Why didn't everyone in the ancient world use mass archery armies?

[Maniac]

As long as they are protected by some melee troops to counter cavalry charges, what's the downside?

Wouldn't such an army be able to defeat a Greek Phalanx or a Roman legion, for instance?

[David Floyd]

Ammo might be a problem, given that both the Romans and Greeks could "turtle" behind near-impregnable shields. Also, how do archers actually take cities?

More importantly, ancient archers are not the same as longbowmen - what happens if they get charged by cavalry?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Maniac
As long as they are protected by some melee troops to counter cavalry charges, what's the downside?

Wouldn't such an army be able to defeat a Greek Phalanx or a Roman legion, for instance?

Isn't this exactly what the Persians attempted during the Persian Wars without much success? At Marathon for example the Athenians didn't even have cavalry.

[Wernazuma III]

As has been said, archers have limited ammunition, unlike soldiers in modern computer games and Hollywood movies.

[Maniac]

So ammunition was actually a real limitation? They couldn't bring enough sufficient arrows to win a battle?

Anyway, I discovered a line in Wikipedia which could explain my question: "The Persian army depended on archery, mobility, and cavalry, and while these tactics were effective on the vast plains of the east, in confined areas they could be defeated easily." Thus explaining Marathon for instance.

I guess a 25% hill (uneven terrain) defense bonus for archers doesn't make sense then?

Also according to Wiki, the turtle formation wasn't all that useful, except for military parades and Hollywood.


Btw, were there any advances in infantry bow production or tactics between the invention of the recurve bow (2000 BC) and the longbow? (useful to know for civ ancient era mods)

[Slade Wilson]

There are also issues with penetration. Not all archers shoot the armour piercing stuff the longbows had, and even those victories utilizing longbows were mostly against heavy cavalry in bad terrain(charging up a hill in mud? children with sticks could win that matchup ). AFAIK the persian archery equipment during the invasion of greece was simply inadequate to do much damage to heavily armoured greeks.

On the open ground, their kill power+fire rate+range just isnt great enough-without massive fixed positions-to defeat an enemy and if you have a force large enough to hold off the enemy, at some point a number of your archer batteries will be out of range. And it seems to me that with anceint weapons, a ratio of 1-1 is often needed, so if they attack with 10000 troops, it seems to take another 10000 troops to hold them back, not 1000 to delay while the archers blast away, as those few would be overwheled and\or heavily outflanked.



Now in age of empires etc et all RTS, archers are superior because of good fire rate, usually good damage, and all the archers can attack at once, while only front ranks of melee units can engage the front line of the archers. Also none of the archers ever miss and just shoot straight at their targets through anything

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
There are also issues with penetration. Not all archers shoot the armour piercing stuff the longbows had....

Yeah, I'd guess in ancient times often bows were rather weak and mostly useful against other lightly protected troops. There are even cases from the middle ages where they didn't even need real (metal) armor to protect themselves from arrows, but could reach the same effect by using layers of felt or leather.

Long- and crossbow are of course another matter.

[Panag]

Hi ,

the Q has been asked before , the answer is simple , it takes years to train some one with a longbow

a crossbow is easier to train with and easier to shoot , so longbows went slowly away , ....

in engeland at one point the king ruled that it was forbidden to play soccer or other games , only shooting with a longbow was needed to train for defense , ...

you can train a person with a spear in a few weeks , formation a week , compare that against many years to train with a longbow , ..

Have a nice day

[LDiCesare]

Composite bows would have been able to take out armored opponents, but not everyone had the tech for it.
Furthermore, if bowmen were to shoot at the opponent without causing friendly fire, you'd have to prevent the opponent from charging your line.
Hastings is a good example of good and bad use of the bow:
William started using his bows by shooting straight at the opponent, which resulted in shields blocking them. Then, he was afraid of not having enough arrows because the opponents didn't shoot them back at him. That's for the bad use. He then found out that a bell curve was a nice way around the English shield wall, and that it dealt a lot of damage. But this tactic could only work because the English were trying to hold a 'superior' defensive position. Had they had enough (fresh) men to charge the Normands, the arrow fire wouldn't have been effective. But had they done that, William's cavalry would have flanked them and routed them anyway.

Mongols used bows almost exclusively in the field, and with their mobility they just destroyed everything they could face. They had to resort to other weapons against city walls, but the Chinese were nice enough to build them trebuchets.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Maniac
So ammunition was actually a real limitation? They couldn't bring enough sufficient arrows to win a battle?

If they tried to remain mobile, I'd say yes. If they managed to keep the enemy at a distance they couldn't be charged, they'd have to cover them with arrows rather constantly, with very low efficiency.
I think the main use for archery - except for use from horseback, see below - was to bring disorder to the enemy troops, helping the own infantry to attack better.

Btw, were there any advances in infantry bow production or tactics between the invention of the recurve bow (2000 BC) and the longbow? (useful to know for civ ancient era mods)

The composite reflex bow was a pretty good weapon, especially when used by skilled riders from the horseback in a rush and run tactic. That's how a good bunch of nomads from the depths of Russia successfully attacked ancient and medieval armies. But in order to conquer cities, Mongols used other types of weaponry.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, how do archers actually take cities?

This is an important point though so far it has been overlooked.

How do you actually project force with an army of archers? The direct force a melee fighter projects makes him useful to reach offensive ends. From a group of archers people'd just hide so they require initiative from the target.

[TheStinger]

The english(should that be welsh) was succesful in part because of really stupid French tactics and the fact that they couldn't get their head round that all their socialy superior knights were getting hammered by a bunch of "common people"

[BeBro]

Why not bring in some psychology: one reason why not everyone used archers only might have been that close combat warrior vs. warrior using phallic weapons like a sword or a lance probably looked much more "heroic" to many in the ancient and medieval world than killing other guys from a distance with some girly bow and a thin arrow

[GePap]

The victory at Agincourt is an example of picking the right battlefield - if that battle had been held in a wide open space, then the moblity of the French Cavalry, and its vast size, would have ended the English Army.

Most armies in the acient times were levee armies, so people came with what weapons they had. Also, if you had to equip and get an army ready in a short time, giving people lances or clubs is faster and cheaper than bows and arrows, and its easier to use melee weapons effectively than projectile weapons.

[Andemagne]

who did use mass archery armies?

[Patroklos]

Arrows were one of the most expensive weapons used in ancient warfare. Irishmen are cheap.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Panag
Hi ,

the Q has been asked before , the answer is simple , it takes years to train some one with a longbow

...and for a really good bow, like a longbow or a Mongul composite bow, a tremendous amount of upper body strength is needed to draw it. These archers were the grenadiers of their day, the biggest and strongest.

It doesn't take a lot of strength or training to weald a pike.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Arrows were one of the most expensive weapons used in ancient warfare. Irishmen are cheap.

But arrows don't desert when the tide turns...

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Arrows were one of the most expensive weapons used in ancient warfare. Irishmen are cheap.

lol

But arrows don't desert when the tide turns...

rofl!

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Maniac
So ammunition was actually a real limitation? They couldn't bring enough sufficient arrows to win a battle?

Anyway, I discovered a line in Wikipedia which could explain my question: "The Persian army depended on archery, mobility, and cavalry, and while these tactics were effective on the vast plains of the east, in confined areas they could be defeated easily." Thus explaining Marathon for instance.

I guess a 25% hill (uneven terrain) defense bonus for archers doesn't make sense then?

Also according to Wiki, the turtle formation wasn't all that useful, except for military parades and Hollywood.


Btw, were there any advances in infantry bow production or tactics between the invention of the recurve bow (2000 BC) and the longbow? (useful to know for civ ancient era mods)

Persians were not familiar with heavily armoured hoplite warfare. So their soldiers were generally lightly armoured, with a short spear and a bow and arrows as main weapons. However, after a few shots those bows were useless really and hoplites with their good formation and relatively strong armour was pretty dominant over Persian regulars (mostly Medes and Persians proper, as many soldiers from tributary states were of inferior quality, having less training, equipment etc.).

The Roman turtle formation was primarily used in siege warfare. In order to reach the enemy walls, they found cover in their formation. Of course, they used various machines with roofs covered with hide as well to protect their sappers and other siege troops, but the turtle formation was merely a way to protect regulars when a full-blown attack on a city was ordered.

Advances in bows were made of course, but they weren't useful in mass warfare. Even if an archer could make very precise shots, it would amount to nothing. As attacks were made in large masses, only the front archers could really target enemies precisely, while the others had to stand and wait. Even then they would have to let enemy formations come relatively close. That was far too dangerous and pointless, so it was easier and more effective to shower the enemy with arrows.

As was mentioned somewhere in this thread, skirmishers such as sling troops, archers and javelin-men were used to disrupt enemy formations, their charges and to thin out the ranks by killing those without shields and weakening enemies (because they could no longer use their shield, cf. the renowned Roman pilum).
For example, the Balearic slingers (they had a very good reputation in that respect) with their rock (or lead) projectiles caused severe injuries rather than achieving direct kills. Because the sling shots penetrated just about everything over a distance of a few football pitches, they disabled a good amount of soldiers without really maulling them to death right away. The shot drills into the body, penetrating protection, breaking bones etc. A surgeon could remove it in some cases, but the soldier was out of combat anyhow.

[Adam Smith]

A particularly brilliant solution to the ammunition problem.
Abridged from Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong.



Lacking munitions, Zhou Yu, the chief military commander of the Wu Kingdom, ordered Zhuge Liang (the chief minister of the Shu Kingdom and generally regarded as the kingdom's top master-mind) to produce 100,000 arrows within 10 days.

"Three days is enough, " said Zhuge. He also agreed to be punished if he failed to complete the order.

Zhou mocked that Zhuge was looking for self-destruction. On the one hand, Zhou ordered his troops not to provide Zhuge with materials to make the arrows. He also sent Lu Su to see how Zhuge was dealing the problem.

In fact, Zhuge had already realized that this was a plot. He asked Lu (who was kind-hearted) to lend him 20 boats, each lined with straw scarecrows and manned by 30 soldiers. He also requested that Lu not tell Zhou what was happening.

When Lu came again to see Zhuge, he did not find anything unusual. Nothing happened on the second day either. In the early morning of the third day, Zhuge invited Lu for a boat ride. The 20 boats were tied together with strong ropes. Zhuge's fleet sailed toward the camp of Cao Cao (who was the king of the Wei Kingdom).

A thick mist had spread over the surface of the river. People could hardly see each other on the river. When Zhuge's fleet got close to the Cao camp before dawn, Zhuge ordered his soldiers to shout and beat drums to fake an attack. Zhuge and Lu simply sat inside one of the boats and drank wine to enjoy themselves.

As soon as the Cao camp heard the shouting and drum beating, they mistook it for a surprise attack by the Zhou camp. Since they could see nobody on the river, they gathered 3,000 bowmen and ordered them to shoot arrows. The front of the scarecrows was quickly shot full of arrows.

After a while, Zhuge had his fleet turn around to expose the other side of the scarecrows. When this side was also shot full of arrows, the day broke. Zhuge ordered his soldiers to return to their base port. The soldiers shouted, "Thank you, Cao, for your arrows." After they got back to their camp, they collected more than 100,000 arrows from the scarecrows.

[Kidicious]

Not sexy enough.

[Maniac]

On the open ground, their kill power+fire rate+range just isnt great enough-without massive fixed positions

Is that your personal opinion, or do you base this on some sources? (I'm trying to distinguish between useful information and... not so )

Hastings is a good example of good and bad use of the bow:
William started using his bows by shooting straight at the opponent, which resulted in shields blocking them. Then, he was afraid of not having enough arrows because the opponents didn't shoot them back at him. That's for the bad use. He then found out that a bell curve was a nice way around the English shield wall, and that it dealt a lot of damage. But this tactic could only work because the English were trying to hold a 'superior' defensive position. Had they had enough (fresh) men to charge the Normands, the arrow fire wouldn't have been effective. But had they done that, William's cavalry would have flanked them and routed them anyway.

Seems like a good example of good mass archery usage. In addition, if the melee troops did charge the archery line, couldn't the archer just run away and restart the attack from a distance? Generally speaking, if light troops such as archers or javelineers run out of ammo, they can simply retreat. Heavier armoured troops can't keep up.

The composite reflex bow was a pretty good weapon, especially when used by skilled riders from the horseback in a rush and run tactic. That's how a good bunch of nomads from the depths of Russia successfully attacked ancient and medieval armies. But in order to conquer cities, Mongols used other types of weaponry.

Was this advance also useful for infantry archers? Anyone know if the Scythian bow (600 BC or so) was used by infantry archers?

[quote]who did use mass archery armies?[quote]

Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians; Chinese... And there are of course all those non-infantry archery armies on chariot or horseback.

Persians were not familiar with heavily armoured hoplite warfare. So their soldiers were generally lightly armoured, with a short spear and a bow and arrows as main weapons. However, after a few shots those bows were useless really and hoplites with their good formation and relatively strong armour was pretty dominant over Persian regulars (mostly Medes and Persians proper, as many soldiers from tributary states were of inferior quality, having less training, equipment etc.).

Do you know if the Persian defeat was because of some inherent inferiority to heavy armoured hoplites, or just, as you say, because they were unfamiliar with them and thus didn't know the right tactic to defeat them?

For the record, I'm basing my hypothesis that mass archery coupled with some pikes or so to protect against charges is pretty good on the following article I found somewhere on the internet (don't know a link anymore):


I just finished Archer Jones' The Art of War in the Western World, which is a dandy book (Archer Jones is one of my favorite military historians, and I recommend his books to anyone with an interest in the subject. He is always clear and incisive, and makes complex situations highly understandable without needing to simplify).
In his latest book, he points out that, starting with the Macedonians, ancient warfare consisted of four combat arms: Light Infantry (missile-armed), Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry (missile-armed), and Heavy Cavalry. These have a very specific interrelationship, which has been demonstrated in numerous battles throughout history (up till the invention of the pistol).

"Offensively Superior" means that the combat arm is able to defeat its rival in an attack -- though the "attack" may not look much like one. The classic example is Light Cav vs. Heavy Cav. The Light Cav constantly retreats during an action, so it can't be caught, but it is offensively superior because it can force an action upon the Heavy Cav, who can't get away from the faster, more loosely-organized horse archers.

"Defensively Superior" means that the combat arm's rival is not able to successfully overcome its rival in an assault.

Light Infantry is offensively superior to Heavy Infantry.
Light Cavalry is offensively superior to Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry is offensively superior to Light Infantry
Light Infantry is defensively superior to Light Cavalry
Heavy Infantry is defensively superior to Heavy Cavalry
When fortifications are involved, of course, these relationships change. Cavalry becomes useless, and the offensive superiority of light infantry is canceled out.
Also, if heavy cavalry can get to the flank of heavy infantry, they can triumph. This was one of Alexander's techniques -- by pinning down the enemy hoplites with his own, and thus keeping them from maneuvering, he could take his Companions and charge the enemy mass from the side or rear.

Note that at Hastings (for instance), the Norman knights were unable to penetrate the Saxon infantry line until they'd broken it up with repeated small charges and sustained archery, thus slowly wearing down the Saxons.


NOTE: light infantry and light cavalry normally take much longer to reach a decision when offensively superior than do the heavies. This is because light troops have to run away when the heavies charge (usually they can do this, because they're faster), then run back when the heavies try to flee. This continual ebb and flow takes quite a while, but the decision is no less certain than when heavy cavalry smash into a batch of slingers -- just slower.

There are exceptions to this general rule, but not nearly as many as you might think. Some well-known sample exceptions are below:

"At Marathon, Athenian heavy inf defeated Persian light inf." The Athenians were able to close with the Persians, whose back was up against the sea. Under normal circumstances, the Persians should have been able to flee while keeping up harassing fire upon the Athenians. There were many cases in which peltasts were able to destroy unsupported hoplites. Obviously, if lights (cavalry or infantry) can be trapped so as to prevent retreat, the heavies have it all over them. But this is the exception.

"At Crecy, English light infantry (longbowmen) defeated heavy cavalry." In fact, the French did not attack the longbowmen, but instead charged the main English line, basically heavy infantry. The infantry was well able to resist the charge, especially after the archers had sowed confusion. On those occasions when cavalry charged longbowmen, the longbowmen ran away, were massacred, sought shelter among accompanying heavy infantry, or were saved by a countercharge from friendly cavalry.

"The Romans managed to rule an entire empire, relying entirely on their excellent heavy infantry". The Roman infantry was excellent. But the Romans also had significant numbers of auxiliaries serving as light infantry. In addition, they invariably had locally-recruited cavalry forces, normally the equivalent of heavy cavalry. They did generally lack light cavalry, and this showed in their Parthian campaigns.

NOTE: "heavy" cavalry does not necessarily mean heavy armor. It just means they're trained to fight in large masses in a melee rather than in the Parthian style. For example, during the Crusades, the Crusaders learned to hold off Saracen horse archers by using crossbowmen (using light infantry to defeat light cavalry) for their heavy infantry and cavalry to shield behind. The Saracen light cavalry was trained to fight both with bow and sword, and thus could "switch" over to a heavy-style melee combat. On occasions that the Crusaders crossbowmen did not have support from nearby heavy infantry or cavalry, the Saracen cavalry was able to charge and, despite their light arms and armor, disperse and kill the crossbowmen. In effect, they could act as light or heavy cavalry. Of course, if they had to face genuine Crusader knights, the Saracens couldn't hold up in melee with these horsemen. Instead, they evolved their own form of genuine heavy cavalry, which was still not as good as the Crusaders, but a heck of lot better than nothing.

[Slade Wilson]

Is that your personal opinion, or do you base this on some sources? (I'm trying to distinguish between useful information and... not so )

Sounds like from your post you already have your answers

If your asking if i am a reincarnated general from old, then no its personal

(yes ofcourse i base it on sources. But i cant be assed to find and list and explain a bunch of sources and battle citations to back this up )





Actually i find the total war series demonstrates this well. Try using archers+screening units in MP. You will quickly see archers simply dont have the range. This changes in Napoleonic times when ranges go up and kill power increases

[LDiCesare]

Seems like a good example of good mass archery usage. In addition, if the melee troops did charge the archery line, couldn't the archer just run away and restart the attack from a distance? Generally speaking, if light troops such as archers or javelineers run out of ammo, they can simply retreat. Heavier armoured troops can't keep up.

Speaking about Hastings, I just wanted to say that the early use of bows in the battle was ineffective, and then the Normands used it very effectively.
If the melee troops had charged, archers would have retreated behind their own infantry, but they couldn't retreat forever because they had sea at their back at some point.

One thing worth wondering is the relative dominance of pikes in renaissancen and of tercios afterwards. Tercios were effectively logn range weapons (firearms) backed by pikemen. The same as what you're suggesting except firearms replace bows.
Early guns (muskers, arquebuses...) were not really more efficient than bows, but required way less training and strength to use. So I'd say the cost of bows (training) may have been a reason why bows were not as common as you might expect.

[Krill]

AS, that is awesome ... apart fromn some arrows were made so that the heads snapped off if you tried to pull them out...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
One thing worth wondering is the relative dominance of pikes in renaissancen and of tercios afterwards. Tercios were effectively logn range weapons (firearms) backed by pikemen. The same as what you're suggesting except firearms replace bows.
Early guns (muskers, arquebuses...) were not really more efficient than bows, but required way less training and strength to use. So I'd say the cost of bows (training) may have been a reason why bows were not as common as you might expect.

That's an interesting insight.



Fun extract indeed from RotTK. Sounds like the book may not all be as boring as the first few chapter indicate.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Maniac


Is that your personal opinion, or do you base this on some sources? (I'm trying to distinguish between useful information and... not so )



Seems like a good example of good mass archery usage. In addition, if the melee troops did charge the archery line, couldn't the archer just run away and restart the attack from a distance? Generally speaking, if light troops such as archers or javelineers run out of ammo, they can simply retreat. Heavier armoured troops can't keep up.



Was this advance also useful for infantry archers? Anyone know if the Scythian bow (600 BC or so) was used by infantry archers?



Do you know if the Persian defeat was because of some inherent inferiority to heavy armoured hoplites, or just, as you say, because they were unfamiliar with them and thus didn't know the right tactic to defeat them?

For the record, I'm basing my hypothesis that mass archery coupled with some pikes or so to protect against charges is pretty good on the following article I found somewhere on the internet (don't know a link anymore):


I just finished Archer Jones' The Art of War in the Western World, which is a dandy book (Archer Jones is one of my favorite military historians, and I recommend his books to anyone with an interest in the subject. He is always clear and incisive, and makes complex situations highly understandable without needing to simplify).
In his latest book, he points out that, starting with the Macedonians, ancient warfare consisted of four combat arms: Light Infantry (missile-armed), Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry (missile-armed), and Heavy Cavalry. These have a very specific interrelationship, which has been demonstrated in numerous battles throughout history (up till the invention of the pistol).

"Offensively Superior" means that the combat arm is able to defeat its rival in an attack -- though the "attack" may not look much like one. The classic example is Light Cav vs. Heavy Cav. The Light Cav constantly retreats during an action, so it can't be caught, but it is offensively superior because it can force an action upon the Heavy Cav, who can't get away from the faster, more loosely-organized horse archers.

"Defensively Superior" means that the combat arm's rival is not able to successfully overcome its rival in an assault.

Light Infantry is offensively superior to Heavy Infantry.
Light Cavalry is offensively superior to Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry is offensively superior to Light Infantry
Light Infantry is defensively superior to Light Cavalry
Heavy Infantry is defensively superior to Heavy Cavalry
When fortifications are involved, of course, these relationships change. Cavalry becomes useless, and the offensive superiority of light infantry is canceled out.
Also, if heavy cavalry can get to the flank of heavy infantry, they can triumph. This was one of Alexander's techniques -- by pinning down the enemy hoplites with his own, and thus keeping them from maneuvering, he could take his Companions and charge the enemy mass from the side or rear.

Note that at Hastings (for instance), the Norman knights were unable to penetrate the Saxon infantry line until they'd broken it up with repeated small charges and sustained archery, thus slowly wearing down the Saxons.


NOTE: light infantry and light cavalry normally take much longer to reach a decision when offensively superior than do the heavies. This is because light troops have to run away when the heavies charge (usually they can do this, because they're faster), then run back when the heavies try to flee. This continual ebb and flow takes quite a while, but the decision is no less certain than when heavy cavalry smash into a batch of slingers -- just slower.

There are exceptions to this general rule, but not nearly as many as you might think. Some well-known sample exceptions are below:

"At Marathon, Athenian heavy inf defeated Persian light inf." The Athenians were able to close with the Persians, whose back was up against the sea. Under normal circumstances, the Persians should have been able to flee while keeping up harassing fire upon the Athenians. There were many cases in which peltasts were able to destroy unsupported hoplites. Obviously, if lights (cavalry or infantry) can be trapped so as to prevent retreat, the heavies have it all over them. But this is the exception.

"At Crecy, English light infantry (longbowmen) defeated heavy cavalry." In fact, the French did not attack the longbowmen, but instead charged the main English line, basically heavy infantry. The infantry was well able to resist the charge, especially after the archers had sowed confusion. On those occasions when cavalry charged longbowmen, the longbowmen ran away, were massacred, sought shelter among accompanying heavy infantry, or were saved by a countercharge from friendly cavalry.

"The Romans managed to rule an entire empire, relying entirely on their excellent heavy infantry". The Roman infantry was excellent. But the Romans also had significant numbers of auxiliaries serving as light infantry. In addition, they invariably had locally-recruited cavalry forces, normally the equivalent of heavy cavalry. They did generally lack light cavalry, and this showed in their Parthian campaigns.

NOTE: "heavy" cavalry does not necessarily mean heavy armor. It just means they're trained to fight in large masses in a melee rather than in the Parthian style. For example, during the Crusades, the Crusaders learned to hold off Saracen horse archers by using crossbowmen (using light infantry to defeat light cavalry) for their heavy infantry and cavalry to shield behind. The Saracen light cavalry was trained to fight both with bow and sword, and thus could "switch" over to a heavy-style melee combat. On occasions that the Crusaders crossbowmen did not have support from nearby heavy infantry or cavalry, the Saracen cavalry was able to charge and, despite their light arms and armor, disperse and kill the crossbowmen. In effect, they could act as light or heavy cavalry. Of course, if they had to face genuine Crusader knights, the Saracens couldn't hold up in melee with these horsemen. Instead, they evolved their own form of genuine heavy cavalry, which was still not as good as the Crusaders, but a heck of lot better than nothing.

Really interesting stuff.

I don't want to try and take on an army of Roman Heavy Infantry with light infantry in RTW though

[Whaleboy]

To expand on Zkribbler's point that archers required a hell of a lot of upper body strength, there is IIRC evidence from the Wars of the Roses and the Hundred Years War that they doubled-up as valuable mêlée troops when things got hairy.

Agincourt is a good example of this where lightly armoured archers could easily kill French knights bogged down in the mud and their heavy armour with little more than table knives.

Put a late-medieval English archer and his lord and master in the same boxing ring with nothing but fists and it's the archer that'll likely walk away unharmed.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To expand on Zkribbler's point that archers required a hell of a lot of upper body strength, there is IIRC evidence from the Wars of the Roses and the Hundred Years War that they doubled-up as valuable mêlée troops when things got hairy.

Agincourt is a good example of this where lightly armoured archers could easily kill French knights bogged down in the mud and their heavy armour with little more than table knives.

Put a late-medieval English archer and his lord and master in the same boxing ring with nothing but fists and it's the archer that'll likely walk away unharmed.

Not sure about the boxing point, the phrase to look down upon comes in part from the fact that the upper classes in feudal times were in fact far taller and bigger than the peasants due to diet, lifestyle etc.

The archers were not on the whole peasants though they were the freemen who had their own land but no where enough to be "gentry" although that term is more used in the early modern period.

The lords of medieval times were not the foppish idiots of latter periods