So I've been watching some medieval war movies lately and notices that it seems like a super small percentage of arrows actually hit the target, are these movies representing how archers would have fought in the past? Is this at all possible to find out?
Thanks for this comment, but can anyone address the OP’s general point— which seems to be that, based on Hollywood, one gets the impression that medieval archers shot huge volleys that mostly missed. Obviously, there’s no hard data, but can anyone more knowledgeable about medieval warfare give a breakdown about what we know of how accurate archers were?
This is probably going to be a case of "no one was counting". Written sources from the time tend to be vague or exaggerate, and subsequent claims and accounts from secondary sources can also blow figures out of proportion.
There are some interesting historical discussions on this. In Robert Hardy's Longbow: A Social and Military History, a discussion is presented on the use of "longbows, pikes and swords" by Richard Mason in his 1798 book, Pro Aris et Focis. He writes that the musket was too inaccurate, citing figures from the battle before Tourney in 1794: 10,000 French killed by 40,000 Allied infantry, shooting at least 32 rounds per man for a total of 1,280,000 round; and factoring in that half of the casualties were likely caused by "the Bayonet, the Cavalry and Artillery", the claim is that it would take around 256 musket balls to disable one man.
In contrast, Mason argues in favour of archery: "in the Discharge of a Body of well-trained Archers...at least one Shaft in Ten would hit, so as to kill or wound", and he considers that an archer could loose at least two shots for every musket ball.
Interestingly, the French General Baron de Marbot, in encountering the Baskir horse archers in the Russian army before Leipzig in 1813, wrote:
With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows, which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. But as this system does not permit any accurate aim, nine-tenths of the arrows miss their target, and those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact, the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world's least dangerous troops.
Ironically, Marbot himself was one of the 10% that got hit.
What's interesting is that both these sources illustrate archers from opposite viewpoints, but claim a similar hit rate of 10%. Marbot dismisses this is ineffective, even laughable in his derision of these archaic, irregular steppe nomads in an era of modern war, while Mason is presenting the skill of trained foot archers in the English fashion.
Of course, these are 19th century sources, centuries after the use of the bow in medieval warfare, so we can't say for sure exactly accurate a medieval archer was. What can be said, however, is that battlefield archery consumed lots of arrows. At the Battle of Agincourt, up to half a million arrows were available, in contrast to the estimated ~10,000 French casualties (at best), and also considering that figure includes the melee phase and rout, the latter being where most of the casualties would occur. Going further back to the Battle of Carrhae between the Romans under Crassus and the Parthians. The Parthians, with an estimated 10,000 horse archers shooting unopposed might unleashed between 1.6 million to 2 million arrows. Total Roman casualties for the entire battle were around 20,000 - and again, there is no distinction between casualties caused by spear, sword or arrow.
From my experiences in discussing archery and history on my YouTube channel, I get the impression that many people overstate the accuracy of historical archers. This often comes in the form of "You don't have to aim, since you can't miss an army" to "professional medieval archers were very accurate", when the numbers don't really support that. What is often neglected is that the volume of arrows often negated the need to be very accurate, in the same way that a modern machine gun is effective. From ancient warfare to the early gunpowder age to modern warfare, most missiles and projectiles did not hit their intended target.
Sources and Further Reading
Depends on the shooter and the bow and the arrow. Modern longbows are capable of reliably hitting shots out to 200yds. There isn’t much data on the subject, but a good shot with a good bow and a good arrow could, and can, hit shots out past 300 yards.
The longbow has not changed fundamentally since its creation. With that, we can make pretty accurate guesses based off our bows. We only have made our bows look fancy and more convenient to travel with in the past 500 years by making modular parts and adding fun things that make it easier to aim.