Archery in Classical Warfare

[Carlton Bach]

Sean, I agree with you about the crossbow-halberdier. But where do you see a massive and important use of archery in the western world in the middle ages? I can think of Italian and German city militia with the use of crossbows in the 13th and 14th c. AD and the English with the "long"bow in the 14th and 15th c. AD. In the ancient times missiles were used in extense in defending fortified places too, so the crossbow was new but not the form of fighting. And the English were rather special, an exception, not the rule and btw only partly successful and not necessarily because of the massive use of archery (if you don't look only at the frequent victories in the Scots wars but also at the performance against the French and Swiss).

Archery formations, especially crossbowmen, were a common enough tactic earlier than the 14th century. Of course the proble is figuring out how exactly that came about (we know that it does not get mentioned much in early sources, and the Carolingian specification that every armed man of a certain rank should bring a bow and 12 arrows suggests hunting rather than serious combat archery). But sources from the crusading era already decribe infantry formations 'anchored' on crossbowmen supporting and protecting heavy cavalry.

My personal speculation (and I must say I am extremely wary of big-picture history, it is mostly done by people who don't care about details, so take this with a grain of salt): massed archery is the first manifestation of the reurbanisation of European civilisation. As the - for want of a better word - warrior elite with its resource-intensive form of warfare driven by personal advancement and gain is displaced by a rising body of part-time fighters, they need a way of war that plays to their srengths - numbers, cohesion, social discipline - and minimises their weaknesses - lack of training and morale, less expensive gear. If you studied Greek history, you know this story already, only this time instead of the hoplite, we get the balestrier.

[Aryaman2]

It it not precisely an ancient theme but could you give me some sources for the all-purpose infantryman with crossbow and halberd? Never heard of it.

.

I saw an old engraving (woodcut I think) showing a French Franc archer with a crossbow attached at his back (I don´t recall how) and holding a weapon similar to a halberd (with a small axe blade) but I can´t find it now. However I think that if a crossbowman could carry a pvise, it is not unlikely he could also carry a halberd or bill or some sort of short pike to hold in a battleline. Also swords could be very useful in assaults and close quarter fight in sieges and trenches.

[D B Campbell]

By way of a non-sequitur, the Greeks were mightily impressed with catapults. I wonder, maybe they were just discovering a combat technique that more archery-friendly peoples long had mastered? A catapult, though, was a proper manly weapon, not a wimpy oriental now...

I may have misunderstood you, Carlton ... but are you suggesting that the catapult was invented by "more archery-friendly peoples" of the Near East?

[Felix]

I saw an old engraving (woodcut I think) showing a French Franc archer with a crossbow attached at his back (I don´t recall how) and holding a weapon similar to a halberd (with a small axe blade) but I can´t find it now. However I think that if a crossbowman could carry a pvise, it is not unlikely he could also carry a halberd or bill or some sort of short pike to hold in a battleline. Also swords could be very useful in assaults and close quarter fight in sieges and trenches.

It should be pointed out that the crossbowman did not necessarily carry the pavise, though. There is a specific term "pavisier", for a pavise-bearer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise ). One of the descriptions of the battle of Crecy specifically says that the Genoese were ordered into battle over their objections (the French were in a hurry to start the battle) that the Genoese pavises were still in the baggage; the crossbowmen didn't want to attack without their shields, but were forced to do so. Without any shields to protect them while reloading, they were at a severe disadvantage compared with the rapid firing longbows, and the Genoese crossbowmen were put to flight by English longbowmen.

[jonwr]

Try to find "Arrows Against Steel" by Vic Hurley
Jon R

[Sean Manning]

By way of a non-sequitur, the Greeks were mightily impressed with catapults. I wonder, maybe they were just discovering a combat technique that more archery-friendly peoples long had mastered? A catapult, though, was a proper manly weapon, not a wimpy oriental now...

I may have misunderstood you, Carlton ... but are you suggesting that the catapult was invented by "more archery-friendly peoples" of the Near East?

There is a little bit of evidence that catapults may have been invented in the Near East and that Dionysius just improved an existing technology. What look like stone catapult shot were found in the context of a fifth-century Persian siegeworks, and I think a few classical texts say the Phoenecians invented catapults. But I'm no expert, and I think Carlton is suggesting that catapults filled a battlefield role which had long been met by massed archers in the Middle East.

Lets see, books on archery in high medieval warfare ...

Jim Bradbury, The Medieval Archer has a good discussion of massed archery in the 11th and 12th centuries. Robert Hardy has written two books on the longbow with some more interesting material, the second co-written with Matthew Strickland, but he isn't a trained historian and has never managed to reject the mirage of archery killing armoured men en masse. Crusading armies routinely used massed archers to keep off horse archers, as did Christian and Moslem armies in Iberia (for the former, see Smail’s Crusading Warfare). I don;t have anything more to say on possible differences between archery in ancient and medieval warfare, but these books should be a place to start for anyone wanting to look at the medieval side of things.

I think I read Arrows Against Steel and wasn't impressed, but don't remember it well.

[jonwr]

Donald Featherstone wrote two books around 1967 both of which were pretty decent for their time. But no doubt not as impressive as Curry or
Baker. But then theirs are one battle books.
For some results on arrows against amour and against armoured targets moving towards you check out Mark Streton's series in Glade archery magazine.
Jon R