This pause can be utilized by the melee units. When the mass of arrows is fired, the enemy has to stop their operation such as firing or movement for a moment so to take a defensive position. A numerous set of arrows is much more difficult to avoid both because it allows less options and because it is more difficult to track numerous sources at once. Synchronized arrows allow to fire at times when the enemy does not expect and has no time to use the shield. Without continuous stream of arrows the enemy cannot properly assess the degree of danger of their position.Ĭontinuous stream makes the enemy to keep attention at the archers and keep their shields intact. The enemy could be allowed to approach at the dangerous distance. On the other hand, synchronous firing has the advantage that It is not impossible to avoid singular arrows. When there is a continuous fire, the enemy can adjust their distance, placement of shields and attention. The losing and dying general, Braddock, gave the "props" to a brave and capable "rookie" officer named George Washington, who had warned that synchonized fire wouldn't work in "America"-"and the rest is history." Without such factors, "fire at will" (aim, and use top speed), is probably better.ĮUROPEAN archers tended to fire "in sync." But at one notable 1754 battle in what later became the United States, a mixed force of British and "American" soldiers under Britain's General Braddock was defeated by French (with muskets) and Indians (with bow and arrow) "firing at will" from ambush. The advantage of "in sync" is the shock value, especially when followed by a bayonet charge. The latter allowed his troops to fire at will, while Wolfe had his troops fire "in sync" followed by a bayonet charge. The classic example from the American Revolution is "Lexington and Concord."Īt the battle of Quebec, on the other hand, Britain's General Wolfe defeated France's General Montcalm.
One theory of fire is "fire at will" (or what a computer programmer might call "free format.") That works best in a "broken" battle on broken ground. There are TWO theories of "fire," and which one is better depends on what the battle conditions are and what the general is trying to accomplish.Īdmittedly, the examples below are with muskets, not archery, but you'll get the idea. The individual's personal rate of fire was not a militarily significant feature. The chief reason that archers fired on command was that this was the way to achieve a military effect, by harming the morale of units of the opposing force. When twenty or forty men fall at once it causes people to think. When men are lost one by one it rarely causes the members of a unit to turn and consider if their position is untenable. To be effective at doing so, the morale of a unit must remain unbroken. Melee infantry operate by bringing a mass to bear on a point directly, they are only effective as a unit. Broadly, morale is the capacity of a unit to continue to engage in what it is doing despite adverse outcomes and mass is the capacity of a unit to bring effective force to bear at a point. Much of European warfare has been conditioned by these two abstract concepts. There are a number of good accounts of the development of warfare in Europe, but the two key things you need to realise are: