training, to the semi-professional retinue in medieval England. You can find photos of replica equipment, in which a sword was standard. While an archer would not likely have an elaborate set of arms and armour, in medieval times it would have been expected for archers who have at least wear padded armour such as a gambeson, if not mail.
One thing that can be considered is, what is do we know about how early firearms where uses. We have evidence showing that weapons often developed faster than tactics. As such we could assume archers may have acted in a similar fashion to Victorian infantry with the archers forming l Ranks and firing vollies by rank. For example the front rank would fire, then as they reloaded their weapons and readied them again the second then third ranks would fire. This would be repeated until the enemy was within range for soldiers to fire directly and accurately upon the enemy, at which point they would fire at will until they did not have time to reload, they would then either fall back to once again engage the enemy at range or resort to fighting using baenttes and swords.
There's no evidence to suggest that rank fire was used. Victorian gunpowder infantry was a much different era, and gunpowder weapons had advanced considerably over the previous century. The long loading times necessitated more coordination in shooting. Archers were not restricted by this limitation. We don't have evidence of crossbows being shot by rank either, despite the long load time. The sort of drills for gunpowder weapons worked with a professional military. The levied troops in medieval times would have not undergone much, if any, formal training.
@@NUSensei But remember; you're comparing infantry to bowman and archers were a type of ancient artillery. Artillery today is still fired in synchronized order after a command is given.
@@nocturnalemission6822 Archers were certainly not a "type" of ancient artillery. The analogy is a loose one at best, as before the use of actual artillery, archers were the longest ranged fighters and could control and harass the battlefield as artillery would. But they were not deployed as artillery and were far more fluid and organic in their use. Archers certainly would not have the individual fire missions and command structure of an artillery battery, where timing is essential to cover the maximum area of effect and to spot for adjustments. At best, we have some records of shouts of localised coordination being yelled down the line (Nock! Mark!), but no solid evidence that everyone waited for a command to loose. As every archer on the line was marking their own target, using their own bow and with their own timing, it's impossible to coordinate the synchronised shooting of war bows. The draw and release would happen in their own timing, and what sychronisation happened after the first volley would quickly break down as each archer took different amounts of time to recover and prepare the next shot.
Even if the video is an older one... Volleys make sense for the "first" shot and than swap to "fire at will" so that the first Volley could stop/struggle enemys more than doing real damage. Maybe even use Arrows which do "sounds"... just due to common sense this feels right to me.
Possibly volley shooting was meant to distract and disorientate rather than actually kill mass numbers, it would certainly slow an advance. You can't concentrate on your orders if there are arrows flying over your head! Also, a possible tactic, send a volley of arrows ( whistling arrows?) overhead to make the troops look up or defend overhead with shields then send another volley directly at them . Clout shooting must indicate the importance of being able to accurately drop an arrow onto a target at a set range.
I must admit I do not practice archery nor have I researched historical warfare archery. But I would assume a possible and reasonable assumption about volley shooting and they way it could have been coordinated is a sort of trickle down effect with one experienced archer (or otherwise distinguished 'captain') leading the commands. The way I imagine a possible scenario is as follows: The captain waits for a signal via flag, drums w/e to sight the enemy frontline and loose the first arrow. This arrow could be potentially then be used as a range-finding indicitation for other archers behind him. The signal to start the volley for each individual squad would then be the first shot. The indicitation as to how high to aim and how far to draw would be the man in front or next to you for those who have obstructed vision to the front. After the first volley each archer would then begin firing at their own pace and based on their first shot resulting in an initial volley for shock value and a continuing stream of arrows thereafter. I do not practice archery so I might be talking out of my ass here, but do you think this could be feasible? Would basing your initial shot on the posture that the people around you assume be any use at all or just a complete waste of ammunition with a scattered and disorganized effect? (also why are you positioned with an obstructed view in the first place when that serves no purpose whatsoever?)
You're pretty much accurate: there would be a captain or "master of archers" controlling the line, typically the most experienced soldier who would shout for adjustments (Donald Featherstone's book "The Bowmen of England" describes it as such). English archers were practically semi-professional, they would have more time, pay and training to fight as an elite unit. The same can't be said for all archers elsewhere, in which case we'd probably see more skirmishing and individual action. Regarding group shooting: you wouldn't aim based on what others are doing, as your draw and technique is not the same. However, you would know yourself what your point of aim should be, so you don't need to copy others.
alright, good to know. Can you tell me if the use of Archers in Eastern Asian (Various Chinese Dynasties/Kingdoms, Korea, Japan) countries was very different or similar to European traditions and whether it is known if there was any exchange via trade routes or the mongol invasion? I assume that army traditions in general among those three regions would be heavily interconnected yet still distinct in their own ways depending on varying demands of terrain and the time period so I'm wondering if it's possible to speak of a distinct Eastern Asian style of archery or if archery is more or less a universal concept that everyone more or less arrived at via trial and error.
Archery was extremely different, based on the nature of warfare at the time. There would be some exchange - for example, the Mongol style of warfare brought horse bows to many parts of Eastern and Central Asia. However, a Welshman would not have the skill, training, equipment or technology to effectively shoot from horseback. Meanwhile, the Chinese often preferred crossbows over bows, and so on.
I wonder if indirect fire in volleys would have a psychological effect. There would be a loss of velocity, but the vertical component of the velocity vector could theoretically approach terminal velocity if the arrows were shot high enough. This is around 176fps for an un-aerodynamic free falling human, so possibly even faster for an arrow. Combined with what remains of the horizontal vector, and you still have considerable arrow speed. Obviously, only the front row of an archery formation could be used for direct fire. It would make more sense for archers to be formed in lines rather than blocks, perhaps with gaps to allow their own infantry to pass through. In more cramped conditions, which are generally best to avoid unless you are going for defence in depth, then block formations would have been unavoidable with the front lines using direct fire and the rear ranks using indirect fire. As always, it probably depended on context. Direct fire for accuracy, indirect fire (perhaps even in volleys) for psychological effect, long distance shooting and enemy suppression. Possibly more effective against cavalry rather than against heavily armoured infantry.
Would infletched arrows be effective if volley fired at an arc into massed formation? Im doing research for a book set in 1500-1700 involving a native tribe
Doubtful. Unfletched arrows, unless _perfectly_ shot from a perfect bow setup, will not go where the shooter wants it to go. Without stabilisation from the fletching, any minor flaw in technique, and any uncontrolled environmental conditions, will knock the arrow off its mark. Unfletched arrows are used for training in some archery traditions, but not used for any practical purpose.
@@NUSensei but if fired at an arc upward and then raining down. One character in my book is experimenting with mass production and ufletched arrows are easier to produce....i also have arrow muskets featured in the book using unfletched arrows. But if its an absolute fail then i can change
@@NUSensei it just seems to me that a mass of sharp projectiles coming from over head onto a mass of troops would still be effective...but thats ALL they would be good for
@@HermitagePrepper You're basically throwing sticks in the air. It's already hard to get an arrow at the range you want it to be. Having an arrow that will almost randomly flop gives you no semblance of accuracy. Seems to be a massive waste of resources to shoot arrows without any method of stabilisation. Think about it: if it was effective in real life, this would have been done, no? It is, logically, easier to craft unfletched arrows, yet feathers were universally used. But you're in a fantasy setting with "arrow muskets", so you can pull off whatever you want.
Makes me wonder -- how many arrows did a typical archer (say, Agincourt etc) have on hand? People commonly trot out the number - 6-10s / shot, so lets just say 5 arrows per minute, or 50 arrows in 10 minutes. Its quite conceivable for an archert to have 50 or 100 arrows on hand, but .. several hundred? If a battle was going on for hours, could an archer keep shooting for that duration without their arm falling off? In these battles, with _thousands_ of archers, and each one with a few hundred arrows .. if thats one hell of a load of arrows stuck in the dirt, ready to loose :)
English bowmen carried a sheaf of arrows, maybe two, so a reasonable figure for an archer carrying ammunition into battle would ~20-40. The fact that battles were drawn out meant that archers did not have to expend all their arrows in a short duration; only when they needed to.
Just pass more arrows forward from the back. You could also have 2-3 ranks of archers in rotation. That way you always have archers at the ready and rested archers to replace the fatiqued ones.
Rotation would have been unlikely. A formation would not sacrifice a portion of their overall firepower to keep men fresh. More likely, the archers would be expected to keep on shooting until they were forced to retire from the battle or fight in the melee.
Volley firing isn't really about hitting a target. It just has to land within the mass of troops. I believe volley shooting in battle was intended more to slow down and demoralize the enemy than to kill with each shot. I imagine the archers, once signaled, would shoot at will as fast as they could. As long as the arrows fall within the enemy ranks, the goal is achieved. I also think that a constant falling of arrows would slow enemy troops more than all archers shooting in unison. If I were an enemy soldier, I would find the randomness of 'fire at will' more scary than occasional unison volley. I am not a historian, just armchair theorizer. Take it for what it's worth, which may not be much.
Some historians would agree with the assessment of a constant rain of arrows over a single volley. That said, for the average levied fighter, the sight of arrows literally blocking out the sun would also have been something they would not imagine.
Bryan The points are valid. Archery in military application. Isn't always shoot. Kill. It can be harassment. or demoralizing. Even Area denial. in the agicourt refrence. Nu made. The opening "volley" Was a taunt. Or a tease. Causing the French to get annoyed and advance. They didn't have too. time and numbers where on their side. Nu's refrence to horse archery tactics. Often are similar goal wise. Cheers
I think you're right. I saw a video where they found round bullets with a hole in them, and those bullets were designed to whistle while flying past the enemies head. And that would fear the enemy. I believe the volleys had the same kind of purpose.
At Agincourt the English also had a terrain advantage, during the night they'd advanced to a narrower part of the battlefield, negating the French Calvary and basically caused a bottleneck when the French charged, and most of the knights who fell or were thrown from their horses got stuck in the mud, and were easy pickings for English Archers
With volley firing you also had a better chance of striking a weak point in the armor of a charging enemy, i.e. the joints or visor, or at the least striking the horse, either killing it, causing the rider to fall, or causing it to buck the rider off and breaking the charge up, and demoralizing the enemy. In the case of the big three English victories in the Hundred Years War, the presence of a large number of archers in the English army likely caught the French off guard since they had little to counter them
I think in battles against well outfitted enemies volley firing would not be a good strategic choice. The predictiveness of the fire would give soldiers to enough time to hold their shields up and block some of the fire, where non simultaneous fire would offer the enemy soldiers no such power of prediction. That being said, there is an interesting reason why volley fire would happen spontaneously in some circumstances. If archers fired at enemies at their own will, the constant rain of arrows would just cause enemies to hold their shields up all the time. So firing at this time would be inefficient, so archers stop firing and wait for an opening. Because the fire stopped, enemy troops lower their shields. And this is when archers start firing again. This process repeats until it seems archers are firing in volleys.
Where I think this hypothesis falls short is that it assumes omnipotence: that the soldiers in the field know exactly who the enemy is and what they are doing. An army has no way of knowing exactly how well their opponent is outfitted - indeed, one would generally assume that their opponents would be armed in similar fashion. It wouldn't change the way they fought: archers would still open fire on an enemy formation simply because they could, and the enemy couldn't fight back. Shields aren't arrow-proof, and men will be wounded or killed as they advanced. Shields are also directional. Raising a shield might protect against one area, but archers spread over a wide line, or deployed on the flanks (such as how the English typically deployed their archers) meant that enemy foot soldiers would be unable to protect themselves all-round. This argument would also assume that the enemy *has* shields, which was common, but not universal, depending on the time and place. My opinion is that a soldier back then would behave similarly to a soldier today: they would take the shot if the opportunity provided itself regardless of the defensive capabilities of the target, because it is usually better than the target is engaged rather than left alone.
Some interesting points you bought up their , they could have also used front rank ,2nd rank , rear rank type of shooting that way keeping the rate of arrows in the air 🤷♂️. It did work for musket shooting i.e. Front Rank Fire Reload , 2nd Rank Fire Reload you get the idea. What a terrible sight a 1000 arrows raining down on you 👍👍👍
I doubt rank fire would have been used. That sort of drill came about because of the long gunpowder reloads. I think would take more time to get the archers organised into rank fire than to simply nock and put another arrow in the air.
Contrary to popular belief, bows are not accurate weapons. It was hard enough to use them at all, especially the heavier draw weight variants, but hitting a moving target was pretty much impractical under battlefield conditions. Volley fire was the only reliable method of hitting anything with a degree of certainty. So yes, of course they used volley fire. I'm sure there were occasional skirmishers that would fire independently but they were the exception rather than the normal use of archers. Also arching fire was probably also rarely used due to how inaccurate it is. Firing directly at the advancing enemy in volleys would be how they would normally employ archers.
What's the supposed advantage of volley shooting? You only mentioned disadvantage but mentioned examples of it being done. Then you said that it was sometimes necessary but didn't explain how that necessity came to be. Further, I can think more disadvantages: When two arrows hit approximately the same spot, when they hit at the same time, one of them is guaranteed to be useless, but when they hit on different times, there might be a live and unwounded enemy there when the second arrow hits, regardless of whether the first one already hit someone there. But more significantly, volley shooting gives the enemy the advantage of knowing that your archers are not ready to shoot right after they did.
the more arrows fired increases the changes of them hitting something, the more arrows hitting at once causes more impact , the more archer you have the more flexibility you have imagine 10 lines deep of archers thats 5 lines that can loose arrows while the other nock and draw giviny you continuous barrages . or you can have each line shoot step a side or rotated or lay down ans have waves of arrowloosed in concession laying down a sweeping carpet plowing into the enemy ranks at different angels some hitting helmets other hitting feet and knees . you can split out and fan out or horse shoe causing a circle of death hitting from the front and flanks . when you factor in the formation and the different draw weights your arrows will spread and fan out so no two arrows hits the same place and keep in mind that war arrows was twice or trice the size of modern target arrows being hit by 3 or more arrow would be enough to knock you off balance or of a horse or render a shield unwieldable and heavy
1) shock and awe. A couple thousand arrows flying at you at the same time would be terrifying. 2) zone of control. You could easily deny use of an entire area of the battlefield this way therefore forcing the enemy to go where you want them. 3) controlling the pace of an enemy advance. If you are firing in waves the enemy is likely to hunker down and try to defend against the arrows using shields.
How much kinetic energy does a dropping arrow have? I think not very much. I guess a volley of arrows could have a psychological value in a battle, but not much else.
you should come and pull my arrows out from a straw target after they have been shoot with my 60 pound compound at 50 meters or my wooden arrows from my 57 pound longbow at 30 meters , no arrow lube . or ust watch the world cup how the arrow sticks in the target at 70 meters from 45 pound bows . the optimal angel for range is 45 degrees so at no point are the arrows dropping and flopping the mass in motion alone provides momentum If you believe gravety does not provide kinetic energy let some one drop darts on your head from one meter above
Sure there is some kinetic energy in a lofted arrow, but nothing a shield or body armor can't take care of. And especially nothing compared to an arrow shot straight to someone.
arrows that miss also litter the field making traversal more difficult. splintered arrow shafts would easily penetrate footwear. potentially killing people from infections from muddy splinters. any arrows lodged into shields make the shield less effective. arrows are way cheaper than boots, shields and armour.
Arrows in volleys were used. First or even second volleys were used at high angle to litter the path of the advancing enemy. It forced the advancing enemy to slow due to having to walk through “arrow grass”. It also marks the distance allowing officers to physically see the field of fire. It doesn’t seem useful but it forces formations to break uniform slightly and forces them to slow gives the archers a few precious seconds to loose more arrows. Also it demoralize the enemy knowing that they are in fact in the archers range. You don’t have to hit your enemy to hurt them.
They had archers in front of the whole line who fired and retreated behind the front line troops, where they would begin to fire at will., arrows are not rifles, think of muskets, the same principles would be relevant
Volley shooting has nothing to do with direct, or indirect fire. You can shoot direct, in volley, or you can shoot indirect, out of volley. Volley fire is just everyone shooting at the same time, and it can be very effective, especially in its psychological effects on the targets.
What I mean is that we don't have exact accounts of exactly how archers fought. We don't have a record of the archers at Agincourt using "volley fire" the way films depict. The definition of "volley" has been morphed over time from "shooting together" to synchronised shooting.
@@NUSensei Arrow volleys were probably a synchronized effort; rows of men loosing their arrows one after the other without waiting for command to commence a steady rain. An order may have been initially given to engage, followed by an order to cease the volley fire when the need to change tactics had arisen.
I wish I had gotten into archery when I was younger and didn't have arthritis in my hands. My nephew owns Striker Bows and wanted to make me a recurve but I wasn't interested at the time. They make some pretty cool stuff if you like that type of bow. www.strikerbows.com
Of course there was Volley fire. How else could the Persians have
fired enough arrows to block out the sun so the Spartans could fight in the shade?
Bill23799 i always thought the shade reference was about their sheild.
nope. it was a direct response to that Persian General boasting that his army had such a huge number of archers. guy should have taken classes in badassery before even talking to a spartan xD
MORNING HAS BROKEN,
TODAY THEY'RE FIGHTING IN THE SHADE
WHEN ARROWS BLOCKED THE SUN THEY FELL,
TONIGHT THEY DINE IN HELL
please understand this someone
no one knows if it were true or false. all we know from frescas of the persians the shot from chest. its not effective shot
If Xerxhes would have been clever, he would sent his troups and THEN let the archers shout their arrows! The Spartans can't fight and protect theirselves from skyattacks at the same time.
I mean he doesn't seam to be the kind of guy that wouldn't sacrifice his soldiers .
Suddenly, Joerg Sprave appears on the battle field and the opposing army turns & flees...
"Let me show you it's features!"
and then the laugh of doom.
i think bows beat slingshots ;p
Joerg doesn't just make sling shots... ;)
@@chrisie1997 what about sling bows?
I was literally just watching him before getting here
2:10 or the archers would notice their comrades getting ready to shoot and thus get the message to do the same (basically, it would sort of be like a domino effect).
Probably they will just pass the order to start or stop shooting along the ranks by sergeants shouting it
Kudos for warcraft reference
Imagine keeping a 150-180 lb. warbow at full draw for 10 seconds. Fuck, that would be punishing to your shoulders!
Given the fact that an individual archer didn't need to aim at a specific target during a volley, they could just release as soon as they reached full draw. It would also be unwise for commanders to tire their archers out needlessly while the enemy is still at a distance so it's likely that they just gave their unit a specific volley command that tells the archers to begin their shooting process, nocking, drawing, and releasing at their own discretion, saving their strength for situations when the enemy is at a reasonable distance.
Yeah, they didn't have cams like modern compound bows. You're not holding them a la Helm's Deep (and it's understandable why that guy fired his early.) It also didn't make sense for Aragorn to wait until the Orcs were right in front of the walls to start shooting.
Zug zug!
Good video, i think you covered every point in a very balanced way.
Thanks for the info.
I especially appreciate how you point out that people today tend to look at video games, and movies as how things were done historically.
At this point in my life, I don't yet shoot bows, although after I heal up from surgery, I intend to take it up.
I've spent most of my 62 years of life in the military, and I've been downrange (I was in Baghdad, 2004).
Most people don't understand the different types of weapons utilized in war, let alone the how and why for each.
There are Standoff weapons, Medium Range weapons, and Close Quarters weapons.
This isn't a hard and fast categorization however. Some weapons that are Standoff, can in a pinch be used as a Medium Range, or even (rarely) as a Close Quarters (Such as when Artillery is called in upon your own position. Called "Danger Close").
So, flexibility exists as to how and why each weapon might be used.
Back when Archery was king, there weren't many Long Range Weapons, except in Siege Warfare, the Trebuchet, etc.
The Bow, however, at least as I see it in history, certainly would fill the bill as a very efficient Standoff weapon, especially if they were using Bodkins, the armor piercing arrow of the day. They would thin out your enemy very efficiently until the enemy was right upon them, which was when the foot soldiers would have to defend them.
I apologize for being so wordy.
Thank you again for the information.
Do you know if anyone has done a test of riveted chain mail?
Justin Maddox
madog.medic@hotmail.com
Clear, concise, simple visuals, easy to follow logic, and a few funny little references to provide a chuckle. Great work.
Many movies and some games show the flaw of volley shooting, yet they still stubbornly use it. With volley shooting, marching soldiers have a clear window for turtling behind shields and they can march freely when the archers are reloading (for some reason, it takes so long). Doesn't make much sense to use a tactic that is so easily countered...
If you think about it - but I may be wrong, just speculating - shooting a constant stream of arrows forces the enemy to defend at all times, which hinders them in few ways (reduced visibility, communication, probably movement speed and maneuverability).
PS: apologies if it was covered in the video, wasn't paying that much attention at some parts :(
If there is an army with many hundreds of archers, coordinating all of them to do volleys isn't really feasible. Realistically you'd wind up having subunits shooting simultaneously, with the overall effect being a continuous stream.
Also, from personal experience, I can say that even if you do get about 10-40 people shooting in a volley, the arrows actually wind up being fairly spread out, due to differences in arrow speed, response time, etc.
Also, a truly coordinated volley could be useful in an ambush.
@@ryddragyn the commander just orders archers to start or stop shooting, that's it.
1:27 WOLOLOLOO!!!
HAYOOYOYO!!!
Sorry I don't speak Age of Empires
I speak Stronghold Crusader
Also if archery was only done at close range, the testudo would make no sense for the romans
There are many historical quotes from armies across the world that do imply they did do this
A two-step "Nock" then "Loose" command seems very intuitive to me, with "Loose" prompting both the draw and release. There might be slight variations to how long each archer would draw and loose their arrows, but these would be relatively negligible and you would still produce constant volleys. Interesting idea!
Huh eff f rrrrrghgrr rrr d d grrr thug inconvenience
Volley shooting seems like a very good opener, seems like historical accounts of volley shooting describe it as such
The idea would have been to make the other guys keep their heads down while you take the initiative. Killing some would be an added benefit. Like the way submachine guns are used.
The points you make here have some backing in the scholarship around the battle of Agincourt.
A guy who digs alot into that scholarship made a video regarding the arrows themselves : ruclips.net/video/NTpOmpL4tMI/видео.html
Major point : The arrows meant for piercing armor would have shafts tapered from something like half an inch at the head, which made them a much more short ranged, direct-fire affair.
Another video went over the expenses of arming a ship with crossbows, and a sheev of 40 bolts cost about twice as much as the actual bows. I doubt longbows and their arrows had a much better economy, frankly. Volleys of unaimed fire would have likely been extremely expensive.
I think it worked as a fireteam today. Over 100 m you wait for command. The officer or NCO won't ask to steady, ready or whatnot, just yells fire or identifies the target shortly and then fire. Under 100 meters you fire at will. The leader always has radio and a runner. If the radio fails, you still have a runner. Firing on command is instantaneous, most of the training is spent to instill the sense of coordination in the squad. You polish the boots with the same hand, same rhythm, march while always looking to align the whole line, even while turning. This kind of coordination can be learned. I'm talking about bigger confrontations, not patrols or something other. AND WOLOLO!
I'm glad you read his book. Hes a fantastic author/historian.
I would add that siege battles would definitely use a volley strategy on any side that had archers available. If defending inside, archers on battlements would use volley to break apart any rush towards walls and then break into targeted shots to pick off targets that broke off, fell or were in retreat. Distance volleys will also keep a siege force at a further distance and introduce a certain amount of chaos. Outside, a volley of arrows into a courtyard will both do random damage to horses, structures and people while clearing defenders from exposed positions on battlements to cover a rush to the gate or walls. Targeted sniping will keep the battlements clear, followed by another volley to rain destruction and chaos on whatever is again moving into the open courtyards.
That Warcraft III reference
Warcraft 2
My guess is that there would have been an initial volley of arrows followed by fire at will. A volley is easier to defend against with shields, but could have had a great impact as a prelude for a charge.
After playing a lot of total war games makes me question how archery used in war, is it realistic to volley arrow? This video gives some answer to the question regarding archery combat in war.
Nice vid 👍🏻 I subscribed
I think the only movie that drew the bow for as you've said; 'as long as a DBZ episode' was necessary is Gladiator. The scene where Commodus had the two men executed while being in between them.
Warcraft, Life of Brian and that awesome DBZ joke =D
Seriously, are you my twin brother i never met?
The main advantage of volley fire, as with early gunpowder weapons, is that it causes a rather large number of foes to get hit and fall on the ground in one moment, possibly breaking up a formation and creating gaps or stopping a forward moving force dead in its tracks.
It is pretty rare but not uncommon for armies to go for a volley shot due to the enemies who are pretty unpredictable. This is shown through cannon and mortar fire. Also this rare use is due to the fact that arrows take time to be mass produced and if the enemy is not in formations.
It is only when the enemy does not do a direct cavalry charge that volley shots are able to be done as archers would be a vulnerable target. A one shot volley is different but it should be shoot at will commands during a volley shot to deter the enemy. Testudo and other shield strategies can counter those attacks which is also another thing.
Cannons and mortars shoot in volleys because it is impossible to correct their shots otherwise. In the age of black powder volley fire was necessary because if one soldier fired first his comrades to the right and left would not be able to aim because of thick smoke
To my mind the main disadvantage of volley archery is that the time available for the enemy to respond to an arrow would be quite sufficient for him to take cover under his shield (since until the 14th-15th century, the shield was a standard piece of equipment for melee infantry and cavalry in most of the world). Hell, even dodging an arrow (e.g. when fighting in loose order) or blocking it with a polearm is very much possible. Actually, the Phalanxes of Macedon blocked enemy missiles by "waiving" their pikes (sarissae) left to right or in circles.
Last but not least, the longer you keep the bow drawn the more your archers will be tired to no effect. The crossbow solves this by keeping the prod in tension by transferring it to the stock and trick, relieving the archer. But even in the case of crossbows, the longer the crossbow prod is kept in tension the more power is lost to the internal friction of the prod's material.
I can see an advantage to the coordination of volley fire with the advance of infantry or cavalry.
If the defensive line you are attacking is "shields up" to ward off high angle volley fire, they can't form a shield wall against an assault.
If 2nd line infantry attempts to provide overhead cover for the 1st line with their shields, they wouldn't be able wield spears to support the shield wall.
Intermittent fire allows the defender to decide or reject the risk of defending against plunging arrows, while volley fire forces the defender to act the way you want him to at a possibly decisive moment.
Similarly, volley fire could be used to cover with withdrawal of infantry/cavalry by forcing your enemy to react to your fire (putting their shields over their heads for instance) rather than pressing their attack on your forces.
I think this goes to show the multiple uses archers could serve in an engagement rather than saying they served in anyone role (direct fire, volley fire or melee combat).
This is a well thought out and written argument. Do you know of any instances where combined arms were used? I'm specifically interested the use of archers and cavalry, as I imagine they could demolish any pike formation.
Zug Zug Nu! I have a question. What are the main differences in shooting with a rest, and shooting off the shelf?
I noticed in a few of your videos some of your bows (especially your Sage) you opted not to get a rest, but instead shoot off the shelf. What are the pros and cons of each, and how do fletching and vanes interact with each?
Also, battles are just one place where you would use bows and arrows.
During sieges, guerrilla/irregular warfare, and other fights vastly different tactics would be needed.
I always wondered why archers needed some order for every shot for the exact same reasons you pointed out.
But I still could learn something new. Thanks for another informative video.
どうもありがとうNu先生。
失礼が May I ask how your name is spelled in Kanji?
He isn't Japanese.
My mistake then.
Since everything points to a japanese connection.
The channel's icon, the document on the wall, both reassembling with the Japanese flag.
Together with him calling himself "sensei", written in kanji as well.
I just took it for granted without any further research.
All things considered it is at least safe to say that he is interested in Japanese culture.
Therefore it is not far fetched that he thought of a way to write his name in kanji.
He is probably Japanese descendant living in australia
In my humble opinion I think that was not done, my opinion is based on the fact of how expensive and complex it was to make arrows as well as maintain a good supplement of them in battle I see more archers as expert shooters equivalent to snipers where they used their power and equipment to attack specific targets at specific times in battles and where each fired independently although in formation.
Think of it like muskets, if you're a lone soldier shooting at a taget lets say 300 yards away with a brown bess then HA good luck you are gonna be there for a long time. But Linear tactics come into play when there's literally a wall of lead heading towards the target, SOMEONE is going to hit something! I think this can apply with archery as well. Long distance, volley firing would be logical.
I can definitely see how it'd be expensive, but two lines of archers firing and reloading one after the other would still supply an almost constant rain of arrows while also closing the gap of notching another arrow, while also shortening the length of the line if need be for communication or land constraints, but theres no way they would all aim and then fire at orders unless they had somewhat lighter bows as well as being at a distance making aiming needed for a volley, it could also help commanders in marking the battlefield for a point of refrence/distance, at least I think, but what do I know lol
The only problem with direct shooting is that you cant have the archers in ranks, because they cant shoot through each other or your other troops. When you have 1000 archers or even 250 they would have to be in a very long thin line in front of your other troops, meaning in EVERY battle you would be losing lots of your highly trained poorly armored archers trapped between the enemy and your soldiers when the melee started.
maybe you could use the archers to shoot from behind your frontline at enemy advancing troops in the beginning and then divide them into smaller units who skirmish around the flanks to either get the back of the infantry line or to harass enemy archers or cavalry in later stages of an engagement
Perhaps it was used as other mentioned as a way to force the other side to react, maybe move forward or backwards.
Still, a volley of arrows will scare the heck out of most soldiers and I'm sure a few will be wounded since their shields are made of diamonds.
Also wouldn't knocking an arrow be standard action for an archer. The equivalent of putting a bullet in the chamber? I would assume that an archer wouldn't just stand there waiting to a get a signal to knock since it doesn't really incur any serious cost to be 'pre-knocked'.
I can't see any benefit to archers loosing their arrows at exactly the same time, which goes against the mechanics of war-bow use, and which seems like a retrospective imposition from later musket use. That doesn't mean a group of archers might not be told to shoot a volley of arrows at an advancing (Crecy) or reticent (Agincourt) enemy, or that they would step forward and do so together, perhaps, as at Towton, retiring afterwards. But the contemporary depiction in Hollywood films of massed lines of archers (another retrospective imposition from later military tactics) holding war bows at full draw and then loosing their arrows at the same second to a command of 'fire!' is historically unsupportable and technically unmotivated if not impossible.
I would like to see a man aim.and hold a 170 pound longbow for 10-30 seconds like in movies
Maybe they did something like volley fire, because it could be used as an open fire... like you said in video.
But the term volley came up later on with fire arms where it is needed. When you stay in formation with old style gun powder muskets or rifles, they produce a smoke cloud as soon as you fire. Because we are talking about old style gunpowder not modern nitro mixtures in rifles that burn with much less smoke and more power.
But because of that smoke you had to aim and then fire all together because if you aim after your comrad next to you fires you can´t see anything anymore.
Overall volley is a really good tactic in some cases, but mostly you would only waste arrows because the problem with volleys is that it is highly possible that one target gets hit by multiple arrows and those then stuck in one guy, while bullets even if multiple ones hit one guy, they hit through and the one behind him also gets hit with a bit slower bullets but still deadly...
Yes, you can aim and shoot together in a volley. I take part in Civil War historical events. Non Commission Officers shout along the line so that everyone else is ready and they all hear when to shoot
Loved the random dbz referrence well placed
Shooting in volleys would carry the perhaps unintended psychological advantage of making it so the individual archer lost track of his arrow. Considering how we have studies showing that even modern day soldiers have a tendency to "aim high" due to the natural human instinct not to kill other people, this would be massively beneficial to the psyché of the average archer in battle. "Maybe that killshot was mine, maybe it was that guy next me". "That stray arrow that hit one of our own in the back was probably someone else's arrow".
Losing sight of your arrow could be a disadvantage as well, as the individual archer has no way of correcting their aim, and have to rely exclusively on intuition and muscle memory to shoot accurately at varied distances.
this is why they practice clout shooting to gage distance adjusted by elevation or angel of shooting . in the movie kingdom of heaven you see they measure up and matk the battlefield- keeping track of your arrow when shooting into enemny lines og hundreds you gonna hit something and asuming the archers ranks are stacked and shooting dicfferent draw lenghts and arrow weigh they will lay down a blanket and the sight of falling men and beast or arrows in the ground help you calculate distance , having the enemy run into the rain
i think that this is a reasonable point.
I'm a reasonable guy.
interesting point. though I recently heard of studies that suggest this reluctance to aim for the kill may purely be a modern phenomenon due to society drilling us to believe that killing people is a bad thing as we grow up (and then having to "unlearn" that belief when one becomes a soldier). in more ancient times, when death and conflict were more common parts of people's lives (including public torture/execution of criminals), this psychological block may not have been such a "problem".
Here's the thing. The idea that modern soldiers have a reluctance to aim due to a psychological phenomenon is outdated. This was written regarding troops in past wars, WW2, Korea and on. The U.S. military has studied this fact and has since devised new training methods that neutralize this effect. Modern infantry troops today no longer demonstrate this type of hesitation due to updated training methods.
It makes a lot more sense to shoot at will and allow every archer to fire at combatants as they would a target on a practice range.
You can co-ordinate volleys via assigning archery commanders. They wouldn't command 'all' archers, probably just large groups of them. As a close group of archers, it's easy to tell when bows are being armed, aimed, and loose. But it would require training!
It's also far more effective in a large group, targeting another part of a large group, to target an area, not individuals.
I dont think volley fire was common because of the huge cost of making an arrow. You would want to save your arrows for direct fire
Could you please do an Archery Popshots video on the Elder Scrolls series?
if a hundreds of arrow volley shooting at me, its not the archer mistake.. I ain't gonna stand there say "hey that shit doesn't work ! " ahaha
Did you just go Warcraft on us? lol
I heard that a well trained archer could have three arrows land in the target area almost simultaneously. One by firing at a higher angle and two subsequent shots at lower angles. Now this is just what I heard in a show obviously.
Speaking of archers in melee after reading some comments. I wonder if they were expected to know how to fight in melee. Also if any gear was actually issued to them besides bows and arrows. Such as, melee weapon, armor, boots etc. It's all too interesting.
They were. Only archers who were drawn from the peasantry and were generally untrained outside of existing hunting skills would be poorly equipped, but even then they would have knives and daggers for utility. Archers levied as an actual fighting force received more training, to the semi-professional retinue in medieval England. You can find photos of replica equipment, in which a sword was standard. While an archer would not likely have an elaborate set of arms and armour, in medieval times it would have been expected for archers who have at least wear padded armour such as a gambeson, if not mail.
Justin kedgentor English archers from the time of Agincourt were trained in melee combat and were issued swords
One thing that can be considered is, what is do we know about how early firearms where uses.
We have evidence showing that weapons often developed faster than tactics.
As such we could assume archers may have acted in a similar fashion to Victorian infantry with the archers forming l
Ranks and firing vollies by rank.
For example the front rank would fire, then as they reloaded their weapons and readied them again the second then third ranks would fire.
This would be repeated until the enemy was within range for soldiers to fire directly and accurately upon the enemy, at which point they would fire at will until they did not have time to reload, they would then either fall back to once again engage the enemy at range or resort to fighting using baenttes and swords.
There's no evidence to suggest that rank fire was used. Victorian gunpowder infantry was a much different era, and gunpowder weapons had advanced considerably over the previous century. The long loading times necessitated more coordination in shooting. Archers were not restricted by this limitation. We don't have evidence of crossbows being shot by rank either, despite the long load time.
The sort of drills for gunpowder weapons worked with a professional military. The levied troops in medieval times would have not undergone much, if any, formal training.
Agreed.
@@NUSensei But remember; you're comparing infantry to bowman and archers were a type of ancient artillery. Artillery today is still fired in synchronized order after a command is given.
@@nocturnalemission6822 Archers were certainly not a "type" of ancient artillery. The analogy is a loose one at best, as before the use of actual artillery, archers were the longest ranged fighters and could control and harass the battlefield as artillery would. But they were not deployed as artillery and were far more fluid and organic in their use. Archers certainly would not have the individual fire missions and command structure of an artillery battery, where timing is essential to cover the maximum area of effect and to spot for adjustments.
At best, we have some records of shouts of localised coordination being yelled down the line (Nock! Mark!), but no solid evidence that everyone waited for a command to loose. As every archer on the line was marking their own target, using their own bow and with their own timing, it's impossible to coordinate the synchronised shooting of war bows. The draw and release would happen in their own timing, and what sychronisation happened after the first volley would quickly break down as each archer took different amounts of time to recover and prepare the next shot.
@@NUSensei Well they weren't artillery pieces (if that's what you meant) lol. But tactically, they were used as such.
Even if the video is an older one... Volleys make sense for the "first" shot and than swap to "fire at will" so that the first Volley could stop/struggle enemys more than doing real damage. Maybe even use Arrows which do "sounds"... just due to common sense this feels right to me.
Possibly volley shooting was meant to distract and disorientate rather than actually kill mass numbers, it would certainly slow an advance. You can't concentrate on your orders if there are arrows flying over your head! Also, a possible tactic, send a volley of arrows ( whistling arrows?) overhead to make the troops look up or defend overhead with shields then send another volley directly at them . Clout shooting must indicate the importance of being able to accurately drop an arrow onto a target at a set range.
Hi NU, this question doesn't belong to this video, but what do you teach in high school?
My commander thinks if I hold this draw long enough I might go SUPER SAIYAN.
By the way love the Warcraft orcs and humans reference.
Seems someone has bullied peasants in warcraft for a while.
Very astute.
I must admit I do not practice archery nor have I researched historical warfare archery. But I would assume a possible and reasonable assumption about volley shooting and they way it could have been coordinated is a sort of trickle down effect with one experienced archer (or otherwise distinguished 'captain') leading the commands.
The way I imagine a possible scenario is as follows:
The captain waits for a signal via flag, drums w/e to sight the enemy frontline and loose the first arrow. This arrow could be potentially then be used as a range-finding indicitation for other archers behind him. The signal to start the volley for each individual squad would then be the first shot. The indicitation as to how high to aim and how far to draw would be the man in front or next to you for those who have obstructed vision to the front. After the first volley each archer would then begin firing at their own pace and based on their first shot resulting in an initial volley for shock value and a continuing stream of arrows thereafter.
I do not practice archery so I might be talking out of my ass here, but do you think this could be feasible? Would basing your initial shot on the posture that the people around you assume be any use at all or just a complete waste of ammunition with a scattered and disorganized effect? (also why are you positioned with an obstructed view in the first place when that serves no purpose whatsoever?)
You're pretty much accurate: there would be a captain or "master of archers" controlling the line, typically the most experienced soldier who would shout for adjustments (Donald Featherstone's book "The Bowmen of England" describes it as such). English archers were practically semi-professional, they would have more time, pay and training to fight as an elite unit. The same can't be said for all archers elsewhere, in which case we'd probably see more skirmishing and individual action. Regarding group shooting: you wouldn't aim based on what others are doing, as your draw and technique is not the same. However, you would know yourself what your point of aim should be, so you don't need to copy others.
alright, good to know. Can you tell me if the use of Archers in Eastern Asian (Various Chinese Dynasties/Kingdoms, Korea, Japan) countries was very different or similar to European traditions and whether it is known if there was any exchange via trade routes or the mongol invasion? I assume that army traditions in general among those three regions would be heavily interconnected yet still distinct in their own ways depending on varying demands of terrain and the time period so I'm wondering if it's possible to speak of a distinct Eastern Asian style of archery or if archery is more or less a universal concept that everyone more or less arrived at via trial and error.
Archery was extremely different, based on the nature of warfare at the time. There would be some exchange - for example, the Mongol style of warfare brought horse bows to many parts of Eastern and Central Asia. However, a Welshman would not have the skill, training, equipment or technology to effectively shoot from horseback. Meanwhile, the Chinese often preferred crossbows over bows, and so on.
It is interesting!
I wonder if indirect fire in volleys would have a psychological effect. There would be a loss of velocity, but the vertical component of the velocity vector could theoretically approach terminal velocity if the arrows were shot high enough. This is around 176fps for an un-aerodynamic free falling human, so possibly even faster for an arrow. Combined with what remains of the horizontal vector, and you still have considerable arrow speed. Obviously, only the front row of an archery formation could be used for direct fire. It would make more sense for archers to be formed in lines rather than blocks, perhaps with gaps to allow their own infantry to pass through. In more cramped conditions, which are generally best to avoid unless you are going for defence in depth, then block formations would have been unavoidable with the front lines using direct fire and the rear ranks using indirect fire. As always, it probably depended on context. Direct fire for accuracy, indirect fire (perhaps even in volleys) for psychological effect, long distance shooting and enemy suppression. Possibly more effective against cavalry rather than against heavily armoured infantry.
lololol omg
Work. Work. Work.
Hey, a Life of Brian reference!
Or as my favorite historian states: "it's all determined by context, so take it with a grain of salt'
Is it Matt Eastern?
Would infletched arrows be effective if volley fired at an arc into massed formation? Im doing research for a book set in 1500-1700 involving a native tribe
Doubtful. Unfletched arrows, unless _perfectly_ shot from a perfect bow setup, will not go where the shooter wants it to go. Without stabilisation from the fletching, any minor flaw in technique, and any uncontrolled environmental conditions, will knock the arrow off its mark. Unfletched arrows are used for training in some archery traditions, but not used for any practical purpose.
@@NUSensei but if fired at an arc upward and then raining down. One character in my book is experimenting with mass production and ufletched arrows are easier to produce....i also have arrow muskets featured in the book using unfletched arrows. But if its an absolute fail then i can change
@@NUSensei it just seems to me that a mass of sharp projectiles coming from over head onto a mass of troops would still be effective...but thats ALL they would be good for
@@HermitagePrepper You're basically throwing sticks in the air. It's already hard to get an arrow at the range you want it to be. Having an arrow that will almost randomly flop gives you no semblance of accuracy. Seems to be a massive waste of resources to shoot arrows without any method of stabilisation. Think about it: if it was effective in real life, this would have been done, no? It is, logically, easier to craft unfletched arrows, yet feathers were universally used. But you're in a fantasy setting with "arrow muskets", so you can pull off whatever you want.
@@NUSensei i see your point..but...arrow muskets were a thing once upon a time...
"Fire at will"
"Meat is back on the menu boys!"
Makes me wonder -- how many arrows did a typical archer (say, Agincourt etc) have on hand? People commonly trot out the number - 6-10s / shot, so lets just say 5 arrows per minute, or 50 arrows in 10 minutes. Its quite conceivable for an archert to have 50 or 100 arrows on hand, but .. several hundred? If a battle was going on for hours, could an archer keep shooting for that duration without their arm falling off? In these battles, with _thousands_ of archers, and each one with a few hundred arrows .. if thats one hell of a load of arrows stuck in the dirt, ready to loose :)
English bowmen carried a sheaf of arrows, maybe two, so a reasonable figure for an archer carrying ammunition into battle would ~20-40. The fact that battles were drawn out meant that archers did not have to expend all their arrows in a short duration; only when they needed to.
Just pass more arrows forward from the back. You could also have 2-3 ranks of archers in rotation. That way you always have archers at the ready and rested archers to replace the fatiqued ones.
Rotation would have been unlikely. A formation would not sacrifice a portion of their overall firepower to keep men fresh. More likely, the archers would be expected to keep on shooting until they were forced to retire from the battle or fight in the melee.
Volley firing isn't really about hitting a target. It just has to land within the mass of troops. I believe volley shooting in battle was intended more to slow down and demoralize the enemy than to kill with each shot. I imagine the archers, once signaled, would shoot at will as fast as they could. As long as the arrows fall within the enemy ranks, the goal is achieved. I also think that a constant falling of arrows would slow enemy troops more than all archers shooting in unison. If I were an enemy soldier, I would find the randomness of 'fire at will' more scary than occasional unison volley. I am not a historian, just armchair theorizer. Take it for what it's worth, which may not be much.
Some historians would agree with the assessment of a constant rain of arrows over a single volley. That said, for the average levied fighter, the sight of arrows literally blocking out the sun would also have been something they would not imagine.
Bryan
The points are valid.
Archery in military application.
Isn't always shoot. Kill.
It can be harassment. or demoralizing. Even
Area denial.
in the agicourt refrence. Nu made.
The opening "volley"
Was a taunt. Or a tease.
Causing the French to get annoyed and advance.
They didn't have too. time and numbers where on their side.
Nu's refrence to horse archery tactics. Often are similar goal wise.
Cheers
I think you're right. I saw a video where they found round bullets with a hole in them, and those bullets were designed to whistle while flying past the enemies head. And that would fear the enemy. I believe the volleys had the same kind of purpose.
At Agincourt the English also had a terrain advantage, during the night they'd advanced to a narrower part of the battlefield, negating the French Calvary and basically caused a bottleneck when the French charged, and most of the knights who fell or were thrown from their horses got stuck in the mud, and were easy pickings for English Archers
With volley firing you also had a better chance of striking a weak point in the armor of a charging enemy, i.e. the joints or visor, or at the least striking the horse, either killing it, causing the rider to fall, or causing it to buck the rider off and breaking the charge up, and demoralizing the enemy. In the case of the big three English victories in the Hundred Years War, the presence of a large number of archers in the English army likely caught the French off guard since they had little to counter them
I think in battles against well outfitted enemies volley firing would not be a good strategic choice. The predictiveness of the fire would give soldiers to enough time to hold their shields up and block some of the fire, where non simultaneous fire would offer the enemy soldiers no such power of prediction.
That being said, there is an interesting reason why volley fire would happen spontaneously in some circumstances.
If archers fired at enemies at their own will, the constant rain of arrows would just cause enemies to hold their shields up all the time. So firing at this time would be inefficient, so archers stop firing and wait for an opening. Because the fire stopped, enemy troops lower their shields. And this is when archers start firing again. This process repeats until it seems archers are firing in volleys.
Where I think this hypothesis falls short is that it assumes omnipotence: that the soldiers in the field know exactly who the enemy is and what they are doing. An army has no way of knowing exactly how well their opponent is outfitted - indeed, one would generally assume that their opponents would be armed in similar fashion. It wouldn't change the way they fought: archers would still open fire on an enemy formation simply because they could, and the enemy couldn't fight back. Shields aren't arrow-proof, and men will be wounded or killed as they advanced.
Shields are also directional. Raising a shield might protect against one area, but archers spread over a wide line, or deployed on the flanks (such as how the English typically deployed their archers) meant that enemy foot soldiers would be unable to protect themselves all-round.
This argument would also assume that the enemy *has* shields, which was common, but not universal, depending on the time and place.
My opinion is that a soldier back then would behave similarly to a soldier today: they would take the shot if the opportunity provided itself regardless of the defensive capabilities of the target, because it is usually better than the target is engaged rather than left alone.
Fire arrows Plausible?
0:27 is it the irish guy from sons of anarchy? :D
So ,how many knees were shot?
Some interesting points you bought up their , they could have also used front rank ,2nd rank , rear rank type of shooting that way keeping the rate of arrows in the air 🤷♂️. It did work for musket shooting i.e. Front Rank Fire Reload , 2nd Rank Fire Reload you get the idea. What a terrible sight a 1000 arrows raining down on you 👍👍👍
I doubt rank fire would have been used. That sort of drill came about because of the long gunpowder reloads. I think would take more time to get the archers organised into rank fire than to simply nock and put another arrow in the air.
Contrary to popular belief, bows are not accurate weapons. It was hard enough to use them at all, especially the heavier draw weight variants, but hitting a moving target was pretty much impractical under battlefield conditions. Volley fire was the only reliable method of hitting anything with a degree of certainty. So yes, of course they used volley fire. I'm sure there were occasional skirmishers that would fire independently but they were the exception rather than the normal use of archers.
Also arching fire was probably also rarely used due to how inaccurate it is. Firing directly at the advancing enemy in volleys would be how they would normally employ archers.
Maybe, but looks cool as shit in the movies.
What's the supposed advantage of volley shooting? You only mentioned disadvantage but mentioned examples of it being done. Then you said that it was sometimes necessary but didn't explain how that necessity came to be. Further, I can think more disadvantages: When two arrows hit approximately the same spot, when they hit at the same time, one of them is guaranteed to be useless, but when they hit on different times, there might be a live and unwounded enemy there when the second arrow hits, regardless of whether the first one already hit someone there. But more significantly, volley shooting gives the enemy the advantage of knowing that your archers are not ready to shoot right after they did.
the more arrows fired increases the changes of them hitting something, the more arrows hitting at once causes more impact , the more archer you have the more flexibility you have imagine 10 lines deep of archers thats 5 lines that can loose arrows while the other nock and draw giviny you continuous barrages . or you can have each line shoot step a side or rotated or lay down ans have waves of arrowloosed in concession laying down a sweeping carpet plowing into the enemy ranks at different angels some hitting helmets other hitting feet and knees . you can split out and fan out or horse shoe causing a circle of death hitting from the front and flanks . when you factor in the formation and the different draw weights your arrows will spread and fan out so no two arrows hits the same place and keep in mind that war arrows was twice or trice the size of modern target arrows being hit by 3 or more arrow would be enough to knock you off balance or of a horse or render a shield unwieldable and heavy
1) shock and awe.
A couple thousand arrows flying at you at the same time would be terrifying.
2) zone of control.
You could easily deny use of an entire area of the battlefield this way therefore forcing the enemy to go where you want them.
3) controlling the pace of an enemy advance.
If you are firing in waves the enemy is likely to hunker down and try to defend against the arrows using shields.
I believe the Korean's have voice commands for just that !!!!
How much kinetic energy does a dropping arrow have? I think not very much. I guess a volley of arrows could have a psychological value in a battle, but not much else.
A war arrow weighed in at around 1/4lb (120 grm) - 1/2" shaft and Broadhead/Bodkin point - I wouldn't like to be underneath it when it dropped.
you should come and pull my arrows out from a straw target after they have been shoot with my 60 pound compound at 50 meters or my wooden arrows from my 57 pound longbow at 30 meters , no arrow lube . or ust watch the world cup how the arrow sticks in the target at 70 meters from 45 pound bows . the optimal angel for range is 45 degrees so at no point are the arrows dropping and flopping the mass in motion alone provides momentum If you believe gravety does not provide kinetic energy let some one drop darts on your head from one meter above
Sure there is some kinetic energy in a lofted arrow, but nothing a shield or body armor can't take care of. And especially nothing compared to an arrow shot straight to someone.
not all units had shields and armour and if not effective why build laws and industry on it ?
arrows that miss also litter the field making traversal more difficult. splintered arrow shafts would easily penetrate footwear. potentially killing people from infections from muddy splinters. any arrows lodged into shields make the shield less effective. arrows are way cheaper than boots, shields and armour.
Maybe volleys were used against charging armies
Arrows in volleys were used. First or even second volleys were used at high angle to litter the path of the advancing enemy. It forced the advancing enemy to slow due to having to walk through “arrow grass”. It also marks the distance allowing officers to physically see the field of fire. It doesn’t seem useful but it forces formations to break uniform slightly and forces them to slow gives the archers a few precious seconds to loose more arrows. Also it demoralize the enemy knowing that they are in fact in the archers range. You don’t have to hit your enemy to hurt them.
What movie is that? 0:13
Audio isn't synced
What about flaming arrows and multi shot? lol
They had archers in front of the whole line who fired and retreated behind the front line troops, where they would begin to fire at will., arrows are not rifles, think of muskets, the same principles would be relevant
One thing is that they wouldn't have given an "aim" command as we Americans added that in the revolution.
1:58
Amogus on the far left
Give the guy some nose spray
1:23 Warcraft 3? ;d
IN THE NEXT EPISODE OF DRAGONBALL Z.... WILL HE FINALLY FUCKING RELEASE HIS GODDAMN MOTHERF**** SPIRIT BOMB??!?!?!.... nope.
Daboo!
Volley shooting has nothing to do with direct, or indirect fire. You can shoot direct, in volley, or you can shoot indirect, out of volley. Volley fire is just everyone shooting at the same time, and it can be very effective, especially in its psychological effects on the targets.
We don't have historical records? Ever heard of Agincourt?
What I mean is that we don't have exact accounts of exactly how archers fought. We don't have a record of the archers at Agincourt using "volley fire" the way films depict. The definition of "volley" has been morphed over time from "shooting together" to synchronised shooting.
@@NUSensei Arrow volleys were probably a synchronized effort; rows of men loosing their arrows one after the other without waiting for command to commence a steady rain. An order may have been initially given to engage, followed by an order to cease the volley fire when the need to change tactics had arisen.
Ask Lars Andersen.. He'll have a look at his imaginary historical documents :-)
I wish I had gotten into archery when I was younger and didn't have arthritis in my hands. My nephew owns Striker Bows and wanted to make me a recurve but I wasn't interested at the time. They make some pretty cool stuff if you like that type of bow.
www.strikerbows.com
CHRIS LJ Soz dor ur loss.
Hahaha Dragonball Z.
thumb down...
You talk too much,and there won't be an next time.