Skirmishers (archers) in ancient & middle ages warfare question

[Palatinus Germanicus]

So I've been watching a lot of videos depicting (using counters, not sprites) battles throughout history. One thing I can't figure out, is how the 'skirmishers' worked. Time & time again, commanders would send out their archers -JUST their archers- out into midfield, away from the rest of the formation, and start to volley arrows against the enemy formations.

This was usually a prelude to the main engagement. -Usually the opening move, in many cases (either that, or light cavalry skirmishes). What I can't understand, is how it makes any sense to send your archers out into 'no man's land', where I'd imagine they'd be totally vulnerable. If my enemy did that to me, I'd simply send out my cavalry to slaughter them... with the specific instructions to not allow themselves to become involved in a greater engagement, if the enemy begins to advance his main forces.

I.e., make a couple of quick slashing passes... take most of them out, and get back before they can do anything about it. Granted, the enemy might send his own cavalry out to meet yours... is that what was expected? Were archers essentially just being used as bait? "I really just want to crush your cavalry... and take them out of the equation. Here... look at this bait, out in the middle of the field. You want to take that bait, don't you? Please?"

Otherwise, I can't understand it. I always thought of archers as the equivalent of modern artillery. -Always to be well-protected (artillery is statistically THE safest combat role, in modern warfare). Seems to me, like you'd want to advance your main melee forces, with the archers directly behind them... always providing indirect support -- firing once in range & melee combat gets underway.

So, explain why they did this, in history.

 

[Kovax]

The positioning of skirmishers was likely dictated by the presence or absence of cavalry on that part of the field. Being lightly armed and armored, they could generally outrun any foot troops that tried to attack them. If there were no horsemen nearby, the archers, slingers, javelin throwers, or other light missile troops could get close enough to the opposing line to bombard them. That is, of course, unless the opposing side also sent out its own skirmishers to protect its line from yours, in which case the skirmishers pelted each other with missiles at a distance, since they couldn't get close enough to hit the main formations without becoming easy targets for the opposing skirmishers.

If cavalry was present, then the skirmishers needed to operate a lot closer to their own battle lines, and fall back to (or through) the lines if the cavalry charged.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Skirmishers & archers were never "modern artillery" in antiquity. These aren't armor-piercing longbowmen. They were relatively weak archers, javelin throwers and slingers. Herodotus & other writers complain that archers can't shoot from behind the ranks - they can't see anything, and are likely to take out some of your own men's heads. So unless you have elevated ground behind you, there's no point in positioning them behind.

I, as an opponent, would be happy to see you send your cavalry (assuming you have cavalry - which not everyone did) come into no man's land to chase after them. The archers can run back quickly into the infantry ranks the moment they see your cav move. And if your cavalry insists, it will be drawn right in front of an armored infantry wall that can quickly close its wings on your cav and prevent their escape. At any rate, chasing skirmishers in no-man's-land is a great way to pointlessly exhaust your horses before battle.

The ideal positioning of skirmishers is on the flanks, if there is elevated ground there, where they can target enemy infantry on their relatively unarmored sides. It is hard for heavily armored men (and if very steep, even horses) to go uphill chasing after them, and even trying to do so breaks formation and messes up battle plans. Skirmishers are also known for dehorsing the flanks. A good hit of a stone on a horse's face will send it reeling and tossing its rider.

If you don't have elevated ground on the flanks, yeah, then preliminary skirmishing in no man's land is the best you can do with them. Not particularly effective if the enemy is armored. But better than nothing.

Of course not ineffective. A slingshot in the hands of an expert is very effective against an armored man. I am not sure Goliath really had the advantage on David.

 

[The-Doc]

The purpose of archers in the field, from peltasts to crossbows to arquebusiers has been to disrupt formations of footman prior to a general melee. Thus they are positioned ahead or on the flanks of formations of foot.

 

[Kovax]

I agree with Abdul Goatherd's assessment of using cavalry against skirmishers. It would be a disaster to have your cavalry pinned between the enemy's phalanx and your own.

Skirmish troops weren't likely to inflict a lot of casualties, but enough to force rotations between men on the front rank and those behind. Probably more importantly, the inability to do anything about the steady rain of painful objects was a drain on morale, and the occasional serious injury was enough to dishearten those around it...."who's next?". The temptation was to break formation and charge the skirmishers, which would have not only put the charger at extreme risk, but endangered the entire formation. Getting your skirmishers on the flanks of the opposing formation would present opportunities to inflict real harm, as the enemy would then have to choose between shielding themselves from the skirmishers in front, or those on the side.

Note that a mix of bows and javelins or slings was often done, as their firing trajectories are different, so one would deliver high arcing shots while the other fired more directly at the legs. Either you hold the shield up, or down: there is no "right answer", other than to keep the enemy skirmishers at bay with your own.

 

[Pyoro]

The archers can run back quickly into the infantry ranks the moment they see your cav move.

How much did this type of thing happen in pre-planned maneuvers? Particularly in fantasy novels writers are fond of sending the archers forward, have them shoot at things, and then retreat in a well-ordered fashion in/behind the infantry (or move the infantry forward, if they are attacking).

Just sounds like something that'd be fairly tough to pull off in the heat of battle for any semi-large formation (kinda opening up to let people through and then close ranks again), in reality.

 

[chepaeff]

Most likely all those issues did arose due to very poor command & control abilities so to say. Once it started it was prolly impossible to give out meaningful orders or to expect various rabble to follow them. "Go there and shoot as much as you can then flee to rear" sounds like the best that can be expected.

 

[Kovax]

Shields were generally large enough to maintain some spacing between the individuals on the line and still overlap, so opening a few narrow gaps wasn't impossible. As long as the skirmishers were several tens of yards ahead of pursuit, there's no problem.

If the pursuit is hot on their heels, then the timing gets a bit hairy, although at any pace fast enough to threaten the lightly armed and armored skirmishers, the pursuit would also be too disorganized to present a viable battle line by the time they made contact. Basically, the skirmishers might get caught and massacred if things fell apart, but the strung out pursuers would in turn get crushed by the battle line. I don't see it as a serious problem for the army as a whole in MOST situations, not to say that things never went horribly wrong. The skirmishers certainly wouldn't like it.

 

[Avernite]

How much did this type of thing happen in pre-planned maneuvers? Particularly in fantasy novels writers are fond of sending the archers forward, have them shoot at things, and then retreat in a well-ordered fashion in/behind the infantry (or move the infantry forward, if they are attacking).

Just sounds like something that'd be fairly tough to pull off in the heat of battle for any semi-large formation (kinda opening up to let people through and then close ranks again), in reality.

I think that's why bigger armies tended to deploy more unitlike rather than as one solid line to start with. "Retreat through gap between units" is easier, and the units then close up after the skirmishers (also, the individual units are much more maneuvrable than a solid line of everyone).

 

[Mder1]

So you're facing an enemy army that is sending skirmishers against you, now as an general you can either:

Let your line infantry advance and try to catch them. Which is a bad idea, as the skirmishers want to hit them and can easily run away from them which will also exhaust your troops before the actual clash.

You can send your 'quality' cavalry after them. That would probably do the job but exhaust your quite possibly most expensive weapon and has the chance that they get engaged as well or become to unorderly during chasing the skirmishers that they will be useless for the remainder of the battle. Something you really don't want to happen. It's a mess you don't want to get into. Works the same for chariots, only that you have even more careful when to deploy them.

So you can send your light cavalry after them. They should be able to do job just fine as well and they are not quite as expensive as the one above and losing them is less of an big deal. Depending on region they might be part of the skirmishing force themselves.

But the safest solution was just to send your own skirmishers to shield your infantry from theirs.

 

[Henry IX]

Skirmishers have a number of useful roles on the battlefield, particularly given that they are generally the worst equipped and most expendable soldiers in the army (although there are many exceptions to this):

1. Hide movements and deployments - it is surprisingly hard to see what is going on through a skirmish line. This allows friendly forces to manoeuvre unobserved. Alexander the Great often used skirmishers in this function

2. Observe the enemy - the reverse of the above. Lightly equipped soldiers are the ideal scouts.

3. Goad the enemy - if the enemies main battle line can be disrupted by getting some units to charge out to get rid of the skirmishers then they will be vulnerable to counter attack, out of formation and out of breath. This is the key reason for not doing a massed cavalry charge against the skirmish force. In addition, command and control can be problematic and cavalry units with the cohesion and skill to rally and reform quickly were highly valued (Alexander's companions and Hannibal's Numidians were notable for this ability). Even during the Napoleonic wars cavalry would often over-charge and render themselves ineffective (Lord Uxbridge's charge at Waterloo is a classic example). If they can be lured into a charge too early then that is generally good.

4. Wear down the enemy. Holding a shield up for long periods of time is very tiring. Even if your skirmishers do very little actual damage simply wearing out the enemy out physically can degrade their performance.

5. Actually kill stuff. More of a bonus really, skirmishers rarely inflicted sufficient damage to degrade enemy units on their own unless they could get to the flanks or rear. Light cavalry is notable for its ability to get into these sorts of positions and was highly valued for this ability.

In addition, the only units it is safe to fire at is those that are not engaged (or into the rear of engaged forces). Firing into a melee is a great way to panic your own forces as soldiers start going down to attacks from their rear (there would be inevitable friendly fire incidents). Hence you need to get your archers in front of your forces to maximise the damage they do before they are rendered ineffective by the beginning of the melee.

Even if you consider archers to be like artillery it is worth noting that prior to the development of direct fire techniques at the beginning of the 20th century artillery was usually deployed in front of the main battle line or interspersed with the line.

 

[Zinegata]

So I've been watching a lot of videos depicting (using counters, not sprites) battles throughout history. One thing I can't figure out, is how the 'skirmishers' worked. Time & time again, commanders would send out their archers -JUST their archers- out into midfield, away from the rest of the formation, and start to volley arrows against the enemy formations.

This was usually a prelude to the main engagement. -Usually the opening move, in many cases (either that, or light cavalry skirmishes). What I can't understand, is how it makes any sense to send your archers out into 'no man's land', where I'd imagine they'd be totally vulnerable. If my enemy did that to me, I'd simply send out my cavalry to slaughter them... with the specific instructions to not allow themselves to become involved in a greater engagement, if the enemy begins to advance his main forces.

I.e., make a couple of quick slashing passes... take most of them out, and get back before they can do anything about it. Granted, the enemy might send his own cavalry out to meet yours... is that what was expected? Were archers essentially just being used as bait? "I really just want to crush your cavalry... and take them out of the equation. Here... look at this bait, out in the middle of the field. You want to take that bait, don't you? Please?"

Otherwise, I can't understand it. I always thought of archers as the equivalent of modern artillery. -Always to be well-protected (artillery is statistically THE safest combat role, in modern warfare). Seems to me, like you'd want to advance your main melee forces, with the archers directly behind them... always providing indirect support -- firing once in range & melee combat gets underway.

So, explain why they did this, in history.

Because very many wargames depict skirmishers ahistorically to begin with.

Skirmishers were not necessarily just light and expendable troops. Indeed, during the Napoleonic era skirmishers were explicitly considered to be elite troops by the French.

And that's because the skirmisher's main task was not simply harassing the enemy or pelting them with missile fire. Instead it was reconnaissance - particularly confirming where the enemy's main force is located. Wargames - both computer and tabletop - are terrible at simulating this because they generally do not simulate fog of war or the confusion of battle. The missile fire tended to either be opportunistic - trying to kill exposed troops or hoping to slay an officer in later eras - meant to delay the enemy's advance or screen their own main force from being spotted.

Moreover sending cavalry to attack skirmishers doesn't necessarily work. Elite skirmishers tend to know how to use rough terrain unreachable by cavalry, and a horseman is actually a larger target for a ranged weapon. Videos like Baz Battles are really awful at depicting this reality - instead pretending there's a uniform parade line of skirmishers - when in reality they would tend to cluster around terrain features that would have protected them from cavalry attack. If not, they would often setup obstacles or fortifications. This was for instance the main reason why the French cavalry charge at Agincourt failed - even though the cavalry actually reached the longbow formations, they were stopped cold by sharpened stakes that the archers brought with them and planted on the ground as anti-horse obstacles.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Moreover sending cavalry to attack skirmishers doesn't necessarily work.

While true what you say Dragoons been an answer to that problem cavalry had for a while.

 

[Henry IX]

This was for instance the main reason why the French cavalry charge at Agincourt failed - even though the cavalry actually reached the longbow formations, they were stopped cold by sharpened stakes that the archers brought with them and planted on the ground as anti-horse obstacles.

The French cavalry was stopped by stakes at Crecy. The French attacked on foot at Agincourt, and the archers had not planted stakes, due to the English advancing to longbow range of the French camp. Although your basic point remains true.

 

[Zinegata]

The French cavalry was stopped by stakes at Crecy. The French attacked on foot at Agincourt, and the archers had not planted stakes, due to the English advancing to longbow range of the French camp. Although your basic point remains true.

The main van of the French army at Agincourt was on foot but all accounts agree there was an initial cavalry charge that was stopped cold; making it the clear example of how archers carried their own obstacles with them to stop enemy cavalry.

Wasn't sure if the stakes were mentioned explicitly in the Crecy battles but it would make sense they were also already used back then.

 

[Easy-Kill]

The main van of the French army at Agincourt was on foot but all accounts agree there was an initial cavalry charge that was stopped cold; making it the clear example of how archers carried their own obstacles with them to stop enemy cavalry.

Wasn't sure if the stakes were mentioned explicitly in the Crecy battles but it would make sense they were also already used back then.

Archers at Agincourt were not skirmishers, but they were the principal part of the army army itsefl.

 

[Zinegata]

Archers at Agincourt were not skirmishers, but they were the principal part of the army army itsefl.

And yet based on the OP's preconceptions about how ancient battles worked they should have been rolled up by cavalry. They were not, and this was due to missile troops in real life knowing how to use obstacles. Agincourt is not the best example if you want to see "skirmishers" in action, but it's one of the few certain examples of missile troops in action against cavalry.

 

[Easy-Kill]

And yet based on the OP's preconceptions about how ancient battles worked they should have been rolled up by cavalry. They were not, and this was due to missile troops in real life knowing how to use obstacles. Agincourt is not the best example if you want to see "skirmishers" in action, but it's one of the few certain examples of missile troops in action against cavalry.

I appreciate that I am arguing pedantics, but again the archers at Agincourt were in a fixed, prepared position. Skirmishers are just that, they push forward ahead of the prepared position in order to harass and break up an enemy's plan (difficult to change plans with no communications).

Perhaps a better example of yourself was the English New Model Army.we can see in the English Civil War that there was a movement away from armoured pikemen and troops operating in fixed formation, to groups of men acting more independently, using hedgerows and local features to break up the effectiveness of the heavy cavalry. If you are interested in this, George Moncks book on tactics of the time is a great resource!

 

[Zinegata]

I appreciate that I am arguing pedantics, but again the archers at Agincourt were in a fixed, prepared position. Skirmishers are just that, they push forward ahead of the prepared position in order to harass and break up an enemy's plan (difficult to change plans with no communications).

The English archers at Agincourt explicitly advanced from their original fixed position, and were able to quickly setup their stakes and loose some arrow volleys to provoke the French before they were able to charge.

I would really suggest that people spend more time carefully reading and understanding the battles they often cite. This is how very wrong preconceptions often emerge. Agincourt was not a battle where the French were overconfident and attacked the English. The English were actually in a fixed defensive position and the French were initially content to just hold them there. The desperate nature of the English supply situation was what forced them to advance and provoke the French Army, who unfortunately obligingly charged right into a trap despite declining to do so earlier. Indeed, very good evidence has emerged that shows that the French might not have outnumbered the English by a wide margin at all; but because of the preconceptions it's basically impossible to correct the record as too many "academic experts" have basically staked their careers to repeating the traditional version of the battle.

These same mistaken preconceptions apply for skirmishers. We know for a fact that Napoleonic skimishers didn't simply advance in the open where they can be ridden down by cavalry. Indeed they often setup strongpoints that can be used as fall-back positions. The same applied to modern scouts. What we don't have is documentation of this being done in the ancient / medieval era - but documentation from that period as a whole is spotty.

That's why Agincourt - one of the few well-documented battles - is important in demonstrating how archers actually worked and how they could quickly move and setup new fortifications/obstacles. Disciplined and well-trained archers - a distinction that would apply to most skirmishers - would in fact use terrain and obstacles to nullify the strength of a cavalry charge. That so many people visualize skirmishers as vulnerable troops in the open is the fault of computer game battle simulations and more traditional wargames failing to account for the reality that scouts were probably smarter and more experienced at staying alive on the battlefield than the would-be armchair generals trying to simulate their employment.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I would really suggest that people spend more time carefully reading and understanding the battles they often cite. This is how very wrong preconceptions often emerge. Agincourt was not a battle where the French were overconfident and attacked the English.

Dude, I wrote two sentences and you have launched into an insulting tirade as to how nobody is as clever as you. I never suggested anything other than what I wrote. Archers (ororather longbowmen) were the main English force at Agincourt and they fought the battle from a fixed prepared position. That the formations moved position is just an accepted part of the battle!

I think you need an attitude adjustment.