Gondorian Archer

Now, there are several factors that lead me to think that Gondorian archers would be modeled off the British. The British had a wide section of society that were skilled in archery. A nation with Corsair and orc attacks being a problem like Gondor would be would greatly benefit from such wider military training. Then there is the lower costs associated with archers. Similar to England, Gondor has the beginnings of a professional military. The Royal lands not governed by the nobles appears to be much smaller, making it harder for knights to be the center of military power. Knights require a pretty large land grant to sustain themselves, usually with a contingent of serfs. So a smaller territory would be constrained in the number of knights it could produce.
Then there is the actual tactical and technical sides. Gondorian bows appear to be similar to the English Longbow in terms of range – between 220 and 300 yards. Generally Gondor's dedicated archers with only the longbow were lined up in the rear ranks and would fire over the heads of the front ranks at the enemy. At impressive rates as well – 5 volleys before the first hit their target. This seems similar to medieval British long bowmen to me.
A traditional buckler and the short sword could have really helped the archers as well, but appears to not have been used. That is the only real change I see being helpful with the archers. Otherwise the equipment appears pretty spot on.

Career

Qualifications

Archers need to be well trained in order to function effectively on the battlefield. This means first having enough strength to shoot the bow and enough stamina to do so over an entire battle. Just as important is the ability to do so without thinking. This frequently meant developing enough muscle memory that the archer did not have to think at all. This allowed operating under pressure much easier. Thus the archer could retain the sort of calm courage one needs when the enemy is charging straight at them. Ideally, this allowed sufficient reliability, accuracy and precision in the arrow fire.
Training for Chinese infantry archers, like many mounted archers, focused on rapid shooting. One Chinese test was for the archer to shoot two balls thrown into the air at the same time. Other training drills involved hitting targets while running. The idea was that the archer themselves might be on the move when enemies were present.
Training was based on these combat needs. To help with night raids, some Arab drills involved blindfolding the soldier. A stone was thrown at a bronze target, which produced a distinct sound. The idea was the blindfolded archer would be able to hit the target based off the sound alone.
One drill involved hitting six roughly human sized targets at a set distance away. In 1693, the distance was 135 yards but this was shortened to 84 yards then to 50 yards in 1760. I suspect this was done out of recognition of the limited effective battlefield range of the bows. So I suspect that training would be based on the 135 range but tactics would focus on opening fire between the 84 and 50 yards range.
A 7th target was a leather ball 2 feet high with a foot diameter and painted bright red. It is thought to be filled with seeds or other materials to make it heavy. The goal here was not just to hit it but to knock it off the dirt mount it was placed on. This tested both accuracy and power. Other penetration tests involved shooting plates of metal, mirrors, heavy blocks of wood and ploughshares.

Career Progression

Laws were passed in England that mandated training in archery. This was mainly done to provide alternatives to other forms of entertainment like gambling that were outlawed. Archery was seen as a morally beneficial alternative to vice and crime - both seen as huge problems at the time these laws were passed.
This training the laws mandated called for weekly practice with bows. All men under 24 were required to be able to hit targets 220 yards away.
Often, archers were recruited for a fixed term of service - one year being common. They were then paid for that service. This was different from the normal feudal levies that provided knights and the average conscript. Archers thus were one of the first parts of the transition from the temporary levies of unskilled conscripts of feudal militaries. Archers were the sort of trained, experienced and paid troops one would expect out of modern day professional standing armies.

Payment & Reimbursement

Payment was based on skill. Elite archers were paid 4d a day. Though there were reports of 6d a day for some units. Normal ones earned 2d a day. The garrison troops were often those not good enough for other duties. They were only paid 1d a day.
In 1471, England recruited 14,000 archers and paid them 6d a day. This was at a time when masons were paid on average around 4d a day and unskilled labor only 1.5d a day. This pay proved to be important in the growing power of the archers. As archers were still required to provide their own equipment, this pay allowed them to invest in better bows, armor and even horses.

Other Benefits

Pay wasa powerful motivating factor, especially for the lower class recruits. But this was not the only compensation. Loot was expected on campaigns. Churches, the enemy camp and towns had plenty of portable goods that could be stolen and sold for cash or kept. Also, prisoner ransoms were wealth generators for common soldiers too. Granted, commanders and nobles got the most, but the lower ranks benefitted too.

Perception

Purpose

The wide diffusion of archery skills across society due to the training laws led to a large reserve of archers. Not all would be called to service though. Normally, the archers were part of local militias. These were used in coast gaurd duties and dealing with bandits. The range of the bow combined with horses made them quite effective in chasing down criminals.
They were used a lot in raids, skirmishing and pursuit of fleeing enemies. The Chevaunchee was one of the more famous tactics, especially in the Hundred Years War. These were raids meant to cover huge swaths of enemy territory. Speed, range and not getting bogged down were key. This meant horses. It also meant hitting soft targets such as rural villages and avoiding enemy troops. Think hit and run tactics focusing on civilians.
Horse archers were thus the prime destructive force in these raids. Their mobility and use of fire arrows allowed massive damage that would skew towards atrocity and war crimes in an unfortunate number of cases. These would be massive as well. Detatchments of 1,000 men would range 20 miles to either side of the main advancing army. Typically the raiders would exploit the opportunity to get supplies for the main army. This means looting. But scouting for the enemy, skirmishing and ambushes would be performed on the way.
There was a utilitarian logic that kept this abuse going. The loot paid for the soldiers and kept them fed. It also denied those same supplies to the enemy - which could force them into an early surrender. Battles like Crecy started by using a Chevaunchee to bait the enemy into a trap. Also, the scouting this provided kept the attacking army safe. Not attempting to carry off too much kept the raiders from being butchered themselves.
But the goal of hurting the enemy and not getting booged down in engagements meant that what could not be easily returned to the main army was destroyed. As one can expect, this led to massive suffering for civilians. Churches would be looted and burned. Houses and crops were burned. Civilians would be massacred or driven from the area. Often, the commanders would be either tolerant of bad behavior on these missions or not present to enforce disipline. Which then led to the consumption of the intoxicating beverages that could be found. This only magnified the disorderly conduct and rapes of defensless civilians. Caen for example was hit like this in July 1346. It was burned to the ground. 5,000 people were killed.
And yes, defenseless was an apt description. An enemy presnece in an area would protect against such attacks. Walls of towns and castles were often avoided entirely. Nor would a commander want to be forced into an unplanned siege or pitched battle as those were both risky and costly.
But seiges were the next major use of archers, so doctrine had to include how to deal with walls. Often, attackers would use mobile walls built on site to protect against defending archers. The attackers would conduct cover fire aiming not so much to kill enemies - though that would be ideal. So long as the defenders simply did not return fire, ladders could safely get to the walls. That is all that is needed. Similarly, a near miss when firing at an enemy shooting from arrow loops could scare them. Thus supression was still achieved even without lethal impact.
Generally, besiegers tended to have much higher numbers than defenders. During assaults, the only benefits the attackers had came from those numbers. So the wood walls used to cover the archers would be used to mass archer close to the walls. Then the higher numbers could be used to concentrate multiple archers on a single point of the wall. This ideally allowed a higher rate of fire to rain down on that section of wall than what the defenders could muster.
The wood shields were critical. Defenders had their stone wall defenses. Without some form of protection, attrition would set in and be devestating. Especially when the height advantage meant that the defenders had greater range and power. attackers needed to get closer to the walls to compensate for the extra height they had to shoot and the smaller targets resulting from the arrow loops. Hence the exta value of rate of fire - accuracy would naturally suffer under these conditions regardless of archer skill.
In the pitched battle, archers were used to pin down the enemy force. This allows the melee infantry and mounted troops to engage the flanks. Attacks by the enemy would also lose power as they take losses from arrows and meet the defensive elements protecting the archers. Infantry armed with melee weapons would be used in front to add a layer of protection. Ideally, the layers of defenses would bog the enemy down. This and the high ground would combine to allow the archers to rain death on the enemy troops. Direct fire at close range would prove deadly.

Social Status

Due to the yeomen and crafter origins of the archers, we can assume that the archers were mostly middle class. But criminals were also incorporated into archer units as well. Pardons were issued to encourage them to join. So while criminals were always a minority, I would expect them to be disproportionally common.
The pay and wealth gained from loot provided archers with the opportunity for upwards social mobility. The glory of battlefield heroics also earned social prestige. This meant that the lower classes and criminals would be attracted to archer service to improve their status in society. Criminals would especially be interested as it would allow them to redeem themselves in the eyes of their neighbors.

Demographics

Lower class archers posed a special social cost/benefit calculation to political elites. They were normally the ones percieved to be the most prone to the sort of crime and vice that archery training laws were passed to control. Also, they provided the largest pool of manpower for armies and could only be armed with bows due to the the limited finances of the state at the time. So England benefitted a lot from making them archers. It was certainly much cheaper to rely on massed ranks of archers than knights.
But this meant that the social group most prone to rebellion was now armed and trained in how to use bows. Bows were also one of the few weapons that could effectively counter knights. Knights were lords and as such part of the establishment that the peasant revolts would be rising up against. So reliance on archers was a bit of a calculated risk.
Now, most archers did not come from the peasant classes actually - though the peasants were probably close to universally good compared to modern day civilians. Remember, wealth was based on the agricultural productivity of land. Land was useless unless there were serfs to work it.
Craftsmen appear to have provided the bulk of the archers. We can assume that the towns and cities provided more archers than the rural population. However, in 1242 farmers whose land was valued at 40 shillings were required to own bows. Others were encouraged to own bows as one would expect for a society that mandated practice with them. But ownership was actually only explicity demanded for the yeomen farmers. Forresters and hunters also were disproportionally common due to their skills.
Now, there is the issue of land that needs to be factored into this. Feudal societies were all about land. More land means more power. Not just in terms of domestic politics and personal wealth. The more land a kingdom had, the more knights it could have. As knights were the dominant military force at the time, nations with more land meant more military power. Smaller nations needed something to compensate for this. England did this via archers.
So, all of this together and I suspect that the craftsmen from towns and cities and the yeomen would probably make up the majority of the archer ranks by raw numbers. But skilled serfs would be common as well. Criminals, hunters and forresters would be more common in archer formations than in the rest of society.

Operations

Tools

Archers specifically would expect counterfire from enemy archers, which meant their heads would be the most exposed part of their body. Those that could afford it thus felt the mail coif was worth the extra expense.
The demands placed on archers meant flexible armor was more important than for a knight. As technology and pay increased, this led to the adoption of brigandine armor as the main body protection. But gambesons, mail coifs and hoods and plate protection for legs were common. Typically armor was decorated with distinctive colors to indicate the archer's unit.
Now, for shields. The full sized kite, scutum and aspis shields I don't see as particularly practical. Bucklers were also not good at covering arrow fire. Generally, I see them not being able to use any real shield while firing their bows. Which means that the shields would only really be used when the enemy closes the gap and melee is forced. In which case a small one handed sword would be ideal.
This means the ideal shield is one that they can keep out of the way and in easy reach. It also needs to be usable with one handed swords. Like a Parma or Targe shield. Both are large enough to provide some arrow protection and be used with one handed swords. Both also can be strapped to the back as well.
But just as useful would be the pavise. This shield would probably be too cumbersome for all troops. But it was not used for this purpose in real life either. It was meant to provide cover essentially for 4 men. This means we can get 4 ranks deep with one carrying the pavise and those behind with the targe or parma shield.
During the Hundred Years war, leader caps were used. Wicker caps bound with scrap iron were used too. But some were so poorly outfitted that they went into battle barefoot. These cases appear to be notable only due to their rarity though. The armor of the archer was based on the gambeson. Though by the 15th century, overlapping steel plates known as a coat of plates was more common. By the 15th century, brigadine was also common archer armor. Often plate was used to cover legs.
Typically archers carried two bows on campaign. This allowed them to continue to operate should one break. But it also allowed tactical flexibility when both were still operational. Generally, this was done with one bow with a 130-140 pound draw and one closer to 90-100. The lighter bow would be more useful for closer shots and later in the battle when fatigue would be an issue. The heavier bow would be more useful for earlier stages of the battle and distance shots.
Raids and ambushes require holding shots for longer before firing. So the hunting bows of 40-70 pounds would probably be ideal. It would also be in these contexts that Gondorian archers would have their fire arrows. Because these are cases where the archers would control the time and location of the battle, the bag arrows would be more common.
Horses were also vital to the archer. In pitched battles, horses were not much use. But pitched battles were not that common in medieval war. English archers were more often employed to hunt criminals or pursue those fleeing a battle or terror raids. Skirmishing and scouting were also common archer roles that benefited from horses.

Materials

Naturally the supply of arrows would be the main limiting factor in combat archery. The scale and cost of arrows would be quite impressive. A single sheaf of arrows was 24. Each cost 16 d to buy. Generally speaking, the first sheaf was provided by the archer themselves out of their own pay. But replacements were covered by the army. Bags of linen covered in oil were used to carry arrows so they would not be damaged on the march. Leather spacers were incorporated to protect the fleching. Wicker was also used.
During the Crecy campaign, the English army had 7,500 archers. This army had with it 1-2 million arrows. Another British campaign in 1513 had 240,000 arrows - which took 24 full wagons to transport. So, we can assume that each wagon would carry 10,000 arrows. If we assume the Crecy numbers hold, this gives us 133 arrows per archer reserve. Which then means that for every 75 archers, one wagon with 10,000 arrows would be needed for that army. Just for arrows.
But sheafs according to my numbers were 24 arrows. The above wagons would carry 417 full sheafs if one rounds up for 10,842 arrows. Which cost 16 d for each sheaf. Meaning each wagon would cost 6,672 d for the arrows. Yeah, archers were expensive. This and arrow supplies being critical to maintaining an army on campaign meant that no army could do without this expense. Also due to this, effort was made to recover and repair arrows left on the battlefield.
But we have to remember the skills of the archer was seen in rate of fire as well as accuracy. They could fire 8 arrows per minute. The army sent to Crecy could shoot 60,000 arrows per minute. This meant on that campaign, they could only expect to have enough ammunition for 16 minutes of fire during the campaign. This includes not just the pitched battle the campaign is famous for - but also the intense raiding that baited the French into that trap. Thus, arrows were extremely scarce despite their numbers.
It is true that some archers today are able to shoot 12 per minute, but that is with 70 pound bows. the above mentioned 8 per minute is for professional soldiers in opening stages with heavier bows. We can assume with these heavier bows that fatigue would set in and rate of fire would drop after this. But it would have to drop a lot to make 16 minutes worth of arrows last the several hours a battle could be expected. All this to say that both endurance and arrow supplies need to be conserved and used wisely.
Because of the risk of running out of arrows or positions being overrun, some preparation for melee combat is needed. I would imagine that a shield would be part of this. The shield could be placed in front of the archer so that it could both protect them during firing and not impede said shooting. Then, it could be picked up again should melee combat break out. For weapons, I would imagine that daggers or short swords would be preferred.
It is one thing to shoot in the middle of a pitched battle. But during sieges archers would be sitting ducks for the enemy defenders. The defenders have essentially guaranteed high ground. In order to get close enough to be effective, attackers would be exposed enough that they would most likely be massacred. This means that some form of defense would be needed to get the archers in close.
Hence the Mantlet. These are portable walls or shelters archers would hide behind in such conditions. These were made of wood or wicker. Often they had wheels to allow them to move. Simple ones were effectively planks of wood on wheels with arrow slits and a stand. Others were U or L shaped.
It Nipped Its Way Through Wire Entanglements, Popular Science monthly, January 1919, page 30, Scanned by Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=HykDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30

Workplace

So, medieval war tended to be a series of raids and sieges. But pitched battles were inevitable even if relatively rare. When battles were engaged, archers required specific things in order to be effective. Without them, they typically were defeated. With them, they were critical to victory. These were the high ground, defensive field works like spikes and infantry in front of them.
On level ground, volley fire would need to shoot into the air at an angle to rain down on their enemy. But with the high ground, they could get the ideal angle with direct fire rather than arching, indirect fire. When fired into the air, the affects of air resistance and so forth basically means that the force of gravity becomes dominant in the penetrating power of the arrow. Direct fire allows the power from the bow to be conserved, thus doing more damage on impact. High angle and long distance shots would be less effective, but needed without the high ground.
But arcing fire had one more major weakness that made it less than ideal. It would scatter the dead and wounded throughout the entire enemy force - which did much less to rob the enemy of momentum. Should the same amount of arrows be concentrated into the front ranks and only them the charge could be stopped through sheer firepower. After all, the density and weight of lances would be broken up and momentum disturbed. Enemies would have to charge over and around the bodies of their dead friends and allies.
High ground also has the advantage of tiring the enemy as they charge up it. This increases time that the archer has to fire on them. Attacks by tired troops also naturally are less powerful. This means that the defensive elements would prove harder to overcome as well. Which means all elements work together to stall the enemy attack.
This was quite devastating if done right. Momentum is crucial in charges. If that could not be maintained, it becomes more likely that the attackers - not the defenders - would be the ones butchered. This then in turn demands that all ranks push forward as hard as possible. What happens when the defensive works hold? The front ranks slow down or stall first withe rear ranks still going full speed. There were battles where this resulted in "friendly fire" like incidents where the front ranks were trampled by their rearward allies. This can come from the simple compression one would expect. Or the confusion resulting could see the front ranks attempt to retreat just to get charged by their allies who haven't yet got the message.
This could be compounded by the nature of horses. The sort of behaviors in horses that can cause the rider to lose control most often happen when the horse is scared - not from pain. Granted, the two are not really that easy to separate in real battlefield conditions. But generally, a few stinging shots from arrows when the horse is hyped up on adrenaline would not phase it as much. But should it be idle, caught in a confusing and noisy situation it can be more easily spooked.
The result was essentially a mass of enemy targets just sitting there ready to be shot at. This then meant that archers could fire at medium and short ranges more. The long range potential of the bow was often not needed then. The archers could just wait until the enemy was still and at closer range. Such targets were naturally easier to hit and said hits more likely to prove fatal. A massacre could ensue.
Archer fire was normally not conducted at long ranges. While men were required to be able to hit targets at 220 yards, this was abnormal in battle. Ranges were normally 50 yards at most. Sometimes volleys were fired at 5 or 10 yards. This means that the enemy was often quite close and could close the distance quite easily. At which time the archers were defenseless and without their main range advantage.
This is where the defensive field works come into play. Basically the goal is to slow down or even stop the enemy attack. Once this happens, the enemy becomes easy prey. Most common was a row of spikes or stakes driven into the ground. But in one battle a river filled this role. A group of 30 Scottish archers delayed a much larger English force with volleys as the English attempted to cross a bridge. This allowed the French allies of the Scots to arrive and officially win the battle.
This highlights the extreme value of bottlenecks could be for the archers. This would negate the power of enemy numbers and force them to attack on a narrower front. This then reduces power in the charge. Almost more important is the predictability that it affords to the archer units. One knows where attacks are coming from - thus concerns over flanks are less of a problem. One can also concentrate all fire on a narrower front. One knows the ranges involved and can often station men where such range would be ideal.

Provided Services

Generally the British infantry would form hedgehog formations. These were pike walls with the archers interspersed inside. Sometimes, light infantry could be used to charge out and kill the trapped and wounded during slow periods in the arrow fire - compounding the issues caused by a stalled charge.
Coordination would be the primary role of officers. But this would be difficult in battlefield conditions. Battles were loud affairs, which made shouted commands impractical. Trumpets and drums were loud enough - to also signal to the enemy that a volley was coming. Thus those signals led to less effectiveness as the enemy was able to take defensive actions. Visual signals naturally relied on the less than intelligent idea of the signaler standing in front of the archers.
Then there is the speed issue. The more men one wants per volley, the longer men would have to hold their bows ready. This reduces rate of fire. At extremely close ranges, less than maximum rates of fire would lead to defensive positions at risk for being overrun. Plus, the men would get more tired, as they would be holding their 140 pound bows ready for longer.
The result was that only the first volley could be effectively fired simultaneously by the entire army. After that, local groups of at most 20 men would be coordinated to fire together. Once the enemy got too close, volley fire would be replaced with fire at will.

Dangers & Hazards

It must be noted that when everything went right, they were brutally effective. But there was no assurances that would go right. Attacks could come from unexpected directions or before the defenses could be set up. Unfavorable terrain, not enough arrows or bad weather complicated matters. Also, solid archer tactics require combined arms - no backup melee troops leaves the infantry exposed. Any of these problems would lead to the archers getting massacred instead of being the ones doing the killing.

Type

Military

Legality

Legally, when the king called up men for service, the local counties needed to cover the expense of paying and supplying the men. But the king had to reimburse them for this expense. However, the king needed Parliement to increase taxes to raise that needed revenue. Private loans to the king had to make up the difference. Archers cost less than knights and men at arms. Due to the financial constraints placed on the king, archers made fiscal sense.

Used By

• Gondorian State