Is daily archery practice necessary for an archer at war?

Farming is back-breaking, brutal labor: except when it isn't. The natural rhythm of farming has periods of hard labor, and periods with relative freedom of time. Now, that depends on what crop, obviously. But it IS plausible.

English longbow men were yeoman farmers too. It is quite possible that regular practice was part of of the social life of villages.

However, it is important to differentiate between part-time soldiers and professionals. In the Tang Dynasty, very large rebel armies were defeated by relatively small numbers of Uighur heavy cavalry and professional Chinese government troops.

It is also worthwhile thinking about this fact. Strong men with archery experience can achieve considerable improvement in their shooting if they practise intensively and have professional trainers. This was done in the West in the Late Roman army. The early Byzantines selected any of their recruits that had potential at shooting and trained them to be full-time archers.

Sinsigel,

The Korean military did draw from the peasant class, as you mentioned (not necessarily just farmers). There were different systems being used, with the "paired provisioner" system one of the most well-known; in it, peasants would take turns; one would serve in the military, while another would work to support that one. The baekjeong (outcast class: butchers, tanners, wickerworkers, entertainers, etc.) were not allowed to serve, so the other classes of peasants were more put upon.

Even if such a peasant had time to practice archery, I doubt very seriously he did. First, I can find no evidence of there being public archery ranges for commoners before the late 19th century; although the yangban (the "two orders"--kind of Korean nobility) practiced, it was just something the peasants had neither the time nor finances for (and would not be allowed to practice with yangban). Next, for most peasants, the military was not something they desired to be in; when they were not serving, you can be quite certain they weren't practicing. Also, as the bow was a military weapon, it would have been restricted; active military, yangban, and hunters would have been exempt. One other thing is, archery was expensive. Bows used by common foot archers were primarily made of wood and/or bamboo, not horn composite (horn bows were expensive then, just as they are now); from what I know, the average archer was most likely his own bowyer.

Those are just a few thoughts that come to mind.


T

Machiavelli's 'Art of War' is worth reading on this and similar topics, although it doesn't discuss archery directly. There are English versions on the Internet.

Peasants were considered the best soldiers because of their hardiness. Chinese sources also said that the best recruits were peasants fighting next to the graves of their ancestors (which they would fight hard to protect from invaders.)

In the Tang period, however, most archers fought on horseback. Horseback troops had to provide their own warhorses, and most peasants couldn't afford them. (Few native working horses are suitable for battle.)

Many of the Tang were of non-Chinese stock, and there were many Turkic mercenaries and allies in the ranks. These people were avid hunters. Hunting was a principle form of practice.

Keeping the horses in practice for warfare was always a greater challenge than keeping shooting skills honed.

Thank you all for suggesting ideas and facts.

The replies give me new thoughts.

Machiavelli's 'Art of War' is worth reading on this and similar topics, although it doesn't discuss archery directly. There are English versions on the Internet.

There is a serious problem with that particular book, however. Machiavelli was no soldier and his theories need to be taken with a big grain of salt. Lacking any critical distance to his classical sources, Machiavelli's attempt to create a militia army patterned after the Roman legions failed miserably on the battlefield. :?

It's worth noting that the peasantry by and large played a very limited military role in medieval Europe. Free landowners or yeomen were a different story but the average peasant had neither time nor resources or motivation to participate in warfare successfully. Most medieval armies were composed either of fully or semi-professional soldiers who were far better trained, equipped and experienced and ultimately offered more bang for the buck, so to speak.

Then, would such a system, in which 2~3 months of military training(including archery) and much longer period of farming(with sporadic practice of archery as a sport in some instances) rotates, unsuitable for raising archers with adequate skill for war?

Actually, I was wondering whether several months of concentrated training - whether at the army or during winter when men were free from labour of farming - could compensate the gap of several months that were busily spent for agriculture and gave no time for shooting.

Would such a method still usable for raising trained archers for war?
(Although daily and steady practice would be the best way.)

That's a major issue. It probably has a lot to do with the particular time frame and region you have in mind. As far as China is concerned I really know nothing but if you look at the military organization of medieval Europe the peasantry, despite sporadic practice and possible (illegal) use of the bow as a hunting weapon, was never trained well enough to make an effective archery corps.

If you look at medieval Europe at large it becomes apparent that the bow was generally not used in any great numbers, especially not by peasant armies. England was an exception inasmuch as the English were able to recruit substantial numbers of skilled archers from the late 13th to the late 15th c. at least. However, that was closely related to the fact that there already was a strong archery tradition in Wales. There was also a relatively strong class of yeomen who were considerably better off than serfs and could afford the time and expenses for serious archery practice plus other essential equipment such as swords and armor. The French, Burgundians and to some extent the Low Countries too tried to copy the English system but it was basically a failure because their societies could not support that kind of training and recruitment on a similar scale.

You need to consider that any peasant family that is tied to the land and has no other significant source of income is not in a position where males can spend a lot of time for archery practice, let alone any kind of military drill. The latter would also need to be properly supervised and paid for by the authorities. In a society where standing armies do not exist that is not likely to happen. I don't think it was just a matter of archery practice either. Mastering a heavy warbow in the 100lb+ range is a challenge in itself but it's still not sufficient to make a good soldier. In order to be effective on the battlefield archers need to know how to fight in a formation and further training is necessary to integrate them into combined arms tactics. In medieval Europe it was generally only comparatively small armies of full-time professional soldiers who could do that on a consistent basis. Town militias much preferred the crossbow over the bow as a more viable weapon for semi-skilled troops. But the peasantry had for the most part very little impact on warfare.

If you draw a parallel to steppe nomads it becomes more obvious why they were able to use the bow en masse with much better results than a typical rural farming population. It was easier to select good archers from people who spent a lot of time on horseback, hunting and shooting bows as part of their way of life.

I was sorry to see that Sinsigel deleted most of his reply to me. He was correct in that the records of the Choson dynasty do specifically mention bows and arrows being unrestricted. That they might had been restricted was more of an assumption on my part, as many weapons have been (and continue to be) restricted. Interestingly, some of the same restrictions are in place to this day in Korea:

1. Bows/arrows are unrestricted

2. Firearms are restricted

3. Crossbows are restricted

4. Slingshots are restricted

However, some weapons that were unrestricted in the Choson dynasty (according to the records) are now restricted, including swords and other edged weapons.

We run into a modern problem in that the customs officials in Korea don't know their own laws and try restricting the importation of bows and arrows. For our upcoming festival this May, we are educating that department, so that incoming visitors can pass unimpeded. There should be no problems.

Still, back to the original idea, although commoners could own bows and arrows, there is no evidence I found that they did. Horn bows were expensive then, as they are today, so if they did have something they were probably self-made bamboo and wood bows. As archery clubs were elite organizations, commoners would not have been welcome. I imagine, however, kids back then were like kids today and probably strung simple wood and bamboo bows, and pretended to be great warriors.


T