Suidas tells us that the Arabian arrows were as long as a man ; and that their bows could not be bent by the hands alone, without the assistance of the feet. Ash was generally preferred by the English, as being sufficient ly light, and also much stronger than the poplar or aspen wood, which was also frinch in use. The ancients (lid not universally feather their arrows. In this operation, the English sometimes employed the feathers of the peacock, but those of a goose or gander were found to be stiffer, smoother, lighter, and more durable. Two of them were white, but the cock feather, (as it was called,) which must always be placed upward, was black or gray, to enable the archer to perceive, instantaneous ly, in what direction to apply his arrow to the string. The heads of arrows have been made of various sub stances, sometimes of hard stone, as among the Ethio pians, sometimes of bone, as among the Germans, often of brass, as among the Greeks and Scythians, but much more generally of iron. The forms have been as various as the materials. Sometimes they were more sharpened to a point, without being hooked either backward or for ward. Sometimes they had two, and sometimes seve ral hooks. When the points stretched forward like a fork, the head was called yAgxic, (sometimes -revyArdxrc, TeregyArdxsc, according to the number,) when the barbs looked backwards, the head was said to be iyxivoc, in English called swallow-tail, or broad arrow head. These last must have been more deadly than the others, as they entered more easily, and could not be: extractedwithout great pain and danger. The English arrows were pointed with light steel heads, having small barbs, and made very deep wounds, and some times they were loaded with combustibles, in a state of inflammation, to set houses on fire.
The bow-strings were anciently made of the entrails of animals, according to Eustathius, or of thongs cut out of a bullock's hide, or sometimes of horse's hair. In later times they were made of silk, or of flax, or hemp ; and the latter seems to have been most common ly used by the English archers. Great attention is re quired to be paid to the length of the strings, for, when they were either too long or too short, they were apt to break, and thus the bow was in danger of snapping.
Besides these necessary instruments, the English ar chers wore a shooting glove, to save the fingers from being excoriated, and a bracer of leather on the left arm, to defend it from the sharp stroke of the string, and also to give the string a smoother and readier pas sage than it could have had on the sleeve. They wore light armour, particularly brigandines, which were small coats of plate, and skull-caps, or helmets. They carried also, every man, at his back, a leaden maul, five feet long, to knock down his enemies, when they came upon him suddenly ; and in his girdle he had a hook and dagger for the same purpose. Every man had in his quiver a sheaf of arrows, (24 in number,) some of which were generally lighter than the others, to gall the ene my at a distance.
With regard to the mode of drawing the bow, it is understood that the ancient Greeks placed the weapon directly before them, and returned their hand on their right breast. Thus Homer says, NEtry µev t.4:44./ 7rE AXCEY and, on this account, the Amazons are described as having the right mamma cut off, or removed by the ac tual cautery, (aduritur dextra papilla, ut arcus facilius intendant, et tela vibrent. Q. Curt. 6. 5.) But it is a great mistake to say that the ancients never practised any other than this awkward and inconvenient method of drawing. Procopius expressly mentions drawing to the ear, as enabling men to shoot to a much greater dis tance, and with much greater force, than they can by drawing low to the breast. The English archers always drew the arrow to the ear, not very hastily, but steadily and uniformly, holding a very short time, and then loosing softly and quickly.
The two great excellencies of an archer are shooting straight, and shooting to a great distance. To hit a mark placed always at the same distance, or at a distance which is exactly ascertained, is not a very difficult attainment ; but to take a just aim so as to strike objects whose dis tance is perpetually varying, requires a degree of dexte rity which can be acquired only by long and careful practice. The distance of the butts at which the Eng lish archers practised, after they were arrived at their full growth, was not permitted to be less than 220 yards. instances are recorded of persons who shot much fur ther than this, but at such immoderate distances as are talked of, the force of the arrow must have been very inconsiderable.
With regard to the order of battle, when archers were employed, it varied greatly in different nations and ages. The Romans placed them in the front at the commencement of every action ; others stationed them in the centre of the lines. And this appears to have been at one time the approved method of warfare among the English. Thus Richard the Third ordered his battle : That archery was very destructive in war, and that it often decided the fate of battles, cannot excite any surprise, when we recollect that, before the invention of gunpowder, the archers could with perfect safety to themselves, annoy the enemy at a considerable distance, and not only throw the ranks into confusion, but greatly reduce the numbers even of the heavy armed troops. Such archers as the Parthians, who fought on horse back, must have been irresistible. So long as their qui vers were not exhausted, they could not be overpowered ; squadrons of horse could not approach them, for their aim was so sure, that they could wound or kill every horse within reach of their arrows ; and though we should not give implicit credit to the account of their fighting as successfully when retreating as when advan cing or drawn up in line, there can be no doubt that they were beyond all comparison superior in this exercise to the troops of every other nation.