How effective where archers throughout the ages?
What made the most kills in battles?
How effective where archers throughout the ages?
What made the most kills in battles?
>What made the most kills in battles?
cholera
Generally speaking, with a few exceptions, archers were a harrying force to thin out the enemy ranks or attack strategic weak points before the main lines engaged each other.
>What made the most kills in battles?
It's hard to say. Most casualties in any given pro-government battle would be inflicted while one side was retreating, usually by cavalry if there was any.
>pro-government
What the shit, I meant "pre-modern"
Serves me right for being a phoneposter
In the earliest periods, archers dominated warfare. This dominance fell off over time with the development of chariots, and even more so with the development of horseback riding, and yet further still with the development of body armor in the classical and medieval periods.
Then it made a huge comeback with guns.
>and yet further still with the development of body armor
xD, right. It's essentially the exact opposite as you say.
Archers steadily gained prevalence as technology increased to the point where they became obsolete by their guns. You cannot have an effective force without any archers. They have and always will be as relevant as their melee counterparts. In this day and age missile warfare is much more prevalent, it's essentially the only form of warfare.
Not really,the technology for bows was perfected in the bronze age. The limiting factors for archers is cavalry (that can close the distance fast enough to minimise it's exposure to your arrows) and armor that directly reduces the effectiveness of my arrows at killing you. Both of these factors grew over time, from the time of Sumeria were archers were king to the dawn of the musket age when heavy cavalry was king and archery considered strictly subsidiary.
Arrows were great for hurting the morale of your enemy before engaging them. They enter the field somewhat ready to go; maybe they're a little nervous but they also feel like they could survive the fight.
A good volley smashes into their formation/cluster of men for a rude awakening. They injure many men. Some fall to the ground immediately in pain, while many others have them protruding from their bodies like porcupine quills.
The sound of men screaming, groaning, and calling for help would unnerve most... I know it would scare the piss out of me.
This poor fellow here tried turning around in some feeble attempt to hide or avoid the incoming arrow barrage. It did not work. The arrows did not either and he lived for some time until an enemy or a merciful ally used a warhammer to put him out of his misery.
That's quite late tho, and Britain for various reasons has never had a strong cavalry tradition and is coincidentally the one region in Europe to favor the bow. Likewise bows remained the première weapon of the new world before columbus, the lack of cavalry made archers the kings of the battlefield.
>Likewise bows remained the première weapon of the new world before columbus, the lack of cavalry made archers the kings of the battlefield.
Change "archer" to javelinmen and you are correct sir. An atlatl or hand thrown javelin could easily penetrate the shield and cloth armor of an opponent at twenty yards. No need to spend a lot of time preparing, treating, and stringing a bow.
Just get some straight sticks to throw with pointy ends or sharp stones
Off-Byone Kenobi
Aztecs made war for the process of capturing their foes rather than killing them. Why sacrifice your own people so that the maize will grow, when you can just attack the neighboring eight civilizations and take 30-40% of them over the course of a month. More blood for the gods
In Mesoamerica the javelin was dominant, in most of the Americas it was the bow. But in either case it is a missile weapon, without the fear of cavalry it is the missile weapon that dominates, as it is again in the early firearms age, up until the development of modern body armor and of tanks and attack helicopters.
No doubt the Death Rays the Chinese use to take over the world that ignore armor will usher in a new age of the dominance of range, but I hope and pray I will dead in the cold cold dirt before then.
>What made the most kills in battles?
Probably spears and all their variants overall.
Did you know there is no archaeological evidence for archery in Britian pre romans?
It's weird. They just used slings obsessively.
>longbows were a Bronze-age invention.
> and armor that directly reduces the effectiveness of my arrows at killing you
>arrows are meant to kill
>not maim
>highly armored targets
>everyone in ancient warfare was highly armored
You do not understand the use of archery and bows in ancient warfare. Watch less movies, read more books.
Britain did not have a cavalry culture, and longbows are not "better" than composite bows.
It's not about being better you fool, it's about being adaptive to more and more scenarios, which longbows were, at taking out highly armored targets you say are so highly resistant to archers, which is flat out wrong. Long-bows were invented - they were not around for ever - they directly refute the idiotic claim that bows were perfected in the bronze age.
It also shows an extremely high level of ignorance in the field of ancient archery and warfare, that being you totally disregarded metals and arrow heads.
But yes. I am sure the ancient Sumerians and their bows/arrows where as effective as an English Long bowman using steel broad-heads and bodkins.
What are these and why are they found literally everywhere across the British isles?
Longbows could not take out heavy knights, that's a meme.The knights charged the English main line, the archers killed their horses, the English mainline slaughtered the fallen knights. Muh longbows can't melt steel beams.
We already have a death ray that ignores armor though...
The usual case was that the most deaths occurred when one side broke and run.
Some exceptions exist, such as the battle of Cannae, which was just a day long brutal murderfest.
A longbow couldn't take out a "heavily armored target" without a lucky shot to the eyeslit. Wellforged plate armor stopped even bodkin arrows.
The effect of massed English archery was that it forced knights to dismount as horses could not be armored as effectively as a man.
Ancient Greek warfare relied almost solely on heavy infantry, with very little in terms of both archery and cavalry. Same with early Romans.
Greece lacked a cavalry culture too, it's far too mountainous for the most part. Also the Hoplon is very effective against arrows, the Greeks largely abandoned archery because their armoured technology had surpassed it.
Flame thrower is such a disgusting weapon
Alright, there is for the neolithic, but then it just disappears for a few thousand years.
Celtic peoples didn't fight wars of extermination, their combat was often highly ritualised and many disputes would be settled by the rival clan champions fighting 1-v-1, a tactic they put to hilarious use when the Romans first invaded. Celts certainly used bows to hunt, the lack of arrowheads is probably because iron corrodes very readily compared with stone or bronze so there are very few finds of metal implements at iron age sites.
Title claims Vietnam, soldier is wearing a tommy helm. What we have here is a straya cunt killing a Jap here boys.
>Aztecs made war for the process of capturing their foes rather than killing them. Why sacrifice your own people so that the maize will grow, when you can just attack the neighboring eight civilizations and take 30-40% of them over the course of a month. More blood for the gods
The only time they fought solely to capture their opponents during Flower Wars, in any other war they fought normally like every other state in the world, except during the enemy rout, when the low ranking warriors would try and capture as many enemies as possible to increase their rank and status. Theres a reason a maquahuitl has those obsidian edges
Totally missed the helmet detail, thanks user
Wouldn't Australia be using different helmets? even the Brits had new helmet designs by 43.
Pic related.
Looks like someone forgot to stop, drop, and roll.
>The sound of men screaming, groaning, and calling for help would unnerve most... I know it would scare the piss out of me.
I couldn't imagine that it would be worse than, say a civil war battle where men were slaughtered by the thousands standing in formations taking fire from far more accurate and deadly weapons.
I think I recall seeing this discussion in Veeky Forums before, with somebody posting an account of archers meeting riflemen and the riflemen having disdain for them.