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?

[BeBMan]

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

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

[BeBMan]

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"

[BeBMan]

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]

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

who did use mass archery armies?