The bow Lars Anderson is using in that video is a low tension bow. It would have nil effect on a hoplite or heavy infantry.

Archers helped break the lines in a formation, much liek closed ranged pelstats. They were only effective within 30m of the bowman and had a minimum range of the length of the arrow, around 1.5m. Until the arrow is fully released it hasn't reach top velocity so an arms length + arrow length past the bow string.

Also cavalry usually wore lighter armor than heavy infantry. They relied on speed to reach the archers which were usually placed initially infront of the phalanx or formation then retreated to the sides. In some cases they may have been used on higher ground behind the formation.

The English vs French Battles usually were successful for the English due to essentially hiding in woods on steep hills. They had a scattered formation behind and even high in trees. The French wore light armor compared to heavy infantry and were vulnerable due to a lack of speed. I believe many victories were attributed to muddy slopes that forced the horses to fall and dismounted their riders.

Alexander's cavalry on open field was able to counter mounted and infantry archers reasonably well. But they wore solid plate armor with hardened leather lining, which was better vs arrows than the chain mail used in medieval fights.

It would take a significant draw on a bow to penetrate ancient armor. Doing this at full stretch of a high tension bow a bowman could easily penetrate armor, but was slow at firing. Add to the arsenal of the infantry a nice Hoplon or shield and arrows would just stick or bounce from the shields. So even though in theory it was possible to penetrate armor, the actual occurrence was rare. There are many stories of medieval kings or generals rallying their troops by charging alone into the enemy. None died by arrow.

I think the lack of "death by arrow" during the Crusades rather easily explains why the bow did not play a bigger part.

It varied a lot. A crossbow and the longbow were rather effective, but as I understand medieval warfare a good part of the English success was because they started training early and they recognized the value that archers had and so protected them better.

Interesting topic, Thompsoncs.

When I saw the "archery" of Legolas in the Ring movies, I thought "No way!" The actor repeated the skill in TROY in the role of Paris. The accuracy was of course simulated by digital effects. Then it occurred to me that it might be possible to rapid launch arrows out of a quiver if the archer was highly skilled. The Legolas actor demonstrated it could be possible, though the actor's accuracy is suspect. The video confirms the possibility if undertaken by a highly skilled archer. The book series by Bernard Cornwell titled the Grail Quest features archers who IIRC hand hold a group of arrows (around three) while launching them in succession. It is the same technique demonstrated by Lars in the video. Of course I don't know if Cornwell was influenced by somebody like Lars or drew this from his research when writing the series of novels.

However, we must keep in mind that the video was edited to show mostly perfect shooting sessions. We don't really know how many misses occurred before Lars's success was finally captured on video. I would suspect accuracy declines with rapid fire and that the average ancient archer wasn't necessarily as accurate as Lars specifically.

Nonetheless, we know that archery was the primary ranged weapon used for centuries against other foot and mounted soldiers. Yes, there were weapons used such as the Roman pilum, ballista and the ubiquitous peasant slings. However, archery was universal whereas the pilum was unique to Romans and the slings unique to commoners not trained in anything else. These were commoners who used slings for protection in their everyday activities, such as in farming or herding. Shepherds for example learned the use of the sling, hence David's use of the sling against Goliath.

The disadvantage of rapid fire is its short duration. As a ranged weapon, the intention of arrow fire is to destroy elements in enemy forces from a safe distance. The Romans countered with the testudo formation. The Greek phalanx reacted similarly. Medieval warriors relied upon mail, plate armor and shields and very well may have used shields similarly to Ancient Romans (including Byzantines) and Greeks within the phalanx.

The supply of arrows was finite even if plentiful. They had to be conserved for good effect. Rapid fire at long distance, once the enemy was prepared in a defensive formation, makes no sense as it would deplete arrow supplies too quickly. Launching successive waves of arrows, spaced at erratic intervals that encouraged the enemy to break a defensive formation and attempt to move forward, would have caused more damage I think than "rapid fire." Further, why launch 5 arrows into the same target in rapid succession? One arrow well aimed would typically shock the target adequately enough that the enemy would be debilitated and subsequently could be dispatched with relative ease.

However, in close quarters, we know archers were vulnerable as they were usually lightly armored, less skilled in swordplay and of necessity protected by a wall of more heavily armored and armed infantry. Sending archers into hand-to-hand combat was usually an act of tactical desperation or a result of a victory allowing them to "clean-up" the battlefield with all that the term implies, such as at Agincourt. Rapid fire against a charging enemy in close proximity could very well have been a taught archery skill.

I have mostly been noting observations about a mobile enemy approaching a fixed archer's position. I haven't commented upon mounted archers such as the Persian, Parthian or Mongol mounted archers. These archers controlled their mounts with their knees freeing both hands to launch arrows in close combat. Despite the frequent effectivity of the testudo against fixed emplacement archers, mounted archers were the bane of Ancient Romans. "Cassius Dio...gives an account of a Roman shield array being defeated by Parthian cataphracts and horse archers at the Battle of Carrhae:


For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." (Source=Wikipedia)

It would be no stretch of the imagination to think that rapid-fire techniques were part of the training regimen creating a Persian, Parthian or Mongol mounted archer.

As for the lack of "death by arrow" during the Crusades, let's consider the possible reasons. Was that region conducive to arrow production? Did the Crusader armies have access to those who could cast and form, for example, the bodkin point arrowhead? Were materials available for Crusader fletchers to make replacement arrows when the armies were engaged in combat in the Middle East? When one combatant lost a field battle, didn't that combatant lose the ability to forage the battlefield for reusable arrows? Maybe "death by arrow" was not prominent because the resources to produce arrows after supplies were exhausted in battles and sieges were deficient in the Middle East?

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 11-30-2012 @ 01:04 PM).]

My personal view is that such rapid and accurate firing was limited to only a few archers, and as Civis points out, its useless at long range, hence its limited impact on history.

Its true that Greek hoplites and romans were decently protected against arrows, but the video clearly showed it penetrating mail armor with great ease. And Romans used mail armor, with added armor, leaving the arms, neck and legs vulnerable. I do expect that ancient bows were less powerful than the bow in this movie.

The success of the english longbows is with certainty partly due to the better tactics of the English used in those battles that ended in disaster for the french. I however doubt what you're saying about armor, ephestion. In medieval times the cavalry was usually the nobility, and they were very heavily armored, whereas many infantry would be levies, lucky to have chainmail.

The reason he penetrated the chain mail is because chain mail is easy to penetrate. It is made of small links and as such there only needs to be enough force to break one of those small links. Chain mail was used to avoid the accidental slash from a sword. For example in heated battle you did not only have to worry about your opponent but also slashes coming accidentally from elsewhere nearby. Formations helped to deal with these stray strikes. But if for whichever reason a soldier was out of formation the number of stray hits would increase. Also keep in mind the primary weapon of Eastern armies were slashing type swords. Curved for the purpose of slashing down from mounts or as infantry. This is why chainmail seemed a lighter and perhaps more effective armor against slashing type weapons. Needless to say not all chainmails were the same. The quality of the mail highly depended on how large the links in the mail were, the quality of the metal, the hardening and tempering of the metal.

Romans and Greeks primarily used short swords and relied heavily on thrusting. The armor of ancient Romans and Greeks was designed to repel such thrusts from both swords and spears. It just so happens that they were effective against arrows as well. Crossbows were invented for the purpose of penetrating armor.

Also Civis although Romans may have had a few bad experiences with Archers, Alexander effectively showed it possible to counter them. If Romans raised their shields against arrows and failed to dispatch their own cavalry then of course the opponents mounts would scramble their lines. But instead what they often did was, use a shallow first line. 3 men deep phalanx at the front with a 3 man gap behind them and then again layered like this for the entire formation. Cavalry would charge the flanks but in the process would be pushed into the gap between each phalanx line. The 3 man gap allowed the horses to enter upto 10 or 15 men deep on the flank. The rear line then closed the gap and fully crippled the cavalry assault.

Archers and Mounted archers were more a pest on the field than anything else. They helped break the lines where they could, and added an annoying continual harassment to the enemy. If it wasn't their physical effectiveness, it was the psychological element they added to the field that would break lines.

BTW is Lars using a Greek composite Bow?

Actually, mounted archers were more than a pest, they combined the range of a bow with the manoeuvrability of cavalry, allowing them to often flank an enemy and hit him from the rear where he had less armour. Also, they would occasionally be able to bring down a man from the front, or putt an arrow into his shield-arm, limiting his effectiveness.

Still, archers won't win a battle alone (unless the enemy breaks), so they're best used in conjuction with melee troops, though likewise, melee troops would generally be unable to disperse archers to any degree (except when putting cavalry against unsupported foot-archers), so it's best to have archers of your own.

But instead what they often did was, use a shallow first line. 3 men deep phalanx at the front with a 3 man gap behind them and then again layered like this for the entire formation. Cavalry would charge the flanks but in the process would be pushed into the gap between each phalanx line. The 3 man gap allowed the horses to enter upto 10 or 15 men deep on the flank. The rear line then closed the gap and fully crippled the cavalry assault.

This assumes the cavalry take the bait, but if they're on the flank, there's nothing to stop them from cutting in behind the second line.

The real bane of archery though was the time and cost of training archers compared to pikemen, and the ability of the pikeman to defend himself at close ranges compared to a crossbowman.

This assumes the cavalry take the bait, but if they're on the flank, there's nothing to stop them from cutting in behind the second line.

All the lines were divided that way. So if the opponents cavalry manage to engulf the second line the third line moves in to close the gap. The phalanx of three men deep was enough to hold the opponent at bay until they were sandwiched by the phalanx line behind them.

This is why the phalanx or maniple type formation lasted for over two thousand years, well into the medieval age. It was the perfect tank. They defelected archer fire, clamped cavalry and rolled over un-organsied infantry. But to get any fire power they relied on machines. Gastraphetes were able to propel something the size of a spear that could penetrate 10 men with full armor. The Greeks used them during sieges but also employed them as their archer units. Catapults using spears which were larger versions also accompanied the army. Alexander built a large Heliopolis with such devices added to the top of the Heliopolis tower. The composite bow was near useless until and age they could reach pull loads of 150+ lbs and then they became slow firing, hard to train also.

[This message has been edited by ephestion (edited 11-30-2012 @ 09:48 PM).]

All the lines were divided that way. So if the opponents cavalry manage to engulf the second line the third line moves in to close the gap. The phalanx of three men deep was enough to hold the opponent at bay until they were sandwiched by the phalanx line behind them.

Ah, so the phalanx was a mile and a half deep with all the gaps in? Seriously, anyone with a triple-figure IQ could figure out that you go in behind the last rank.

This is why the phalanx or maniple type formation lasted for over two thousand years, well into the medieval age.

And that formation you describe is not a phalanx, it's a spaced line (similar to the legion formation of the Romans), phalanxes are deep (rarely less than 8 ranks), and generally not very wide.

They defelected archer fire, clamped cavalry and rolled over un-organsied infantry.

Except that phalanxes are not very manoeuvrable (both due to having to maintain a closed front, and to having spears running down the side of each file), and can easily be flanked. Training also plays a part, as proved by the Swiss, who tended to flatten lesser trained but equally equipped opponents. Additionally, while the shields do well for blocking flat fire, plunging fire tends to get in behind the shields, and occasionally score a hit on an unarmoured area, causing the soldier pain and disrupting the formation because of it.

[This message has been edited by MatthewII (edited 12-01-2012 @ 00:32 AM).]

Well a normal phalanx was 15 men deep sometimes less so you had 5 rows of 3 men (actually it was the roman maniple that used this method..the greeks never had a phalanx with less than 5 men deep). Usually a second maniple or phalanx would line up behind the first. So you had two blocks one infront of the other. A variation to this included cavalry units on either side of the phalanx . So the opponent couldn't just march their cavalry around the flank of the phalanx and to the back of it. This would just make one phalanx turn to face the cavalry. If the cavalry were to be effective they needed to surprise not trot to the back row and expect to have any impact.

The Greeks used columns so that one block of units was sided by another block of units. They were designed to come to the aid of the other. Plus they would space the units like the Romans if expecting a cavalry charge.

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/110/[url]
[/url]

Archery was historically used as harassment, at least in the days before the English longbow. The bows were not as powerful as modern ones- at least until the Huns and Mongols came along with their laminated recurve bows, and the armor of the hoplite and early Imperial legionaries was solid pieces. Arrows could cause a lot of wounds on exposed flesh, but as the most critical areas of the body were covered in armor, very few fatalities.

When the Romans went away from their banded mail and back to the trusty chainmail, coupled with the increased power of bows, arrows took on a more lethal aspect. They began to kill. Some groups countered this rise of bow power by added extra layers of mail- hence the double-mail, or even the triple mail for which the Vikings were famous. Others began putting metal plates on their chain mail- like the knights of the Europe, until after a while the entire body was encased in a steel skin.

There has always been a race between armor and the means to penetrate it. Sometimes the means is tactical- such as the Scots fighting the English over boggy ground, or the Russians luring the Teutonic Knights onto a frozen lake under Nevski. Other times the means is mechanical- the crossbow, for example. Or the gunpowder weaponry which eventually sealed the doom of the armored knight. Today we still have this race- tanks and anti-tank weapons bear this out.

[This message has been edited by Terikel Grayhair (edited 12-01-2012 @ 08:00 AM).]

I have to agree with Ephestion, that bow he is using looks a very low draw weight, I wouldn't want to guess what poundage it is, but at the club I was a member of, they had similar sorts of bows for kids. With a more higher weight (and thus more powerful bow), I doubt you'd be able to fire so quickly unless you had arms of frikkin' titanium.

Archery was historically used as harassment, at least in the days before the English longbow.

Tell that to Marcus Lucinius Crassus. Yes few legionaries were actually killed by the Parthian's arrows (which tended to stick in the shields), but plenty were wounded, which reduced their effectiveness.

While we're on the subject of bows and arrows, what kind of bow would work most effectively against a large animal (e.g. an elephant or rhinoceros)? I presume it would need really robust arrows if the creature had thick skin.

Also, could a bow also be used as a hand-to-hand combat weapon if you swung it about? What if you were to put bladed edges on the limbs?

Against elephants, more powerful bows would be better. As for the arrow, it should be really thin to maximize penetration, else it would likely get stuck in the thick skin, or even bounce off. My first choice against elephants would be ballista bolts or throwing spears. Elephants are also easily frightened, so flaming missiles would work rather well (at least they do in rtw )

My first choice against elephants would be ballista bolts or throwing spears.

Now that you mention spears, a spear-thrower as used by some Australasian and New Guinean populations could do wonders against megafauna, especially if the spear had a metal head. Thanks for the help!

As for the lack of "death by arrow" during the Crusades, let's consider the possible reasons. Was that region conducive to arrow production? Did the Crusader armies have access to those who could cast and form, for example, the bodkin point arrowhead? Were materials available for Crusader fletchers to make replacement arrows when the armies were engaged in combat in the Middle East? When one combatant lost a field battle, didn't that combatant lose the ability to forage the battlefield for reusable arrows? Maybe "death by arrow" was not prominent because the resources to produce arrows after supplies were exhausted in battles and sieges were deficient in the Middle East?

The Lance and Bow were the primary weapons of the Arabic Islamic armies during the period. There are a myriad of records which talk of Crusader knights covered in arrows, continuing on to fight. The arrows could MAYBE penetrate the mail in a straight on shot (which were rare) but punching through took all the power from the shot and the leather underneath would 'catch' the arrow.

Stoffel should really be in here, he'll tell you all about it. We've had this debate a thousand times in AOKH: OD/KORT/Library history.

...Are we going to have samurai shooting katana arrows at European knights?

Also, could a bow also be used as a hand-to-hand combat weapon if you swung it about? What if you were to put bladed edges on the limbs?

.....

The great thing about Kahotep is that you can never quite tell whether he actually means any of this stuff.

I hope not, Moff, as this isn't a discussion of speculative history. It is a discussion using historical fact and interpreting that fact as we choose. Yes, we have discussed this before, but we have a new discussion group and it doesn't hurt to mix new people with an older topic. Most topics are old, including the interminable debate between atheists and believers.

Quoted from Stormraider:

The Lance and Bow were the primary weapons of the Arabic Islamic armies during the period.

Yes, indeed they were. We should also not forget the curved sword of the Saracens called the scimitar, another primary weapon. The lance of course doesn't qualify as a ranged weapon, nor does the scimitar. I concede without hesitation that Saracen archery was present on the battlefields during the Crusade.

My question was more in line with Crusader archery as it seems the Crusaders, many of whom were Frankish, relied more upon heavy foot and cavalry and siege weaponry rather than archery. It seems that incorporating archery as a major tactical force came later in European warfare, not that it was nonexistent earlier, mind you. So my point that you quoted is specifically a question about the Crusader side, and I'm speculating archery as a tactical weapon was limited on the Crusader side, they being the invaders and forced to rely upon their accompanying weapon artisans and local resources. The Saracens could draw upon a supply line stretching eastward unfettered so I suspect they did not have limited supplies of arrows. I'm speculating instead that the Crusaders lost their archery option the longer their campaigns lasted in the Middle East. What do you think?

@Kahotep: Bows were a precious commodity, as were bowstrings. Archers went to great length to protect both. In particular, archers became so knowledgeable about their bow's quirks and how to get the most out of them, they often treated them as would a baseball player treat his particular favorite bat and did not carry about spare bows given the expense. The last thing an archer would want to do was either use his bow as a club and damage it or lose it to an enemy. Of course an archer could do it, but I believe that the chronicles would suggest that an archer would sooner draw his sword, use a spear, club or other weapon rather than risk breaking his bow on an enemy's armored head.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 12-01-2012 @ 05:36 PM).]

I'm speculating instead that the Crusaders lost their archery option the longer their campaigns lasted in the Middle East. What do you think?

I don't think they cared much about the archery option to begin with, personally, but it's an interesting thought.

The great thing about Kahotep is that you can never quite tell whether he actually means any of this stuff.

If you really must know, I ask these questions for character design reasons. I have in mind someone who hunts monsters for a living using a bow and arrow, and I wanted to ask how she would defend herself if the monsters caught up to her.

Bows were a precious commodity, as were bowstrings. Archers went to great length to protect both. In particular, archers became so knowledgeable about their bow's quirks and how to get the most out of them, they often treated them as would a baseball player treat his particular favorite bat and did not carry about spare bows given the expense. The last thing an archer would want to do was either use his bow as a club and damage it or lose it to an enemy. Of course an archer could do it, but I believe that the chronicles would suggest that an archer would sooner draw his sword, use a spear, club or other weapon rather than risk breaking his bow on an enemy's armored head.

Thank you for answering my question.

The effect of archery is often overrated. Foot archers couldn't hold ground against heavy infantry or cavalry without either prepared positions or their own heavy infantry support

Legionary armour was adequate protection against arrows, whether it was mail or lorica segmentata.

Crassus's men at Carrhae and during the retreat were worn down over the course of several days by mounted archers whom they couldn't catch, and who appear to have had effectively unlimited supplies of arrows. The Roman casualties were largely wounds to areas without armour and not protected by their shields, such as the legs or right arm, rather than immediately fatal ones.

Mail was not useless against arrows. To penetrate mail essentially required a shot that hit the mail straight on at relatively close range; angled or glancing hits would likely be deflected.

Mounted archers would have even greater difficulty achieving such direct hits and, had Crassus possessed archers of his own, they would have been able to keep the Parthians at bay. Despite their lack of missile support, Crassus's army stood under arrow fire all day.

Estimates of effective range of Roman composite bows range from as little as 50-some metres to a little over 150 metres.

Crassus's army was densely packed together, without its own archers capable of countering the Parthians', who could shoot at them from just outside pila range without fear of retaliation.

Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War. 100BC - AD 200 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2009), 187:


We don't know whether Roman soldiers wore more protection under their mail etc. Crusaders did though, with great effect:

Kahotep, you would need one of these:

It would be impossible to discount the importance of archery in Medieval Warfare, archery is what made the Mongols and Turks so successful.

Mongol warriors carried two bows, a heavy one for long-range shooting on foot and a lighter one for rapid-shooting from horseback. The heavy bow had a draw of 166lb, more than twice as strong as the English longbow, with an effective range of over 500m. The Mongols used these bows to batter down any defences the European knights had to offer, penetrating the armour even of knights.

When you look at what stopped the Mongol expansion: Ain Jalut, you find that it was, ironically, Mongol tactics complete with the archery aspect that made the Egyptians conquer the Mongols. The Mongols, so used to adaption and superior technology and tactics, were out-adapted by the Mamelukes and although dragging hundreds of Egyptians along with them even though totally outnumbered and surrounded, Kitbuqa's Mongols perished and so did the Mongol advance.

[This message has been edited by Taichud (edited 12-01-2012 @ 06:41 PM).]