[WILD ASIAN WARCRY]
Let's debunk this scenario.
You are an archer, and you have a fighter that is charging towads you.
Now, this scenario gets raised many
times in discussions and debates
on archery and bows in close combat
and on the virtues of speed shooting and so on.
While this may be the stereotypical
combat situation, I want to point out a few
things that might prove
how this scenario is often poorly applied.
A swordsman running towards you
is not a realistic combat situation.
8000 footmen marching towards
5000 archers is.
When you have this many archers, individual rate of fire
isn't so important because
there will always be 5000 arrows in the air
every few seconds. That is
whole lot different compared to a one-on-one duel
which would never had happened.
Not every fight was a battle. Perhaps
two foraging parties
who happen to run into each other.
Would we then see this charging swordsmen against bowmen?
This I still this is an unrealistic scenario.
The idea of a swordsman
running towards an armed bowman is
is almost madness. The point of a forage party
is to get food, not kill enemies.
If you can come back alive, and preferably with food
then you achieved your objective. This kind of
skirmish is most likely going to result in both sides
returning to their respective battle lines.
Because that's where the battle would be fought, with
the main army, not with small groups skirmishing
until one side dies. Besides, in a forage party
there will more likely be horses
so if you really wanted to kill or capture someone
you would ride them down on a horse, not run at them with a sword.
Because, if you think about it, if they're not going to fight back
they'll run away as well, and you can't outrun someone
running at the same speed as you. you need
a faster vehicle.
The bows used by foot archers
would typically have an effective range of around
200 to 250 metres.
The current world record for a 200m sprint
is under 20 seconds. A body of footmen
shoulder to shoulder, with arms and armour
is not going to sprint that distance.
And with arrows raining down constantly
they would not be advancing unimpeded.
You can't sprint with your shield held up
and with arrows pushing you back.
Arrows will find a way through. People will get hit.
People will die, so you'll be pushing away the wounded
you'll be stepping over bodies
and arrows will still be coming at you.
Remember, this is not a one-on-one duel.
This is a battle. Battles take hours.
If you and your fellow archers are constantly putting arrows down onto the enemy
you have plenty of time to get those arrows off.
Archers have often been described as the artillery
of the medieval era.
Being able to rain down death from a long distance.
However, it may be more accurate to describe them
as the medieval machine gun.
Thousands of arrows, shot within minutes
and resupplied by runners from the back line to the front.
Just as we would consider it mad for a person
to charge a machine gun next
running towards a line of archers
would be one of the most terrifying things
in a medieval battle. Remember that as you got closer,
archers would be more likely to hit you.
The best range for an archer is around 50 metres.
At this distance with the war bows
used at the time, that would be
point blank. What that means is that
someone with a bow and arrow simply puts the point of the arrow
straight towards you, and that arrow will hit.
It is the easiest point of aim. There is
no need calculate how much arc you need.
At the closest distances, arrows
fly in a straight line, and the accuracy of a line
of archers against advancing infantry
was devastating.
If the advancing force manages to get past
the arrow storm and get close to the archers
they have to engage the other infantry.
Remember, archers were supporting troops.
The troops that they were supporting were right next to them.
The spearmen and swordsmen and other men-at-arms
would be there to charge into the battle.
So while these guys
are taking the brunt of the charge and fighting
in melee, are still shooting on the enemy.
If the fighting got too close
or the archers ran out of arrows, they would join the melee.
Archers were not poorly armed peasants
who would run away at the first sight of a sword.
These were extremely strong soldiers.
They had to be in order to use the bows that they had.
And they were armed swords or axes or
or hammers or mallets or knives or
whatever tools they had with them.
And they were very effective in hand-to-hand. And that's assuming
they're specialised archers
as we might see in Western Europe. In other cultures
an archer was simply a warrior who was using a bow.
And the bow was only one weapon they were proficient in.
They would otherwise use swords and spears.
So these were well-rounded warriors who
weren't afraid to engage in hand-to-hand combat.
Meanwhile, the enemy who have been battered and bruised
and concussed, and have been exhausted from
marching and running and fighting in melee would find it
quite hard to deal with lightly armoured troops
who are dancing around them with pointy swords.
A fight between an archer in melee and an enemy footman
would be quite close. And as we saw in battles
like Agincourt, archers in melee made the difference.
So what's the point of this rant?
charging towards the archer, we make a lot
of incorrect assumptions. This particular scenario
is so stacked towards the archer
that you really have to give the archer
unrealistic disadvantages
for them to lose.
It doesn't really prove the need to shoot quickly.
Archers shooting at their normal pace
would be able to take out most enemies
advancing on them. There's a reason why
archery was a highly valued skill
and the reason why archers might have been considered overpowered
was because the footman could not fight back.
The only real counter to an archer
was a cavalry charge. Again, this doesn't really
prove the need for speed. An archer
only needs to shoot as they normally would
and given the adrenaline and the rush of battle they maybe shooting
faster than normal so you can expect a reasonable rate of fire
of around one arrow every
five to seven seconds
and that's fairly reasonable. And given that they have to
cross a whole distance to reach you and you
get deadlier as you get closer
then the archer is going to win 100%
of the time without even trying.
There are very few recorded instances of an archery
formation being routed by footmen.
So to sum up
the archer versus swords scenario
which is often pitched in fantasy battles or theoretical arguments
is not going to play out the way you might think in your head.
The archer specifically trains to deal with
this situation and they have ten
or twenty chances to make that one hit happen.
The footman, on the other hand, has no way
to fight back apart from walking forward
and forward and eventually being hit.
Again, this isn't really a scenario
which we see often in history
either in battle or skirmishes. Archers were
effective in numbers, not as individuals.
And I think that point is the most important one
to take of this video.
Anyway, this is NUSensei. Thank you for watching. I'll see you next time.