Horseback Archery average range
Dear colleagues!
What is an average range for Horseback Archers in Mongol and Manchu Warfare (XIII-XIX centuries)?
Unfortunately, I can browse the Forum too rarely so if I do not react for an answer, please. pardon me.
Best regards,
Alexey.
What is an average range for Horseback Archers in Mongol and Manchu Warfare (XIII-XIX centuries)?
Unfortunately, I can browse the Forum too rarely so if I do not react for an answer, please. pardon me.
Best regards,
Alexey.
Alexey,
I doubt that "average range" is a meaningful concept in horse archery. However, there were clearly minimum and maximum ranges depending on individual bows. The Manchu bows were notable for shooting heavy arrows over medium to short ranges. The training of horse archers emphasised their ability to shoot accurately at short ranges, but it would be a mistake to think that was because people only shot at short ranges. I think instead it reflects the difficult of hitting a small target from the back of a fast moving horse. You practise what is difficult.
Long range shooting in warfare was rarely a matter of aiming at individual targets. The mass of enemy troops would have been what was aimed at. In the days when armies formed up in dense groups, they were easy targets from a distance.
Over the period from the 13th to the 19th century, the purpose and relative importance of horse archery changed which affected how it was used. Military manuals were rarely explicit about things like range in warfare. Most of the surviving ones were about developing individual skills.
I doubt that "average range" is a meaningful concept in horse archery. However, there were clearly minimum and maximum ranges depending on individual bows. The Manchu bows were notable for shooting heavy arrows over medium to short ranges. The training of horse archers emphasised their ability to shoot accurately at short ranges, but it would be a mistake to think that was because people only shot at short ranges. I think instead it reflects the difficult of hitting a small target from the back of a fast moving horse. You practise what is difficult.
Long range shooting in warfare was rarely a matter of aiming at individual targets. The mass of enemy troops would have been what was aimed at. In the days when armies formed up in dense groups, they were easy targets from a distance.
Over the period from the 13th to the 19th century, the purpose and relative importance of horse archery changed which affected how it was used. Military manuals were rarely explicit about things like range in warfare. Most of the surviving ones were about developing individual skills.
There is an answer: the Ming military manuals reflect a view at that time that the normal practical range for horseback archery was 30 paces (about 30m) or less. As Bede says, though, there could be a lot of variation among individuals' skills.
But if you were a military commander commanding a cavalry wing, then you would assume that the top of the Bell curve was at 30 paces.
But if you were a military commander commanding a cavalry wing, then you would assume that the top of the Bell curve was at 30 paces.
Stephen,
I have been thinking about your comments and I cannot agree that the Ming manuals can be taken at face value. I assume by paces you are referring to what in English is a double pace (for some reason an English pace is a step of 30 inches, while for many others it is the distance between where the same foot touches the ground consecutively, about 60 inches).
At 30 metres, a mounted archer would be a sitting duck for an infantry archer. At that distance, most composite bows and longbows would be easy to aim and would deliver powerful shots.
If the rider charged a group of the enemy head on, both he and his horse would be an easy target. If he charged parallel to the enemy front, each successive foot archer would have a clear shot. Unlike the mounted archer who had to control his horse, plot its course and shoot, these stationary archers would only have to worry about gauging his position.
I think that 30 metres might be better as a minimum distance because a group of horsemen could be overwhelmed by a charge if they were that close and became entangled with one another in a rapid turn. There are historical precedents for this in the First and Third Crusades, where, by luck or planning, Western knights were able to close with horse archers before they could reorganise.
I don't think, despite the contemporary comments, that soldiers in groups shot at individuals that often. I think they would have shot at other groups and that doesn't need precision. This doesn't mean that there weren't great individual marksmen, but they probably didn't have the effect that chroniclers gave to them.
It is possible that the Ming comment was about moving horsemen shooting at other moving horsement and it might have been suggesting that, farther than 30 metres, a hit would be accidental.
I have been thinking about your comments and I cannot agree that the Ming manuals can be taken at face value. I assume by paces you are referring to what in English is a double pace (for some reason an English pace is a step of 30 inches, while for many others it is the distance between where the same foot touches the ground consecutively, about 60 inches).
At 30 metres, a mounted archer would be a sitting duck for an infantry archer. At that distance, most composite bows and longbows would be easy to aim and would deliver powerful shots.
If the rider charged a group of the enemy head on, both he and his horse would be an easy target. If he charged parallel to the enemy front, each successive foot archer would have a clear shot. Unlike the mounted archer who had to control his horse, plot its course and shoot, these stationary archers would only have to worry about gauging his position.
I think that 30 metres might be better as a minimum distance because a group of horsemen could be overwhelmed by a charge if they were that close and became entangled with one another in a rapid turn. There are historical precedents for this in the First and Third Crusades, where, by luck or planning, Western knights were able to close with horse archers before they could reorganise.
I don't think, despite the contemporary comments, that soldiers in groups shot at individuals that often. I think they would have shot at other groups and that doesn't need precision. This doesn't mean that there weren't great individual marksmen, but they probably didn't have the effect that chroniclers gave to them.
It is possible that the Ming comment was about moving horsemen shooting at other moving horsement and it might have been suggesting that, farther than 30 metres, a hit would be accidental.
Indeed, by 'thirty paces' I mean 'about 30 metres.'
My understanding of Ming cavalry tactics is that they avoided getting in front of ranked footsoldiers. Instead, they did their dirty work from the flanks.
I recently examined a Mongol bow of the Yuan dynasty with its original arrows. They would certainly have been good for 60 metres; but I don't know what accuracy would have been achieved.
S.
My understanding of Ming cavalry tactics is that they avoided getting in front of ranked footsoldiers. Instead, they did their dirty work from the flanks.
I recently examined a Mongol bow of the Yuan dynasty with its original arrows. They would certainly have been good for 60 metres; but I don't know what accuracy would have been achieved.
S.
Stephen,
Is that the bow that you illustrated last year on this web site?
I think accuracy depends more on the archer and the straightness of the arrow rather than the bow. Range and power come from the bow as well as the arrow's design and the archer's skill. And, as I pointed out before, I doubt that individually accurate shots were necessary when facing masses of enemy troops. Your point about the Ming cavalry preferring to attack from the flanks would be a good example of this. Shooting at the exposed sides of closely packed me would inevitably lead to hits in ne file or the next.
Mark Stretton's tests with heavy weight long bows is probably comparable to at least Manchu bows in terms of final energy of the arrow when it strikes the target. He also used the old English draw to the ear, not the current post Horace Ford chin draw.
Is that the bow that you illustrated last year on this web site?
I think accuracy depends more on the archer and the straightness of the arrow rather than the bow. Range and power come from the bow as well as the arrow's design and the archer's skill. And, as I pointed out before, I doubt that individually accurate shots were necessary when facing masses of enemy troops. Your point about the Ming cavalry preferring to attack from the flanks would be a good example of this. Shooting at the exposed sides of closely packed me would inevitably lead to hits in ne file or the next.
Mark Stretton's tests with heavy weight long bows is probably comparable to at least Manchu bows in terms of final energy of the arrow when it strikes the target. He also used the old English draw to the ear, not the current post Horace Ford chin draw.
Dear colleagues,
Thanks a lot for your kind replies. I think I would rather stick to the opinion of Mr. Stephen Selby as the mass shooting from the long distance is the best way to act against only the static masses of non-armoured infantry with bows when the shot from the short distance is the best way to quit with well armoured cavalryman by hitting him in his face etc.
The passage from the "Book of Marco Polo" says that Mongols used to preliminary shot from a long distance in static hirseback position and then some detachements came closer (up to 20-50 meters) and shot directly hitting enemies with heavy arrows.
But I have no real experience with bow & arrows so the opininons I have read here are very useful for me.
May I use them in my studies?
Best regards,
Alexey.
Thanks a lot for your kind replies. I think I would rather stick to the opinion of Mr. Stephen Selby as the mass shooting from the long distance is the best way to act against only the static masses of non-armoured infantry with bows when the shot from the short distance is the best way to quit with well armoured cavalryman by hitting him in his face etc.
The passage from the "Book of Marco Polo" says that Mongols used to preliminary shot from a long distance in static hirseback position and then some detachements came closer (up to 20-50 meters) and shot directly hitting enemies with heavy arrows.
But I have no real experience with bow & arrows so the opininons I have read here are very useful for me.
May I use them in my studies?
Best regards,
Alexey.
Use my comments freely; but please also pay attention to alternative views from Bede and others.
In Arab Archery ( or was it Saracen Archery), the author says that if you are being charged by a horseman, to aim your arrow at the forehead of the horse. If your aim is low, you will hit the horse in the chest. If your aim is high, you will strike the rider. And if your aim is true, you will strike the horse in the forehead. Done this way, your chance of tumbling the rider are good. The pair make a fair-sized target at range.
If one were to shoot a light arrow at a distance, there would probably be time for a second shot at close range, should that prove necessary.
The first one to strike has a slight advantage. -j-
If one were to shoot a light arrow at a distance, there would probably be time for a second shot at close range, should that prove necessary.
The first one to strike has a slight advantage. -j-
A retreating archer would present a wonderful, stable target for a forward shot.
The most difficult target to hit would be circling you - preferably clockwise, though many horseback archers can shoot both left and right-handed.
S
This is not a post which I have made!!! Jack..
The most difficult target to hit would be circling you - preferably clockwise, though many horseback archers can shoot both left and right-handed.
S
This is not a post which I have made!!! Jack..
Thanks a lot! Of course, I am to take into consideration the point of view of Bede! The situation is the same as in Russia - some people stand for the close range (20-50 meters) and some - for longer distances. All opinions use the same arguments :)Stephen Selby wrote:
Use my comments freely; but please also pay attention to alternative views from Bede and others.
But you and Bede are the practic archers so your opinions are very useful.
BTW, we stopped our contacts suddenly in November. What do you think about that Tibetan account of horseback archery I have sent to you? I think it is interesting to compare it to the picture of Tibetan archers on the ATARN gallery :)
And I wonder what is the exact name of the Ming manual (I think that bu there is 1,5 meters as a standard measure for distances) you have mentioned?
Best regards,
Alexey.