Excellent question with an equally excellent answer. First off, there were two distinct categories of archers in the Ancient World and beyond: the infantry archer and the cavalry archer. For both categories, a major preliminary question concerns the issue of practice. First, the mounted archer – and, by this, I mean the various ‘horse peoples’ of the Eurasian Steppes. This involved the marriage of two skills that have to be mastered: the ability to handle a horse and the ability to handle a bow (a composite bow specifically). Because these peoples learned to ride at the earliest possible stage in childhood and generally spent more time on horseback than on foot, it’s reasonable to assume that they were also taught archery at a very young age and it appears that they used their bows very frequently, such as in hunting, contests of archery skills, and, of course, inter-tribal warfare, which appears to have been endemic. As for archers on foot, the questions are what were their cultural backgrounds and what were their conditions of service. In terms of cultural background, were the foot archers in question from a culture that promoted the use of the bow. Given their reputation, this appears to be the case with, for instance, the Cretans (though why this culture developed specifically on the Island of Crete is puzzling). As for conditions of service, if the foot archers in question are full-time soldiers, then one would imagine that they would have engaged in regular practice, possibly on a daily basis. I would say that skilled archers, whether firing on foot or on horseback, would know how to aim at targets located at different distances. Therefore, if either were in a formation in which there were multiple ranks, so that only the front rank had a clear view of the target, the unit’s officer perhaps (or perhaps the archers stationed in the front rank) could shout out the estimated range of the target and the archers in the second, third, etc. ranks could aim accordingly without the necessity of actually seeing the targets themselves. As for ‘volley fire’, that is, having one or more units of archers shooting their arrows simultaneously, there does seem to be any particular reason skilled archers could not have done this, but, of course, the question is DID they do this? Regarding this issue, all one can say is that the jury is out. But, in any case, it seems to me that ‘volley fire’ isn’t necessary to produce a ‘shower’ of arrows, as the speed with which individual archers were capable of firing would still put just about all of one or more units of archers’ arrows in the air at the same time, even if they didn’t reach their target at exactly the same time. As noted, an obvious problem would be, precisely because of the speed with which they could fire, they would exhaust their immediate supply very quickly. The example of the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae (53 B.C. / C.E.), in which the Parthians refilled their quivers from the additional supply of arrows in their baggage train is at least one possible explanation for how archers could continue to firing arrows during either the entire time or most of the time of a battle. Of course, we don’t know if this was a widespread practice and, therefore, can’t simply assume that this is what took place in other battles involving archers. One last point. While I myself haven’t studied this issue, my impression is that, among the many different ‘horse peoples’ of the Eurasian Steppes, there doesn’t seem to be any significant differences in their use of mounted archers over the centuries (indeed, all the way into the 19th century). As such, with a significant note of caution, we may be able to better understand the manner in which, for instance, the Scythians or the Parthians, fought in battle by examining accounts of other ‘horse peoples’, notably the Mongols. And, yes, I know that the stirrup came into use, but, as someone who rides without them, I think their impact is somewhat overrated.
1 comment
Excellent question with an equally excellent answer. First off, there were two distinct categories of archers in the Ancient World and beyond: the infantry archer and the cavalry archer. For both categories, a major preliminary question concerns the issue of practice. First, the mounted archer – and, by this, I mean the various ‘horse peoples’ of the Eurasian Steppes. This involved the marriage of two skills that have to be mastered: the ability to handle a horse and the ability to handle a bow (a composite bow specifically). Because these peoples learned to ride at the earliest possible stage in childhood and generally spent more time on horseback than on foot, it’s reasonable to assume that they were also taught archery at a very young age and it appears that they used their bows very frequently, such as in hunting, contests of archery skills, and, of course, inter-tribal warfare, which appears to have been endemic. As for archers on foot, the questions are what were their cultural backgrounds and what were their conditions of service. In terms of cultural background, were the foot archers in question from a culture that promoted the use of the bow. Given their reputation, this appears to be the case with, for instance, the Cretans (though why this culture developed specifically on the Island of Crete is puzzling). As for conditions of service, if the foot archers in question are full-time soldiers, then one would imagine that they would have engaged in regular practice, possibly on a daily basis. I would say that skilled archers, whether firing on foot or on horseback, would know how to aim at targets located at different distances. Therefore, if either were in a formation in which there were multiple ranks, so that only the front rank had a clear view of the target, the unit’s officer perhaps (or perhaps the archers stationed in the front rank) could shout out the estimated range of the target and the archers in the second, third, etc. ranks could aim accordingly without the necessity of actually seeing the targets themselves. As for ‘volley fire’, that is, having one or more units of archers shooting their arrows simultaneously, there does seem to be any particular reason skilled archers could not have done this, but, of course, the question is DID they do this? Regarding this issue, all one can say is that the jury is out. But, in any case, it seems to me that ‘volley fire’ isn’t necessary to produce a ‘shower’ of arrows, as the speed with which individual archers were capable of firing would still put just about all of one or more units of archers’ arrows in the air at the same time, even if they didn’t reach their target at exactly the same time. As noted, an obvious problem would be, precisely because of the speed with which they could fire, they would exhaust their immediate supply very quickly. The example of the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae (53 B.C. / C.E.), in which the Parthians refilled their quivers from the additional supply of arrows in their baggage train is at least one possible explanation for how archers could continue to firing arrows during either the entire time or most of the time of a battle. Of course, we don’t know if this was a widespread practice and, therefore, can’t simply assume that this is what took place in other battles involving archers. One last point. While I myself haven’t studied this issue, my impression is that, among the many different ‘horse peoples’ of the Eurasian Steppes, there doesn’t seem to be any significant differences in their use of mounted archers over the centuries (indeed, all the way into the 19th century). As such, with a significant note of caution, we may be able to better understand the manner in which, for instance, the Scythians or the Parthians, fought in battle by examining accounts of other ‘horse peoples’, notably the Mongols. And, yes, I know that the stirrup came into use, but, as someone who rides without them, I think their impact is somewhat overrated.