The volley could just be an emergent result borne from the fact that if an attacking army was outside the maximum range of archers, and then charged, all archers would have an enemy within a reasonable range nearly simultaneously. If every archer let loose when there was an enemy in range, the end result would be an initial large volley.
Not really scientific but you can see the exact same outcome in video games. After the initial synchronized volley, it becomes more of a constant barrage as each archer's differing rate of fire causes shots to become desynchronized.
Is it true? I have no idea, but it's hardly magical thinking. It's logical but could still be untrue for other reasons not assessed.
It's only logical with video game reasoning imo. In actual life each archer would have a different bow, varying physical strength, ability at the extreme end of their range, visual acuity, practice assessing where the extreme end of their range even is, etc etc.
It seems extremely unlikely that a group of individuals would all make the exact same choice simultaneously without a prearranged signal for it. And I think the post itself makes a strong enough case for why that signal wouldn't be made.
Videogames are unrealistic. There's no such thing as a discrete "maximum range" for archery, because the closer the target the harder the arrow will hit, and there's a point where the arrow will simply fail to do any damage when it hits.
Also, not everyone can fire an arrow equally fast. And even if they did, when they're acquiring different targets (lest they all shoot the same person) they can take slightly different amounts of time to choose who to shoot.
Also, speed isn't really the limit for firing in the first place - if someone thinks there aren't any good options just yet, they might wait a second or two before there's a good option, and now they're way out of sync with anyone who saw a good option immediately.
Videogames are just terrible because their physics are wildly unrealistic, and the human factors are removed entirely.
Maximum range varies per archer. Each bow is different, and each archer is different. This isn't modern mass-produced armaments (though they did mass-produce bows, each one was still made from a different piece of wood with its own quirks), and maximum range also depends on the archer's draw length (how long their arms are) and strength.
One of the stories about Agincourt (that the author didn't mention and I don't know if it's true) is that the French underestimated the range of the English archers and drew up inside their maximum range, so were getting shot before they were ready for it.
So "everyone shoots when the enemy gets into range" would still not be a volley as each archer judges for themself when the enemy is in range.
archers wouldn't do the because unlike a gun you cannot hold it loaded for long. So your order would be draw and fire. You can of course hold abow drawn for maybe a minute - but why do that when you can fire 6 arrows in that time which might hit.
If the enemy is out of range you might wait with an arrow knocked but not drawn - but if that is what they were doing the order would be to draw. there is no real point of such an order though - archers are themselves smart enough to estimate their own range (which as the other response pointed out was not the same for every archer), and thus make their own decisions. The only reason to hold fire until everyone was ready was if the combine fire was devistating enough - but there is every reason to think combined fire wouldn't be devistating.
Not really scientific but you can see the exact same outcome in video games. After the initial synchronized volley, it becomes more of a constant barrage as each archer's differing rate of fire causes shots to become desynchronized.
Is it true? I have no idea, but it's hardly magical thinking. It's logical but could still be untrue for other reasons not assessed.