Support NeoGAF

[FeralEcho]

Opposing army marches towards encampment. Archers knock their arrows. Archers have to wait for some random dude to tell them when to shoot. WTF?

These archers have likely had months or years to amass a trailers worth of arrows. Why do they always wait for the opposing army to march in position? Why aren't they told to fire as soon as each archer believes they're in range? That way, you're firing as many arrows as possible and disrupting the opposing armys ability to get in ideal position.

I get the above strategy if there are a limited number of arrows and you have to make them count but these movies always have forests in them. What else is an archer doing in his down time other than making more arrows?!

Someone explain this to me.

It's not a matter of stock,athe arrows have to hit their mark otherwise they will lose precious time when you know....they reload....which takes time since these are normal humans not fantasy elves,this is not Legolas which fires 5 shots in 3 seconds lol

That and they want to fire all at once in a wall of arrows to do the most damage so they need to be coordonated for that and wait for the enemy to be in range of every archer for all the arrows to hit.

 

[jason10mm]

I'm sure it varies, but in some situations the archers are shooting in vollys at an area they can't see because there is a wall, a shield line, a hill, or a battle of knights in the way. So they are trying to hit a certain range all at once as a group of men enters the area.

I also suspect the more formal "don't shoot till I say" stuff derives more from musquet troops where they are less trained and alternate rows.

 

[Husky]

Some people are just too hard to kill.

 

[j0hnnix]

 

[hybrid_birth]

Were proud of you for your daily watching of lord of the rings op.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

I thought it was because war used to be more of a "gentlemanly" game of attrition rather than the no holds barred act of killing of recent centuries. It's why they all stood in lines and marched forward for the attack instead of incorporating guerrilla tactics to find an advantage.

I mean, not walking in a straight fucking line with muskets would also be a better strategy than, y'know, using that strategy.

Warfare was never gentlemanly. Guerrilla tactics are almost as old as warfare itself. It depends on the context of the battle, but it was used.

Rank and file formations have their uses as well. Which is why those formations were used for so long.

In any case, most historic battles wouldn't be too long. Eventually one side would rout, and that is when the real killing would begin. I've heard upwards of 95% of battlefield casualties would occur while one side is routing.

 

[ahtlas7]

Boink

 

[Soodanim]

Shouldn't the math just be "10,000 arrows kills or mames at 2x the rate as 5,000 arrows"?

Lay off the emulators, buddy

Literally look at the Braveheart scene posted above.

As opposed to hypothetically looking at it?

If you want to take anything at all from this pointless post, it's that there's very little left of substance to say when you seem to have been proven right.

 

[winjer]

I thought it was because war used to be more of a "gentlemanly" game of attrition rather than the no holds barred act of killing of recent centuries. It's why they all stood in lines and marched forward for the attack instead of incorporating guerrilla tactics to find an advantage.

I mean, not walking in a straight fucking line with muskets would also be a better strategy than, y'know, using that strategy.

The reason for using line formations is that it allows for volley fire coordination, increasing not only hit probability, but also suppression of enemy units.
Another very good reason to form units, is because there is cavalry in the battlefield, that can easily kill stragglers.
Remember that with muskets, a very well trained soldier, could shoot 4 shots per minute. But for the average soldier, this number was significantly lower.
But this is only for the first few shots, because after a while the gun would get caked with fouling from black powder.
Then there is tactics of bayonets. If a soldier is alone, against an enemy unit, he can be easily flanked and killed.
But if he is in a line formation, his chances improve drastically.

The reality is that people in the olden days were not stupid. They just had to find the best strategies for the weapons they had at the time.
And having a well drilled formation, was proved many times, over many centuries, that it was the best strategy.

 

[Hudo]

thought it was because war used to be more of a "gentlemanly" game of attrition rather than the no holds barred act of killing of recent centuries. It's why they all stood in lines and marched forward for the attack instead of incorporating guerrilla tactics to find an advantage.

Make no mistake, battles in medieval times and even before then were also brutal as fuck. I don't think there is any period in human history were battles were "more gentlemanly". That's just q myth perpetuated by the "romance" of times long gone. Wars and battles were always fucked up. There are is a lot of evidence archaeologists have dug up, lot's of broken and split bones confirming that people essentially hacked each other to death. That being said, routing of units and them subsequently fleeing from battle happened far more often back then than it does now, since temporary armies were also more of a thing during these times than standing ones.

And the "no holds barred, let's kill them all" was especially prevalent when armies of different confession were fighting each other. Famously, the Crusades were brutal, where Muslims and Christians alike had no problem slaughtering pilgrims (civilians) of the other faith, just because. And even though not a medieval period of war, the 30 years war was really fucking gruesome, both from a "man vs. man" point of view and from a overall strategy point of view, where they had no problems burning down cities and executing and torturing peasants and enemies alike.

 

[Toots]

Because we needed to find the top brass something to do on the battlefield so we can congratulate them and give them medals at the end of the war.

 

[winjer]

Another misconception about medieval times, is that most people did not know how to read and write.
The reality is that a lot of people did know basic reading and writing.
The basis for this myth is that people in those times were only considered literate, if they didn't know Latin.
So only the clergy, nobles and a few wealthier merchants would be considered as literate.
That is the reason why the Catholic church was so opposed to having the Bible translated from Latin to common European languages.

 

[dave_d]

Another misconception about medieval times, is that most people did not know how to read and write.
The reality is that a lot of people did know basic reading and writing.
The basis for this myth is that people in those times were only considered literate, if they didn't know Latin.
So only the clergy, nobles and a few wealthier merchants would be considered as literate.
That is the reason why the Catholic church was so opposed to having the Bible translated from Latin to common European languages.

The above leads to why Galileo got in trouble believe it or not which I think a lot of people haven't actually heard about. Basically his old college drinking buddy suggested he publish pro-heliocentrism. Interesting factoid, that guy also turns out to be the pope. Anyway the pope thought Galileo was going to publish formally in Latin but he actually published informally in Italian. (Galileo also kind of put a bit in their that was misconstrued so that people thought he was saying you were stupid if you thought god was omnipotent. That's what got him in trouble. Well that and his arguments involved the tides which was clearly wrong. Admittedly Newton kinematics and gravity pretty much tell you heliocentrism is right but Newton was only born the year G man died.)

Oh another factoid to expand about publishing the bible in other languages. Arguably the most quoted author in English, William Tyndale, was put to death for his translation. (The way to think about the Catholic Church back then is they were the Disney of the their day, very aggressive with their intellectual property.)

 

[dave_d]

The reality is that people in the olden days were not stupid. They just had to find the best strategies for the weapons they had at the time.
And having a well drilled formation, was proved many times, over many centuries, that it was the best strategy.

Very true, and it's just easier to have a group of guys fight in a group than try to train a bunch of guys as commandos then command them to show up at the right place at the right time. You know they'll be there because you can see them before the fight starts. (Using insurgent tactics the average soldier has a serious concern that his comrades will either chicken out, get lost, or be late. If any of those happen you'd be a dead man. IE a variation of the Prisoner's dilemma.)

 

[jason10mm]

Very true, and it's just easier to have a group of guys fight in a group than try to train a bunch of guys as commandos then command them to show up at the right place at the right time. You know they'll be there because you can see them before the fight starts. (Using insurgent tactics the average soldier has a serious concern that his comrades will either chicken out, get lost, or be late. If any of those happen you'd be a dead man. IE a variation of the Prisoner's dilemma.)

There were irregular troops or "skirmishers" that largely fought on their own terms. Useful for keeping back scouts (or acting as scouts themselves), preventing opposing armies from spreading out too much, raiding baggage trains, etc. One of the main problems in ancient battles, particularly the medieval period, WAS getting troops to actually show up and fight. There was often a very decentralized system of control, everyone just kinda followed one guy they had to see (and who was often in the front line), and allegiances were...flexible to say the least. If the money ran out, the lead guy was sick or injured, the harvest time was coming up, lots of reasons why an ancient army could just melt away.

One of the aspects of the "myth of gentlemanly warfare" that echoes real practices was hostage taking on the field of battle. Wealthy warriors had value for ransom, so enemy soldiers ha da strong incentive to NOT kill knights and other leaders. Whilst some serf given a spear and pressed into a line of battle may not be worth anything (and thus killed just to spare the cost of feeding him) a knight that can afford a horse, suit or armor, all that leisure time to train with arms, etc can be sold back for a MASSIVE windfall, or held hostage as a sign of good conduct, to enforce a treaty, etc.

In fact, a lot of the "Wipe 'em all out!" type of warfare only really exists in certain religious conflicts and more modern "total war" scenarios combined with weapons of mass destruction. People WERE the reward for warfare back in the day, they extracted the resources from the land everyone needed. So a battle was necessary to enact a change of leadership but the goal wasn't genocide, just a tribute or shift in control for taxation. Lots of older cultures had a very inclusive attitude of "just change these couple of things and now you are one of us and you can carry on with all the rest" that more modern societies don't have. Logistics, increased agriculture, industrialization all allowed for far larger armies to take the field for truly titanic clashes that were just impossible back in the day (even if the sources say there were 250,000 troops coming out of Persia towards Athens, it seems very unlikely).

 

[IDKFA]

"I don't want to lose heart! I want to belieeeeve...as he does."

I spit on you. Braveheart is awesome.

Yeah, it's awesome if you consider it a fantasy movie . As a historical movie, it's awful. It's so inaccurate that it's insulting to both the English and the Scottish.

And I think naturally when one guy fires, everyone else is going to fire as well thinking "if Timmy thinks we're in range then we must be in range". So the first volley of arrows ends up being a half-assed wall that falls 50m short of the enemy, giving the enemy time to sprint and cover 100m before the next volley is fired.

In summary: you have to remember the average person in Medieval times couldn't read, had no concept of math or physics, no corrective lenses for poor vision, etc. You wouldn't trust an average 1600s soldier to make the right call in the heat of battle. Commands were needed to retain some semblance of combat effectiveness when your average soldier is, for lack of a better term, a dumbass.

In England, Edward I and later Edward III introduced laws that made it obligatory for all boys and men to practice archery.

English archers between the 14th and 16th century were so skilled with a longbow that they could shoot the bollocks of a fly in a different time zone.

In a battle they were given the signal to start firing, but after that skill and experience took over. They knew what to do and could easily judge range.

To me its obvious the advantage of a wall of arrrows being used against cavalry

Cavalry used to advance in a line formation. A wall of arrows would then hit a lot of targets at the same time. With each archer shooting when they wanted to, it wouldnt be nearly as effective.

Not always. Barding (Horse body armour) was becoming increasingly popular in the 14th and 15th centuries. In some cases, strong enough to protect the horse against a longbow.

A good example of this was at Verneuil in 1424 where the armour on the Milanese cavalry was so good that they ran the English archers with ease.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

They had to tell him because he was stealing warp coils from an innocent alien race.

 

[Rival]

Because if they just fired their arrows whenever they wanted we wouldn’t get cool lines like “At my signal, unleash Hell.”

 

[Mihos]

 

[Wildebeest]

Because you don't want to waste ammunition and one idiot firing at extreme range sets off a "monkey see monkey do" chain reaction of the whole group firing.

 

[BigDeadFreak]

There's an Archers movie!?

The people of Ambridge won't know what hit them.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Firing in waves also is a good way to tactically keep track of hundreds/thousands of people without drones and radios. If everyone shoots whenever the feeling hits them, then suddenly you have a buckshot style set of holes in your infantry that can be exploited by an organized force pretty easily. By going by spoken order and firing in waves, you give a large portion of soldiers time to safely nock an arrow. Like a machine.

 

[winjer]

Yeah, it's awesome if you consider it a fantasy movie . As a historical movie, it's awful. It's so inaccurate that it's insulting to both the English and the Scottish.

I have to quote you, just give emphasis to what you are saying.
Braveheart as an historical movie is terrible movie. One of the worst ever made.
Better to pretend it's some fictional medieval or fantasy story.

 

[Trunx81]

The answer is simple: Hollywood needs where Bitcoin fans and sending a message.

On the other hand, they gave this order because they waited for the enemy to get into firing range.

 

[Futaleufu]

It never made sense to me to shoot all arrows in a coordinated volley, you would think it would be more threatening for the enemy that instead of a shower of arrows every 30 seconds there were some arrows coming down on them all the time, any time.

 

[jason10mm]

It never made sense to me to shoot all arrows in a coordinated volley, you would think it would be more threatening for the enemy that instead of a shower of arrows every 30 seconds there were some arrows coming down on them all the time, any time.

You gotta remember the range on these bows isn't great and its not like the enemy is just sitting aorund waiting for you to pick them off. Often battles back then were two forces meeting up that day and coming together in a big clash, so you only had a short window when enemy troops were in useful bowshot as they (or your side) approached before they became mixed in with your own side. An initial concentrated volley might even make an enemy line break and run. Depending on geography (a small hill, wall, or something to elevate you over the battlefield) I suspect archers did pick specific targets to fire at, but with large groups of archers you really just want arrows in a target area, as fast as possible, not every archer deciding who to fire at.

There was a study out of WW2 IIRC, maybe WW1, that showed a significant number of troops refused to fire AT ALL. So maybe there was an element of "we all do it together, so we all collectively share the guilt" plus a measure of "well, you are really just shooting at a patch of ground, not your fault if a french bloke happens to be walking there" playing into the psychology of it.