Why people bothered with infantry instead of using only archers...

>Also, I'd like a citation

Read a book you DUMB faggot.

? Lmao just fucking walk away if the enemy comes close just kite them until they're dead.

Thanks for abandoning the hill top, hope you dont get encircled by my Calvary while your trying to retreat

Yes, I thought you were just making it up, what with the only "records" we have being things like the Narmer Palatte, very probably stylized representations of men in conflict. And even then, often depicting lots of people with clubs and spears.

You dumb cunt. I would provide some of the easily available evidence that proves what a total fucking cripple you are, but fuck you. You're not worth the shit on my asshole.

No you won't. You made it up, got called out, and now are trying to brazen it out. Are you Australian by any chance?

No I won't because you are aren't worth the minute effort it would take.
>OH NO, a mental cripple on 4chin "called me out!"

You sad sack of failure.

user, you're kind of making me laugh. Pic related is the oldest depiction I'm aware of of chariots. That's about 2,500 B.C. Again, this is a picture, not say, a treatise, an artistic depiction that's pretty fucking old; but it does prove that the Sumerians were knowledgeable of putting a cart in front of some horses and riding it in battle by around then.

There are ZERO works that we'd think of as books that old mentioning military tactics. You know what we have? And not too many of those? Other pictures and engravings and flatwork of what are obviously stylized battles. So don't even show a source (because you have none). I want to hear how you came to the asinine conclusion that we know archers dominated pre-chariot warfare on the basis of such scanty information. A RTS game's rock-paper-scissors interaction isn't good enough, by the way.

The fact that you are completely ignorant of ancient history is no surprise, since you are clearly a very, very., very stupid little faggot.

Did you post this?

>just kite them
>men can run faster than horses, while also stopping every so often to shoot, right?

Why would I post a completely moronic string of pure shit? That's YOUR job.

The style seems to be awfully familiar. Make grandiose claims, and then say citing as such is beneath you. But I guess you learned your lesson about mentioning actual works which could be demonstrated to not say what you claim they say. Good job, I guess.

Also

>just kite them
>every battle takes place on a perfectly flat field with no rivers, hills or rough ground that would slow down or bottleneck my men, right?

whatever you say, you submoronic shitheeled faglover.

Arrows are expensive desu.

Not very good against armour, either.

Archers not easy to make, too.

unless you have a billion arrows in each quiver and each archer having 100% success you'll see why this never happened irl

>Arrows are expensive desu.

Whereas armor and weapons are free? You fucking chimp. apply yourself. 1/10

Archers, and really skirmishers in general, generally aren't all that effective against any disciplined force. They offer supporting fire that may force the enemy to take cover, but they can't effectively hold ground, because the kinds of casualty rates you're going to see skirmishers inflicting just aren't enough to break an attacking force.

There have been plenty of forces historically that relied heavily on skirmishers, but there's always been a "heavier" backbone to forces because you can't effectively fight a pitched battle or even really campaign with just a force of skrimishers.

I don't know about you, but generally people don't throw their weapons and armor at the enemy when they use them.

>HURR

You utter moron.

Let's see if your shitty arrows can get past this.

Simple, shoot the 3 cucks leading that rabble and then wait for the afternoon heat to make holding up those 40 lb shields unbearable.

Funny thing was, accounts of Carrhae talk about arrow piercing the shields and pinning them to legionares' arms.

More importantly, though, they couldn't really fight back against the cataphracts rolling them over when they testudo-ed up.

The Persians had that idea. Middle Eastern armies of the time had a block of infantry in front to hold the enemy in place, while the archers in the back did all the damage. What the Persians did is narrow the block to like, two rows, and put everyone else into the archers. This allowed them to conquer the Middle East.

Then Marathon happened.

>accounts of Carrhae talk about arrow piercing the shields and pinning them to legionares' arms

I don't think that happened very often.

Yeah I doubt it - it very well could just be embellishing. The more important lesson of that battle is that the skirmishers kept the Romans suppressed so that they couldn't effectively fend off the Parthian cataphracts.

>Then Marathon happened.
Then Carrhae happened.

>implying archery predates the chariot

The same reason modern military still have infantry and don't just use artillery and aircraft. At the end of the day, you still need someone capable of getting the small, precise stuff done. Especially when taking a city. What do you do when the citizenry are acting up? Threaten to loose a volley of arrows on the town? Draw your bows at point blank? Works better to have big dudes with big swords and pole-arms. Also, lower maintenance.

>Xiongnu
>Uyghurs
>Mongols
>Manchurians

cmon son

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

Dude, archery is tens of thousands of years old.

Correction... well, at least 10,000 years old.

Fun fact : those are donkeys, not horses

>Xiongnu
literally beaten by a traditional Chinese army in their own fucking turf.
>Uyghurs
What did those guys do to China?
>Mongol
Conquered China by eventually employing settled people tactics like infantry and siege.
>Manchus
Conquered China by eventually employing settled people tactics like infantry and siege.

This

Why are you even still talking

>Be archer
>Miss
>Miss
>Miss
>Gotcha, there's a hit! Ah shit they're getting close, oh well *brings up hand weapon*

>implying mongols didn't use swords and horse cavalry
>implying that archery doesn't years to perfect for an archer
>implying slingers and javelin throwers were not in use
>implying arrows were no infinite in number

>implying Mongols didn't learn how to use siege weapons during conquest of China

Shields and padded armor with mail on top did better than you'd think at protecting you from arrow fire

>be Persian
>fire 2 million arrows in 20 minutes
>cause virtually no greek casualties

and that's when the persians realized that hoplites have too much armor, missile defense, and hit points to fall from tier 1 foot archers firing against the front of the phalanx, and that considering over half his army was basically tier 1 foot archers, they were essentially useless. The same setup that allowed them to fight horsefuckers and other barbarian kiting shits is because they could always outshoot them, but when your enemy is a gigantic mass of bronze shields and breastplates, you essentially have the worst type of army for dealing with that, especially when you don't have room to use your cavalry.

(I ironically used total war terms but it actually applies in this case)

This isn't WoW

how about proving it to this different cunt then?

>cause virtually no Greek casualities
Are you talking about Marathon? Or Platea? Because the former still had the Greeks lose about 3000 men to the Persians 5000 going by modern estimates. Also its not like the entire Persian army back then was solely or purely made up of archers.

it's was mostly archers though, the source material says that Darius specifically reorganized the military to have more archers than it used to have when it was 50/50 which means that Darius had at least 51% archers and probably something more like 60-70% if it was so noticeable to be written down as something significant. This means that as far as infantry goes, the persians did not outnumber the greeks very much at all if you're just counting the spear infantry, so when they charged at marathon and closed the gap of the archers before they could pin them down, they met a thin line of spear infantry that broke and gave way to a large cushy mass of missile troops with virtually no armor, and this is when they were forced to drop the bows and fight the greeks in hand to hand, meaning the persian system, which required a combined arms approach to be successful, was utterly nullified when the missile units couldnt work effectively, were forced to fight in melee, and were unsupported by their cavalry, which wasnt ready or able to support. Furthermore, archer fire simply isn't effective against hoplites, the persians had never fought men as heavily armored as the greeks, the most you can hope for is superficial wounds on areas not covered by the armor and shield, which will not significantly disable it's ability to hold and push forward. If you kite them you can eventually widdle them down, but if you have a mass of infantry that can be eventually reached and can't so easily kite, then they're going to eventually get smashed by the meatgrinder if they don't get some flanking maneuvers going. Arrows cannot stop a phalanx on their own. People like to point to Carhae but forget that the parthians had a 100% mounted force that could kite so the Romans had nothing to close with like the persians did, and the battle was won decisively by the cataphracts, which the persians don't have at this point in history. They had cavalry sure, but not companions.

why do people bother with archers when they can just use cavalry? Lmao just fucking charge people

THOSE ARE FUCKING WAGONS YOU IDIOT

Because they were literally under continuous fire for HOURS at close range. Wooden shields will lose structural integrity if shot enough.

And then the persian capital got sacked. Three times.

It does.

The greeks lost fewer men and won resounding victories in both battles despite the persians have a massive advantage in numbers, and the persian army was absolutely fucking dominated by archers. Their military thought revolved almost entirely around the bow and how to deal with other peoples bows.

Because they are very, very easy to neutralize unless they have a considerable advantage in terrain, or are supported by heavy infantry.

Yeah, a wagon that is trampling down enemies and being used as a platform for spearmen. That's a chariot, dumbass.

>a chariot
>4 solid wheels

CHOOSE ONE

CHARIOTS HAVE SPOKED WHEELS YOU IGNORAMUS

>he doesn't know about cavalry

No, not really. A chariot is a carriage driven by a charioteer to provide rapid mobility on a battlefield. While spoked wheels are useful for that task, they're not essential for the role, and the introduction of what are very clearly chariots preceded spoked wheels by 500-1,000 years depending on where you happened to live.

But have fun with your bizarre autism.

you don't know what chariots are

>The horse chariot was a fast, light, open, two-wheeled conveyance drawn by two or more horses that were hitched side by side, and was little more than a floor with a waist-high guard at the front and sides.
>The critical invention that allowed the construction of light, horse-drawn chariots was the spoked wheel. The earliest spoke-wheeled chariots date to ca. 2000 BCE.

stop being retarded, solid wheels are a huge hindrance compared to spoked wheels. The difference in speed is significant. By your logic we have to push the date back to 4000 BC and the location to Europe.

You don't even need cavalry. Greeks weren't exactly know for their wonderful horsemen, yet the 10,000 foudn ways to fend off archers fiarly reliably, and the Greeks repeatedly crushed persian armies.

Archers are nearly useless on their own, and even when supported tend to underperfom once people start wearing armor. Even if they had infinite stamina and could "kite" ala the vidya without scattering, getting run down by faster infantrymen, or simply breaking, they can't hold ground. That's a problem when not holding your ground means your farms burn.

>The earliest spoke-wheeled chariots
He just made you look like a dumbass.

>>The horse chariot was a fast, light, open, two-wheeled conveyance drawn by two or more horses that were hitched side by side, and was little more than a floor with a waist-high guard at the front and sides.
You know, the funny thing is that I know you got this definition from Wikipedia, and yet you don't actually use its own prime definition.
>>The critical invention that allowed the construction of light, horse-drawn chariots was the spoked wheel. The earliest spoke-wheeled chariots date to ca. 2000 BCE.

>stop being retarded,
Pot, meet kettle.

>solid wheels are a huge hindrance compared to spoked wheels.
I never said otherwise.
>The difference in speed is significant
I again, never said otherwise. But you're acting like if it's not the peak of cahriot technology, it's not a "real" chariot". Should we not consider any armsman of ancient times infantry if they didn't wear metal armor? After all, infantry with metal armor are going to do way, way better than guys with some sort of leather, linen, or no armor at all. But they still performed the same battlefield roles, they're still infantry. Similarly, a chariot with a solid wheel will be shittier than one with a spoked wheel. It's still a fucking chariot.

> By your logic we have to push the date back to 4000 BC and the location to Europe.
Yes, and so what? What exactly is wrong with that, other than offending your autism?

>2000 BC

he's 500 years off and by his own logic should be even farther off, you people need to learn the difference between a war wagon and a chariot.

>Relief of early war wagons on the Standard of Ur, c. 2500 BCE

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot#Early_wheeled_vehicles_in_the_Near_East

>It's still a fucking chariot.

I guess jeeps are chariots too, cause they have wheels and go places faster than walking.

>is acarriage driven by a jeep driver to provide mobility on the battlefield

Stop confusing your terms with pleb-tier definitions.

ancient.eu/chariot/
>The chariot was a light vehicle, usually on two wheels, drawn by one or more horses, often carrying two standing persons, a driver and a fighter using bow-and-arrow or javelins.

>biblestudytools.com/dictionary/chariot/

>Chariot [N] [S]
>a vehicle generally used for warlike purposes. Sometimes, though but rarely, it is spoken of as used for peaceful purposes.

findwords.info/term/chariot
>A chariot is a type of carriage driven by a charioteer using primarily horses to provide rapid motive power.

>I guess jeeps are chariots too, cause they have wheels and go places faster than walking.
When was the last time you saw a Jeep being pulled by horses in front of it?

>Stop confusing your terms with pleb-tier definitions.
What makes your definition sacrosanct you fucking autist?

...

>ancient.eu
>biblestudytools

neither one of these help you

>When was the last time you saw a Jeep being pulled by horses in front of it?

You never said anything about horses, you only said chariots are carriages driven by charioteers and provide battlefield mobility. Replace chariot and charioteer with jeep and jeep driver and you have the same fucking thing, apparently.

>What makes your definition sacrosanct you fucking autist?

It's accuracy and specificity are better than yours.

>this autistic fucking semantics argument

>HRRRRRRR WHY PEOPLE BOTHER WITH INFANTRY

Horses. Done.

I'm a different guy, do you actually have an answer? I just want to know.

>Three times
Wrong.

Trajan took it once, Hadrian sacked it twice.