Was firing upon your army a common practice ? Say, you have a

>>2976559
>Did this kind of thing also happen during WWI ?
ever heard of creeping barrages?

no it wasnt
artillery barrages or if you like archer duel/archer volley were to soften up the enemy before the main assault

then put fire further behind the line to suppress reinforcements/counter the enemy artillery

>>2976594
Yeah but it wasn't target at an ennemy the soldier were currently engaging.

>>2976603
Make sense. Wouldn't firing at a general melee be terribly inefficient ?

>>2976559

On the contrary it was very rare, for the simple reason that your own side will not appreciate you killing them. A general who made a habit of doing so would have a terrible effect on morale and would lose to a general who did not do so, all other things being equal. It might be worth it to swing a battle if you're firing at mercenaries or allies rather than your own men, but that could hardly be a common situation by any means.

>>2976606
>Make sense. Wouldn't firing at a general melee be terribly inefficient ?

You'd basically kill about equal numbers of each force. If they're "just" mercenaries or something, you might consider doing this if you think it will win you the whole battle, but not against your own men and not as a common practise.

how do some of these questions even happen? this is LITERALLY one of the only things war movies get right, even the fantasy shit like lotr. you unload a shit ton of volleys as the enemy approaches then the archers retreat behind the main line and may try to fire into the deeper enemy lines.