IMHO that's the key point against the "no volley" idea. Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own. You act in formation and repeat what you've been drilled.
A company of archers is probably the same. They'd be working in unison following the direction of their captain. Not for shock value. But to manage fatigue, arrow supply, and ensure that they're firing with a full draw.
You can act together in formation without being in total lockstep for every motion. Did all the infantrymen swing their swords at the same time? Of course not. It doesn't make any sense for one archer to "wait" for their neighbor before firing. And as the article points out, firing in unison would increase fatigue, not reduce it.
I wouldn't be surprised if it also makes it easier for the enemy to respond. If arrows are only coming in concentrated volleys, then it might be easier for the enemy to make a coordinated advance where they just periodically crouch behind their shields as a volley comes, and then make relatively unhindered advances during the lull.
A diffuse but more-or-less constant stream of arrows arriving at random is presumably more distracting and harder to deal with, and therefore a greater hindrance to enemy infantry.
I was surprised not to see this reason mentioned in the article. It was the first reason that came to mind, especially with popular depictions of the Roman legion's turtle formation.
It does make sense. You don't want archers to burn energy & ammo by firing too rapidly or before the enemy is in range.
I agree that sitting there for minutes holding the bow taut is dumb. But something like a Attention, Nock, Ready, Draw, Loose cycle isn't that. Maybe you hold it a half second and it's slightly more fatiguing but I don't really see it.
If it is you just combine draw and loose. It will make the spread between arrows slightly larger but it's still a volley.
> Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own. You act in formation and repeat what you've been drilled.
No, drilling was a response to the use of gunpowder weapons.
> Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own.
There's a passage from Julius Caesar where he describes how, set on from behind, the rear line of his army turned around so that they could fight in that direction instead of just getting slaughtered. It is noted mostly for the total lack of any suggestion that Caesar bears any responsibility for the brilliant maneuver.
But before you get to that point, you should observe that this was in fact a brilliant and spontaneous battlefield maneuver, not something that anyone had ever been trained to do.
Roman armies trained and drilled extensively. And Roman armies had lower and mid level commanders, that could make decisions and direct troops within certain limitations. Everything wasn’t direct movement orders from Caesar to every individual soldier. A centurion could have made that call, not something spontaneous at the individual level. I'm not sure what battle you are talking about, although I would guess maybe the siege of Alesia, but without knowing, I can't comment on the specifics.
> To take another example, Caesar’s army at Bibracte (58BC) famously manages the feat of winning when attacked in both the front and the rear by about-facing its third line and attacking in both directions at once. Notably Caesar does not say that he did this, merely that the Romans did, which is a strong indication that turning the rear ranks of the army to face backwards was a decision made by more junior officers (probably centurions).
That said, of course I disagree with GP's claim that classical and medieval armies didn't drill. They certainly did drill. Bret has a whole blog post on the topic. [1] Quote from that post:
> Josephus [...] offers the most famous endorsement of Roman drills: “Nor would one be mistaken to say that their drills are bloodless battles, and their battles bloody drills” (BJ 3.5.1).
The quote from Josephus, extended:
> [The Romans] have never any truce from warlike exercises; nor do they stay till times of war admonish them to use them; for their military exercises differ not at all from the real use of their arms, but every soldier is every day exercised, and that with great diligence, as if it were in time of war, which is the reason why they bear the fatigue of battles so easily; for neither can any disorder remove them from their usual regularity, nor can fear affright them out of it, nor can labour tire them: which firmness of conduct makes them always to overcome those that have not the same firmness; nor would he be mistaken that should call those their exercises unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises.
That reminds me that Plutarch's Life of Eumenes §11 has a fun story about how Eumenes kept his men (and horses) in shape despite a close siege; it's hardly evidence for regular exercises but it's an amusing example of an irregular exercise! [3]
> But note how, while obedience to discipline and synchronized discipline are often conflated, they’re not the same: a lot of early modern pike-and-shot armies had tremendous synchronized discipline, but were mutiny-prone and it was often difficult to get them to do things like haul their own supplies or prepare their own food.
> Up until the modern age no soldier did anything on their own. You act in formation and repeat what you've been drilled.
Citation desperately needed.
SOME armies drilled their soldiers, sure. Romans and Greeks spring to mind.
All? Ridiculous. The US revolutionary army was notoriously under-trained, for instance, and relied heavily on guerilla tactics - which are anti-formation, rely on inventive individual actions instead of mass obedience to minute action directives, and have been popular since Og picked up the first rock to throw, until today.
A company of archers is probably the same. They'd be working in unison following the direction of their captain. Not for shock value. But to manage fatigue, arrow supply, and ensure that they're firing with a full draw.