Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire
Popular portrayals of medieval warfare often show ranks of archers loosing perfectly synchronized volleys, but military historians argue this is almost certainly ahistorical: there is no textual or visual evidence for such tactics, and heavy war bows were too exhausting to hold at full draw while awaiting a command. Commenters weigh the practical reasons continuous, individually paced fire would be superior — from command-and-control limits and draw-weight fatigue to how shields, armor and battlefield psychology actually worked — while others push back with “common sense” intuitions shaped by video games and films. The exchange broadens into questions about how premodern armies were drilled, why musket volleys did develop while arrow volleys likely did not, and how easily casual assumptions can clash with specialist research.
Video games vs. historical tactics
- Several comments contrast Total War / Crusader Kings combat with history.
- Games often enforce rock‑paper‑scissors unit matchups; this penalizes historically plausible mixed forces (e.g., archers plus pikes) because only one unit type gets tactical bonuses at a time.
- Mods and later titles tweak this, but volleys and “arrow storms” mainly persist because the engine and cinematic expectations demand them, not because they’re realistic.
Did archers actually volley fire?
- One side argues: lack of clear textual or visual evidence for organized bow volleys, combined with the mechanics of bows, strongly suggests they were rare to nonexistent.
- Counter‑arguments say: an initial, loosely synchronized “start firing” moment is plausible, even if not the perfectly timed, held‑draw movie volley; critics see the article as not fully ruling this out.
- Others emphasize that absence of evidence isn’t definitive, but in contexts where volley‑like actions (e.g., pila, muskets) do get described, the silence on bow volleys is telling.
Practical constraints: draw weight, timing, and command
- Heavy war bows (often 100+ lb draw) make holding at full draw for more than a few seconds exhausting; reenactors report only very brief windows for staged volleys.
- Individual variation in bow power, draw length, and rate of shooting makes tight synchronization difficult.
- Pre‑modern command-and-control was coarse: you could signal “start” or “cease” fire locally, but not orchestrate frequent, battlefield‑wide timed volleys.
Continuous fire vs. volleys
- Many argue continuous, staggered fire is tactically superior: it denies the enemy predictable safe intervals to advance or reposition behind shields.
- Volleys might slightly improve the chance that someone in a formation gets hit, but at the cost of rate of fire and flexibility.
Arrows, armor, and targets
- Discussion notes that armor (even mail and light plate) and large shields significantly reduce arrow lethality, especially at range or oblique angles.
- Horses remain relatively vulnerable; disrupting cavalry by hitting mounts is repeatedly cited as a major historical role for archers.
- Agincourt is used as an example where arrows degraded and exhausted attackers rather than outright annihilating them.
Meta: style and expertise
- Some find the blog overly long, repetitive, and heavy on italics; others enjoy the “unmitigated pedantry.”
- A recurring theme is tension between lay “common sense” (shaped by media and games) and specialist historical work grounded in sources and experimental archaeology.