How Terrifying was a barrage of arrows? Even with Shield Walls?

Griffith

Banned
Yesterday I was playing Shogun:Total War. In one battle I should have theoritically won because I had a combine force of one unit of archers and several units of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru.

The number of troops my enemy had were pretty much the same as me.

However his army was compsed entirely of Samurai Archers.

When the battle began, I sent my spearman right away to assault the enemy army. Going by the game's units system, my force of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru should have lead me to victory as Samurai Archers are weak to melee units.........

The whole battle turned out differently. My Yari Samurai and Ashigaru units fled collapsed early in the battle and retreated from what should have been an easy victory theoritically.

GUESS WHAT? My Yari Samurai WAS actually VERY close to getting into contact with the Samurai Archers. As in, just a few feet away! Yet as the Samurai Archers continued to fire barrages, the whole Yari Samurai units collapsed apart and started fleeing the battlefield.

THEY WERE JUST a FEW FEET AWAY and had they proceeded with the charge they would have DESTROYED the Samurai Archers and it would have been a complete victory for me.

I should have won according to theory of gameplay mechanics........

So I am curios how terrifying would a barrage of Arrows be?STUPID question I know but the battle in Shogun:Total War got me curious about IRL battles.

I remember seeing battles in Rome:Total War in which Roman Legions were in the Testudo formtion and completely protected by the Shield Wall. They were incredibly closee to reaching some horse archers yet they collapsed as they were marching midway from the enemy and the unit ran away.

According to Gameplay Theory, the unit would have won this battle if they didn't collapse and abandon shield wall and they wouldn't have suffered casualties until they finally started swinging their swords at the horse archers.

So I am very curious about this. I am esp. curious about how terrifying arrow barrages would be even if you were in a tight shielf wall formation and was not in risk at all of getting hit by arrows because of the Shield Wall.
 
I mean, as long as you're in heavy armor you should be fine. The crusaders, even though they didn't have plate armor, managed to survived the hail of arrows from Turkish horse archers, literally becoming pincushions without dying.
 
Long-range archery against heavily armored troops is only capable of harassing them. Penetrating that armor at long range is almost impossible. At close range, it's very different. Any bow with appropriate arrow heads, especially crossbows, can penetrate mail and thin plate. Mongol horse archers fighting armored infantry rarely loosed their arrows from ranges longer than ten yards.

With the example of the crusaders, the crusaders were using crossbows to keep the unarmored Turkish horse archers back, so the Turks were engaging at long range with relatively weak bows.
 
Long-range archery against heavily armored troops is only capable of harassing them. Penetrating that armor at long range is almost impossible. At close range, it's very different. Any bow with appropriate arrow heads, especially crossbows, can penetrate mail and thin plate. Mongol horse archers fighting armored infantry rarely loosed their arrows from ranges longer than ten yards.

With the example of the crusaders, the crusaders were using crossbows to keep the unarmored Turkish horse archers back, so the Turks were engaging at long range with relatively weak bows.
In the Hundred Years War, long ranged archery was only any good for provoking the French dismounted Men-At-Arms into doing various stupid things-and forcing them to mostly dismount, since unarmoured horses are horribly vulnerable to arrows. Once at close range, all bets were off though.

With arrow heads, one problem is that different arrow heads are good against different types of armour, but people would often layer armour. For example, bodkins can pierce mail by bursting the links or slipping in between rings, but the tip will get fouled by a gambeson/aketon/padded jack. A broadhead, on the other hand, has sharp sides that can cut through entangling fibres, but is too broad to pierce mail. So wearing a gambeson over or under mail provides protection against both types of arrow.

A shield wall won't completely protect against arrows. At Carrhae, legionaries were injured in the hands by arrows that partially penetrated their shield and in the feet, since the Testudo formation didn't cover the lower body.
 
Terrifying. In fact, the only reason archery was really used at long range was for its debilitating effects on morale and the occasional lucky shot.

But imagine, you are a poorly armored foot soldier with a shield and spear. You are in a line with your comrades and you hear the enemy's war horn sound. The enemy army, a wave of people, some on horseback making the ground shake, comes charging forward toward your line, blots in the distance. You grip your spear tighter in a sweaty hand. You will hold your position, you will hold the wall. All of a sudden, your commander yells to raise your shield. You do as you are commanded, and your fellows frantically do the same. You hear whistling by your ear as you feel several arrows thunk into your shield, bruising your arm underneath. You hear several nearby you cry out in pain or fear, even if the actual wounds are only superficial. The enemy is almost on you and you are no longer as resolved.

In some ancient and medieval battles, the arrows were said to even blot out the sun. Of course, this wouldn't be very effective on elite troops, but most scare tactics weren't. And during the battle, they would have the effect of peppering and annoying the enemy and causing light wounds all around.

Archery was scary stuff.
 
Top