Re:Collections: Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire
by alangou on Monday May 05, 2025 @01:01AM
(#43892045)
You must be referring to the Battle of Agincourt, as Henry V was heading back to Calais after laying a too-prolonged siege of Harfleur, during the 100 Years War.
Re:Collections: Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire
by hinkley on Monday May 05, 2025 @02:18AM
(#43892389)
Agincourt sounds right. Thanks.
Re:Collections: Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire
by scheme271 on Monday May 05, 2025 @04:18AM
(#43892917)
If it's Agincourt, then Bret talks about it quite a bit in the article. Essentially, it was the best case scenario for bows and even then both the French infantry and cavalry were able to advance and get to the English lines. However, both were weakened enough that they were defeated by the English forces waiting for them.
They pinned his army down with a fresher army meaning to destroy them. The English infantry and cavalry were vastly outnumbered due to attrition, but what he did have were longbows. And somehow they beat a superior army while losing a fraction as many men.
The historical military analysis I saw was that with the front lines so thin, the archers essentially didn’t have to fire long arching volleys. The flatter angle of the arrow trajectory and shorter flight distance increased the penetration force, and they just absolutely destroyed every charge against them, confusing the attacking army. Arrows should not be dropping this many men. WTF.