Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

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.

 

[nush]

Why aren't they told to fire as soon as each archer believes they're in range?

Because the want one unified wall of arrows, not random pot shots.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because the want one unified wall of arrows, not random pot shots.

Why though? What's the advantage?

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

 

[The ninja farmer]

I thought the commands were to allow them to synchronise their movements and allow them to all to shoot as one

 

[T-0800]

 

[The ninja farmer]

Why though? What's the advantage?

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

Military doctrine establishes killing as many enemy troops as quickly as you can. To reduce the oppositions ability to retaliate and to inspire fear and terror by reducing the enemy numbers before things reach the skirmish level

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Military doctrine establishes killing as many enemy troops as quickly as you can. To reduce the oppositions ability to retaliate and to inspire fear and terror by reducing the enemy numbers before things reach the skirmish level

I still don't understand how waiting, when the opposing army is within range, leads to killing more enemies than having every archer shoot as soon as they think they're in range. My strategy would lead to more arrows being shot and would prevent the opposing army from organising into ideal position.

I'm not getting something here.

If someone on NeoGAF creates a time machine, send me back. I'm going to change world history.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

British should have been shooting waaaaay earlier. Look at how many arrows were blocked because they all shot at the same time.

 

[E-Cat]

I still don't understand how waiting, when the opposing army is within range, leads to killing more enemies than having every archer shoot as soon as they think they're in range. My strategy would lead to more arrows being shot and would prevent the opposing army from organising into ideal position.

I'm not getting something here.

If someone on NeoGAF creates a time machine, send me back. I'm going to change world history.

It’d be harder to dodge a wall of arrows than individual arrows coming at different times, it’s pretty basic

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It’d be harder to dodge a wall of arrows than individual arrows coming at different times, it’s pretty basic

That's incorrect. It's way easier. Look at the Braveheart scene. Random arrows coming in at a consistent rate would cause significantly more chaos. Harder to listen and organize when hundreds of archers are firing at will at a steady rate. Harder to see random arrows headed your way.

Look at this scene. Old man archer gets a kill because...duh. How many kills could these archers have gotten in this scene if they were told to shoot as soon as they believed they could get a hit? Instead, minutes go by with 0 kills and the opposing army organizes right in front of you.

 

[E-Cat]

That's incorrect. It's way easier. Look at the Braveheart scene. Random arrows coming in at a consistent rate would cause significantly more chaos. Harder to listen and organize when hundreds of archers are firing at will at a steady rate. Harder to see random arrows headed your way.

Look at this scene. Old man archer gets a kill because...duh. How many kills could these archers have gotten in this scene if they were told to shoot as soon as they believed they could get a hit? Instead, minutes go by with 0 kills and the opposing army organizes right in front of you.

I mean it’d be physically impossible to dodge depending on the thickness of the wall of arrows

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I mean it’d be physically impossible to dodge depending on the thickness of the wall of arrows

Literally look at the Braveheart scene posted above.

They all raise their shields for 15 seconds when they see the wall of arrows headed their way. This allows them to block a number of shots...making the strategy appear LESS effective.

All the responses in this thread have made no rational sense. I am now under the impression that this is silly movie BS created to add fake drama for viewers. I don't think armies would line up in range of archers anymore.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

So if there is no rule of cool it could be for lack of munitions or maximising the fear effect. Take your pick. I am in rule of cool camp.

 

[FunkMiller]

As ever, Hollywood likes to present things in a way that ratchets up tension the most, and provides the biggest bang for your buck.

The reality is that archery was used in multiple ways for warfare. The whole 'launching a stream of arrows high into the air' thing probably wouldn't have been the best use of an archer's skills.

More likely were archers being used as long range snipers, or horseback combatants.

Also, long bows are bastard hard to draw, and even more bastard hard to hold at full draw. Simply not realistic to demand hundreds of archers stand there at full draw waiting for a command from a leader who's voice most of them probably couldn't hear anyway, if it was a windy day.

So yeah, there's a lot of Hollywood bullshit about it. Right there alongside the old 'enemy flying backwards when they got shot' thing.

 

[diffusionx]

I still don't understand how waiting, when the opposing army is within range, leads to killing more enemies than having every archer shoot as soon as they think they're in range. My strategy would lead to more arrows being shot and would prevent the opposing army from organising into ideal position.

evidently you fail to understand the concept of leadership.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

evidently you fail to understand the concept of leadership.

Leadership isn't the topic. Effective tactics are what we're discussing. Do try to keep up.

 

[FunkMiller]

evidently you fail to understand the concept of leadership.

No. He's actually quite right in his assumption.

r/askhistorians has a fair amount of information about this, and from first read it would appear that historians don't believe the tactic is accurate to real warfare situations:

The evidence for co-ordinated volleys, in the sense that you see in movies, is non-existent. I have an answer on this here, along with a productive discussion with u/hborrgg. There's also this thread with a long answer from u/valkine and this answer from u/nusensei that brings some technical expertise to the field.

 

[IDKFA]

British should have been shooting waaaaay earlier. Look at how many arrows were blocked because they all shot at the same time.

First, that film is so historically inaccurate it might as well be fantasy. The "British" didn't even exist then either. That was a battle between the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Everything about that film is insulting. I spit on it.

Anyway, regarding your question, the reason Hollywood do this in movies is because they need to make it very simple for the audience to understand, and/or they've not done their research. I think it's a combination of the two.

In reality, I can only really speak for late medieval warfare, archers would have been given a signal to start shooting, then it's based on experience and a shared understanding of the battle's flow.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

First, that film is so historically inaccurate it might as well be fantasy. The "British" didn't even exist then either. That was a battle between the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Everything about that film is insulting. I spit on it.

Anyway, regarding your question, the reason Hollywood do this in movies is because they need to make it very simple for the audience to understand, and/or they've not done their research. I think it's a combination of the two.

In reality, I can only really speak for late medieval warfare, archers would have been given a signal to start shooting, then it's based on experience and a shared understanding of the battle's flow.

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

I spit on you. Braveheart is awesome.

 

[cormack12]

I thought initially they'd be waiting for the advancing infantry/calvary to come into range. When they get into a range a flag is waved (signalling) and then the archers who are nokked would be told to draw and fire. The advantage of that is that everyone knows the enemy is range, rather than waiting for pot shots to confirm it.

After that I imagine it was fire at will, where archers would swap between firing and redrawing.

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

Uhhh

Initiation of combat
Distance
Time to focus?

And ofcourse scouting which soldier has the least patience.

At least 3000 battles have been lost through one single impatient prick..

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

I thought initially they'd be waiting for the advancing infantry/calvary to come into range. When they get into a range a flag is waved (signalling) and then the archers who are nokked would be told to draw and fire. The advantage of that is that everyone knows the enemy is range, rather than waiting for pot shots to confirm it.

After that I imagine it was fire at will, where archers would swap between firing and redrawing.

I had to learn the hard way smh.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

This thread reminded me of how good the Battle of the Bastards was and how that show fell completely off a cliff afterward.

 

[GeekyDad]

Why though? What's the advantage?

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

Military doctrine establishes killing as many enemy troops as quickly as you can. To reduce the oppositions ability to retaliate and to inspire fear and terror by reducing the enemy numbers before things reach the skirmish level

I still don't understand how waiting, when the opposing army is within range, leads to killing more enemies than having every archer shoot as soon as they think they're in range. My strategy would lead to more arrows being shot and would prevent the opposing army from organising into ideal position.

I'm not getting something here.

If someone on NeoGAF creates a time machine, send me back. I'm going to change world history.

Uhhh

Initiation of combat
Distance
Time to focus?

And ofcourse scouting which soldier has the least patience.

At least 3000 battles have been lost through one single impatient prick..

All of the above. Plus, I would think if you can get the largest portion the heavy troupes locked into a narrow area, you can block them off and/or they will have greater trouble in either retreating or moving forward fast enough to retaliate.

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

Well having a well trained army with tactics and shields and all yo... It's just a first wave of collateral damage perhaps. On the recieving side ofcourse.

 

[winjer]

Your mistake is thinking that movies are realistic. They are far from it.

The reality is that war bows have much greater draw weight than the bows used in movies or in modern recreation, or sports competition.
A war bow had a draw weight of 120 to 180 pounds. This means that the archer can only hold it for a few seconds.
Also, the idea in videogames and movies that bows are for the weaker characters is very wrong. Using a war bow requires a lot of strength. Much more than using a sword.
So in medieval times, to coordinate shooting arrows in a group, it's not about saying hold. But rather to give the order to draw, after that, each bowmen will shoot within a few seconds.

Another thing that movies do wrong are those shootings into the air, at a steep angle. In reality, if that was to happen, those arrows would have lost most of it's force and would do minimal damage to the enemies.
This can be used for harassing a unit. But unlike what we see in movies, it won't do much, if any damage.

Another thing to consider is that war bows, use war arrows. These arrows are much thicker than the arrows we see today in most movies and sports. But also thicker than arrows used in hunting.
This is because human soldiers use armor. And because war bows accelerate arrows much faster, so arrows must be much stronger to withstand such force.

The reason why there is a preference to shoot a bunch of arrows at the same time, is because these are units fighting units. Not individual soldiers.
So shooting a bunch of arrows at the same time, into an enemy unit will make that unit falter, or move to cover.
But there are times when one might want to have half a unit, or a third of a unit shoot at each time, as to maintain a steady stream of fire on the enemy unit.
Though this was used more in line formations with muskets.

And a bonus fact. In medieval times, most battles were not in open battlefields, but rather with one army in a castle or fortification, and another group inside.
And almost no battles were done during the night. That is used in modern movies to hide the fact that they have few people cast to play a big army. But also to use fire arrows, that in medieval times did not work like that.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Your mistake is thinking that movies are realistic. They are far from it.

The reality is that war bows have much greater draw weight than the bows used in movies or in modern recreation, or sports competition.
A war bow had a draw weight of 120 to 180 pounds. This means that the archer can only hold it for a few seconds.
Also, the idea in videogames and movies that bows are for the weaker characters is very wrong. Using a war bow requires a lot of strength. Much more than using a sword.
So in medieval times, to coordinate shooting arrows in a group, it's not about saying hold. But rather to give the order to draw, after that, each bowmen will shoot within a few seconds.

Another thing that movies do wrong are those shootings into the air, at a steep angle. In reality, if that was to happen, those arrows would have lost most of it's force and would do minimal damage to the enemies.
This can be used for harassing a unit. But unlike what we see in movies, it won't do much, if any damage.

Another thing to consider is that war bows, use war arrows. These arrows are much thicker than the arrows we see today in most movies and sports. But also thicker than arrows used in hunting.
This is because human soldiers use armor. And because war bows accelerate arrows much faster, so arrows must be much stronger to withstand such force.

The reason why there is a preference to shoot a bunch of arrows at the same time, is because these are units fighting units. Not individual soldiers.
So shooting a bunch of arrows at the same time, into an enemy unit will make that unit falter, or move to cover.
But there are times when one might want to have half a unit, or a third of a unit shoot at each time, as to maintain a steady stream of fire on the enemy unit.
Though this was used more in line formations with muskets.

And a bonus fact. In medieval times, most battles were not in open battlefields, but rather with one army in a castle or fortification, and another group inside.
And almost no battles were done during the night. That is used in modern movies to hide the fact that they have few people cast to play a big army. But also to use fire arrows, that in medieval times did not work like that.

 

[Hudo]

Can we discuss the fact that movies are unrealistic anyway because they all fail to mention the guy who walked in with an AK47 during the battles?
It's pretty shitty of Hollywood to omit this fact.

I mean, we have historical footage:

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[dave_d]

The reality is that war bows have much greater draw weight than the bows used in movies or in modern recreation, or sports competition.
A war bow had a draw weight of 120 to 180 pounds. This means that the archer can only hold it for a few seconds.
Also, the idea in videogames and movies that bows are for the weaker characters is very wrong. Using a war bow requires a lot of strength. Much more than using a sword.
So in medieval times, to coordinate shooting arrows in a group, it's not about saying hold. But rather to give the order to draw, after that, each bowmen will shoot within a few seconds.

Expanding on this in movies people can reload and loose within seconds, firing something like 10-20 shots a second. Yeah if you try that with a real war bow you won't be able to shoot that many arrows before you get tired and need to rest between shots.

 

[winjer]

Expanding on this in movies people can reload and loose within seconds, firing something like 10-20 shots a second. Yeah if you try that with a real war bow you won't be able to shoot that many arrows before you get tired and need to rest between shots.

Also, arrows were not infinite.
They were a commodity in limited availability. So much so, that some kings gave exclusive harvesting rights of certain tree types, to arrow makers.
Just to make sure they always had a good supply for war.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

These archers have likely had months or years to amass a trailers worth of arrows.

How big do you think a quiver is lol

 

[dave_d]

Also, arrows were not infinite.
They were a commodity in limited availability. So much so, that some kings gave exclusive harvesting rights of certain tree types, to arrow makers.
Just to make sure they always had a good supply for war.

Very true, and of course this is another thing fiction (not just Hollywood) gives people the wrong idea. I'd point out the original poster has quite the company in misunderstanding archery in battle. I mean there's the whole story about Benjamin Franklin's idea of outfitting a bunch of soldiers with bows because of the "advantages" over muskets. (Yeah the generals at the time pretty much thought it was a bad idea.)

 

[winjer]

Very true, and of course this is another thing fiction (not just Hollywood) gives people the wrong idea. I'd point out the original poster has quite the company in misunderstanding archery in battle. I mean there's the whole story about Benjamin Franklin's idea of outfitting a bunch of soldiers with bows because of the "advantages" over muskets. (Yeah the generals at the time pretty much thought it was a bad idea.)

There were advantages of the bow and arrow, over the arquebus.
But by the time we got to the musket with the percussion cap, there is little reason to go for bow and arrows.

 

[cormack12]

How big do you think a quiver is lol

 

[LaughingStock]

The real question though is why people use firearms instead of spears.

 

[AJUMP23]

Dramatic effect.

 

[Hudo]

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

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.

Those Hollywood clichés are starting to get tiring.

 

[Big Baller]

Because fighting in the shade is less sweaty

 

[winjer]

Because fighting in the shade is less sweaty

Curiously, several medieval historians think that more knights died of heat stroke, than of battle wounds.
With plate armor, between the heat of the sun and the exertion of the fight, many knights collapsed with extreme heat.

 

[Biff]

Interesting thread. I never thought of that question.

OP - I agree with you that a wall of arrows is a disadvantage because of the visual trigger it sends the enemy to get into cover / shield up for 15 seconds, let the arrows hit, and move onward. Random firing would cause perpetual confusion, which seems ideal.

That said, I disagree with your view that the archers themselves are the best evaluators of when the enemy is in range. I think the commander of the archery unit is almost certainly the most highly trained/educated and would have the best assessment of range. Therefore, I think a big reason why they hold for a single wall of fire is because there's inevitably going to be an idiot in each squad who erroneously fires too early after misjudging the range or wind or elevation or whatever.

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.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I always assumed it was because they were behind the infantry line and a spotter was watching for different kill zones determining how they would essentially blind fire into. It’s was done out of necessity, not skill or tactics

 

[Hugare]

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.

 

[Meicyn]

Curiously, several medieval historians think that more knights died of heat stroke, than of battle wounds.
With plate armor, between the heat of the sun and the exertion of the fight, many knights collapsed with extreme heat.

Funny you mention that, because it’s still a problem in modern times too. Chemical warfare strategy/mitigation was my primary role when I was in Korea and I could not emphasize enough how much of a threat heat stroke is to commanders. Gas masks and chem suits work really well. The problem is that when you’re wearing a standard issue uniform, then a J-LIST with an Avon M-50 on top, and then some armor plates and a helmet, you’re adding approximately 10-12 degrees Celsius of heat stress on top of whatever ambient temperatures happen to be.

During training exercises, wearing that shit in the middle of hot, humid Korean summers with the sun shining brightly was misery. Did I mention the butyl rubber gloves and boots are black? You could literally feel the heat in seconds if you walked into direct sunlight. I couldn’t stop sucking down water from my canteen through the mask’s drinking tube with how much sweat was pouring out of me. Pouring sweat out of your boots when you’re taking all that gear off was a special kind of gross.

Non-battle injuries will always be the number one cause of death in war, past, present, and undoubtedly the future.



On the subject of movie depictions though, it’s just one of those cases of what makes for good cinema. Folks love a good war movie, but if you want one that’s more accurate to the real life experience, Jarhead is a good modern example. It’s also not nearly as exciting as say, Black Hawk Down.

 

[Tams]

I'll be right back with an answer.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Funny you mention that, because it’s still a problem in modern times too. Chemical warfare strategy/mitigation was my primary role when I was in Korea and I could not emphasize enough how much of a threat heat stroke is to commanders. Gas masks and chem suits work really well. The problem is that when you’re wearing a standard issue uniform, then a J-LIST with an Avon M-50 on top, and then some armor plates and a helmet, you’re adding approximately 10-12 degrees Celsius of heat stress on top of whatever ambient temperatures happen to be.

I can't even imagine the hell of being in full combat gear in the middle of a Korean summer.

 

[Meicyn]

I can't even imagine the hell of being in full combat gear in the middle of a Korean summer.

Bro, it fucking sucked. You can’t take the shit off because you have to get conditioned to that experience in case the real deal happens, and inevitably you had a minimum of one heat stress casualty per scenario. Korea was my final assignment and when the last training exercise I participated in concluded, I consumed way more soju that evening than I should have, lmao.

Lots of stories, but so thankful I will never have to wear that crap ever again. I spent time in the Middle East, and wearing that stuff in Korea was waaaaaaay hotter.

 

[Blade2.0]

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.

 

[InterMusketeer]

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

Muskets were really inaccurate and their range was limited, so it was of the essence to have as many barrels pointing at the enemy as possible to maximize firepower. That's why they formed thin lines. It also gave them better means to counter cavalry charges and reduced the effectiveness of enemy artillery.

Those people weren't stupid when they came up with those tactics.