A bit of rapid fire archery

[Randal]

Not sure I agree with that. Armies suffered very few casualties overall, below 5% if victorious I believe the consensus is. Among other things that must mean not everybody, or that is to say only a relatively small percentage of people in the front ranks would engage in actual hand-to-hand combat. It seems reasonable to assume that if someone was injured by an arrow but not severely enough to retreat the field he might not stay in the front rank.

Another factor: in many armies the warriors in the front rank were the wealthiest, best equipped and most heavily armoured. That would then mean they'd suffer far fewer arrow injuries than their rear-rank compatriots.

Edit: However, casualties were far heavier when an army broke and fled, and here minor arrow wounds might play a big role. Someone who's lost blood may well be less capable of escaping pursuit and get added to the casualty figures that way.