https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collections-why-archers-didnt-volley-fire/ Skip to content A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry A look at history and popular culture Menu * Home * Resources for Teachers * Resources for World-Builders * Book Recommendation List * Contact * About the Pedant Collections: Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire Bret Devereaux Collections May 2, 2025May 2, 2025 30 Minutes This week we're looking at a specific visual motif common in TV and film: the arrow volley. You know the scene: the general readies his archers, he orders them to 'draw!' and then holds up his hand with that 'wait for it' gesture and then shouts 'loose!' (or worse yet, 'fire!') and all of the archers release at once, producing a giant cloud of arrows. And then those arrows hit the enemy, with whole ranks collapsing and wounded soldiers falling over everywhere. [image-5]From Alexander (2004) showing the Battle of Gaugamela. This bit is amazing because Darius III silently gestures and all of his archers draw their bows (also why are they kneeling? They're shooting at a high angle! There's no need to kneel!) and then at another silent gesture which they cannot see because Darius III is behind them, they all release at once. And every part of that scene is wrong. Now the thing that, in the last couple of decades, everyone has realized is wrong (I suspect some early Lindybeige videos had something to do with how widespread this notion is), is that you don't tell archers to 'fire' because their weapons don't involve any fire. But the solution in film has been to keep the arrow volleys - that is, the coordinated all-at-once shooting - and simply change the order to 'release' or 'loose.' Which isn't actually any better! Archers didn't engage in coordinated all-at-once shooting (called 'volley fire'), they did not shoot in volleys because there wouldn't be any point to do so. Indeed, part of the reason there was such confusion over what a general is supposed to shout instead of 'fire!' is that historical tactical manuals don't generally have commands for coordinated bow shooting because armies didn't do coordinated bow shooting. Instead, archers generated a 'hail' or 'rain' (those are the typical metaphors) of arrows as each archer shot in their own best time. More to the point, they could not shoot in volleys. And even if they had shot in volleys, those volleys wouldn't produce anything like the impact we regularly see in film or TV. So this week, we're going to walk through those considerations: briefly looking at what volley fire is for and why archers both wouldn't and couldn't do it, before taking a longer look at the problem of lethality in massed arrow fire. But first, if you want to help support this project you can do so on Patreon! I don't promise to use your money to buy myself more arms and armor, but I also don't promise not to do that. And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on Twitter (@BretDevereaux) and Bluesky (@bretdevereaux.bsky.social) and (less frequently) Mastodon (@bretdevereaux@historians.social) for updates when posts go live and my general musings; I have largely shifted over to Bluesky (I maintain some de minimis presence on Twitter), given that it has become a much better place for historical discussion than Twitter. Email Address [ ] Subscribe! What Is Volley Fire For? We want to start by understanding what volley fire is and what it is for. Put simply, 'volley fire' is the tactic of having a whole bunch of soldiers with ranged weapons (typically guns) fire in coordinated groups: sometimes with the entire unit all firing at once or with specific sub-components of the unit firing in coordinated fashion, as with the 'counter-march.' In both cases, the problem that volley fire is trying to overcome is slow weapon reload times: this is a solution for slow-firing but powerful ranged weapons. That has generally meant firearms, historically, but we do actually see volley fire drill with crossbows in China from a very early period as well (but, interestingly, there's no evidence I am aware of that volley fire was ever done with crossbows in Europe - when Europeans decide to do volley fire with firearms, it seems to have been an entirely new idea).^1 [image-4]From The Two Towers (2002). Theoden here has been having his archers hold their shots for going on a couple of minutes at this point, so while volley fire with arrows is stupid, he's probably right that he's only going to give the enemy one volley before his archers collapse from exhaustion. Volley fire can cover for the slow reload rate of guns or crossbows in two ways. The first are volley fire drills designed to ensure a continuous curtain of fire; the most famous of these is the 'counter-march,' a drill where arquebuses or muskets are deployed several ranks deep (as many as six). The front rank fires a volley (that is, they all fire together) and then rush to the back of their file to begin reloading, allowing the next rank to fire, and so on. By the time the last rank has fired, the whole formation has moved backwards slightly (thus 'counter' march) and the first rank has finished reloading and is ready to fire. The problem this is solving is the danger of an enemy, especially cavalry, crossing the entire effective range of the weapon in the long gap between shots. This, by the by, was the volley fire tactic that was being used in China with crossbows before gunpowder; I don't know that anyone ever did volley-and-charge with crossbows, which lack the lethality of muskets. [image-1]From The Fellowship of the Rings (2001). It's a little hard to see in a still, but what these archers are doing is that each rank releases and then knees while the next rank shoots, which is wholly unnecessary, as you can see from the angles the bows are being held. Its also counter-productive: kneeling and standing again take longer to do than to just knock a new arrow and fire! This is a volley fire drill that is *slower* than just shooting normally! The other classic use is volley-and-charge. Because firearms are very lethal but slow to reload, it could be very effective to march in close order right up to an enemy, dump a single volley by the entire unit into them to cause mass casualties and confusion and then immediately charge with pikes or bayonets to try to capitalize on the enemy being demoralized and confused. You can see variations on this tactic in things like the 17th century Highland Charge or the contemporary Swedish Ga-Pa ("go on"). By charging rather than waiting to reload, the attacker could take advantage of the high lethality of firearms without suffering the drawback of long reload times. [image-3]From House of the Dragon (2022-present). Again, hard to see here, but in this scene, you can hear a voice shouting 'loose!' to coordinate shots and then two ranks of archers are exchanging positions at the wall, essentially a two-rank counter-march with bows, again made pointless by the fact that an archer can shoot faster standing still than these rank exchanges. This is also not generally how we hear of gunpowder-based troops firing from a parapet like this: more often what we hear is that each file has a single shooter and several men behind him reloading muskets and handing them forward. Crucially, note that volley-and-charge works because it compresses a lot of lethality into a very short time, which I suspect is why we don't see it with bows or crossbows (but do see it with javelins, which may have shorter range and far fewer projectiles, but seem to have had higher lethality per projectile). As we're going to see in a moment, the lethality of bows or crossbows against armored, shielded infantry - even in close order - was pretty low at any given moment and needed to add up over an extended period of shooting. By contrast, muskets were powerful enough to defeat most armor and thus to disable or kill basically anyone they hit, limited of course by reload time: with a reload time of as much as 30 seconds for earlier matchlocks, a line of musketeers might only be able to fire a few times at an advancing infantry unit (which might take two or three minutes to walk through effective range) and given the limited accuracy of smoothbore muskets, only the last shots would hit at a high level. By contrast, a unit doing volley-and-charge is compressing probably close to 50% of the lethality of sustained shooting, devastating moment and then immediately charging. Putting that much lethality into a singular instant was valuable from a morale perspective and of course it enabled a unit to quick march through the enemy's effective range, stopping only briefly to fire and charge, limiting losses from steady enemy fire. But as we're going to see, the lethality of bows (and, to a significant extent, crossbows) was much lower and so couldn't be effectively compressed into that single, devastating, confusing moment.^2 Why They Wouldn't and Why They Couldn't But as you've hopefully noted, these tactics are built around firearms with their long reload times: good soldiers might be able to reload a matchlock musket in 20-30 seconds or so. But traditional bows do not have this limitation: a good archer can put six or more arrows into the air in a minute (although doing so will exhaust the archer quite quickly), so there simply isn't some large 30-second fire gap to cover over with these tactics. As a result volley fire doesn't offer any advantages for traditional bow-users. And so, as far as we can tell, organized volleys with bows weren't done. We do have evidence in China for volley fire with crossbows, but of course crossbows, particularly more powerful ones, have all of the same reload-time problems that firearms do, so it is no shock to see the same tactics emerge. But historians have searched the ancient and medieval sources for any hint of volley fire with bows and have come up wanting. Now, I should caution here that this is a topic where if you are reading sources in translation you are likely to be fooled: many translators will use the word 'volley' to describe things happening in the original Greek or Latin or Old French or what have you that are not volley fire, for the same reason that filmmakers keep putting archer volley fire in their movies: volley fire is a big part of how we imagine warfare. But as hard as it is to prove a negative, I will note that I have never seen a clear instance of volley fire with bows in an original text and so far as I can tell, no other military historians have either. And we have been looking. Of course the other reason we can be reasonably sure that ancient or medieval armies using traditional bows did not engage in volley fire is that they couldn't. You will note in those movie scenes, that the commander invariably gives the order to 'draw' and then waits for the right moment before shouting 'release!' (or worse yet 'fire!'). The thing is: how much energy does it take to hold that bow at ready? The key question here is the bow's 'draw' or 'pullback' which is generally expressed in the pounds of force necessary to draw and hold the bow at full draw. Most prop bows have extremely low pulls to enable actors to manipulate them very easily; if you look closely, you can often see this because the bowstrings are under such little tension that they visibly sway and wobble as the bow is moved. This also helps a film production because it means that an arrow coming off of such a bow isn't going to be moving all that fast and so is a lot less dangerous and easier to make 'safe.' But obviously actual bows are supposed to be dangerous. And here folks will say, "ok, that's prop bows, but I hold a hunting bow at full draw while lining up a shot all the time." But there are two considerations here. The first is that many modern hunting bows are compound bows (note: compound, not composite), which is to say they use lever and pulley systems with wheels ('cams') which enable the energy at each stage of the bow's draw to be controlled and are typically designed so that the energy necessary for the final bit of draw (that is, holding the bow at full draw) is relatively low. As a result, the strength required to hold a compound bow at full draw for an extended period is actually lower that what would be implied by its raw pullback. But also the pullbacks of hunting bows are much lower than those of war bows. Modern hunting bows generally feature pullback weights around 40-60lbs (going higher for compound bows but still generally topping out around 75lbs and typically being much less) and shoot lighter, thinner arrows than war bows. And that should make a fair degree of sense: deer cannot shoot back and do not generally wear armor. The military archer, by contrast, needs a lot of lethality and a lot of range because he is shooting at someone with armor and weapons who means to shoot back (or run up and stab him), although as we'll see, even with extremely powerful bows the ability of war archers to inflict lots of casualties is pretty limited against properly equipped enemies. If your hunting bow mortally wounds a deer but does not disable it, that's not ideal but the deer is going to run away, not charge at you spear in hand.^3 As a result, the pullback weights of war bows tend to be higher. How much higher? We've actually run through this evidence before: at least in Afroeurasia, as far as I can tell, 80lbs pullback is about as light as a war bow will usually get. Draw weights anywhere from 100lbs to as high as 170lbs (see Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow (2005) for details) are known for the highest end bows like the English longbow and Steppe recurve bows. Which is to say that the pullback weight range of 'old world' war bows exceed at their lowest end the heaviest common draw weights of hunting bows and keep going up dramatically from there. The typical war bow was more than twice as powerful as the typical modern hunting bow. These war bows shot with enough force that they required specialized arrows with thicker, more robust construction to withstand the amount of energy being imparted. Which neatly answers why no one had their archers hold their bows at draw to synchronize fire: you'd exhaust your archers very quickly. Instead, war bow firing techniques tend to emphasize getting the arrow off of the string as quickly as possible: the bow is leveled on the target as the string is drawn and released basically immediately. Remember back to our statistic that a good archer can put around 6 arrows in the air in a minute? Well, even the best archer can't do that for very long. I often see folks asking about how many arrows an archer could carry, seemingly imagining archers shooting at their maximum rate for prolonged periods (like they do in video games), but if you imagine pumping a 150lbs weight as fast as you can, I think you'll immediately recognize that you aren't going to be able to keep that up for more than a minute or two (more on this as well in Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow (2005), by the by). Holding the bow at draw for any length of time is going to accelerate that exhaustion and thus lower the rate at which shots are made and the time that rate can be maintained. So the reason we have no evidence for archer volley fire is because they didn't do it and they didn't do it because it doesn't solve a problem that exists with bows (whose rate of shot is fast enough not to require volley tactics) but it does cause all sorts of new problems (exhausting your archers). But there's a second related problem to these scenes: arrow lethality . Modeling Arrow Lethality Because when these arrow volleys arrive, the result is usually devastating, with large numbers of men falling all over the place (often being shot straight through their heavy armor). [Alexander-Still1]From Alexander (2004). It's hard to tell in a still image which actors are in the process of falling down, so I've put red 'x's on each actor that seems to me to be falling. The scene after this cuts to closer shots where we see even higher casualty rates. But how lethal were arrow barrages? Well, the short answer is that we don't know and it must have varied considerably. Teasing out the specific lethality of one part of an engagement from others is difficult even with modern warfare; for pre-modern warfare, we are often lucky to even have reliable estimates of total casualties in a battle, much less specific estimates of casualties caused by a specific source or weapon. Still, we have more than a few solid indications that the lethality of barrages of arrows, in some cases even over extended periods, could be quite low, which isn't to say such weapons were ineffective. [image]From Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), and here I'm not going to try to count the falling extras, but it is quite a lot of them, a few entire ranks at least. We can start with 'modeling,' thinking through the question as a thought experiment (since we haven't the expensive computer hardware and expertise to actually simulate it).^4 Especially at long range, our archers are not shooting at individual enemies, but rather firing en masse into a large body of infantry, so we can assume shots are probably distributed fairly evenly in the target area. That's already actually significant because as we discussed before, even in close-order infantry formations, there's usually quite a lot of empty horizontal space (file width) where an arrow is simply going to hit...no one. [Roman-Republic-Formation1] Depending on the way the men in the target infantry formation are facing and the formation, in most fighting formations, upwards of 50% of the total horizontal space simply doesn't contain and humans to hit and arrows plunging into that space are going to hit nothing but the ground. Now the vertical space is trickier: there's going to be a lot of empty space between the ranks as well, though we are almost never informed about how much. One exception is the Macedonian sarisa phalanx, where we're told (Polyb. 18.29) that the sarisa of the fifth rank extends two cubits beyond the first rank, which lets us calculate roughly a 90cm rank interval. Other formations might have been tighter or looser, of course. But the implication here is that an arrow shot on a flat trajectory (so at very close range) at least half of the target area is entirely empty space; for an arrow shot in a high arc, as much as 75% of the target area might be. And of course in this estimation, we've been treating our soldiers like they are large rectangular prisms (our army of gelatinous cubes will be very effective), but of course actual humans aren't going to physical occupy a lot of the space we're even giving them here (note the silhouettes below). So the majority of arrows are simply going to miss. [Sarissa-Phalanx-Depth-1] But of course then our target infantrymen are also not unprotected. Let's assume here an average infantryman who is roughly 170cm in height (5ft 7in, a touch on the tall side, but not unreasonable for pre-modern agrarian soldiers). The first thing he is likely to have protecting him is a shield. For the purpose of our arrows killing or disabling our infantryman, a decent shield is essentially perfect protection in the area it covers: even very light shields can 'catch' arrows effectively (and indeed, this is what very thin hide or wicker shields are for). The one risk we face is the arrow punching through the shield into the shield arm, which could certainly happen, but many shields have reinforced metal bosses over where they are gripped, making this less likely. But as we discussed with shield walls, shields often cover quite a lot of the body; shields could be quite big. So let's draw that out with some example shields, to scale with a human silhouette (again, 170cm tall) and see how much of this relatively big fellow (by pre-modern standards) typical shields covered: [Shield-Coverage-Chart]Note that the human silhouette shape is via Wikimedia Commons. What you can immediately see is that just about any shield is going to massively reduce the target area of the body even if it isn't moved. All of these shields are large enough to cover the entire trunk of the body, protecting all of the vital organs in the torso. Assuming our infantryman has crouched down a little and put his shoulder into his shield (and kept his weapon hand behind it), our archer has lost upwards of three-quarters of his target area (even higher for very large shields like the Roman scutum). Worse yet, the target area that remains is mostly legs where arrow strikes, while painful, are a lot less likely to be lethal and may not even be disabling. And of course these soldiers can move their shields, angling them up if the arrows are plunging downward or crouching behind the shield if they're arriving on flat trajectories. Moreover arrows at range move slowly enough to be actively blocked and dodged, to the point that we know that 'arrow dodging' was a martial skill of some import in cultures that engaged in small-scale bow exchanges as part of 'first system' warfare.^5 Of course, if the incoming hail of arrows is dense enough, soldiers might be unwilling to put their heads up to try to spot incoming and block (at Agincourt we're told the French soldiers angled their helmets into the arrow-rain, for instance), but infantry under lighter 'fire' might actively move their shield to block specific incoming arrows. And then behind that shield our infantryman is also probably wearing some kind of armor! Now a full plate harness is going to provide only extremely few points of vulnerability, but to give our archers a more favorable case, let's stay in the ancient world and consider two 'edge' cases from the Hellenistic period: a mailed Roman legionary (the most heavily armored infantryman of the period) and a Gallic warrior (one of the less armored infantrymen of the period). By picking soldiers this early, we've given our archers a bit of a hand: these fellows don't have fully enclosed helmets, or significant arm protection; later medieval combatants, particularly with wealth, would have been much better protected, with things like aventails to cover the neck and fuller protections for arms and legs. The Roman has a mail lorica hamata, a Montefortino-type helmet (with cheek-flaps protecting much of the face) and greaves, while our Gaul has just the helmet and probably some thickened textile body protection. The coverage might look like this (please forgive my very rough efforts to draw out irregular shapes): [Armor-Coverage-Chart]Once again, the human silhouette shape is via Wikimedia Commons. Now as we've discussed, armor protection against arrows isn't necessarily a binary. Armor often gets discussed as if arrows either always defeat it or never do and really only one of those is correct: arrows will not defeat good iron or steel plate armor at effectively any range. But for other forms of armor, the range and the power of the bow matter a lot. I'm going to summarize my previous estimates here (but I sure do wish we had more long-range bow-penetration testing!): at relatively long range (c. 200m) even powerful bows might struggle to reach the target with enough impact energy to penetrate mail and relatively weak war bows - which are still bows with 80lbs pullback (so our weak war bow is roughly 50% more powerful as a typical hunting bow) - may struggle to even penetrate a good textile defense with a solid hit. Even at moderate ranges (c. 100m), mail will probably sometimes defeat even the most powerful bows (but sometimes it will fail) and even a gambeson provides a degree of protection from the weakest (again, still 80lbs pullback bows).^6 What that means for our Roman legionary up there the good news is that very few arrows are going to accomplish much; the situation is worse for our Gaul, but actually not much worse. For the Roman legionary, he has upwards of 85% of his body covered by his giant shield. Should an arrow get around that shield somehow, to hit anything vital (except his face) it has to contend with his mail. Now powerful war bows, especially at short range can absolutely defeat mail, but not every shot is going to be the most powerful bow shooting a point-blank range shot hitting dead on and for the rest, a decent chunk of them are going to fail to split the mail rings or else expend so much energy doing so that they don't penetrate lethally deep through the thick textile padding (the subarmalis) beneath the mail. Meanwhile, his lower legs below the shield are covered with solid bronze greaves which will almost always deflect an incoming arrow (they're both solid metal, but also curved so an arrow is likely to glance off). His head and neck remain the big point of vulnerability, but something like three quarters of that space is covered by his helmet and his cheek-guards: an arrow slamming into a solid, 1.5kg bronze helmet is going to be unpleasant, but the arrow isn't usually going to penetrate (though the impact may daze or even knock out the soldier).^7 And if we start stacking these 'filters' for our arrows, we see the lethality of our barrage drops very fast against infantry. Maybe two-third to three quarters of our arrows just miss entirely, hitting the ground, shot long over the whole formation and so on. Of the remainder, another three-quarters at least (probably an even higher proportion, to be honest) are striking shields. Of the remainder, we might suppose another three-quarters or so are striking helmets or other fairly solid armor like greaves: these hurt, but probably won't kill or disable. Of the remainder, a portion - probably a small portion, because of those big shields - are being defeated by body armor that they could, under ideal circumstances, defeat. And of the remainder that actually penetrate a human on the other side, maybe another two-thirds are doing so in the arms, feet or lower legs, many of them with glancing hits: painful, but not immediately fatal and in some cases potentially not even disabling. After all of those filters, we're down to an estimated arrow lethality rate hovering 0.5-1%, meaning each arrow shot has something like a 1-in-100 or 1-in-200 chance to kill or disable an enemy.^8 To put that in perspective with the images above: Aragorn's book-inaccurate Elf allies (about five hundred of them) could all shoot over the whole approach (probably about a minute) and kill or disable about 25 Uruk-hai out of that host of ten thousand.^9 Of course they wouldn't be firing in volleys and numbers would matter. But we can extend our model a bit. Let's assume an equal sized force of heavy infantry, advancing at the quick step (so a march, not a charge) against an equal sized force of archers. Bow shot is about 200m, which a quick march will cross in about 2-and-a-quarter minutes (quick step is 120 steps per minute, 75cm covered per step, roughly). Each archer can loose six arrows a minute, so each infantryman has, on average, 13.5 arrows to deal with. His chance of being killed or disabled by one of those arrows over the course of marching into contact (assuming our 0.5% arrow lethality) is thus about 6.75%. And that is under very favorable assumptions for our archers: our infantry doesn't break into a charge, has no screening forces, the archers can shoot at maximum effective range, don't tire out their arms and can all shoot effectively for the entire period (no return shots, no being blocked by friendly troops, etc). In practice, we should probably also impose a pretty sharp lethality ramp for these arrows: our 0.5% lethality figure is based on arrows loosed at pretty close range on flat trajectories, but of course the earliest shots in this scenario would be at much longer range, with less power and accuracy and so much less lethal; our 6.75% figure is thus something of a maximum. A 6.75% ideal disable rate is not going to stop the determined advance of heavy infantry: that infantry is going to march right on into contact and if those archers don't have their own heavy infantry to meet it, they are going to be put to flight very quickly. The Model and the Metal Now if all we had was modeling, this sort of analysis would be shaky, because we're making so many simplifying assumptions. But of course we now want to compare our model with actual battles to see if it seems like it is describing their mechanics accurately. At the Battle of Marathon (490 BC), a force of 10,000 Athenian and Plataean hoplites advanced over open ground into contact with a larger force (perhaps roughly double) of Persian soldiers, most of whom were likely archers, given how the Achaemenid army fought: the Athenian-Plataean army charged into contact and routed their enemy with just 192 KIA; many of these losses moreover were not from arrows, as our best source, Herodotus, is clear that the hardest fighting was in contact at the ships.^10 At Issus (333BC), Alexander orders a quick approach for his infantry, worried about the large numbers of Persian archers (Arr. Anab. 2.10.3), but the Macedonians reached the Persian line and in the whole battle reportedly sustained only 150 killed, 4,500 wounded (Curt. 3.11.27). At the Siege of Nicaea (1097 AD) the relief army of Kilij Arslan, composed primarily of Turkish horse archers - some of the finest and most dangerous archers around - attempted to move the crusader shield wall but was unable to do so despite a prolonged effort (he eventually gets pulled into contact with heavy crusader cavalry and is quite soundly defeated). And then, of course, there is Agincourt (1415 AD). On the one hand, Agincourt is held up as the great example of the victorious power of the English longbow. On the other hand, both the initial French cavalry charge and the subsequent French infantry advance were able to cross a muddy, open field into contact with the English force.^11 Agincourt reflects, in many ways, an ideal battle for the English longbow: the enemy was forced to advance the full range of the weapon, without cover, over difficult ground and did so in distinct 'waves' (the French army was deployed in three successive lines), on a battlefield where the forests 'canalized' (funneled into a narrow space) the French advance and secured the English flanks. And yet under these conditions the French infantry were able to cross the terrain in good order and attempt to breach the English line. Of course, despite outnumbering the English, the French infantry attack was too weakened by the arrows to overcome the English men at arms and archers in contact and so the English won a great victory. [Map_Agincort]Via Wikipedia, a map of the English and French positions at Agincourt, showing the confined nature of the battle-space, which greatly aided the English. Note that there is a much better much of the battle in Livingston, Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King (2023). But the nature of that victory is actually quite telling: even in ideal circumstances, with one of the most powerful bows in history (and a body of experienced archers to wield them) the English could not simply 'mow down' the incoming infantry attack slogging forward. But at the same time, the continuous rain of arrows created the conditions for the English to win in the press of melee despite being outnumbered. The Roman historian Livy has these phrases that always jump to mind in these situations, describing men or armies - often still very much alive - as fessus vulneribus or vulneribus confectus, "tired/worn-out by wounds" (Livy 1.25.11; 22.49.5; 24.26.14). After all, an arrow that gives a shallow cut glancing off an arm or bangs off a helmet or other piece of armor or slams into a shield isn't going to kill you and probably isn't immediately disabling, but it does hurt and the added impact of cuts and bruises is going to contribute to exhaustion (and arrows stuck in a shield make it harder to wield), slowly but steadily diminishing the fighting capability of the recipient. That is how I would understand the failure of the French infantry advance at Agincourt. It isn't that the longbows killed them all, but that they injured, exhausted, confused and disconcerted the advancing infantry, so that by the time the French reached the fresh, close-ordered and prepared ranks of the English, they were at a substantial disadvantage in the close combat. [Battle_of_crecy_froissart]Via Wikipedia, a 15th century drawing of the Battle of Crecy (1346) from Jean Froissart's Chronicles. This is, of course, a meaningfully later illustration, but I want to draw attention to a few things: first, neither the archers nor the crossbowmen are shooting in volleys - we can see men in both groups in different stages of shooting. Second, several of the crossbowmen are injured, with arrows in their legs, but continuing to shoot, because those wounds, while doubtless painful, haven't disabled them. Of course we need to read such drawings with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I think this is closer to the reality than most modern movie scenes. Now since I have brought up Agincourt, we also want to talk about cavalry. Because so far, we've been focused on infantry facing massed archery. But note that at battles like Crecy (1346) and Agincourt (1415), the French also try cavalry charges and in both battles, these are very roughly repulsed.^12 That may seem strange because in strategy games and the like, cavalry is the solution to archers, able to close the distance and defeat them quickly. But actual battles are more complicated. On the one hand, cavalry is faster: even heavy cavalry can cut the time spent crossing the 'beaten zone' of bowshot from around 2.5 minutes to just 1 minute. On the other hand, horses are big and react poorly to being wounded: a solid arrow hit on a horse is very likely to disable both horse and rider. And while light or archer cavalry might limit exposure to mass arrow fire by attacking in looser formation, as we've discussed, European heavy horse generally engages in very tight lines of armored men and horses in order to maximize the fear and power of their impact. Unsurprisingly then, we see from antiquity forward, efforts to armor or protect horses, called 'barding': defenses of thick textile, scale, lamellar, and even plate are known in various periods, though of course the more armor placed on the horse, the larger and stronger it needs to be and the slower it moves. Nevertheless, the size and shape of a horse makes it harder to armor than a human and you simply cannot achieve a level of protection for a horse that is going to match a heavy infantryman on the ground, especially if the latter has a large shield. Finally, the other thing about cavalry is that they weren't as numerous. The cavalry charge at Agincourt had in it only 800 horsemen, for instance.^13 But horses are big and cavalry cannot be packed in a deep formation, for reasons we've discussed, so the cavalry would still take up a fair bit of space on the battlefield, meaning that they would draw shots from a lot of archers, potentially overwhelming the advantage of covering the space more rapidly. Michael Livingston, op cit, does his own modeled simulation of the longbow impact on the French cavalry charge, with a lethality ramp from 0.25% to 2% over the charge and estimates that well over half of the riders wouldn't have made it to the English lines.^14 With so many archers firing at so few horsemen, the imbalance quickly produces catastrophe, although it is worth noting that even at this point the French cavalry charge did reach the English line, albeit without the numbers or the morale impact to overcome it, with French knights being pulled off of their horses within the English infantry formation, having presumably slammed through in their initial impact. Conclusions One of the challenges in understanding pre-modern warfare is in navigating between the extremes of 'wonder weapons' and 'useless' weapons. If bows were so powerful that they could mow down heavy infantry or invalidate cavalry, no one would have fought any other way. We know that, of course, because eventually a technology emerges - firearms - which was so lethal that it steadily pushed every other way of fighting off of the battlefield, save for a bit of light cavalry. Bows and crossbows existed for far longer and didn't have this effect, because they weren't that powerful: they simply lacked the tremendous lethality of firearms. The very strongest war bows might deliver at most around 130 joules of impact energy, slicing and piercing through a target. By contrast even relatively early (16th century, for instance) muskets could deliver one to two thousand joules of impact energy, with a projectile that didn't neatly slice or pierce the target (it didn't need too), but smashed through, shattering bone and shredding issue over a much larger area. At the same time, bows and crossbows obviously weren't useless. Of course for nomadic steppe-based armies, they were the primary weapon and rapidly maneuvering horse archers could use bows to devastating effect (in part because unlike foot archers, they could repeatedly caracole into that higher lethality zone at very short range). For agrarian armies, archers and other 'missile' troops could screen heavy infantry or cavalry, harass enemies and under the right circumstances degrade an enemy force quite heavily, even if they couldn't simply 'mow down' advancing infantry. To counter this, more sophisticated armies might advance their close-order heavy infantry with screening forces of light infantry, often with looser spacing (thus lowering the incoming arrow 'hit rate' even further). The Roman legion of the Middle Republic had a built-in screening force, the velites, while we see the French, particularly at Crecy, attempting (and failing) to use their crossbows in this way. Those screening forces existed in part because harassing 'fire' from missile troops, while it might not turn back the advance of a legion, could significantly hamper it and so it was worth tasking a significant portion of the army to preventing that (and harassing the enemy in turn). Of course TV and filmmakers are not thinking in these terms, but instead deploying - often without much thought - a set of visual tropes for battles which all have their origins in warfare in the gunpowder period. Directors love, for instance, having characters hold each other at bow or crossbow point, something that makes sense with modern firearms, but not with bows or crossbows (if you had to hold someone at weapon-point in the pre-gunpowder world, you used a sword or a spear). The visual film 'language' for ranged engagements, in turn is very clearly drawn from warfare in the 1700s and 1800s. I suspect we can actually be a lot more specific, with the touchstones here being the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. Film as a genre, after all, emerged and was in its early days substantially shaped in an American context and much of filmic language remains dominated by Hollywood and in the United States, reenactments of ARW and ACW battles are quite common and for many movie-makers would be the primary way of engaging with any kind of warfare before the emergence of the genre of film itself in the early 1900s. This, of course, introduces some of its own problems even for the warfare of the 1700s and 1800s, as reenactments tend to recreate parade-ground and field manual maneuvers and impose them on battles that were probably quite a bit more fluid and disorganized, but that's a question for other scholars, I think, to unpack.^15 But that mental model of warfare imposes both a physical logic and a dramatic logic on to battle scenes set in pre-gunpowder societies which simply do not belong there: the most obvious being the hero-commander dramatically giving the order to 'fire' at the key moment, something that calls back to the mythology around "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes," but which is inappropriate for bows and crossbows, which - among other things - we know often began slow shooting right at maximum range. As with our discussion of "The Battlefield After the Battle," I think there's an opportunity here for filmmakers to break with that tradition and attempt to show the view a meticulously reconstructed battle and reap the dramatic benefits of how interesting and alien that would be. But until then, I suppose, I will have to suffer through more films showing archers doing volley fire drills, while kings shout for the men to 'fire!' their bows. Share this: * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * 1. On drill and in particular, counter-march volley fire with crossbows, see Andrade, The Gunpowder Age (2016), 149-160. 2. It also didn't generate a smokescreen to help with the final rushing charge, whereas a musket-and-bayonet unit might benefit significantly from firing and then charging through and out of its own obscuring smoke into a terrified and confused enemy. 3. And for animals that might do so, there's a reason that for hunting something like a boar there were specialized spears to deal with an angry charging one. 4. This, it seems to me, should be possible with modern technology, to simulate each arrow's physics reasonably accurately, but history research is almost never so well funded as to be able to do that kind of work and right now the federal funding for history research, the National Endowment for the Humanities, is facing cuts and possible extinction, rather than being expanded. 5. On arrow dodging in a Native North American context, see Lee, "The Military Revolution of Native North America: Firearms, Forts and Polities" in Empires and Indigenes, (2011), 58, fn. 34. 6. That said, even for a fellow with full plate protection, there are points of vulnerability: not every component is as thick as the breastplate, but the big worry are the eye-slits and breaths (breathing holes) in the visor. These are generally small enough that an arrow can't get through whole, but an arrow striking one might shatter, sending deadly or debilitating sharp splinters through. Note, for instance, these experiments by Tod Todeschini. 7. Roman helmets, like medieval helmets, were worn with padded textile liners, which would absorb some of the impact, but an 50-80 joule head impact is still going to hurt quite a lot! 8. 100 * 0.25 (miss) * 0.25 (shields) * 0.25 (helmets, greaves) * 0.33 (non-disabling hits (arms, legs, feet) = 0.52% 9. Of course the effectiveness of bows in sieges is that attackers looking to set ladders or scale walls are going to need to be vulnerable for a lot longer and a well-defined fortification is going to enable 'enfilade' fire (shots coming from the sides, via projecting towers), all of which means the attackers have to sit in that higher lethality point-blank-range zone for a lot longer. 10. Hdt. 6.114-117. I have seen online many times the figure of 11 dead for the Plataeans cited to Hdt 6.117, but the figure is not there in the passage and I do not know where it is from. 11. On the battle, a good and readable primer is M. Livingston, Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King (2023). 12. I want to note, because we're trying to see how archers work when everything is going well, we're focusing on English victories, but English longbowmen did not always win their battles either: sometimes the French infantry and cavalry were able to close the gap and win, as for instance at Formigny (1450). For the longbowmen to succeed, they needed quite a lot to go right for them. 13. Livingston, op cit, 253 14. I will note that Livingston breaks this simulation into 'volleys,' but I don't think he means they're actually firing in volleys (they don't seem to have been, the sources describe 'clouds' and 'hail' of arrows, implying continuous shooting), it's just a useful set of mathematical divisions to break his lethality ramp into. 15. But consider reading Spring, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only: The British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783 (2008). I also have with me, but haven't yet read, but have very high hopes for A. S. Burns, Infantry in Battle: 1733 - 1783 (2025), so we might return to this topic at a later date. Like this: Like Loading... * Tagged * Ancient * Archery * Bows * Drill * Firearms * Hollywood Tactics * Medieval * Military History * Oh no * Tactics * Volley Fire * Weapons [7295d49534] Published by Bret Devereaux View all posts by Bret Devereaux Published May 2, 2025May 2, 2025 Post navigation Previous Post Collections: How Gandalf Proved Mightiest: Spiritual Power in Tolkien 126 thoughts on "Collections: Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire" 1. [bdda2] Sean says: May 2, 2025 at 7:30 pm I have written about how bows in the ancient world were probably not as stiff as bows in the 15th/16th century Old World here and following https://www.bookandsword.com/2022/07/02/ how-heavy-were-iron-age-bows-part-1/ I need a snappy name like longbow festishishm or overcorrection. Loading... Reply 1. [bdda2] Sean says: May 2, 2025 at 8:01 pm Some recent tests by Rolf Warming, Tod Todeschini, and the older test in Barry Molloy's The Cutting Edge suggest to me that at close quarters many ancient shields are not quite arrowproof and probably needed to be either used actively or propped up ahead of the body not held close to the chest like a wall. The Polybian scutum with its plywood core and calfskin face is on the sturdy side. Of course even a hunting bow will go through someone's chest and keep going at 20 yards, and the arrow that penetrates 20 cm at very close range may get stuck in the face of that shield at 50 yards. Would like to do more tests when time and spoons allow. Loading... Reply 1. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:11 am Holding a shield close to the body is almost always incorrect. - if a blow would knock the shield into the body it's too close and it will not provide as much protection. - if the archer is more than a couple of yards away holding the shield further away covers more of your body than right against you. If the archer is that close then the guy with the shield can close even further and then the archer isn't using the bow as a bow anymore. No, Legolas firing arrows from a foot away wasn't realistic. - if the shield is close, then the arrow may pierce it and stick into either your armor or even into your body. In the first case now you're hampered in movement. In the second you're actually wounded. If the shield is further away the arrow must fully penetrate the shield and continue with enough force to pierce armor. Assuming it doesn't hit your arm. Which is a very small target compared with the shield. Shield usage tends to emphasize intercepting blows as close to the enemy as possible, before they have time to build momentum. So you end up being used to having it out there. The position for arrow interception is slightly closer because it's less open, but then you would have to practice that against opposite-handers anyway. Loading... Reply 2. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 2, 2025 at 7:50 pm The quality of posts like these is amazing. I read this after working my way through a couple of chapters in a fairly specialised Routledge collected edition; a book with a dozen different entries on the topic of unit cohesion in ancient warfare, each of which is about the same length (~8000 words) as this. In terms of amount of information conveyed, depth of analysis, clarity of writing, and general quality, this weeks post blows most of those chapter right out of the water. That Brett churns one of these out most weeks, and makes them available for free, is almost unbelievable. Loading... Reply 1. [1a1b8] 8roomsofelixir says: May 3, 2025 at 2:52 am Many scholars are good at research, but few scholars are good at writing. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 10:15 am Some scholars I read don't appear to be that good at research either - or they're so bad at writing that they somehow manage to hide their research. There's a lot of stuff out there that boils down to a couple of half baked ideas, paraphrased, reiterated, summarised, and repeated until it hits the word count. And I'm not just picking on historians either, choose a random physics paper from arXiv and there's a decent chance the same holds. It seems to be a universal truth of human endeavour that most of what is produced in any area is not very good, with only a small minority having lasting impact. Loading... Reply 1. [4a3de] cptbutton says: May 3, 2025 at 1:51 pm "Sturgeon's law (or Sturgeon's revelation) is an adage stating "ninety percent of everything is crap". It was coined by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author and critic, and was inspired by his observation that, while science fiction was often derided for its low quality by critics, most work in other fields was low-quality too, and so science fiction was no different." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sturgeon%27s_law Loading... Reply 3. [7cb92] Historical Vagabond says: May 2, 2025 at 8:02 pm This is excellent! Loading... Reply 4. [997bd] AJS says: May 2, 2025 at 8:04 pm I want to make a qualified defense of saying "fire" in this context. Virtually any book, movie, or show in which arrows are a major infantry weapon is one in which the characters are not actually speaking modern English. When we read their lines in English, we're meant to understand that it's translated from Greek, Mongol, Latin, French, Westron, &c. And since non-literal translations often capture the meaning better than literal ones, "fire" is an effective & thus valid way of communicating the meaning of the order to modern Anglophone ears. Loading... Reply 1. [45466] scifihughf says: May 2, 2025 at 8:10 pm While "loose" is a bit obscure, "shoot" is both well understood in modern English AND was in use in medieval times. Loading... Reply 2. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 2, 2025 at 8:31 pm That's an interesting take. Figurative translations can be more effective than literal ones, but only if the figure of speech is appropriate. You could translate a Greek hoplite shouting in surprise as saying "Jesus Christ!" but hearing that in a period piece would completely shatter the suspension of disbelief, better to transpose the figure-of-speech to something like "By Zeus! than to leave a devastatingly anachronistic one. Pre-gunpowder orders to fire fall firmly in that category IMO. Loading... Reply 3. [9206b] sstabeler says: May 3, 2025 at 11:25 am Sure, but the bigger problem is that you wouldn;t order longbowmen to start shooting in the first place, since you didn't really need to. (Much like you don't need to order heavy infantry to start using their weapons on the enemy when thye are within rnage) Loading... Reply 1. [835b9] WF says: May 4, 2025 at 8:46 am > (Much like you don't need to order heavy infantry to start using their weapons on the enemy when thye are within rnage) That's a funny thought - I now can't get the image of a medieval sergant-at-arms loudly shouting "Swing!" "Swing! " "Stab!" out of my head... Loading... Reply 1. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:15 am There is an example in film: that scene at the very start of the Fellowship of the Ring with the elves swinging *their two handed swords* in a synchronous wave. More dramatic license I guess. Loading... Reply 5. [cfbab] James says: May 2, 2025 at 8:16 pm Of course, for filmmakers, the other advantage that having archers fire in volleys is the control over when the arrows are actually flying. Even with weak prop bows there's still the potential for injury (and therefore lawsuits), so having all your extras wait until a specific command before releasing gives you the chance to have a safety marshal make sure the landing area is clear and nobody is pointing their bow at somebody else's head. Then they all release together in a discrete, controlled manner, whereas a whole group of people shooting off arrows at random drastically increases the chances of an accident happening. Which might not be a concern if you're a 13th century general, but definitely is a concern if you're an insurance-premium paying 21st century film studio. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 12:42 pm I think volley firing is also used to communicate something specific to the viewer. Loosely speaking: volleys => drill => discipline => highly skilled. So if the director wants to show that those elves or Romans are well trained or part of a professional army, he has them shoot in volleys. The converse, aka, orcs or barbarians, shoot at will. Of course that link through drill and discipline is very suspect itself (as highlighted by a recent post)), but it is pretty deeply ingrained culturally. It's inescapable that media will ditch accuracy (historic or scientific or of any other kind) in order to adopt a well understood visual language. Loading... Reply 1. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:27 am Drill works on the battlefield for certain specific weapons. The same ones for which volley fire does. It lasted long enough, and the ones who implemented it were victorious enough, that it has stuck in the military mind (and the military-adjacent) for much longer than it should. Bayonets have a similar mystique. Admittedly drill does have some uses. The OCD level of detail in everything, can carry through to things like equipment maintenance. Which modern military equipment requires to continue functioning. Assuming of course that the correct things are OCD'ed. The "cargo cult" version where you serve cold, inedible food because you must keep the kitchen spotless at all times is not a functioning version of this. The Americans have been victorious enough that other armies are imitating odd things about them. For instance, generals wearing camo uniforms in press conferences means other armies now wear lots of camo. Including dress uniforms. Which results in camo uniforms in colors and patterns that are in no way actually camouflaging. At least not anywhere on Earth. Loading... Reply 6. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 2, 2025 at 8:18 pm > After all of those filters, we're down to an estimated arrow lethality rate hovering 0.5-1%, meaning each arrow shot has something like a 1-in-100 or 1-in-200 chance to kill or disable an enemy. To put that in perspective with the images above: Aragorn's book-inaccurate Elf allies (about five hundred of them) could all shoot all at once and kill or disable about 25 Uruk-hai out of that host of ten thousand. Either a typo or an arithmetic error, but 0.5-1% of 500 is about 3 or 4, not 25. In fact, 25 is probably the total casualties they'll inflict in their initial barrage before the Urukhai close the range or they're so tired they have to seriously slow down their rate of fire. Loading... Reply 1. [4ad21] Tapkomet says: May 2, 2025 at 8:57 pm Clearly there is a hidden multiplier for these being Elves Loading... Reply 2. [661eb] Rafal says: May 2, 2025 at 11:17 pm Multiply that by 6, which is given as a number of the shots an archer can make in a minute. Loading... Reply 3. [7295d] Bret Devereaux says: May 2, 2025 at 11:28 pm Oh, yeah, I was giving them about a minute of shooting time. I'll revise to clarify. Loading... Reply 7. [20674] Jake says: May 2, 2025 at 8:19 pm The modeling of arrow lethality seems to assume that a war bow cannot be aimed. That is, you're taking the point of impact to be equally likely for any point within some large area (hopefully the area being "where the bad guys are standing"), so the chance of striking a vulnerable spot is just the fraction of the area consisting of vulnerable spots. Is this accurate? Obviously historical archers were not Legolas, but would they at least have been able to slightly increase their odds of hitting an enemy above random chance, especially for arrows fired at shorter range? Has someone tried to simulate or test the pre-gunpowder equivalent of MOA or CEP here? Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 2, 2025 at 8:41 pm Interesting point, but I'm not sure aiming would make so much difference. Firstly, if you're shooting 6 arrows per minute in the highly stressful situation of a battle, there's not much time for aiming. Second, you've got on the order of 0.5-5s of flight per arrow (~50m/s at a range from 20m to 200m). That's time during which the target is not only moving forward, but also bobbing up and down, limbs flailing, shield waving, etc... all in the hectic scenario of a charge. Considering the small target area the archer is aiming for, a few second of such seemingly random motion probably washes out most of the effect of aiming. The same, naturally, wouldn't necessary hold true in other situations like a missile exchange between skirmishers or in a stand-off-ish situation around a siege. Loading... Reply 2. [bdda2] Sean says: May 2, 2025 at 9:19 pm One of the limits of bows is that an arrow travels on the order of 50 m/s when it leaves the bow. So beyond a few tens of metres, the target has a pretty good chance of seeing it in flight and moving out of the way. Most hunters don't trust themselves to cleanly kill deer with a bow at ranges over a few tens of metres (and while most hunters in the USA and Canada are not expert markspersons, deer don't wear helmets or carry shields and they sure don't shoot back- not like kangaroos and their Stinger missiles). I expect that is the kind of range where an archer in combat might aim for a specific target like "that man's face over his shield" and not just "that bastard spanning a crossbow." That is one reason why there were diverse archery styles, from short-range high-lethality (often relying on pavises, shield bearers, or heavy armour), to "shower shooting" or clout shooting from several hundred metres away (common among unarmoured horse archers). Shooting at long ranges had disadvantages, but so did closing in. Loading... Reply 1. [d8837] stan says: May 3, 2025 at 5:52 am IIRC accounts of horse archers preferring to shoot at extreme range are mostly from well into the dominance of firearms when they would be quickly smashed by musket-wielding infantry if they tried to exchange shots up close, but in the pre-gunpowder era a horse archer was very often loosing at extremely close ranges to make best use of the power of his bow and the ability of his horse to keep him from getting caught by men on foot. Loading... Reply 1. [bdda2] Sean says: May 3, 2025 at 12:11 pm Nations whose horse archery was mostly from long range and at a high angle are well documented back to the 11th century CE alongside nations which dashed in to shoot within a few dozen metres like buffalo hunters then dashed out. Naked Turks practiced horse archery different than east Romans with coats of iron lamellar, or Cumans with coats of hide lamellar. An excellent paper is "Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Horse Archers, Oh My! What Abstract Definitions Don't Tell Us About 1205 Adrianople," by Russ Mitchell Loading... Reply 2. [247b7] Peter T says: May 3, 2025 at 7:39 pm Nomad archery is optimised for long range, not penetration (light arrows, high velocity at release). Probably because the usual combat was with other horse-archers, and the main target was the horses. Loading... Reply 1. [8ab3f] thrig says: May 4, 2025 at 1:35 am Shooting skittish herbivores at distance allows those daily skills to be put to use in combat. Loading... 3. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:36 am Horse archers would shoot from a longer range than a musket because they were mobile targets shooting at a more or less stationary one. The idea was to enrage the gunpowder infantry into leaving ranks. Which meant their protection (either pikes or wagons) no longer applied. At which point they could either be ridden down and lanced by the horseman or else the nomads would just *leave*. Muzzle-loading smoothbore gunpowder infantry didn't work well against nomad horse archers because the archers controlled when and where they confronted them. The infantry had to take *all* their supplies with them on any expedition because there were no settlements to forage against. The wagon equation applies there. And there were basically no gunpowder cavalry, for many reasons, until much later. By which time the infantry pretty much outranged the horse archers. Loading... Reply 2. [912ce] Tom says: May 3, 2025 at 8:00 am Harder for infantry to move out of the way when they're in formation, though, and the volume of arrows if walking into a barrage like that from English longbows means that if even if you avoid one arrow you might just be stepping into the path of another. Dodging arrows is probably (partially) viable in a skirmish environment where there aren't many shooters and you have plenty of space to move about in, as with the native American examples cited, but not so much if you're trudging in a phalanx. As to overall accuracy, I would have thought that while strength is the key attribute for an archer, accuracy surely isn't irrelevant either. A man-sized target isn't a particularly challenging one for a skilled archer over the kind of range that shooting would take place, and given that archers can aim for specific targets they surely would. They are after all fighting for their lives, rather than just trying to exhaust their ammunition, they're often shooting at ranges where they can identify and aim for particular targets, and arrows aren't free - a scenario where the overwhelming majority of arrows miss entirely because the archers are spraying arrows at the vague overall shape of the enemy rather than marking particular targets doesn't quite ring true. But that probably doesn't make that much difference to overall lethality rates. A lot of the arrows will still miss, not least because the targets are moving, and most of the rest will probably just hit shield (and/or armour). Loading... Reply 1. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 10:26 am Also, I don't know of pre-gunpowder sources on this, but during the 18th and 19th century, it was considered cowardly and undisciplined for infantry to attempt to duck or dodge cannonballs (which can be seen and evaded if you're quick, unlike musket bullets). I think commanders believed, perhaps with reason, that infantry in formation, even taking some casualties, was going to be more effective than infantry in disorder ducking and dodging. Loading... Reply 3. [f9c80] Tea Kew says: May 4, 2025 at 12:24 pm Aiming a traditional bow is not particularly easy. The 'point blank' range, as in the distance to a target where you don't need to meaningfully account for drop, is very short - in the tens of metres. As soon as you start to push out beyond that, small mistakes in your estimation of distance or your adjustment for it will make a mockery of attempts to pick out smaller target zones than a person. One of the best practical demonstrations of that is Tod's Arrow vs Armour films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ds-Ev5msyzo Excellent and very experienced archer, point blank range with a stationary target, no pressure of battle - and he still often takes several shots to hit a specific target point. Some miss entirely despite the short distance and perfect conditions. So to the extent "picking out weak spots" is an option, it only has very limited impact at the very last moments. And of course in real life, that's the time the person you are shooting at is likely to be jumping at you swinging a sword or axe or something - which might well disrupt your aim! Loading... Reply 8. [4a3de] cptbutton says: May 2, 2025 at 8:30 pm WordPress aside: Has anyone else had the "Like Comment" button start working again after a long period of not working? Loading... Reply 9. [58e55] Adam says: May 2, 2025 at 8:31 pm Reading through these calculations makes me oddly nostalgic for a very old DOS game called Fantasy General. Missile troops in general had pretty low lethality if facing 'technologically' equal enemies; but it had a separate tracker for a morale damage. Troops coming under attack could be 'disordered' for the rest of the turn (bad) or 'broken' until they had a chance to rest away from enemies (very bad). And providing *THAT* was the main use of your skirmishers and archers; to be followed up with melee units for the kill once the enemy line was disrupted and broken up by your missile units. I mean, I liked the game for its gameplay, but it's neat to see a bit of uncharacteristic historical accuracy for a game that makes no pretense of being based in history. Loading... Reply 1. [6354c] Dr. Strangemonkey says: May 2, 2025 at 9:46 pm That game was so good. The modern sequel is fun but seems to have missed a lot of the charm of the original to me. Loading... Reply 2. [c02dd] Dinwar says: May 2, 2025 at 9:59 pm I can see that. Being hot with arrows may not kill you but it is dangerous and really annoying. It would deny maneuvering options to some extent (how much depends on many factors). And shield units have a front and flanks. Arrows to the flank have MUCH better odds of hitting (see castle construction). Again, the annoys shield men and keeps them from moving. Given that 85% or so of people are right handed you can readily predict how shieldmen will move, too, allowing you to position your archers to nudge the battle where you want it. And archers are strong. Pull 170 lbs six times a minute and you build up arm muscles. NOT folks you want to have hitting you with maces or axes or bits of wood. A surprising amount of war appears to not be killing your enemy but rather threatening them to control their movements. Loading... Reply 1. [769d7] konrad_arflane says: May 3, 2025 at 8:06 am Not only are 85% (or more) of people right handed, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if left-handed soldiers were expected to suck it up and wield their sword or spear in the "right" hand. I mean, it's only very recently that people have stopped forcing left-handed children to write right-handed (and I don't even know if that's universal). I can easily imagine any number of reasons why it might have life-or-death implications that everyone's gear is oriented the same way. Loading... Reply 1. [16efc] douglampert says: May 3, 2025 at 11:42 pm I have no idea if its true, but somewhere I encountered the idea that some forces deliberately put lefties on the extreme right, so their shields would be facing an otherwise unprotected flank. But in the bulk of the line, you'd probably want everyone oriented the same way, so almost everyone fights righty. Ferniehirst castle in Scottland has spiral staircases going counter-clockwise, reputededly to put righties at a disadvantage on the stairs due to the large number of lefties in the defense force at one time. Loading... Reply 2. [ed9a5] Dinwar says: May 4, 2025 at 10:15 am The ancient and Medieval world weren't known for being kind to people who were different. We're talking about a culture where dwarfs/little people were routinely put on display as an amusing spectacle. (No offense intended, I've met a few and they had different preferences so I'm genuinely not sure what the correct term is.) There are a lot of implications of right-handedness being dominant. Even today most tools are built for right-handed people, which creates some pretty significant hazards for southpaws. For example, grab any random pair of scissors, and unless you intentionally grab a left-handed set you'll see that they don't fit the left hand very well. As the ancient world was more artisan-based, rather than factory-based, in manufacturing this may not have mattered as much; that said, I don't recall ever seeing a left-handed set of sheers. On a shield wall in tight formation (which I still contend is tighter than Bret says, though you may only be that tight for a short time) left-handed people also create problems. Either you have someone using their non-dominant hand to stab with the spear, or you have a gap in the line. This gap isn't huge, but it's not insignificant either. When you're that close you need to practice a fair bit to coordinate movements to avoid fouling each other's weapons and shields, too; a lefty can disrupt that pretty easily, even with training (had that happen to me a few times). The funny thing is, the lefties I've known had as much trouble fighting left-handed people as us right-handed people did. For the same reason: they simply didn't encounter very many. All in all, I imagine that lefties quickly learned to fight with their non-dominant hands, and had significantly higher casualty rates than right-handed people. Maybe occasionally someone would put the lefties in a unit to provide unexpected resistance, but I wouldn't expect it to be super common. Loading... Reply 3. [0c527] ad9 says: May 4, 2025 at 11:08 am "I mean, it's only very recently that people have stopped forcing left-handed children to write right-handed" I imagine people writing with a fountain pen would make a lot more of a mess of the page, and their clothes, if they wrote left handed. Their sleeve would be a lot more likely to find itself draped across still-wet ink. In general, if people in the past had immediate feedback about an action, and we don't, then in cases of disagreement, it it almost always going to be us that is mistaken, not them. Loading... Reply 4. [f9c80] Tea Kew says: May 4, 2025 at 12:27 pm Conversely, the practice of _forcing_ people to be right handed is also relatively modern. Fencing treatises discuss lefties in passing at times - the idea that you should be forcing someone to be right handed never really shows up. There's a fun rapier book which has a set of plates for right vs right, a second set for right vs left, and a note at the beginning that if you want to see left vs right or left vs left you can hold the pages up to a mirror. Loading... Reply 2. [98743] Geoff Hart says: May 3, 2025 at 10:24 am Back muscles, not arm muscles alone. Much of the strength of the draw comes from your large back muscles. Loading... Reply 1. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 10:30 am And legs? I've never fired a bow, so I don't know, but does an archer shift weight or stride forward as one does hitting a golf ball or a baseball? Loading... Reply 1. [b2085] Bullseye says: May 3, 2025 at 10:35 am No, it's just upper body. Moving your entire body when you pull the string back wouldn't help because you just want the thing in your hand to get further away from the thing in your other hand. And when you actually shoot, you hold still except for your fingers letting go. Loading... 3. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:45 am Paraphrasing Clausewitz (drink!) the point of war is to make the enemy do what you want. This may include becoming extinct, but that's rare. Generally because "go away and don't bother us again" is usually much easier to implement. The other side of archers being strong is that they are almost always unarmored. And melee fighters are also strong - try putting on a harness and fighting someone. Loading... Reply 10. [0bb82] AlanL says: May 2, 2025 at 8:37 pm On the subject of arrows and slits in visors - I heard a few years back of a sad fatality in show jousting, where they use balsa wood lances designed to shatter on impact. A rider was killed by a splinter through the vision slit. Loading... Reply 1. [b2085] Bullseye says: May 2, 2025 at 11:19 pm IIRC there was a French king who died that way. Loading... Reply 1. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 10:32 am As I recall, there were two famous soldiers hit by arrows in the eye: Philip of Macedon and Harold, King of England. Loading... Reply 11. [6ed27] Barry says: May 2, 2025 at 8:39 pm Seconding this - thanks, Brett! Loading... Reply 12. [be1a5] NLRG says: May 2, 2025 at 8:48 pm two apparent typos: "shredding issue" "By contrast, a unit doing volley-and-charge is compressing probably close to 50% of the lethality of sustained shooting, devastating moment and then immediately charging." Loading... Reply 1. [3d5e3] Steve Morrison says: May 2, 2025 at 10:00 pm The Fellowship of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring each rank releases and then knees - each rank releases and then kneels just knock a new arrow - just nock a new arrow Loading... Reply 1. [be1a5] NLRG says: May 2, 2025 at 11:59 pm "attempt to show the view a meticulously reconstructed battle" Loading... Reply 13. [a4332] Fadi says: May 2, 2025 at 9:41 pm Before I reached the conclusion, I was thinking exactly about the Mongols but also the Ottomans, the latter holding out against their rivals using horse archer-based armies all the way till the 18th century (though with increasingly poor results after 1600). Loading... Reply 1. [45466] scifihughf says: May 3, 2025 at 1:06 am The Ottoman aristocracy thought of themselves as horse archers, but one reason the Ottoman Sultanate lasted so long was because the rulers were practical minded enough to equip their infantry with lots of firearms and cannon, and also encouraged domestic production of gunpowder weapons. (Armies of the Middle Ages vol 2, Ian Heath; Firearms: A Global History, Kenneth Chase). A bit slower than some Western European states, but by the mid 15th C a lot of the Janissaries and other Turkish infantry carried arquebus instead of bow. Some of their rivals, notably the Mamluks in Egypt and the Safavid Persians, were much more confident about the effectiveness of mounted archery. The Ottomans, in large part thanks to their infantry guns and cannon, started beating them up in the late 15th / early 16th C; and by the 17th C or so even Ottoman cavalry are carrying pistols. Loading... Reply 1. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 10:36 am Indeed, the Ottomans are classified as one of the "gunpowder empires," though not everyone endorses that concept. So are the Safavids, actually. Loading... Reply 2. [a4332] Fadi says: May 3, 2025 at 1:41 pm The Ottomans did eventually arm their Janissaries with firearms (though I'd place this at about 1500) and this absolutely gave them an edge against the Mamluks and Safavids. But until the 1600s, Janissaries remained an elite corps and the core of the army were the sipahi horsemen. Loading... Reply 14. [6354c] Dr. Strangemonkey says: May 2, 2025 at 10:16 pm All of this just makes me wish we could see more slingers in media. For the specific visual cinematic history of arrow volleys - I know Henry V from 1944 uses it. I don't remember it being a thing in the 1938 Robin Hood, and that's often the oldest movie I see referenced for an archery focus. Also I would be interested in hearing what might have been the reference point for the 'arrow wave' from things like Hero (2002) beyond it being (a) gorgeous and frightening (b) a nice contrast of the 'fusion fantasy' of lots of people acting in unison vs the hyper-aware individual grace of the people being shot at. It also helps me make sense of Drews' theory in The End of the Bronze Age that there was a military revolution where expensive bow-armed charioteers began being overwhelmed by cheaper javelin-armed runners. I'm not saying I am in any sort of place to find the theory plausible, I just had trouble figuring out exactly what he was claiming - but if your high lethality javelins can mess up enough chariot teams on the regular it might work out if the chariot archers can't mow you down fast enough. Loading... Reply 1. [62db3] Endymionologist says: May 3, 2025 at 11:25 am It's almost impossible to safely film a sling in use; military slingers began training when they were so young that they were too weak to cause accidental death, and even so would do almost all of their 'practice' slinging in solitary hunting or herd-defending situations. The 'visual' reference for some kind of arrow wave ultimately comes from Herodotus's "block out the sun" line, which is never going to get a 'historically accurate' visual representation because it's originally a description of a fearful prediction discussed ahead of battle rather than a thing observed in battle. And there is a recurring belief in a pattern where a military equilibrium using a small portion of the population will create food security, only to be overturned when the subsequent generation is full of poor people who didn't starve to death as children. I'm always skeptical of it, though. Loading... Reply 1. [cbab9] Isator Levi says: May 3, 2025 at 7:51 pm On what basis is filming a real sling, let alone a prop for film purposes, unsafe? Loading... Reply 1. [62db3] Endymionologist says: May 3, 2025 at 10:13 pm You can't use a false weighted bullet, as with a firearm blank, the sling won't move correctly without enough weight in the pocket. Making the bullet travel in an intended direction is a difficult skill, requiring far more practice time than you can give to a crowd of extras on a one-day rate. In a sense, there's no such thing as a 'prop sling' because that's just a sling; they are incredibly simple devices, too simple to imitate. Loading... Reply 1. [cbab9] Isator Levi says: May 4, 2025 at 6:48 pm Is there not a way to fake it with a combination of editing and a prop that is not actually capable of releasing its weight? Either that or possibly making casting calls from among dedicated sling recreation enthusiasts, at least for the close up shots. Mind, given how often something like bolas get featured in even TV productions, I question the premise that it's especially difficult to recreate the appearance of a sling. Loading... 2. [99560] Alien@System says: May 4, 2025 at 12:40 am Because unlike a bow or crossbow, an untrained person using a sling has a non-zero chance to hit something *behind* themselves. Loading... Reply 2. [0b7a9] 60guilders says: May 3, 2025 at 7:56 pm Apparently the guys in charge of House of David managed to safely film a sling in use, although it helps that there's only one person doing it. Trying to film, say, a unit of Balearic slingers doing their thing would probably result in a lot of injuries. Loading... Reply 1. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:51 am When the slinger is your star, you can give him a lot more than one day of training. The Moss, Jackson and Reeves apparently trained for four months for the Matrix movie. Which admittedly had a much larger budget but still. You're not going to train 30 people for that long, let alone 300. Loading... Reply 15. [1f8ff] Aaron Maenpaa says: May 2, 2025 at 10:27 pm > The typical war bow was more than twice as powerful as the typical modern hunting bow. It's important to note that the draw weight is the cost not the output. Modern compound bows are much for efficient than longbows (which get less efficient the more powerful they are since they expend more of their energy moving their limbs back to the starting point). Todd measured [1] a 160lb warbow producing about 130 Joules of muzzle energy (launch energy?). Which is pretty close to that produced by a top end of modern compound bow like the Carbon RX-9 which produces about 120 J with a 70lb draw weight (ATA 342 fps). Modern arrows are thinner because aluminum/carbon fiber are stronger than wood and they're lighter because a faster arrow gives you a flatter trajectory that's easier to aim... but you could launch medieval style war arrows if you wanted. It's interesting to think about what a modern compound would be capable of if you built it with a 160 lb draw weight, could you actually get to a bow that produced 250 J (ATA 500 fps?)... but you run into limits to how fast you can actually get an arrow going and how useful it is to make the arrow heavier. [1] https://youtu.be/BV8kt-bDxnk?t=495 Loading... Reply 1. [bf331] cf says: May 3, 2025 at 9:17 am Since you already mentioned Tod's channel: He did a test with Joe and a custom 130lb compund bow (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=YFAzmu505pM), they got ~250 J and they even managed to finally penetrate the breastplate that way (although not enough to hurt the wearer). Loading... Reply 1. [1f8ff] Aaron Maenpaa says: May 3, 2025 at 9:35 pm That's awesome. Loading... Reply 2. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 10:58 am ...and a 1911 has a muzzle energy starting out at 4/3 of that up to 3 times that (250-675 ft-lbs, for ft-lbs -> J, multiply by 1.35). For a pistol. Brown Bess is closer to 1300 ft-lbs or 1700-1800 J. Not surprising that a breastplate does not work as armor against a musket ball except possibly at really long range. Loading... Reply 16. [b9239] Steve K says: May 3, 2025 at 12:16 am Clearly we need Tod to do a new set of trials with his lockdown longbow, firing at longer ranges on lighter armor to supplement the plate armor testing. Loading... Reply 17. [67c5b] Topher Brennan says: May 3, 2025 at 1:21 am The claim that "the majority of arrows are simply going to miss" seems incorrect when we're talking about firing at any sort of reasonably deep formation at very close range. It's pretty unlikely the path of an arrow is going to exactly aline with the gaps between the files, so an arrow fired at a reasonably deep formation on a horizontal trajectory is going to hit *something*, even if it's somebody's shield. It's only when the trajectory of the incoming projectiles is steep enough so as to *not* intersect several ranks that a miss becomes likely. Loading... Reply 1. [bea75] lluewhyn says: May 3, 2025 at 11:43 am The trope being discussed, however, usually implies that the archers are filing a volley *into the air* towards the general direction of the enemy. So, a 15deg angle might indeed hit a unit several ranks behind the first possible target, but a lot of these scenes have archers shooting at something like a 45deg and where we see the arrows coming at a steep downward angle where they might only hit 5' further up if there wasn't a target there. Loading... Reply 18. [99560] Alien@System says: May 3, 2025 at 1:37 am I think there's two more considerations of why volley fire is important for firearms that do not apply to bows: A) Smoke. Black powder smoke is very dense, to the point where a lot of sources mentioning the effect continuous fire had on battlefield visibility. Having all soldiers shoot at the same time in a volley gives the smoke a moment to clear for aiming the next shot. Continuous uncoordinated fire would mean there's always fresh dense smoke being produced somewhere, making aiming for another shot quite hard. B) The movements. Reloading a firearm requires a lot of moving about with the gun, powder and (if early) match. Having all the men do those steps at the same time makes it easier to ensure safety, so that nobody is handling loose black powder in just the moment the person next to them waves the match about. An musketeer exploding at an inopportune time is a larger battlefield problem than an archer brushing their neighbour with an arrow by accident. Loading... Reply 1. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 2:01 pm B was also the reason why drill became a necessary part of military life, so that all the men could load and fire in unison. The secondary effects of drill on unit cohesion are disputed: as I recall, Bret rather disagrees with William McNeill on this issue. Loading... Reply 19. [f7a8a] lockeandlol says: May 3, 2025 at 1:47 am "deer cannot shoot back and do not generally wear armor" *Citation neede* Loading... Reply 20. [8e0b7] Jonathan says: May 3, 2025 at 3:03 am I've read of another benefit of volley fire for smoothbore muskets is a moral effect depending on how well it was executed; which sounds plausible but I don't know if there's any academic work about that. (And even if it was this is true, it might not be an inherent effect of volleys) On a black power battlefield when you're standing in rows you're not going to be able to see much, but you can hear the gunfire. If your unit is still making nice crisp unified volleys on command ( which you know is how it's supposed to go) then that tends to reinforce your morale as it's evidence of continued unit cohesion and discipline. If your volleys are crisper and more steady paced that your opponent then clearly you're the better unit and things are going your way -- so keep doing what you've been doing; standing there and slugging it out. Conversely, if your volleys start getting ragged, or you hear people ignoring commands and firing as quickly as they can, then that's not what it's supposed to sound like, things aren't going well, and maybe it's time to start panicking yourself. But archers should be able to see the battle better, without the obscuring clouds of gun smoke covering it, and even if they did try to volley fire that's going to be way quieter than gun fire so you don't get the same acoustic signature of the unit acting as one. Loading... Reply 21. [f6568] JohnT says: May 3, 2025 at 4:36 am It's funny how films warp your understanding of these things. I once went training with some medieval warfare re-enactors. One was a genuine expert with the longbow. He did some showing off near the end, hitting a variety of targets (including a mail-armoured one and a moving one) with snap shots and it was striking how graceful and continuous the movement was - for exactly the reason you state he never held full draw for more than half a second. It's a pity they don't show that sort thing in film more, but sadly it takes years of ceaseless practice. Loading... Reply 1. [62db3] Endymionologist says: May 3, 2025 at 12:47 pm Yeah when you see this sort of thing on film you see a close-up of the arm and then a quick cut to the arrow strike and then a close-up on the face. Motion capture has already changed this for videogame animations and I expect we'll see some of that in film going forward, but the legacy of 'how it's supposed to look' is going to cast a long shadow as always. Loading... Reply 22. [30129] Lasse says: May 3, 2025 at 6:15 am On modeling the arrow: you just need to team up with a local Tech University. "I have this small simulation problem, could you assign it as coursework?" And doesn't even need any fancy hardware; any computer made this century can simulate an arrow's flight in real time. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 10:39 am Making such a model accurate enough to be actually useful would be super difficulty. It's not just a question of telling a geek to make a computer calculate the answer. You can't just treat arrows as point masses; you'd need air resistance, the aerodynamic effect of the flights, the mass distribution between head and shaft, etc... But even that would be easy compared to modelling the physics of impact. The material, heat treatment, grain structure, sharpness, etc... of the head will matter. Even the rigidity and breaking point of the shaft does. Then you'd have to model the shield / armour / flesh on the other side. That means that you'd first have to obtain historically accurate data for that (and data than somehow represents the wide range of variety in kit in even a single battle). Such data doesn't exist. But even if you had it, you'd have to incorporate that into a model (difficulty, but possible). Then you'd have to do a soft body simulation of that model to gauge whether (and how much) it penetrates (hugely difficult, developing software that could do that accurately would be a major research project in computational physics in its own right). And even that is not the answer you need: predicting which wounds cause which injuries is hugely difficult and something that even specialised surgeons examining a patient struggle to give a prognosis for. Forget about student's coursework: even if you dedicated an entire research team for a year to doing a scientifically accurate model of a specific arrow shot from a specific bow at a specified target, you wouldn't be able to solve this problem. You simply will have to make a great many simplifying assumptions, leave some factors out, replace some calculations with heurestics, etc... to even have something to feed into a computer. Do enough of those and you will get an answer, but then how do you convince everyone that you made the "right" simplifications and assumptions? The line between "make too few simplification and the problem is unsolvable" and "make too many, and the answer is just what you a priori picked" is razor thin. And that's assuming we even had the data to make this a well-defined problem to begin with, which we don't. Loading... Reply 2. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 10:42 am Or, presumably, the comp sci department at NC State. Those guys are total geeks, some of whom would love this sort of project. Loading... Reply 23. [75f44] NVA says: May 3, 2025 at 7:04 am I really want to know more about the countermarching and various formations of gunpowder troops. Loading... Reply 24. [11aed] Adam says: May 3, 2025 at 8:47 am Minor correction on your probabilities: If you have a 0.5% probability of being disabled by a single arrow, you don't have a 6.75% probability of being disabled by at least one of 13.5 arrows. Instead, that probability is 1 - 0.995^13, or about 6.5%. Not a huge difference, but important once the numbers become big (your probability of being disabled by 200 arrows is not 100%). Loading... Reply 25. [bf44f] M says: May 3, 2025 at 9:34 am "Crucially, note that volley-and-charge works because it compresses a lot of lethality into a very short time, which I suspect is why we don't see it with bows or crossbows (but do see it with javelins, which may have shorter range and far fewer projectiles, but seem to have had higher lethality per projectile)." Effective range with javelin is so short that you're already in charge range when your weapons can reach the enemy line. The current world record for a javelin throw is slightly under 100m, i.e. just where bow lethality starts to ramp up. That's in a stadium, where the thrower had no armor, no one shooting back, level ground, etc. The javelin may also be lighter than the ones they used in warfare too - it's likely packed in a case for transport. The greater lethality likely *also* comes from the shorter range. You can aim a javelin much better than an arrow from a bow even at their respective maximum ranges, simply because the target is physically closer and appears larger (covers more degrees of your view). Loading... Reply 1. [f9c80] Tea Kew says: May 4, 2025 at 12:35 pm The big reason for a javelin's lethality is simply weight. A heavy war arrow is maybe 100g at the top end. A light modern sporting javelin is 800g for men (600g for women). A heavy pilum or similar might be more like 2kg. That translates to a lot more momentum on impact, and it also means you have a bunch of extra robustness so it's easier to deliver that energy/momentum to your target. Loading... Reply 26. [cbab9] Isator Levi says: May 3, 2025 at 9:55 am This is another of those things that makes me think there is untapped dramatic potential in accuracy, as I mentally picture a scene in which the arrows are falling continuously and either unpredictably or where the focused characters actively attempt to evade them, as opposed to all coming down in a single sheet. That and the element of one side or the other dealing with that exhaustion of accumulating wounds. It also makes me think about how that could provide an avenue for introducing varied arrowheads, a thing that seems to be quite apparent from the historical and material record but almost never shows up in fictional depictions. Like, if you're shooting at a heavily armoured force, even your bodkins might be seen as of little use, but one of those ones with the rounded points might deliver the impact to an armoured head a bit better. (That said, I honestly know little about the utility of different arrowheads, and would be readily corrected on that element). Loading... Reply 1. [18755] ey81 says: May 3, 2025 at 10:48 am Bernard Cornwell's Archer series (books not film) discusses different types of arrows and has the protagonist choose the right one for particular occasions. Loading... Reply 27. [5ebae] ack-acking says: May 3, 2025 at 10:57 am First of all: A++ post. This made so many things *click* for me in a way they really hadn't before. Thanks. Now some questions: (a) what about the older civilizations, like bronze era and earlier? They had a lot less armor than the Romans, right? I would think that back in pre-history the arrows would be a lot more effective, even if the the bows weren't as strong. (b) Was there any command for archers to do a slow, more sustainable rate of shooting? It seems like they were mostly limited from being *exhausted* doing 6 heavy pulls a minute, so if they only had to do 1 per minute or whatever that would be a lot more sustainable. And I would think that the psychological pressure of a long, sustained rain of arrows would be immense, even if it doesn't kill a lot.- (c) Do you know anything about early gunpowder/hybrid weapons, like the fire arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_arrow ? Loading... Reply 28. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 11:21 am Does anyone have material about archers shooting directly vs in-directly, or the types of formations used in shooting? I can picture 3 different archetypes: 1 - Screen Archers standing in a loose skirmishing formation in front of the army 2 - Front rank(s) Archers standing in a rigid linear formation just in front of (or part of the front rank of) melee infantry 3 - Back rank(s) Archers forming the rear rank of an otherwise predominantly melee infantry formation The first two would be direct fire, the latter indirect (archers shoot over friendlies heads without seeing their target). There's a bit of blurring between some of these, and the same archers could migrate between different roles over the course of a battle. But how do these different modes affect the lethality of archers? Or their combat abilities more generally? Were different modes preferred at different times by different cultures? Does this correlate with technology (crossbow vs self-bow vs composite bow)? How do field works change this? Hollywood loves (3), having even huge blocks of archers shooting from way back, but I'm not sure even the moderate version (ie, Arrian's "Order against the Alans") was all that common. Similarly (2) is sometimes shown as an archery equivalent of Napoleonic linear warfare; but unless supported very closely by melee infantry, such a formation would be quickly swept away. So how exactly were archers deployed in battles? Loading... Reply 1. [99560] Alien@System says: May 3, 2025 at 11:51 am Bret already discussed a (2) from history: The Hellenic Successor Kingdoms used their mercenary archers as part of their line of battle, in a light infantry position. Faced with opposing light infantry, the archers are pretty effective due to the lack of armour and the range advantage. Since infantry in the Successor doctrine was just there to pin and block space while the cavalry did the winning (or more usually, the running off the battlefield), that usually worked out. But I think it's notable that in doctrines focused on the infantry (like the Gauls and Romans) did use (1) or did not use archers altogether, because if you're up against heavy infantry, all the issues Bret points out apply. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 12:21 pm Yes, those are scratching the surface of the historical possibilities. I already mentioned Arrian's order against the Alans as another example: a Roman army deployed deep as a quasi-phalanx with archers in the rear. Similar things can be seen in the strategikon IIRC and other byzantine armies, leading to formations that are almost like tercios with the shot replaced by bows / crossbows. Xenophon talks about putting slingers in his phalanx, and similar mixed-phalanxes are attested elsewhere. Then there's also the Persian / Assyrian deployment of archers with shield bearers (aka spearmen) in small teams. And whatever is going on with the Mandarin Duck and its variants. I don't understand it all, but there's clearly a lot of complexity in unit cohesion, formation, and deployment for archers. As they say: "More is Different". Loading... Reply 2. [9206b] sstabeler says: May 3, 2025 at 1:08 pm This has been mentioned before fairly recently. Usually it was #1, because archers *excel* at being little shits that loose off a few arrows and run away before you can do anything about it, which is perfect for a skirmishing force that's fundamentally just trying to be annoying and either bait heavy infantry out of formation or to screen the approaching heavy infantry (usually from the other guy's light infantry skirmishers) but #2 did occur, IIRC usually mixed in with the heavy infantry. (Not least because archers usually fought as melee infantry when the enemy actually closed to melee range) #3 Functionally never occurred, because indirect fire in that sense isn't generally a thing, because it's generally a waste of arrows, since to clear the front ranks, you'd need to aim the arrow high enough that the energy at impact is too low to matter unless you get a lucky shot and hit somebody in the eye or something. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 1:48 pm If #3 never happened, why are so many historical references to it? Don't get me wrong, I don't understand how it could be effective, but multiple manuals describe precisely such formations. That's a contradiction that I've never seen adequately resolved. Loading... Reply 1. [45466] scifihughf says: May 3, 2025 at 6:43 pm We don't have a lot of detailed accounts of how #3, melee infantry with a few ranks of archers, fought. One likely interpretation is that the archers are the front rank, shooting, until the enemy are getting close enough to be able to charge. Then the melee fighters behind them open formation slightly, the archers step back to the rear, the melee fighters close up and are now the front rank ready to receive a charge. Loading... Reply 2. [75f44] NVA says: May 4, 2025 at 1:10 am when two ranks of infantry clash, then it makes sense for archers to keep shooting over the heads of their infantry rather than not shooting at all. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 4, 2025 at 9:56 am Doesn't sound so simple to me. To hit someone 10m away but not the 5 guys in between, you need to either shoot a very weak shot at a lowish angle, or shoot a powerful shot at a very very steep angle. The former wouldn't hurt anyone. The latter is horribly inaccurate, risks friendly fire, and would end up being very weak (ie, limited by terminal velocity) too. That sounds like it's, at best, a waste of ammo. That's not to say it couldn't be done or was never done, but there's more got to be more to it than "shooting over heads". Loading... 3. [75f44] NVA says: May 4, 2025 at 1:07 am medieval paintings seem to indicate either: 4 - archers standing at the flanks of infantry block or 5 - archers standing among infantrymen in the the same formation Loading... Reply 4. [f9c80] Tea Kew says: May 4, 2025 at 12:49 pm The primary mode of operation, at least in Europe, seems to have been approximately direct fire. Actual indirect fire, where you can't see your target, can largely be discounted entirely with bows/crossbows and pretty much discounted with any pre-gunpowder siege weapons. So the setups are largely "archers in front", "archers on the flanks", and "archers interposed", with the third one coming in two sub-types - organic interposition where you have both shooting and melee troops standing together, and unit by unit interposition where groups of archers are separated by groups of melee troops (arguably you could treat "archers on the flank" as a sub-type of this). Loading... Reply 29. [29580] Dark_Tigger says: May 3, 2025 at 11:57 am > I suspect some early Lindybeige videos had something to do with how widespread this notion is Does it? I remeber that people called it an stupid thing Hollywood did back before YT was a thing. I remember it being called out in RPG-Forums back in the early noughies. I remeber it being an plot point in some novel I read from the nineties. It's basically been the go to example how bad historic battles are portrait in media as long as I can remember. Loading... Reply 30. [d2f06] Ben L says: May 3, 2025 at 12:59 pm "kneeling and standing again take longer to do than to just knock a new arrow and fire" -> nock a new arrow (unless "knock" is an alternative spelling I'm unaware of) "is compressing probably close to 50% of the lethality of sustained shooting, devastating moment and then immediately charging." -> into a devastating moment(?) "These are generally small enough that an arrow can't get through whole" -> can't get through the hole "shattering bone and shredding issue over a much larger area." -> shredding tissue Loading... Reply 31. [5c978] gman003 says: May 3, 2025 at 1:12 pm To check some of my own possible misconceptions: were commands to shoot/stop shooting explicitly given to archers, in any historical context? The way I had understood things, archers would not fire in coordinated volleys, but the first shot would have a volley-like effect. The commander gives an order "the enemy is over there, shoot at them", the archers nock an arrow, pull, and release, and because that takes about the same amount of time for each of them (and they were likely anticipating the order), that first shot would hit like a volley, before quickly turning into just a stream of arrows. (To demonstrate with simple math: if an individual archer takes 8-12s to fire, the first "volley" has a 4 second spread, the second an 8 second spread, and the fastest in the third is starting just as the last of the second ends.) That would have some morale effect, particularly if attacking an enemy engaged in another direction. I doubt that alone would have justified that sort of command system, but "keep your archers from wearing themselves out attacking enemies at the limit of their range" could. I'm aware that keeping soldiers from attacking hastily (like breaking formation to chase a seemingly-routed foe) was often necessary, and the impulse to shoot at someone who is on the battlefield to kill you must have been strong. (I am not, to be clear, thinking that discipline was so strong that archers would never shoot without explicit orders. That sort of drill and training only makes sense with firearms, when the risk to fellow soldiers from uncoordinated fire is much higher. And soldiers are people, not NPCs, they can and will just do the obvious thing, like shoot at the obvious enemy who is obviously advancing towards them in particular.) So *if* there was an expectation that archers would hold fire unless ordered or blindingly obvious, you would get one, maybe two *effective* volleys as a consequence, before turning into just continuous fire. And that would have some useful psychological effect, and such a system would have other benefits that justify its use. So what I'm asking: did any historical cultures/armies work that way? And did it have the effects I'm inferring it would have? Loading... Reply 32. [2acc1] Brendan Long says: May 3, 2025 at 1:45 pm Why were the Mongols so effective if it's so much easier to disable horses with arrows? Shouldn't heavy infantry with bows have destroyed them? Loading... Reply 1. [99560] Alien@System says: May 3, 2025 at 3:20 pm "Heavy infantry with bows" wasn't really a thing historically. A soldier wearing heavy armour capable of sustained shock combat was more effectively deployed in shock combat, because the morale effect of that is considerably larger than that of arrow fire, and bows are too big to combine with a full shock combat gear (that is, shock weapon + shield or long pole weapon). In addition, holding and drawing a bow is already hard enough without adding several hundred grams of weight in armour to the arms. (Maybe the Janissaries might count before they switched to firearms, but of course they were attached to a steppe-nomad-society-turned-empire and thus not in contest with horse archers). The Han Chinese I believe had heavy infantry with *crossbows*, which does make a difference in this situation given the difference in firing speed and thus tactical use. And of course it should be noted that a large part of the advantage was *strategic* not *tactical*. The Chinese peoples did for a long time after all trade pretty even with the steppe peoples to the north simply because their respective logistics (agrarian infantry army vs. grazing nomad cavalry) did not allow them to permanently operate in the opposing side's territory. The Mongols broke that by aggressively and successfully integrating their strong cavalry with the strong infantry of settled societies, creating a combined arms force that turned out to be very hard to stop. Loading... Reply 2. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 3, 2025 at 4:08 pm A combination of ranged infantry (with heavy infantry for protection) *was* effective against horse archers through out history. The Romans more than held their own against the Parthians when they engaged them this way, and ditto for the Han Chinese, and even for Hungarian crossbowmen in the Second Mongol Invasion. But there's more to war than tactics. Mongolian supremacy arose far more from strategic and operational factors than one weapon system over another. Indeed, one of the main themes of this blog is to shine a light on how crucial operational-scale abilities are in war; and it's not just a rock-paper-scissors kind of situation. It doesn't really matter what the Mongols were fighting with or against, if they could move, hide, and concentrate their armies faster than their opponents could react. Loading... Reply 33. [533dd] Robert Hammitt says: May 3, 2025 at 1:52 pm On the thought experiment with equal numbers of heavy infantry facing archers (with each infantry taking 13.5 shots resulting in a 6.75% probability of a disabling/fatal hit). Doesn't the assumption that the arrows are evenly distributed potentially change the conclusion? In this scenario I imagine the soldiers in front are far more likely to be hit by arrows than soldiers behind - obviously so when facing low-trajectory arrows, and presumably still true against a higher trajectory. This obviously depends on sizes and formations, but assuming the infantry is in a formation 6-deep and a soldier in each rank is twice as likely to be hit by an arrow as a soldier behind him (I don't know how conservative this assumption is, but it seems very conservative for low-trajectory arrows, since I assume only a very tall man in the back rank would have to be worried about arrows; since any arrow which reaches the back rank is more likely to be around head-height, maybe higher lethality evens some of this out). Under these assumptions, for every 13.5 arrows launched, instead of 2.25 falling on each rank as per Brett's model, nearly 7 of them fall on the front rank alone. Loading... Reply 1. [533dd] Robert Hammitt says: May 3, 2025 at 2:04 pm (clicked "post" too early, sorry). This means the infantry in the front rank is roughly 3x more likely than the overall average to receive a disabling or fatal injury, bringing the casualty rates of the first rank to 20% while approaching the archers. Would this be a high enough casualty rate to seriously impact the infantry's fighting capacity, in addition to the tiring impact of non-disabling hits Brett describes below? Assuming the archers are able to launch 13.5 arrows at the infantry, given the distribution by rank I've assumed, even if 75% of the arrows miss entirely, the front rank soldiers are impacted by an average of 10.2 arrows; 7.7 of these would be deflected by their shields, but presumably a large number would stick in the shields, making it harder to use the shield. Obviously the assumption of arrow distribution between ranks can have a big impact here, but assuming the arrow strikes are concentrated in the front rank, wouldn't that have an outsized impact on the infantry's morale and fighting effectiveness? Loading... Reply 1. [45466] scifihughf says: May 3, 2025 at 6:35 pm You are right, the effect at short range is mostly on the front rank. But the point Bret is making is that archery fire didn't kill enemy infantry in vast numbers as portrayed by Hollywood. Loading... Reply 2. [f9c80] Tea Kew says: May 4, 2025 at 12:41 pm Yes, the attrition effect is going to be concentrated on the front rank. However - the front ranks of shock infantry are expecting to be in melee combat. Which is both even more concentrated on the front rank and even more psychologically stressful. The primary qualification for being in that position is being able to endure the stress of it! Loading... Reply 34. [7526c] Nate T says: May 3, 2025 at 2:32 pm ... Counter-marching involves the whole formation moving backwards over time. Thus "counter" march. I've never put those facts together in my head, despite owning the book you used as reference. Thank you for that explanation. Loading... Reply 35. [7ce21] Jaojao says: May 3, 2025 at 4:45 pm Never knew that crossbowmen used to fire in volleys! Loading... Reply 36. [3be6d] Aineko says: May 3, 2025 at 7:25 pm There's a few instances of 'energy' in the discussion of holding drawn bows that really should be force. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 4, 2025 at 5:17 am It's very rare for historians, professional or amateurs, to use energy / force / momentum correctly. In the same way that historians run blogs pointing out media that gets history wrong, a physicist could run a blog pointing out historians that get basic physics wrong. Loading... Reply 1. [ed9a5] Dinwar says: May 4, 2025 at 5:32 pm I disagree. For one thing the term is used in the standard way it's used in vernacular English and non-physics publications. For another, to keep the muscles in that position in that situation would require metabolizing on the cellular level, meaning the cells ARE burning energy. A spring may not, but a human muscle operates on fundamentally different principles than a spring-to stay flexed against resistance muscles require the consumption of chemicals that store chemical potential energy. This is evidenced by muscle fatigue-which is, from a biochemical perspective, the buildup of toxins due to metabolism. It always happens, but when muscles are working hard they build up toxins faster than they can be taken away. There's also a switch in the style of metabolism, which impacts the types of toxins created. So you're not even correct in your statement. More fundamentally, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people insist on using terms in their physics or mathematical meaning without recognizing the rather self-evident fact that words have different meanings depending on different contexts. I mean, would you be similarly upset by the use of "character" to mean "fictional or non-fictional person in a movie, TV show, or play"? After all, "character" has a very specific term in paleontology. Would you be offended by the use of the term "labor" in the context of delivering a baby? It means something entirely different in an economic context! I could go on pretty much ad infinitum here. The obvious answer is no, the fact that these terms change meaning depending on context is standard, accepted, and to remove it would more or less require the total restructuring of the entire English language. Yet every single time the word "energy" comes up someone has to be all "Well ACTUALLY it means X." It's an example of a broader phenomenon I call Physics Envy-the evaluation of all human activities on the criteria applicable to physics, whether it's appropriate or not. You see this a lot in experiment design; it's why natural experiments (except for in astronomy for reasons no one can logically defend) are looked down upon as lesser experiments, for example. Loading... Reply 2. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 11:09 am It's a continuing exertion of force that ends up quickly exhausting the stored energy in your muscles. Your body can replenish that energy given time, allowing you to exert more force later on. Yes, it's technically inaccurate but not enough to negate the point. Loading... Reply 1. [6f21a] holdthebreach says: May 4, 2025 at 4:33 pm I'm sorry, but that's repeating the exact same mistake. You're confusing energy as a physics quantity, and energy in the colloqiual sense of "the thing you have when you're not tired". The two are very different. Holding a bow at full draw uses no energy in the physics sense. Precisely nada. Energy is work done is defined as the integral of force over distance. If you're holding something stationary, there's no energy being spent or transferred. If that sounds wrong, it's because you're not using the physics definition of energy. Am I being pedantic? Yes, and not just because that's the title of the blog, but because technical terms have precise meaning. Start using them loosely and the explanatory power of hard sciences falls out of the window; too many people think they're making a precise, technical argument when they're just using sciencey-sounding words wrong. And don't even get me started on significant figures... The number of times I've seen a handful of very rough guesstimates combined to give an answer with 5 significant figures would give my old high school a heart attack lol. Loading... Reply 37. [76d10] Hidalgo de Arizona says: May 3, 2025 at 7:44 pm Excellent post as usual - makes me think that Total War-style games might work much better by having archers primarily provide a fatigue and moral debuff, rather than actual physical damage. It'd give you a better reason to target heavily armored units - which there's normally no good reason to target - to reduce their effectiveness against your melee troops. Loading... Reply 38. [d2f06] Ben L says: May 3, 2025 at 9:07 pm Yeah, fantasy in general has a bad habit of treating bows as guns. I remember one of the Witcher short stories, which actually illustrates one of the problems of using a bow to shoot a "warning shot": the loudest sound an arrow makes isn't when it's being released, but rather when it hits its target. So, if you're shooting at something past the person you're trying to scare off, they'll hear a sound behind them, which might cause them to panic and run towards you instead. I find it kind of funny that Sapkowski recognized this problem of using bows like guns, but apparently didn't take the next step and realize that therefore people probably wouldn't use bows that way. Loading... Reply 39. [3a37b] cplcampisi says: May 3, 2025 at 11:57 pm ". . . the most famous of these is the 'counter-march,' a drill where arquebuses or muskets are deployed several ranks deep (as many as six). The front rank fires a volley (that is, they all fire together) and then rush to the back of their file to begin reloading, allowing the next rank to fire, and so on. By the time the last rank has fired, the whole formation has moved backwards slightly (thus 'counter' march) and the first rank has finished reloading and is ready to fire." It's not necessary that the whole formation moves backwards: when the front rank turns to march to the rear, the other ranks can take a step or two forward to maintain the same position. Or, they can take a couple more steps forward to advance the whole formation. I have seen the method where they advance called "fire by introduction," and when they retreat, "fire by extroduction." Counter-marching, itself, isn't just moving backwards, it's a turning around, in a follow-the-leader-kind of fashion (as opposed to a simple about face). The head of the column wheels 180 degrees to one side, and the rest of the column follows. When used as a firing technique (described above) each file counter-marches, but then they counter-march again at the end, so that they end up facing forward. Loading... Reply 40. [f1257] Syltty says: May 4, 2025 at 2:35 am How about archers shooting from sides, just like in that Agincourt map? If arrows come from both sides, which way should the shield face and what kind of stance is best suited to behind shield? Looks like scutum is ideal shield for this kind of situations. Did archers aim at first two-three enemy ranks, when Infantry is engaged in melee? Loading... Reply 1. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 11:13 am Unless the archers had a fair bit of elevation I think shooting when the enemy is engaged would be useless or even counter-productive. Another reason to put archers in the "harassing" category. If you're already stuck in to the enemy melee fighters you're unlikely to notice arrow fire much unless you actually get hit badly. I suppose that might produce more hits by the archers - if their own melee fighters weren't in the way. Loading... Reply 1. [ed9a5] Dinwar says: May 4, 2025 at 5:10 pm But melees weren't how Hollywood depicts them. The fighters didn't break off into individual duels. You were still dealing (until the route began) with ordered ranks of people which presented an essentially solid mass. If you have formations that are 6 or 8 ranks deep the guys won't be within reach of the guys on the enemy's front, but would be within reach of arrows (or axes or spears or the like). You'd have to be a pretty bad archer to hit your own men in such a situation, as long as you were aiming at someone behind the first 2-3 lines. That's simple arching, something that archers trained at. It's also entirely predictable and something that should be expected, making it something that you'd have to be a pretty stupid general to miss training for. You can also position your archers to the side. If they can flank the enemy unit the sides will be vulnerable. And again, these are units in reasonably good order, multiple ranks deep; this is a fairly large target area without putting your own men at unreasonable risk (there's always some, this is war). The reaction of the enemy would be to turn the shields towards the archers-which turns them away from the spears of the main threat and leaves people exposed. Creates a really nasty choice for the people being shot at. And remember, fundamentally you aren't trying to kill my people(in the Middle Ages it was often counterproductive to kill high-ranking people, as ransom could pay for the enitre campaign). You're trying to make them stop fighting. Confusion and disorientation as different people try to do different things is almost as good as outright killing, provided you can exploit it. Once the route starts archers become even more effective. Someone running away isn't blocking arrows (shields don't work real well protecting the back), and thus make pretty good targets. Loading... Reply 41. [29580] Dark_Tigger says: May 4, 2025 at 4:24 am > I suspect some early Lindybeige videos had something to do with how widespread this notion is Does it? I remeber that people called it an stupid thing Hollywood did back before YT was a thing. I remember it being called out in RPG-Forums back in the early noughies. I remeber it being an plot point in some novel I read from the nineties. It's basically been the go to example how bad historic battles are portrait in media as long as I can remember. Loading... Reply 1. [9eed1] pseudonym says: May 4, 2025 at 5:54 am " Each archer can loose six arrows a minute, so each infantryman has, on average, 13.5 arrows to deal with. His chance of being killed or disabled by one of those arrows over the course of marching into contact (assuming our 0.5% arrow lethality) is thus about 6.75%. " Statistics error. Probabilities should be multiplied, not added. 0.005 + 0.005 ... Etc. 13.5 times is indeed 6.75% but this is not true. By this calculation there is a 100% certainty of death at 200 arrows. The true chanche of NOT dying is (1-0.005)^13.5 = 0.935 or 93.5% so a 6.5% of death. For small numbers it indeed this not matter so much. The chance of death after 200 arrows Is roughly 63%. Quite high, but not 100%. Loading... Reply 1. [9eed1] pseudonym says: May 4, 2025 at 6:04 am To further elaborate, when 200 volleys are fired on average you would expect everyone to receive one deathly arrow (so the mentioned calculation is not entirely incorrect) and this still holds, but it is the average. Some will have caught 0 and others 2 or 3, with these later arrows providing little additional effect. Loading... Reply 42. [67b74] Jonathan Lennox says: May 4, 2025 at 7:43 am Even if there were not commands to volley fire, presumably there would still have needed to be orders to start shooting (enemy is in effective range) and to cease shooting (friendly forces are closing with the enemy), since not all the archers would have been able to see this, and when shooting they wouldn't necessarily be focusing on anything but the shooting process. Is anything known about this? Loading... Reply 1. [bf44f] M says: May 4, 2025 at 11:19 am Historically commands would have been things like horn or drum signals (OGH has gone over this I think). I suppose the general would have shouted at the lead drummer or horn-player. It's also possible there would be someone in the front ranks who's known to be a good shot. When he starts shooting everyone else does. I'm not sure archers would have been placed in ranks deep enough that the back ranks would a) be unable to see the target and b) still be shooting. Indirect artillery would likely have been confined to trebuchet, i.e. to siege operations, at least until cannon were common. Even then, mortars, i.e. high-angle artillery, were unusual. Loading... Reply 43. [f9c80] Tea Kew says: May 4, 2025 at 1:01 pm > As a result, the strength required to hold a compound bow at full draw for an extended period is actually lower that what would be implied by its raw pullback. And not just slightly lower - the "let off" on compound bows can be as high as 90% of the draw weight! > Remember back to our statistic that a good archer can put around 6 arrows in the air in a minute? Well, even the best archer can't do that for very long. One of the really interesting things in the Tod films are some of the comments from Joe Gibbs - specifically that he's using a slightly lighter bow than the max he can draw precisely because that's the weight he can draw all day (although only shooting once every few minutes, not every ten seconds). Loading... Reply Leave a ReplyCancel reply Search for: [ ] [Search] Updates every Friday! You can support this project via Patreon, and by spreading the word! Recent Posts * Collections: Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire * Collections: How Gandalf Proved Mightiest: Spiritual Power in Tolkien * Collections: Why Celebrimbor Fell but Boromir Conquered: the Moral Universe of Tolkien * Collections: The Siege of Eregion, Part V: What Tactics? * Fireside Friday, April 4, 2025 * Gap Week: March 28, 2025 Questions? Requests? Have a topic you want me to post about? A question on a post? Do you want to scream incoherently into the endless void that is the internet? The best place to find me is on twitter @BretDevereaux Following me on Twitter is the best way to be informed of new posts as they appear. Tags Academia Ancient Armor Artillery Battle Broader Mediterranean Cavalry Cities Cohesion Content Warning Culture Customs Demography Doctrine Early Modern Economic History Economy Empire Farming Fireside Fireside Chat Food Fortifications Game of Thrones Gaming Hellenistic Historical Gaming History Hollywood Tactics Horses Humanities Imperialism Infantry Kingship Logistics Lord of the Rings Medieval Middle Ages Middle Earth Military History Modern Oh no Operations Organic Economy Paradox Paradox Development Studio Phalanx Political History Political Systems Religion Rings of Power Roman Roman Army Roman Empire Roman Republic Rome Science Fiction Siege Siege Warfare Slavery Social History Sparta States Strategy Tactics Technology Textiles Tolkien Trade Ukraine Vassalage Video Games War and Society Warfare Weapons Archives * May 2025 (1) * April 2025 (4) * March 2025 (4) * February 2025 (4) * January 2025 (5) * December 2024 (4) * November 2024 (5) * October 2024 (2) * September 2024 (1) * August 2024 (5) * July 2024 (4) * June 2024 (4) * May 2024 (5) * April 2024 (4) * March 2024 (5) * February 2024 (4) * January 2024 (4) * December 2023 (5) * November 2023 (4) * October 2023 (4) * September 2023 (5) * August 2023 (4) * July 2023 (4) * June 2023 (5) * May 2023 (4) * April 2023 (4) * March 2023 (5) * February 2023 (4) * January 2023 (4) * December 2022 (5) * October 2022 (5) * September 2022 (5) * August 2022 (5) * July 2022 (5) * June 2022 (4) * May 2022 (4) * April 2022 (5) * March 2022 (4) * February 2022 (4) * January 2022 (4) * December 2021 (5) * November 2021 (4) * October 2021 (5) * September 2021 (4) * August 2021 (4) * July 2021 (5) * June 2021 (4) * May 2021 (4) * April 2021 (5) * March 2021 (4) * February 2021 (4) * January 2021 (5) * December 2020 (3) * November 2020 (4) * October 2020 (5) * September 2020 (4) * August 2020 (4) * July 2020 (5) * June 2020 (4) * May 2020 (5) * April 2020 (4) * March 2020 (5) * February 2020 (4) * January 2020 (5) * December 2019 (4) * November 2019 (5) * October 2019 (5) * September 2019 (5) * August 2019 (6) * July 2019 (5) * June 2019 (6) * May 2019 (12) My Tweets Powered by WordPress.com. Discover more from A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive. Type your email... [ ] Subscribe Continue reading Loading Comments... Write a Comment... [ ] Email (Required) [ ] Name (Required) [ ] Website [ ] [Post Comment] %d