🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43ndea$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>
           msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu "Rainbow Warrior" writes:

> Hi folks,
> 
>      Recently, a couple of games of the ancient genre have come to my 
> attention, the new Ceasar and the ancients scenarios for battle's of 
> Napoleon. Most ancient battles seem to have 4-8 archer/sling units per
> army of 40-60 units. 
>      Since the 19th century, most soldiers have ranged weapons, with 
> ranged artillery being the most lethal weapon in combat. Why didn't 
> ancient commanders develop armies that were 50-75% archers? This would
> seem to me to give them a tramendous advantage, yet it wasn't done.
> Why?
> 
> 1. Did archery training take too long?
>         

Yes.

> 2. Was it considered unmanly?
>   

Yes in some armies.

> 3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?
>                  

Depends on the bows and armour but usualy yes.

> 4. Were the materials for make bows/arrows unreliable?
>                                             

The best bows such as composite bows were very diffivult to make and good
exaamples would be expensive.

> 5. Was the range so short that the enemy could attack before being 
> significantly harmed?
>                            

Except for the Longbow and Crossbow ranges were often well under 200 yards.

>      In other words, if one were to design an ancients scenario, what 
> would be unrealistic about creating an army of 20 archers units with 
> 20 sword units?
> 
>      Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Rainbow Warrior of the White Knights
> msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu
> 
>                                                                          

There were armies that consisted largely of bowmen but they always had to
depend on shock troops to pin the enemy down and break them up with shock
tactics when the bows had weakened moral.

For example New Kingdom Egyptian armies probably had large numbers of
archers but also had spearmen and chariots.

The most effective bow armies in the ancient world were the horsebowmen
such as the Parthians. The horse archers could use their speed to control
the range but they still relied on heavy cavalry to deliver the decisive
blow.
     
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                               Julian Barker                            +
+                        jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk                       +
+      Keep your lies consistent - Ferengi Rules of Acquisition #60      +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <43ngvc$k...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
Daniel M. Silevitch <dms...@mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <43ndea$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
>   msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow Warrior) wrote:
>
>[Why so little emphasis on ranged units in ancient/classical/medieval 
>warfare]
>
>:
>:1. Did archery training take too long?
[Yes]--I agree
>:2. Was it considered unmanly?
>
>In some cultures, yes. The prime example is feudal Europe and its
>emphasis on very heavy cavalry units.
>
>:
>:3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?
>
>This was not a problem. A good bow could shoot an arrow with enough
>force to punch through most armor. Once the crossbow was invented,
>this became even less of a problem.

I think that this was somewhat of a problem in many cases.  While the best of
bows (notably the English Longbow) were quite capable, most bows were not
of that caliber.  Also, I suspect that the shock potential of arrows used
is less than current bullets (I haven't calculated the energies though...)

>:4. Were the materials for make bows/arrows unreliable?
>
>No; humans have been making bows for a _long_ time, and we've essentially
>figured out, by trial and error, some fairly reliable designs. Provide
>your archers with spare bowstrings, and reliability problems are minimized
>(even with gut strings).

Reliability is good, but the manufacturing cost is high; both for the bow and
for the arrows themselves.

>:5. Was the range so short that the enemy could attack before being 
>:significantly harmed?
>
>Nope. Muskets and even early rifles couldn't match the combination of
>range and accuracy provided by a longbow wielded by an expert. It wasn't
>until the 19th century that mass-produced firearms could match the bows.
>
>:
>:     In other words, if one were to design an ancients scenario, what 
>:would be unrealistic about creating an army of 20 archers units with 
>:20 sword units?
>:
>In the right society, there would be nothing wrong. Examples include the
>Mongols and the Parthians. Even in Europe, there are instances of armies
>with relatively large numbers of bowmen, ie the English army at Agincourt.

I agree, but the first two are mounted archers who carried lighter bows and
tended to actually kill in other ways (harass the ennemy to get them spread
out and chasing you, then pick off one by one...).  Classic light cav
techniques...

>For the most part, use of archery was limited by the very long learning
>curve needed to produce a good archer. This meant that the society that
>wanted an army of archers either had to limit the numbers to the
>availability of hunters or invest in long-term training of the troops.

I would say that there were four main reasons missile weapons did not dominate
the battle field before the invention of rifles.  First is the training issue
(as mentioned above).  Second is the cost of making ammunition (as well as
bows).  The third is that archery is not as effective as rifles--in terms of
rate of fire, penetration/kill power, and ammunition available (kinda hard
to carry 100 arrows with you...).  The final reason is that few commanders
had really seen efficient missile troups in operation.

>-dms
>
>Daniel M. Silevitch
>dms...@mit.edu


-- 
David Kass				Caltech Grad Student
E-Mail: dk...@cco.caltech.edu		Planetary Science
Research: dk...@venus1.gps.caltech.edu

Thought I'd throw in my own 2 cents worth here...

dk...@cco.caltech.edu (David Michael Kass) wrote:
>In article <43ngvc$k...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
>Daniel M. Silevitch <dms...@mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <43ndea$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,

<<snip>>

>>:2. Was it [archery] considered unmanly?
>>
>>In some cultures, yes. The prime example is feudal Europe and its
>>emphasis on very heavy cavalry units.
>>

Archery was also considered an unchivalrous pursuit; fine for hunting but 
noblemen didn't use a bow in combat. Note that this is in stark contrast 
to the Japanese, where proficiency in the longbow was something a samurai 
would be very proud to admit.  In fact, early samurai flaunted their bow 
skill while hiding their proficiency with the blade!

>>:
>>:3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?
>>

<<snip>>

>I think that this was somewhat of a problem in many cases.  While the best of
>bows (notably the English Longbow) were quite capable, most bows were not
>of that caliber.  Also, I suspect that the shock potential of arrows used
>is less than current bullets (I haven't calculated the energies though...)

There's really not much comparison between current bullets and arrows. 
The problem with an arrow is that it loses its energy fairly quickly due 
to aerodynamic drag. However, the early arqubus', compared to bows at the 
time, were far less accurate, and had worse penetration. A bow at the 
time could penetrate plate armour, while early pistols and muskets had 
trouble penetrating.  But the arquebus had more _stopping_ power. A 
musket ball of the period transferred it's energy over a wider area than 
an arrow head, causing hydrostatic shock and all sorts of other 
nastiness. If the ball penetrated into a human body (in the case of 
unarmoured infantry), the wound from the low velocity ball was usually 
more serious than from a bow shot.

<<more snipping>>

>I would say that there were four main reasons missile weapons did not dominate
>the battle field before the invention of rifles.  First is the training issue
>(as mentioned above).  Second is the cost of making ammunition (as well as
>bows).  The third is that archery is not as effective as rifles--in terms of
>rate of fire, penetration/kill power, and ammunition available (kinda hard
>to carry 100 arrows with you...).  The final reason is that few commanders
>had really seen efficient missile troups in operation.

Just one point, early guns were not rifles, they were smoothbore muskets. 
The rifle was primarily a 19th century invention (although attempts at 
rifling go back to the 18th century, if not sooner).

A prepared army could produce 100 arrows per archer.  There are estimates 
of 500,000 arrows having been unleashed at Agincourt. Estimates of the 
number of archers at the battle range from 5,000 to 10,000, which (even 
if the numbers are inaccurate) puts it at around 50 to 100 arrows per 
archer. There were more supply problems surrounding muskets, both in the 
manufacturing of balls and powder (a good fletcher could produce arrows 
in the field, not so with muskets) and in logistics.  The coming of the 
industrial age changed that. 

Bows were also much more reliable in inclement weather than early 
muskets. Even when there WAS good weather, muskets produced enough smoke 
to fog a battlefield. I suspect that there was a large psychological 
factor with muskets, though, due to the noise, smoke, and flame that they 
produced.

The primary reason for the ascendancy of the gun was training. It was 
easy to train a bunch of uneducated peasants in gun drills. They went 
through a mechanical loading process and then pulled the trigger. A 
second or two later a ball went flying out of their gun.  Not much to it. 
A good example of this is Japan. As important as the bow was, Japan took 
to the arquebus surprisingly quickly. However it wasn't the bushi 
(nobles) who took up the arquebus.  The bushi armed the ashigaru (armed 
peasants) (for the most part, though some samurai did train in the use of 
the arquebus). 

-- 
Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
INTERNET: all...@kodak.com
VOICE:    (416) 766-8233 ext 35473     FAX:  (416) 760-4597
Visit the Kodak Web site at: http://www.kodak.com

Rai...@Worldnet.net (Francis Raimbault) writes:
>msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow Warrior) says:
>>     Since the 19th century, most soldiers have ranged weapons, with 
>>ranged artillery being the most lethal weapon in combat. Why didn't 
>>ancient commanders develop armies that were 50-75% archers? This would
>>seem to me to give them a tramendous advantage, yet it wasn't done.

    Hmmm. I suspect the Scythians or Mongols would have been surprised 
to hear that they weren't predominently archers (horse archers but 
archers nonetheless).

>>Why?
>Here are your answers, at least regarding medieval europe !
>>1. Did archery training take too long?
>In fact, not really. Everyone was a potential hunter .... 

    Right, and in England there were excellent state-sponsored economic 
benefits to be derived as well from skill with the longbow.

>>2. Was it considered unmanly?

>No except for Crossbow wich was declared (without any result) "unfair" by the Catholic Church

    To the extent that the bow was a weapon of yeomen rather than socially 
superior men-at-arms, even the longbow was subject to social stigma. 
Consider: all of the prestige and ransom that could be gained by fighting 
socially superior opposing men-at-arms was forfeit when the battle turned 
into a matter of slaughtering peasants after their lords and masters had 
been driven from the field. A captive who can be ransomed was worth good 
money, while one who could only be fed and guarded with no potential 
reward was a detriment.

>>3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?

>That's a point. The target must have been waiting no or leather armor ...
>but that was the case of most footmen.

    True in general since footmen tended to be impoverished levies, but 
not true of the essential core of heavily armored knights and men-at-arms 
upon whom the balance of many battles ultimately turned.

>>5. Was the range so short that the enemy could attack before being 
>>significantly harmed?

>That's clearly the good reason. Bows were not effective at more than 100 meters
>(300 feet), and often really usefull at less than this.
>Just to the time to fire 1 shot before getting hand to hand, unless your're 
>protected by swordmen or separated by a castle wall (ie both attacker and defender).

    At Agincourt the English yeomen also used a prickly defense of 
sharpened stakes set into the ground to impale charging horses.

>>     In other words, if one were to design an ancients scenario, what 
>>would be unrealistic about creating an army of 20 archers units with 
>>20 sword units?

    Nothing particularly. Henry's army at Agincourt was composed of 
roughly 2,000 men-at-arms armed with swords but something more like 
8,000 yeomen armed with longbows as their primary weapon. And as 
mentioned above the Scythians and Mongols were almost exclusive armed 
as horsebowmen. IMO if that's what tickles your fancy then plunk away...

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://nickel.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle/home.html
"Carpe Diem"

>>:3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?
>>

>I think that this was somewhat of a problem in many cases.  While the best of
>bows (notably the English Longbow) were quite capable, most bows were not
>of that caliber.  Also, I suspect that the shock potential of arrows used
>is less than current bullets (I haven't calculated the energies though...)

Hmm... I don't agree with that.  Not taking in consideration the
obvious range and accuracy differences, I do think that an arrow
sticking out of someone's chest, besides hurting as much, has a much
greater psychological effect on surrounding troops. Having someone
yelling and bleeding is one thing, having the same person also holding
that 3-foot long stick lying on the ground while trying to pull it out
is an entirely different thing. (I think. I've never been hit by any
bullet OR arrow.)


Pascal

[ I am Homer of Borg. Resistance is futi... Ohhh... Donuts... ]

ON the subject of crossbows, one reason the Catholic church banned them 
was the ease of use.  While proficiency in the use of longbows or even 
short bows took a large degree of physical as well as skill training to 
accurately use, with a crossbow, if you can pick the weapon up and point 
it in the ocrrect direction, you can accurately fire the weapon.

Penetration and range are both easily increased with a crossbow at the 
expense of reloading time.  Whalebone composite and some steel medieval 
crossbows are estimated at having a pull of over 1200 pounds.  Ad 
mittedly reloading required a winch and probably took several milnutes to 
accomplish.

Reloading time was probably the greatest disadvantage in crossbow use 
which is probably why it was mostly relegated to defensive positions such 
as castle walls or in sieges where movable shields could be used for 
cover between shots.  Plus, heavy pull crossbows are almost impossible to 
reload on horseback which effectively eliminates that tactical option.

AS pointed out before, muskets share the advantages of little training 
required to use but had the advantage that as technology and 
manufacturing processes improved, the rate of fire increased from one 
shot every minute to as many as three per minute with increased ranges of 
several hundred yards.  Thus, muskets soon superceeded crossbows as the 
missile weapon of choice for the untrained masses.

--Binhan Lin

Francis Raimbault (Rai...@Worldnet.net) wrote:
: >1. Did archery training take too long?
: In fact, not really. Everyone was a potential hunter .... 

Eh? Not everyone in Medieval Europe (which Raimbault is answering about) had
bow experience, or hunted at all. Becoming a good archer does take a long 
time.

: >3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?

The bow determines the power. English longbow and eastern composite bows
were both very powerful, relative to most other bows, and were capable of
penetrating even plate armor, though such armor would still afford a lot
of protection. Moreover, shields can be very effective at stopping arrows,
even crossbow bolts, and a skilled force (which most medieval forces were
not) can protect itself rather well with large ones, though they may not
be able to advance effectively at the same time. 

: >5. Was the range so short that the enemy could attack before being 
: >significantly harmed?
: >
: That's clearly the good reason. Bows were not effective at more than 100 meters
: (300 feet), and often really usefull at less than this.
: Just to the time to fire 1 shot before getting hand to hand, unless your're 
: protected by swordmen or separated by a castle wall (ie both attacker and defender).

A decent archer can get at least three shots off in the time it takes an 
unencumbered man to run 100 meters over flat open ground.

Maximum range for a longbow is about 250 meters (350 for an average crosbow).
Against unarmored targets (and even against heavy cavalry much or all of 
the horse-flesh will be unarmored) even a slow arrow can be a big problem.

Other bow data:

Weaker bows (American Indian, Ancient Greek) have a maximum range not 
much more that 100 meters.

A Turkish composite bow (made of more than one piece, often of animal horn 
and wood) usable from horseback has a maximum range of around 500 meters.

A good archer can get off about twelve arrows per minute, though less if 
he takes time to aim each shot. Most medieval crossbows were too strong 
to cock by hand and required a tool to cock, and this made the firing 
rate about one bolt per minute.

PvK

Thought I would add some comments.  Nice to see a thread not based on
"such and such a game rules/stinks" or a "perfect plan".
	First off, I suggest anyone interested try to get their hands
on _The Longbow_ by Robert Hardy and/or _From Sumer to Rome_ by Gabriel
and Metz (the later has info on the ancient period), both are
very informative.

> >1. Did archery training take too long?
> In fact, not really. Everyone was a potential hunter .... 

Well, this is true only if you consider a weak bow.  Handling
a powerful bow (>100 lbs) took a *lot* of physical training
to attain decent accuracy, not to mention enough endurance
that the bowman wasn't exhausted after a few shots.

> >3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?
> That's a point. The target must have been waiting no or leather armor ...
> but that was the case of most footmen.

This is one of the big debate points.  See the books I mentioned for
details.

> >4. Were the materials for make bows/arrows unreliable?

Not unreliable, but relatively "expensive" in terms of man-hours.  A 
good English longbow or Turkish composite took, literally, years to
make (though much of this time was spent "curing" the bow).  During
the period of the longbow's ascendency in England, the native yew 
tree was just about wiped out, and wood had to be imported from Spain
and Italy.

> >5. Was the range so short that the enemy could attack before being 
> >significantly harmed?
> That's clearly the good reason. Bows were not effective at more than 100 meters
> (300 feet), and often really usefull at less than this.
> Just to the time to fire 1 shot before getting hand to hand, unless your're 
> protected by swordmen or separated by a castle wall (ie both attacker and defender).

This is another point of debate, and depends on penetration (which depends on
target protection) and how fast the enemy could charge.  A good longbowman
 could get off 6 aimed shots in a minute fairly easily, starting at a 
range of about 300-350 yards.  The question is whether these would penetrate.

> >     In other words, if one were to design an ancients scenario, what 
> >would be unrealistic about creating an army of 20 archers units with 
> >20 sword units?

Most ancient armies had a disproportionate amount of one or the other.
The thing most modern "army designers" (such as people who speculate
about marrying Roman legions and English longbowmen) don't consider is
that historic armies are generally composed of the troops that were 
available, not by some sort of "mix and match" approach.  You can 
certainly do this for fun, but it won't be reflective of reality.

Oops, I forgot another important point...ammo supply!

For instance, an English longbowman usually carried 48 arrows into
battle (about 6 lbs. of arrows).  We have very detailed information
on one of Henry V's campaigns that shows that one formation of about
5000 archers had an additional 240,000 "spare" arrows (carried in 26
wagons) or approximately another 48 per archer, for a total of 96.
But an English longbowman could fire off 10 arrows a minute (some
could shoot faster than this), meaning that all the arrows would be
gone in only 10 minutes of firing.  It was damn hard to carry
enough arrows with you to make a difference!  The English had to
run out and recover arrows from the ground (and corpses) during lulls
in the battle, or switch to their axes and mallets.

In a similar vein, the Suren with 10,000 horse archers and 1,000 armored
cavalry destroyed several Roman legions under Crassus.  Sometimes it
is said that this illustrates the superiority of cavalry (esp. armed
with missiles) over Roman infantry, but later Trajan with a Roman army
of similar composition had no problem conquering Mesopotamia, basically
the same area where Crassus bit it.  The histories say that the Suren 
provided his troops with a large camel train carrying spare arrows...
perhaps this made the difference.

In article <43ngvc$k...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
Daniel M. Silevitch <dms...@mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <43ndea$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
>   msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow Warrior) wrote:
>
>[Why so little emphasis on ranged units in ancient/classical/medieval 
>warfare]
>
>:
>:1. Did archery training take too long?
>
>This is probably the most important reason. Training someone to use 
>(for example) the English longbow could take years. Learning how to
>swing an axe or (eventually) shoot a musket was a much faster process.
>Some cultures emphasized the bow from an early age, making this issue
>somewhat moot.

Most of the troops at that time were doing the warring in non-crop
seasons anyway, few were trained to any great extent.

And of course some of us are STILL obliged to practice the longbow
every Sunday. Assuming we can find the village green. I s'pose I could
practice the Supasoaker instead..

>:3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?
>
>This was not a problem. A good bow could shoot an arrow with enough
>force to punch through most armor. Once the crossbow was invented,
>this became even less of a problem.

For a lot of the time the bow held sway, the majority of military
forces were non-professionals and unarmoured. Sharp sticks falling out
of the sky on them were as annoying as bits of metal flying at them,
while they were fretting about the harvest, but there were lots more
of the sticks and hence the problem presented a little more
distraction from the idea of, say, running up hills carrying axes..

Don't forget, the idea of warfare is not necessarily the killing of
people, but the instilling of an idea that various actions ( invading
castles or small oil-rich states ) are bad. The more individuals you
make aware of this, the better, since the more likely the enemy is to
run away. Archery was simply more scary since it had more threat.

>:4. Were the materials for make bows/arrows unreliable?

Compared to early guns they were a dead cert, as opposed to the
gunners who were usually just dead.

>For the most part, use of archery was limited by the very long learning
>curve needed to produce a good archer. This meant that the society that
>wanted an army of archers either had to limit the numbers to the
>availability of hunters or invest in long-term training of the troops.

I refer you to the above comment, the act states something along the
lines of all men of a certain age range practicing the longbow on the
village green on Sunday, for the defence of the realm. 

 --------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
"It's not a personality.. it's a bulldozer." | Which .INI file do you want to
Keith Lucas -- sillywiz@wardrobe.demon.co.uk.| reconfigure today (TM) ?
  FL,HM,BV,PA-- DU,FS,TO,BO- TR+ SP,CA,TC++  +---------------------------------
      AQ,PI+++ #++++ S++ LS+ Hr F653 YB73m   |   No PGP, No HTTP, Just Me !!
 --------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow Warrior) wrote:

>Hi folks,

>     Recently, a couple of games of the ancient genre have come to my 
>attention, the new Ceasar and the ancients scenarios for battle's of 
>Napoleon. Most ancient battles seem to have 4-8 archer/sling units per
>army of 40-60 units. 
>     Since the 19th century, most soldiers have ranged weapons, with 
>ranged artillery being the most lethal weapon in combat. Why didn't 
>ancient commanders develop armies that were 50-75% archers? This would
>seem to me to give them a tramendous advantage, yet it wasn't done.
>Why?

First - you make the assumption that an army's main purpose is to
defeat other armies. While this was clearly so for some nation states,
on the whole, this trend did not appear consistently until the late
middle ages and the emergance of nationalism in Europe. An army was
there *mainly* to beat up on the peasants and keep the border wolves
at bay.

That is not to suggest Rome wasn't in the conquering business, simply
that  it was *mainly* in the occupation business. 

Those classical armies best suited to conquering, Alexander's for
example (best use of artillery till Frederick the Great came along)
were great on the battlefield - poor at keeping the farmers in line. 

These are sweeping generalizations - still - you get the point. Whole
armies of archers aren't really great for beating up on the farmers.

With that in mind - let me turn to your main questions.

>1. Did archery training take too long?

Yes it did. Even in the post-Napoleonic era when Britain turned the
worlds oceans in to English lakes, there were serious suggestions in
the House of Commons that since it took nearly 20 years to build
enough Brown Bess's to beat Napoleon that perhaps the SMART thing to
do was to go back to the longbow as that would only take a dozen years
to do the training. It took YEARS to train on the longbow. A few weeks
with the musket was all it took (and that was to reload effectively -
learning to level and shoot took 10 minutes. Armies NEVER aimed with
the musket). In an era of "anyone's son will do", the longbow was
simply not sensible weaponry.  

>2. Was it considered unmanly?

Generally, No. Though it was considered a peasant weapon for a great
deal of time until the Yeoman class made it ALMOST respectable.
Though, more to the point, it was considered "quaint" in the late
middle ages.  It became increasingly ineffective in the later middle
ages as armor improved and battle became more dominated by Cannon and
grape. At range, it wasn't slicing through Plate Armor and fine steel
hauberks as easily as TLC makes it out to be. That privilege was
reserved for the crossbow (also brain dead easy to train - but they
were "high tech" and quite expensive). There is a gereat interplay
between the development of trigger mechanism able to witchstand the
increasingly stronger pulls of heavy crossbows vs. improving armor.
Florence made a living out of building corossbow triggers for a
century (important metalworking trade which had a later impact upon
cannon making and watch building for the swiss). The whole
crossbow/armor one-upsmanship becomes similar to the electronic war in
WW2 played out over a century and a half until musketry (alongside
Pikemen) simply settled the issue.  The crossbow trigger makers simply
switched over to musketry.

>3. Did arrows not have enough penetrating power?

Originally - yes. Later - no. But with arrows in clouds this was
hardly the issue. It didn't matter if the plate protected your chest
so long as one of the arrows got you in the neck or the eye. Again -
crossbows were easier to train, weren't so useless in the rain and by
the time of the longbow in the Hundred Years War, we were also well
into the age of the cannon as a strategic siege weapon - and later -
emerging as a tactical battlefield weapon. The answer as to which one
out: armour or crossbow is neither; the musket and pike won so as to
make the penetrating power of the arrow irrelevant. 

There were real problems timing an arrow barrage to hit at the same
time however - and no one really knows how this was done. This is a
BIG problem for your army of 75% archers. At Agincourt - it MUST have
been a problem - but they muddled through anyway.  JK makes a strong
argument about the timing problem in The Face of Battle's chapter on
Agincourt. JK's point is that one arrow is a nuisance. 2000 arrows
fired one after the other is a big nuisance. But 2000 arrows landing
more or less *at the same time* upon close ranked men is a devastating
weapon. It is HARD to make that happen though - and the physics of
flight and the range limitations, depth of archers ranks, the speed of
sound of a commanders voice and a way to co-ordinate the archers to
loose in series of ranks so as to time it all to hit at the same time
is a real limiting factor on the weapon as it was used at Agincourt.
JK is  impressed they managed it at all. In truly vast numbers though
- this may be the key limiting factor and the "real" answer to your
question.

>4. Were the materials for make bows/arrows unreliable?

No. Yew was plentiful. Other materials were as well. Composite bows
WERE expensive to make - though no more so than a crossbow. Thing was
- the crossbowman could be replaced by simply picking a soldier at
random. A skilled archer - you had to call home and see if his son was
finished plowing the fields and give gim a few years to get his
shoulder muscles in shape. Not nearly so easy a thing.

Advantage - crossbow again. Problem was - crossbows RoF became
exceedingly low as its power increased - as it had to to beat out the
thicker armour. Suddenly, the pikemen got on you pretty fast.

>5. Was the range so short that the enemy could attack before being 
>significantly harmed?

With the shortbow? Depends. Think back to the Roman era of tortiose
shell shield walls. The shortbow in an age of that sort of infantry
sophisitcation was of limited value. The shields screened most of them
out and then the legions were on you. The bow during the classical age
of Rome when social sophistication and military dicscipline were so
high made it a less than decisive weapon against an organized foe. It
had its role - but not centre stage.

Only later after the Goths became the mainstay of the legions did the
bow and horse begin to take a meaningful role in the armies of Rome.
And they soon fell after that (no direct linkage implied - just an
observation).  

Later, in the early middle ages (the dark age of the Vikings) things
were so poorly organized that ANY weapon used in an organized fashion
would have been decisive. As it was, that weapon was the longboat -
not the longbow. 

For what its worth, the Carolingians and Merovingian armies DID come
to use the bow, though getting the stewpot full enough to feed ANY
army - no matter what it was armed with - was the real problem of the
age. The real purpose of those armies was to bash around peasants and
brigands ( which, might be your own army on a given day) - not Moors
or Englishmen. 

The Prophet's armies used the bow as well, though with them it was
still all mainly cavalry and occupation - not merely conquering. Mind
you - armed with stew forks and soup spoons, that army would still
have been formiddable. (Not enough military history of the Prophet and
his son's armies in English - someone should really do something about
this). Whatever weapon was used against that army - they managed to
slice and dice with the speed of their cavalry.

Change the shortbow for the longbow and things had not greatly
improved over the Dark Ages by the Hundred Years War and Agincourt as
far as tactics were concerned. Agincourt DID prove the supremacy of
the bow - but only to a point. In the end - the English lost the
Hundred Years War. By dribs abd drabs and peasants revolting and poor
leadership on and off the field as much as anything else - but lose it
they did. By the end of the Hundred Years War the weapon of choice was
becoming the crossbow, pikeman and the start of cannon on the field on
the continent (at least in Italy and Spain).  By Cromwell's time of
the Civil War, the longbow was relegated to a truly ancilliary role.

The REAL armies of the age of Agincourt, those in Asia Minor, still
had the infantry as supreme, with cavalry a strong second.  Moral: it
takes a sound society and economy to make it work - but when it does -
the infantry rules, never mind what missiles are being thrown at them.
If Henry V had been fighting Arabs, Turks or Byzantines - he would
have been gutted. Literacy doth hath its advantages.

>     In other words, if one were to design an ancients scenario, what 
>would be unrealistic about creating an army of 20 archers units with 
>20 sword units?

Against a phalangeal tortiose shell formation - your army of archers
had better have their running shoes with them. Supported with some
other combined arms approach to counter the infantry formations, yes -
a highly effective weapon - but the infantry remains the decisive
element on either side. The bow is not in itself decisive when
countered by a determined and well organized army such as were
employed by the classical civilizations. You cannot leave out the
skills and organization of the society which deploys and supports and
comprises the army. The bow works at Agincourt - but at Cannae the
longbowmen would have been slaughtered.

>     Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

The most devastating use of the bow came from the Mongols. They were
never beaten by a European army. Indeed, the flower of European
Knighthood died in Poland and Hungary against the horsebowmen.

But, put that same Mongol horde up against a real tactican with well
trained and disciplined infantry with supporting artillery and cavalry
such as Alexander or Caesar - and the Khan would have had his ass
handed to him on a platter. You cannot view pre-gunpowder weapons
without appreciating the social organization and military structures
which supported them and made their mass deployment possible. With the
possible exception of the effect of grapeshot, it is generally
conceded by military historians that Alexander's army would have been
a tough nut for Napoleon's army at Waterloo to crack. 

Go to Stonewall Jackson's time and things don't change a great deal
for Alexander. He would have understood the battlefield and the
problems it represented. The bow still almost fits in - more or less.
Move forward a few years to the campaign in Georgia, where the Union
had switched to rifled bores on all its cannon ( Rifled muskets but
not cannon at first Mannassas - which is why both sides abandoned
cannons at one point in the middle of the battlefield), and were now
using shells and breach loaders in plenty;  Alexander would be
instantly out of his element - *the bow is dead*. The battlefield
depth quintupled in size since First Mannassas and suddenly the
commanders couldn't see the battle. That fast - that quick - the whole
concept of organized battle changed forever in barely 4 years.
 

 

.Robert

rtr...@idirect.com