4 ms·

Bret (the author) does discuss the discipline of conscripted troops in another post, here: https://acoup.blog/2022/06/17/collections-total-generalship-commandi

Bret (the author) does discuss the discipline of conscripted troops in another post, here: https://acoup.blog/2022/06/17/collections-total-generalship-commanding-pre-modern-armies-part-iiia-discipline/ https://acoup.blog/2022/06/17/collections-total-generalship-... In particular, the concept of 'drill' gets a lot of attention: "Fundamentally the principle behind using drill to build synchronized discipline is that the way to get a whole lot of humans to act effectively in concert together is to force them to practice doing exactly the things they’ll be asked to do on the battlefield a lot until the motions are practically second nature. Indeed, the ideal in developing this kind of drill was often to ingrain the actions the soldiers were to perform so deeply that in the midst of the terror of battle when they couldn’t even really think straight those soldiers would fall back on simply mechanically performing the actions they were trained to perform. That in turn creates an important element of predictability: an individual soldier does not need to be checking their action or position against the others around them as much because they’ve done this very maneuver with these very fellows and so already know where everyone is going to be.... The context that drill tends to emerge in (this is an idea invented more than once) tends to give it a highly regimented, fairly brutal character. For instance in early modern Europe, the structure of drill for gunpowder armies was conditioned by elite snobbery: European officer-aristocrats (in many cases the direct continuation of the medieval aristocracy) had an extremely poor view of their common soldiers (drawn from the peasantry). Assuming they lacked any natural valor, harsh drill was settled upon as a solution to make the actions of battle merely mechanical, to reduce the man to a machine."

treis 1y ago
IMHO that's the key point against the "no volley" idea. Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own. You act in formation and repeat what you've been drilled. A company of archers is probably the same. They'd be working in unison following the direction of their captain. Not for shock value. But to manage fatigue, arrow supply, and ensure that they're firing with a full draw.
- pimlottc 1y ago
  You can act together in formation without being in total lockstep for every motion. Did all the infantrymen swing their swords at the same time? Of course not. It doesn't make any sense for one archer to "wait" for their neighbor before firing. And as the article points out, firing in unison would increase fatigue, not reduce it.
  - chilmers 1y ago
    It would also require you to fire at the rate of the slowest person, or have the slower archers skip firing at all for certain volleys.
  - treis 1y ago
    It does make sense. You don't want archers to burn energy & ammo by firing too rapidly or before the enemy is in range. I agree that sitting there for minutes holding the bow taut is dumb. But something like a Attention, Nock, Ready, Draw, Loose cycle isn't that. Maybe you hold it a half second and it's slightly more fatiguing but I don't really see it. If it is you just combine draw and loose. It will make the spread between arrows slightly larger but it's still a volley.
  - bunderbunder 1y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if it also makes it easier for the enemy to respond. If arrows are only coming in concentrated volleys, then it might be easier for the enemy to make a coordinated advance where they just periodically crouch behind their shields as a volley comes, and then make relatively unhindered advances during the lull. A diffuse but more-or-less constant stream of arrows arriving at random is presumably more distracting and harder to deal with, and therefore a greater hindrance to enemy infantry.
    - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
      I was surprised not to see this reason mentioned in the article. It was the first reason that came to mind, especially with popular depictions of the Roman legion's turtle formation.

treis 1y ago

IMHO that's the key point against the "no volley" idea. Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own. You act in formation and repeat what you've been drilled. A company of archers is probably the same. They'd be working in unison following the direction of their captain. Not for shock value. But to manage fatigue, arrow supply, and ensure that they're firing with a full draw.

pimlottc 1y ago
You can act together in formation without being in total lockstep for every motion. Did all the infantrymen swing their swords at the same time? Of course not. It doesn't make any sense for one archer to "wait" for their neighbor before firing. And as the article points out, firing in unison would increase fatigue, not reduce it.
- chilmers 1y ago
  It would also require you to fire at the rate of the slowest person, or have the slower archers skip firing at all for certain volleys.
- treis 1y ago
  It does make sense. You don't want archers to burn energy & ammo by firing too rapidly or before the enemy is in range. I agree that sitting there for minutes holding the bow taut is dumb. But something like a Attention, Nock, Ready, Draw, Loose cycle isn't that. Maybe you hold it a half second and it's slightly more fatiguing but I don't really see it. If it is you just combine draw and loose. It will make the spread between arrows slightly larger but it's still a volley.
- bunderbunder 1y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if it also makes it easier for the enemy to respond. If arrows are only coming in concentrated volleys, then it might be easier for the enemy to make a coordinated advance where they just periodically crouch behind their shields as a volley comes, and then make relatively unhindered advances during the lull. A diffuse but more-or-less constant stream of arrows arriving at random is presumably more distracting and harder to deal with, and therefore a greater hindrance to enemy infantry.
  - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
    I was surprised not to see this reason mentioned in the article. It was the first reason that came to mind, especially with popular depictions of the Roman legion's turtle formation.