Cavalry "Shower Shooting"

[David Kuijt]

Shower shooting (volley fire on an arching trajectory, which means at distance, and with lots of arrows, so it can be kept up) is attested for certain types of cavalry armed with bows. The most obvious example is the Mamluks at Ayn Jalut, where the Mongol (actually Ilkhanid at the time, but certainly fighting the same as the Mongols did) cavalry did not use that technique, and the shower-shooting is sometimes credited for this being the first time that the Mongols were turned back by anyone (although that isn't true, but the Mamluk victory does mark the end of expansion of the Mongols, so it was a high-water-mark battle in some sense).

Can we get some help identifying other armies whose mounted bowmen (Elite Cavalry, usually, since they are trained to fight more group-y and less skirmish-y) are attested to have this training and ability?

I'm looking for specifics, with the best of all being specific battles. Saying "well, maybe the Persians did, I guess..." isn't so useful without support and specifics.

[David Kuijt]

From Wikipedia:

Another fairly popular tactical system was known as "shower shooting". The Sassanid Persians and the Mamluks were the chief proponents of the idea, although Muslim cavalry in India had also been known to use it in battle. It involved a line of fairly well-armoured cavalrymen (often on armoured horses) standing in a massed static line, or advancing in an ordered formation at the walk while loosing their arrows as quickly as possible. It was very effective against unsteady enemies who could easily be unnerved by the sight of a vast cloud of arrows raining down upon them; however, an enemy provided with good armour and discipline would often be able to hold out at least temporarily against the barrage. A case in point is Procopius's accounts of Belisarius's wars against the Sassanids[3] where he states how the Byzantine cavalry engaged in massed archery duels against their Persian counterparts. The Persians loosed their arrows with far greater frequency, but as their bows were much weaker, they did not do much damage compared to the stronger Roman bows.

That would lead to the inference that the Sassanians and Mamluks should have it; Muslim Indians perhaps, and Maurikian Byzantines unclear either way (rate of fire v. weaker bows doesn't necessarily mean shower shooting v. no shower shooting).

[Andreas Johansson]

Abbasid ghilman are supposed to have used shower shooting in the battle of Dazimon (aka the battle of Anzen) 838, but I'm unsure what the source for this is: Tabari has little detail and what he does have sounds more like close combat ("their [sc. the Abbasids'] cavalry returned and engaged us fiercely in battle until they pierced our ranks and mingled with us and we with them"). The Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World speaks of a "rain of arrows" FWIW.

[David Kuijt]

Abbasid ghilman are supposed to have used shower shooting in the battle of Dazimon (aka the battle of Anzen) 838, but I'm unsure what the source for this is: Tabari has little detail and what he does have sounds more like close combat ("their [sc. the Abbasids'] cavalry returned and engaged us fiercely in battle until they pierced our ranks and mingled with us and we with them"). The Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World speaks of a "rain of arrows" FWIW.

If true, that would provide a level of continuity, where the battle technique passed from the Sassanids to their successors, and eventually to the Mamlukes. And from the Arabs (of whichever stripes used it) to the Byzantines (if they used it) and to the more organized Turks (Ottomans, possibly not Seljuks). Nomads of whatever stripe are unlikely to use this method.

[Andreas Johansson]

Shower-shooting at Dazimon is used to justify the classification of Abbasid ghilman in the DBMM list notes: you could try throwing Duncan an e-mail and see if he recalls where it comes from.

[David Kuijt]

Shower-shooting at Dazimon is used to justify the classification of Abbasid ghilman in the DBMM list notes: you could try throwing Duncan an e-mail and see if he recalls where it comes from.

I'm not sure I've got Duncan's email any more -- last time I talked to him directly was at least a decade ago. Could you pm me (or email me) his email addy?

[David Kuijt]

With Duncan Head's help I've got reasonable estimates of the spread of the Shower Shooting technique, and where it was not used (although that almost exclusively by inference, I'm still happy enough with it).

Except no information at all on Asian armies, many of whom have Elite Cavalry. Mostly Steppe and China, some Korea and Japan. My gut is no, but if anyone has any data that might inform that decision, please share it.

[Bill Hupp]

So did you get what you need from Duncan Head? So no need to look more for this?

Also, will this be a battle card?

Bill

[David Kuijt]

So did you get what you need from Duncan Head? So no need to look more for this?

Duncan gave me some useful information that allowed me to proceed. So yes, I "got what I needed". But "no need to look more for this" doesn't follow, because I'm extrapolating based upon a very small number of data points. The only definite positives I have are the Sassanids, the Byzantines during the Reconquista, Turkish ghulams at Dazimon, Mamluks at Ain Jalut. The only definite negatives I have are Byzantines from the 9th to 11th century and Mongols at Ain Jalut.

Everything else is built on that framework. Extrapolating to "Turkish ghulams everywhere" and "Mongols nowhere" and "No Byzantines after 650 AD" is a set of reasonable choices that fits the data, but is pure extrapolation, and complicated when looking at issues like the army of Timur, who built his forces starting with Chagatai Mongol Khanate guys (no shower shooting) and absorbed a lot of forces in Persia that would have been built on a basis of elite Turkish ghulams (yes shower shooting).

If you find even a single datapoint that I can add to the framework, the whole structure becomes more sturdy and better. So if you find anything else, please share it with me.

Also, will this be a battle card?

It is already in one sense (wrote the rules yesterday), but that doesn't mean it will stick. It will only end up a battle card (in the final version) if it playtests well.

[Bill Hupp]

Makes sense. Thanks.

Still reading as background some of the materials I picked up for our T&R horse bow armies. Some chrome would be nice if it is right.

-Bill