question: wasn't shooting those bows more an affair of lobbing the arrows into the ranks of the enemy? i mean, it's not like they were aiming at particular individuals, right? mostly just making it rain arrows, if i understand what they show in the movies.
Sort of.....
In movies, archers are typically depicted as being the kind of wimpy guys in little cotton skirts or light armor. In fact, an English archer, circa 1100 - 1500, was a STUD. The amount of muscle to pull a longbow took years to develop.
While disinterring plague victims in London it was discovered that many of them seemed to have some sort of deformity, their right arms were overdeveloped, the bones almost twice as large as the left arms....quite a mystery until someone pointed they were most likely archers.
The key to their success on the battlefield was two-fold. First, they could deliver arrow after arrow on an enemy in an unceasing cloud while that enemy was at a distance. The rate of fire could vary obviously, but a good archer could send an arrow flying every 2 -3 seconds. That rate of fire is not equaled until well into the latter part of the 19h century.
Second, they could hit pin-point targets with great accuracy when that target go closer. To do this they used differing arrow points. The Bodkin penetrated armor (there are those that say this is not so, but in fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the Bodkin could penetrate most medieval armor at about 100 paces), the Broadhead, tore muscle and tissue apart.
So, yes, they delivered suppresive fire at the beggining of the attack, but they also fired on point targets. And when the battle was joined, they were typically armed with a poleaxe, which they would use to bash your brains out, before they chopped you up with the axe blade, or stabbed you with the little pointy bit. The Poleaxe was the Swiss Army Knife of the short lance world.
Doubtless they would not have bashed Miss Davis.