3 ms·

Theoretically yes, the author just says it’s possible, but doesn’t present any evidence for it. There could be other factors that prevented this from actually h

Theoretically yes, the author just says it’s possible, but doesn’t present any evidence for it. There could be other factors that prevented this from actually happening in reality, eg the supply of arrows, the positioning of the archers, the strategy of attack etc.

granitosaurus 9y ago
It could also be that burst arrow storms like this just weren't an effective strategy. What is easier to deflect: 1 minute of a bunch of arrows or a constant stream of arrows for 10 minutes? In other words an arrow marathon might have been much more effective than a sprint. Also what about accuracy? Surely aiming at some specific part of the infantry is more effective?
amelius 9y ago
Perhaps in reality what happened was that there, at certain moments, was one obvious target, and all archers pointed their arrows at that target. This created the illusion, from the p.o.v. of the target of an arrow storm.
Spooky23 9y ago
A significant portion of the English economy was devoted to arrow production and archer training. They made millions of the things and reused many. Quotas were assigned for production of both. There may be issues with some of the details of the stories. But many of those issues are more about our modern perception of what is being said. Interpreting the "darkening of the sky" as an eclipse like event is a perception problem. Nobody questions would question a contemporary account of German flak in WW2 feeling like a darkening of the sky from the perspective of a bomber crewman. The end results speak for themselves -- you can correlate the order of battle of the English from multiple areas and the outcome of major engagements and wars are known. If the arrows were less effective than described, the French heavy infantry and cavalry would have been considerably more successful.

3 ms·

Theoretically yes, the author just says it’s possible, but doesn’t present any evidence for it. There could be other factors that prevented this from actually h

by albertgoeswoof 9y ago

granitosaurus 9y ago
It could also be that burst arrow storms like this just weren't an effective strategy. What is easier to deflect: 1 minute of a bunch of arrows or a constant stream of arrows for 10 minutes? In other words an arrow marathon might have been much more effective than a sprint. Also what about accuracy? Surely aiming at some specific part of the infantry is more effective?
amelius 9y ago
Perhaps in reality what happened was that there, at certain moments, was one obvious target, and all archers pointed their arrows at that target. This created the illusion, from the p.o.v. of the target of an arrow storm.
Spooky23 9y ago
A significant portion of the English economy was devoted to arrow production and archer training. They made millions of the things and reused many. Quotas were assigned for production of both. There may be issues with some of the details of the stories. But many of those issues are more about our modern perception of what is being said. Interpreting the "darkening of the sky" as an eclipse like event is a perception problem. Nobody questions would question a contemporary account of German flak in WW2 feeling like a darkening of the sky from the perspective of a bomber crewman. The end results speak for themselves -- you can correlate the order of battle of the English from multiple areas and the outcome of major engagements and wars are known. If the arrows were less effective than described, the French heavy infantry and cavalry would have been considerably more successful.