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

[molly bloom]

One reason that there weren;t mass archery armies is the social prestige attached to owning or using a sword or axe, as opposed to killing from a distance.

Often in association with owning or riding a horse- as the Continental European terms for knight indicate.

In the 'Chanson de Roland' even the leader of the Saracens is permitted to have a name for his sword, like the leaders of the Franks (as also did Viking and Anglo-Saxon warriors) .

[Dry]

This topic reminds me another one we once had on a RTR (Rome Total Realism) forum about Bow vs Sling in the time of pre-imperial Rome.

I do not have the links anymore, but I remember that our conclusion was that, back then, the western bow had quite some cons that made it an unreliable weapon.

The weather:
Wind. The western bow was not very powerfull. Therefor, the arrows were also relatively light (esp compared to the arrows of the later, english longbow). Even a mild lateral wind could disperse the volley. Some poster could even point to a battle were the archers were useless because of the wind.
If you want to rely mainly on archers, you need them to be fast, so they can avoid combat when it gets too windy.
Did someone say mounted archers?

Rain. I do not remember having found any info about the string of the bows of that time, but I remember info saying the roman balista was totally useless under the rain. I can imagine that early bows were also far less effective under the rain.

Fog. Not that unusual in humid Europe. Far less frequent in dry middle-east.


The terrain.
Ever heard of the huge forest covering the majority of europe in those times?
Not so easy to fight with an all archer army in a deep forest.
Far less trees in persia.

For these objective reasons, an army fighting mainly in Europe, were you cannot always chose the weather, could not rely on the bow as main weapon.

[Krill]

Maybe the correct answer is because they knew that they would have had to cut down too much forest and would have damaged the environment?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Dry
For these objective reasons, an army fighting mainly in Europe, were you cannot always chose the weather, could not rely on the bow as main weapon.

Great post.

[Proteus_MST]

Nevertheless in India, where you have lots of trees bows and arrows were a favored weapon in warfare.
Nope, I would, as well, say that it was the combination of long time needed to train archers and the heavy armor by the infantry units of this time that couldn´t be easily penetrated by bows of this time (just remember Sparta at the battle of the Thermopyles; according to all you can read about it, the persian showers of arrows didn´t really impress the spartan hoplites due to their shields and body armor)
India on the other hand had probably rather light armored warriors (due to the heat and terrain, which would have caused really fast exhaustion in heavily armored warriors) meaning that hits by arrows would definitely wound and/or kill and not be deflected by sheets of metal.

It was only the development ot the Bodkin arrow head during medieval times, that would make archers, once again, useful against armored warriors.

So it wouldn´t sound like a good idea to me to make a massive archer army (on foot) against an enemy who probably used a mixed force approach including cavalry (think of Alexanders Hammer and Anvil tactics) and therefore would be able to find ways to outspeed my archers and wreak havoc among them.

[LDiCesare]

Indians used composite bows, which are much better than European bows, so the wind and penetration power problems do not apply for them.
Indians also made heavy use of elephants. I don't know how effective arrows were against the thick-hided beasts. They also fired their arrows from chariots if their epic poems are any good indication of how they did warfare, but I'm not sure of that.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
[...]Nope, I would, as well, say that it was the combination of long time needed to train archers and the heavy armor by the infantry units of this time [...].

I agree on the heavy armor aspect (especially the shield), but I disagree on the training.
Training - and strength - for english longbow was absolutely, and without discussion, required. Training for classical times bows was in fact quite low.
And this lack of technical training was precisely one of the reason for its lack of prestige.
The only less technical weapons I can think of is the javelin.
Even the sling was more technical.
In order to be part of the famous balearic or rhodian slinger units, you had to practice it from childhood.
In order to be part of a greek phallanx, you had to be trained to fight as one with your comrades.
In order to be part of the legion, you had to know the different formations, you had to be able to implement them at the blow of a whistle.
There were no such need for shooting an arrow from a bow. No need for years of practice, no need for specific unit formation and no need for clockwork coordination with fellow armsmen.
And that was - with the aimed, direct shot possibility - one advantage of the bow over the sling...

Before Agincourt (in fact, before the longbow), the bow is left to the commoner, not only simply because it is not honorable, but also because it doesn't need years of practice.
Learning to fight with a sword, a flail, in an armor suit, requires far more training than shooting an arrow.
The most technical part in the bow was probably its manufacturing.

Do not forget the longbow is a huge (r)evolution in the bow world. It is like the machinegun to the ordinary rifle. It is like a new, different weapon.

In fact, the efficiency of the longbow will also build up its technicity. Being efficient, the english will want to improve the rate of fire, and will manage to fire 2-3 volleys per minute. And THIS will require more training, more coordination between brothers in arm. And more prestige for achieving it. It is some kind of snowball effect that suddenly made an good weapon, a prestigious, deadly one.

[LDiCesare]

I wonder what are the comparative merits of longbows and composite bows.
Obviously, the English longbow is way better than the European bow, but how does it compare to composite bows, both short and long, such as those used by the Mongols?
Composite bows required lots of strength to fire too.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Dry
There were no such need for shooting an arrow from a bow.

Hm, if it comes to aimed shooting with a bow I have to disagree.
Archery requires a lot of practice (I am a former archer myself [only stopped because I don´t have enough time to train for tournaments anymore]), much more than shooting with a crossbow or a firearm. Without proper training a beginner with a modern bow (that means with sight, clickers and stabilizers) would even miss the archery target (with 1.20m diameter) at a distance of 30 meters.
And barebow shooting (i.e. without a sight, clicker and stabilizers, just like the people in medieval/antique times [often even with replicas of historical bows]) is even more difficult.
To be able to hit anything with 1.20 diameter at 90 meters (max distance at most archery tournaments and probably a distance that would be rather normal on the battlefield) will require even more training (even if they trained more than normal archers at archery clubs I would assume that 6 months would be an absolute minimum in training to accomplish this)
(and this doesn´t include training for strength and endurance [Antique bows might have had much less drawing weight than english longbows, but if you asume they had roughly the same drawing weight as a modern tournament now {around 30-50lbs} you would also have needed a lot of this, too {you need a string rear musculature, normally an untrained beginner doesn´t even have enough of this to draw a 30lbs bow repeatedly without problems and wouldn´t be able to shoot a full tournament = 144 arrows with such a bow}])

It is not a crossbow where you just point at the target and then release the trigger

If however they just trained volley shooting (i.e. just getting your arrow somewhere at roughly the right direction so that it hits ground (or with a bit of luck an enemy) at roughly the right distance) they might have needed less training.

@LDiCesare
AFAIK composite bows have a much smoother development of force-buildup upon release, making them more accurate. AFAIK this also makes them more efficient in terms of drawing weigth vs. force projected, i.e. if you have a composite bow and a bow made of a single piece of wood of the same drawing weight you get more force transferred into the arrow of the composite bow meaning that this arrow will fly further and/or have more penetrating power

[molly bloom]

William The Conqueror's forces at Hastings had a complement of Genoese mercenaries who were crossbowmen, not users of the longbow.

The crossbow's bolt hit home more powerfully then, but the reload time was greater.

It should also be remembered that India had plains, scrubland and desert as well as forests and impenetrable jungle areas- and being partly in the tropics and having also alpine like temperatures in the mountainous areas knew both great humidity and fogs/mists.

There's a good image of crossbowmen reloading in Pollaiuolo's 'Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian' from the National Gallery in London:

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/collection/guides/sebastian.htm

[Julian Delphiki]

Well, not everyone did have a protective leader, so mass archery didn't make sense.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
If however they just trained volley shooting (i.e. just getting your arrow somewhere at roughly the right direction so that it hits ground (or with a bit of luck an enemy) at roughly the right distance) they might have needed less training.

Exactly.

[One_more_turn]

China's Warring States employed massive crossbow armies. However, crossbowmen had real trouble against cavalries due their slow reloading time and poor mobility. So when the Huns later attacked en masse, the Han empire had to build its cavalry from ground up.

[Proteus_MST]

Weren´t the chinese even the inventors of the worlds only repeating crossbow, the Chu ko Nu? (which is even featured as unique unit in Civ IV )

http://www.arco-iris.com/George/chu-ko-nu.htm

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Weren´t the chinese even the inventors of the worlds only repeating crossbow, the Chu ko Nu? (which is even featured as unique unit in Civ IV )
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/chu-ko-nu.htm

Blasphemy ! They were introduced years and years ago in Age of Kings already!