This week on the blog! We're looking at the movie motif of having a whole bunch of archers 'fire' at once and discussing what is volley fire for and both why archers couldn't do it and why they wouldn't do it even if they could!
https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collections-why-archers-didnt-volley-fire/
https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collections-why-archers-didnt-volley-fire/
Comments
By the way, are you aware of any good blogs that cover Napoleonic-era (or thereabouts) warfare?
It was a fun movie, but only because I watched it knowing the setting was just a thin re-coloring of modern-day.
(If you read the whole post you'll see that that probably wouldn't be desirable.)
I suspect, however, that this is done mostly out of modern safety concerns that a battlefield commander wouldn't care about so much.
I could imagine this being used at very long ranges when shooting to provoke rather than "for effect," to borrow a modern term.
Was there any sort of signal though to start shooting, or did commanders just rely on their archers knowing the effective range of their weapons and trust they would start shooting appropriately?
Logically they must have also had some sort of cease-fire command, but AFAIK it's not as well-attested.
Scenarios I can imagine:
Enemy is running away, save your arrows
They're too close to our own men
Anything else?
(and this clip doesn't even include the bit where they fire smoke arrows to signal a danger close trebuchet artillery strike)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z07sCX7OXBo
Another reason for musket volleys is that it wasn't uncommon to completely mess up the reload process. Once you have fired your ramrod away, you're not firing again until someone near you is KIA.
You see some interesting experimentation with visor design in the 15th century to try to get the best air circulation for the minimum exposure. Some early armets and close-helms feature really clever ways to get the best of both worlds!
Though even there, it gets substantially worse when you're wearing a tournament helmet.
In both cases the French lost the battle, but that was due to their inability to time the charge to be only just far ahead enough of the dismounted men-at-arms that the English couldn't reorganise.
It's possible the French had some even earlier success,
Thanks a lot for the article.