Why wasn't this the only weapon used in ancient battles? Why did people risk their lives going melee?
Life-long training.
>>18411909Because it is short range and can't stop enemy especially cavalry but protected by armor and shields infantry too getting on top you so you need mellee capabilities against that.But if you horse archer then yes bow as primary weapon is visible. Horse bow is short range too but horse archer can shoot move away at the same time. So infantry never catch with you and cavalry has troubles too so you have much much more time to wither enemy away with your bow fire. Horse archersy dominated Eurosian plain since Mongol Empire until arquebus invention.Europe couldn't into those archery due to socio economic reasons.
>>18411961That's completely midwit take. Ancient and medieval military were primarily life long professionals (aristocracy or mercenaries) they could master any weapon.
>>18411909A single person can only carry so many arrows at a time anon. Swords were the ancient equivalent of pistols/sidearms for when your main service weapon is inevitably unavailable and you need something in a pinch
>>18412016>what is a horse>what is baggage train.You surely can't into the military logistics Great Khan lauhs at your ineptitude.
>Why wasn't this the only weapon used in ancient battles? Why did people risk their lives going mel-ACK
>>18411909Melee forces a decision whereas both would parties be happy to just throw and shoot missiles (arrows, javelins, rocks, etc.) at each other without advancing or taking any objective. Look at those videos of tribal conflicts. Those large "battles" are more akin to tests of courage where the men shoot and dodge missiles in theatrical ways. The real killing is done via raids where a raiding party focuses on a single family and then gets lost after killing them. >>18412005>Europe couldn't into those archery due to socio economic reasons.More to the reason of terrain and the abundance of fortifications. There was just less space for horse archers to run away in central Europe.
>>18412005The dominance of horse archers on the steppe far predates the Mongols, as does bow-based warfare from Europe. One of the oldest depictions of warfare we have is from caves around France and Spain from the mesolithic. Groups like the scythians, Huns and Mongols did have better bows for cavalry, but in many regions, especially maritime regions in Europe, those were not practical. And much of it was just too forested and developed to go for that, which is why crossbows really took off in the middle ages. Simple, effective, easily repairable and powerful enough against much more armored opponents. Much of their use increased in response to Mongols no less, as they could penetrate even the armor of heavy knights of that era who didn't use much plate. The first Mongol attempt to subdue Hungary failed in part due to crossbowmen.
>>18411909Muh honor. You wouldn't understand higher men of the past
>>18411909>because you made me mad and i want to bean your head in with a stick
>>18412219Bows were often just not effective enough against infantry and cavalry or even scouts. There's an argument here that is correct however. If the Goths would have adapted quicker to light cavalry and archery for instance, likely they would not have suffered such defeats from the Huns, and the Romans likewise to the Huns and the Germanic tribes as they progressively got more skilled on horseback. The Huns were more efficient and capable of light cavalry and mounted archery than other steppe groups even, which the Goths had already conquered many centuries before the Huns came. But they were sedentary farmers who fought primarily with infantry, and their honor/traditional culture became a burden against steppe arrow spammers. These contexts are rarer than you think however. It mostly came from hyper-specialized horse archery cultures that often failed to adapt to better infantry and cavalry tactics. Alexander crushed the Scythians quickly with heavy infantry and guile.
>>18411909Because any enemy that can withstand projectiles long enough or evade them sufficiently to get into close range will annihilate your army.
>>18412219>throw away your life so a rich man can become richercuck logicall wars since the beginning of time were about this
>>18412005Can you repeat all of that in English?
>>18411909Low lethality coupled with lack of "shock factor" to force opponents off the field. It served an important function in the battlefield, in the sense that it allowed armies and formations to engage enemies at a range but it wasn't a major decisive military arm. >>18412337>These contexts are rarer than you think however. It mostly came from hyper-specialized horse archery cultures that often failed to adapt to better infantry and cavalry tactics. Alexander crushed the Scythians quickly with heavy infantry and guile.Firstly, steppe cultures that practiced horse archery didn't rely on them exclusively. They were used in conjunction with armored cavalry; the horse archers would unbalance and soften up opposing forces, to give the armored cavalry opportunities to strike and force the enemy from the field. This combined arms approach was highly effective, and sedentary infantry centric armies struggled against this. It's a big reason why practically every sedentary empire from the Romans, Chinese, and Persians that encountered the steppe empires adopted a more cavalry-centric approach to warfare.
It was. In simpler societies with little to no armor the introduction of bows was like the introduction of gunpowder.
>>18411909Because your faggoty little bows aren't going to do anything when men in heavy armor on big horses are stampeding towards you. You're going to get trampled, routed, and cut down. You need a line of infantry to prevent this. Have you ever played any strategy game?
>>18412484You would get richer too, if you survived. If you got to sack a city, you could rape, kill and steal to your heart's content. Pretty good deal for a worthless low-born bastard.
>>18411909That's as retarded as asking why modern militaries use a range of different weapons and specialists for different jobs; "WhY dOn'T tHeY jUsT uSe BoMbErS!!!!1111" was explored and found to be completely fucking useless during the cold war. Archers did one job pretty well, but were absolute shit at a range of other jobs that an ancient army needed to be effective. Also longbows were a specific medieval technology rather than something any ancient society would have been able to build - they had bows, yes, but longbows are a separate and distinct category of bow. Ancient bows were nowhere near as effective as a properly built medieval war-bow.
Bows suck at killing people. Yeah I wouldn't WANT to get hit by an arrow, but I'd rather get an arrow in the belly than a spear or a sword. If you ONLY had archers me and my melee GODS would just hold up shields, close the distance, and slaughter all your archers. That is of course, if my cavalry doesn't reach you first and fuck you with their thick throbbing horse cocks.Even cheap padded armor can reliably stop arrows outside of armor-”defeating” bows like the English long bow, but recent testing shows that even these were unreliable when it came down to it.Bows are harrassment weapons. They're only useful if you can halt the enemy, either via fortifications or, you guessed it, your own infantry. This question is like asking why modern armies don't exclusively use snipers.
