Arrows vs Shields

[paranoid marvin]

It might pay (no pun intended but it's staying) to remember that in that era, standing armies weren't really a thing. Many rulers would have a small retinue of knights and a few men-at-arms but for the most part, wars were fought through conscripted levies.

If you want something further to think about here, during the medieval period, even huge castles were often guarded by only a handful of soldiers. Even in times of war, there are reports of 30 man garrisons standing up to a siege, with many garrisons consisting of single figure numbers.

Each local lord would then be responsible for ensuring they could provide the ordered amounts of men when called up, and they would have appointed functionaries from the local villages to get the people ready. All under threat of fairly brutal (by our standards) punishment.

Medieval law was all about obligations and hierarchy, so a king (in this case Edward III on) would just give the order and those below would carry it out. I doubt it was a perfect system by any stretch, men could beg out of it or make excuses the same as today.

A question though. If you personally were to know that you would likely see a war in your lifetime, would you rather practise with the bow and serve in the relative backline, or would you prefer to be in the front line being poked by spears? Not to mention not wanting to incur the wrath of your lord for refusing.

One further note, after this law was made, archery became a very popular hobby/sport in England. People would be respected for their skill and local events would feature archery competitions etc.

Yes, the whole point of a castle is that you would need only a handful of men to garrison it. It was intended to keep the lord/king safe from attack (if he was there) to have a secure place for money and a place of refuge for those living around it. There are many reports of sieges being repelled by only a few troops. because all they had to do was sit tight and wait for boredom/illness/hunger or the threat of reinforcements to force the enemy to retreat. In fact often the smaller the garrison the better, as usually the greatest threat to the defenders was running out of food.

Rules changed over time, but in feudal times there was a well understood hierarchal system. A King had Lords or vassals who were obliged by oath to come to his aid. The Lord/vassal would have lands upon which serfs worked and those people' were obliged to fight for him by means of a contract; the Lord promised to look after his serfs and they in turn would agree to work/fight for him if required.

There apparently was a law passed enforcing all boys/men to practice archery on a regular basis, and this would not only improve their accuracy but also the strength of their bow arm. This is why in certain countries crossbows were more prevalent as they didn't require the inherent strength required to effectively operate a warbow. Whether the people of Britain actually did practice as often as they should would probably be in part down to how rigorously their Lord enforced it, but the carrot is always better than the stick and making the sport of archery popular with tourneys and fairs would have helped, as would the popularity of bowmen following the victories in The Hundred Years War at places like Crecy and Agincourt. What oy would not want to emulate his heroes by picking up a bow? And no doubt the fact that the bow and arrow were a very effective hunting tool would not have gone amiss.

Would you be safer as an archer rather than as a footsoldier? Well as a footsoldier you would be more likely to be better armoured (armour gets in the way of using a bow) and you would be much better offensive weapons at close quarters. Also the enemy usually had a special distaste for archers, so if you were captured you would likely get 'special' treatment. But as mentioned above, I think most lads would want to be archers because (at this time at least) they were the ones who got the job. done.

 

[.matthew.]

Would you be safer as an archer rather than as a footsoldier? Well as a footsoldier you would be more likely to be better armoured (armour gets in the way of using a bow) and you would be much better offensive weapons at close quarters. Also the enemy usually had a special distaste for archers, so if you were captured you would likely get 'special' treatment.

Mmm. I don't think many of the footsoldiers got much in the way of better armour though. As with the rest of the levied troops, they would be expected to bring their own equipment to fight (or be supplied by their local lord who wouldn't be inclined to spend much on peasants even if they could afford it). I think a shield/spear combo was the norm but they wouldn't have had much in the way of actual armour in most cases. Plus they'd be dealing with a lot more attacks against them and far greater risk of injury.

The distaste for archers is a fair point though, and I can't recall where I read this (but if someone knows one way or another I'd be interested to know) but I think they sometimes had their drawing fingers cut off so they couldn't use a bow again.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Mmm. I don't think many of the footsoldiers got much in the way of better armour though. As with the rest of the levied troops, they would be expected to bring their own equipment to fight (or be supplied by their local lord who wouldn't be inclined to spend much on peasants even if they could afford it). I think a shield/spear combo was the norm but they wouldn't have had much in the way of actual armour in most cases. Plus they'd be dealing with a lot more attacks against them and far greater risk of injury.

The distaste for archers is a fair point though, and I can't recall where I read this (but if someone knows one way or another I'd be interested to know) but I think they sometimes had their drawing fingers cut off so they couldn't use a bow again.

I agree that foot soldiers probably wouldn't be supplied with much in the way of armour, but at least they could wear it when fighting whereas it would have been a hindrance to archers. I guess the supply of it would also come down to the Lord and the ruler; these were his men and (having only a limited supply) he would want as many to survive as possible.

If they wore armour and had decent weapons they had a better chance of winning and or surviving. I'm sure that there were lots of spare armour/weapons from previous victories, and although the mail may be ill-fitting and the sword a bit bent, it was better than a jerkin and a pitchfork. And the Lord would want his serfs back home and tilling the fields and earning him money; not possible if they are badly injured or dead.

Yes, there are different stories/rumours of archers having their fingers removed, but how many prisoners would be kept alive after a battle? Unless they can get a ransom all they are is another mouth to feed and a body to guard; whether they survived would be down to the whim of their captives and whether so kind of agreement had been put in place. But I for sure would rather have been a captured pikeman than a captured archer.