The Strategic Use of Archers in Medieval Armies: Why They Were Not More Prolific

Medieval armies were often portrayed in Hollywood as full of undertrained peasants unprepared for battle. However, a closer look at the reality of these armies reveals a more sophisticated use of archers. Archers, while effective in certain contexts, were not always the deciding factor in medieval battles due to several key factors including the effectiveness of armor, the cost and training requirements of archers, and the necessity of engaging in close-quarters combat.

The Effectiveness of Armor and the Reality of Soldiers

Contrary to popular belief, armor was indeed effective in protecting soldiers from bowfire. During the Middle Ages, the average soldier would wear a gambeson, a thick layer of linen or wool padded garment that provided some resistance to arrows. Additionally, many soldiers wore mail or plate armor, which offered even greater protection. This made it difficult for arrows to consistently inflict decisive wounds on heavily armored individuals.

Furthermore, the portrayal of masses of peasants in medieval armies is an overgeneralization. Despite popular depictions, actual medieval armies were often composed of professional or semi-professional soldiers who were trained in various forms of combat, including swordsmanship and hand-to-hand combat. This professionalism meant that while archers could disrupt enemy formations and demoralize the opposition, the ultimate engagement and decision in battle often occurred at close quarters.

Armor and the Wearing Conditions of Archers

Arrows may have been less effective against heavily armored soldiers, but armor also protected archers from counterattacks by similarly armored opponents. Consequently, archers who wanted to be mobile and effective in battle often had to wear at least light armor to protect themselves from sword cuts and other missile weapons. This made them less effective archers, as they needed to move faster and attack swiftly in order to maintain their effectiveness. In reality, only specialized archers, such as those in the service of trained armies like the English and Mongols, were likely to be fully protected and still remain highly effective.

It is important to note that some armies did make significant use of archers. For example, the English longbowmen were known for their effectiveness during the Hundred Years' War, but even in these cases, battles were ultimately decided by close-quarters combat. The English victory over the French at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) often cited as the defining moment of longbow success, was still a battle that was won by the English at close quarters, despite the presence of many archers.

The Costs and Training of Archers

The cost and requirement of training to use archery effectively also contributed to their limited presence in many medieval armies. Archery was a specialized skill that required significant time and resources to master. Unlike pikemen or swordsmen, whose skills could be acquired more quickly, archers needed extensive training to become proficient. This specialized training was often supported by a specific social structure and infrastructure that not all armies had.

Bowmen were often more expensive to maintain than regular foot soldiers or knights, as they required more specialized equipment and training. Similarly, crossbowmen, while not as effective as longbowmen in terms of range and rate of fire, were easier and cheaper to train. This made them a more readily available and cost-effective option for many armies facing budget constraints or a lack of specialized training facilities.

Engagement in Close Quarters

Historical records and battlefield tactics show that while archers played a crucial role in medieval warfare by disrupting enemy formations and causing psychological impact, the ultimate engagement in battles often occurred at close quarters. Heavy infantry and cavalry, equipped with various forms of armor and weapons, were essential for pushing back and defeating armored opponents. The success of armies often depended on a combination of tactics, including the use of archers to set up the initial conditions for a decisive close-quarters engagement.

Thus, while archers were indeed useful and sometimes won battles by their own efforts, they were rarely the sole deciding factor. The use of archers was finely balanced by the need to maintain close-quarters combat skills, the effectiveness of armor, and the overall cost and training requirements of having large numbers of archers in an army. These factors collectively shaped the strategic use of archers in medieval armies.