Why was fighting after the discovery of metals primarly Melee focused instead of ranged despite humans evolving with atlatls and bows to kill the enemy?
>>64672288Like the Greek hoplites lacking any ranged troop or cavalry just bum rushed the persians at the battle of Marathon and shreded the shit out of the persians in glorious melee combat
>>64672288Closing in on and destroying the enemy is the only reliable means of decisively defeating him.If you decisively defeat your enemy, you get far higher potential gains from it, compared to if you just skirmished with him. Slaves, loot, their cities, their women, their land, their livestock, their riches, their food, whatever. To get these, you ultimately have to get up to your enemy and kill him, or at least force him to surrender, but few are willing to surrender unless you're actually a step away from killing them. That's why melee combat is superior.
>>64672288armor was superior to missile weaponry from the bronze age until gunpowder. You needed to close with the enemy and drive them from the field to defeat them.
>>64672295Skirmishers were a part of every Greek army. They "bum-rushed" the Persians because there was no Persian cavalry present at Marathon. It was straight heavy infantry vs light infantry.
>>64672469Historicaly foot soldiers with longer pole would kill the knight guyHorses are a gimnic to deal with archers
>>64672479When your guy with a spear is in a rigid formation that is currently engaged with other enemy infantry he is vulnerable to cavalry.
>>64672288Short answer, shields. Now don't get me wrong, ranged combat was present in almost every battle and was sometimes the deciding factor but it was entirely possible to hold up a shield and march right into stabbing range of an archer. Yes, the archers could run but that just made them vulnerable to cavalry and divide-and-conquer tactics.
>>64672393Achilles looking zesty
>>64672288>only good at skirmishing, not taking/holding ground>if you've nothing to protect yourself close up, then the enemy can just advance into spear range, and suddenly your dudes are either scattered (and thus defeated in detail) or impaled>your army will disintegrate the moment cavalry so much as exists on the field
>>64672489Not if you make it into a rectangle..
>>64672568More long sticks facing other directions mean less long sticks facing the enemy infantry. You lose by stick overmatch.
>>64672584If your enemy tries to stick overmatch you you flank with cavalry
>>64672604But what if they divert their cavalry to tie up and deflect yours?
>>64672393This but it's predicated on your enemy having things that are very worth closing in on. If you try to close in on a nomadic tribe of horse arches grazing on vast grasslands it doesn't work too well because they'll trade their frontier for the fun of skirmishing you to death by a thousand cuts.For the Greeks in particular they had these singular cities that their entire state was based on, olive groves that take an eternity to grow back if the enemy fucks them up, running away didn't work so well.
In an era when there were no powered machines and tools were crude, crafting arrows must have been difficult.
>>64672628Steppe nomads have their livestock and grazing land.If your cavalry can catch up to their source of food, they're threatened enough to be forced into decisive battles for survival, same way as agricultural societies are.
>>64672671>If your cavalry can catch up to their source of foodHow were you planning to do this since you have zero idea where on the steppe the herd is distributed and it's moving at a rapid pace?
>>64672678The nomad army has to some extent be within logistically viable distance to the herds, which is not going to be that far, considering the methods of supply involve horses, cattle and carts, so maybe a day's march at worst. Thus the nomad armies are restricted to fighting only where their herds are capable of grazing. If the armies scatter, the simple act of sending out cavalry detachments will 100% come across the nomads' herds and camps. The nomads have to protect their livestock the same way agricultural forces have to defend their farmland and granaries. If they abandon them, it's just game over.
>>64672671I couched everything in 'very x', 'not too y' because of course everyone has something worth closing in on and can't live on air, but there are different extremes.The history of annoying frontier nomads from Parthians to the Mongols is less than fully explained by always being a day's march away from easily smashing the enemy's local supply and every ancient general just giving up after <24 hours like the average gambler.
>>64672288Silence Tao
>>64672288>Why was fighting after the discovery of metals primarly Melee focused instead of rangedBecause armor and shields largely negate any attempt at ranged combat. Some of the main exceptions are javelins, which easily penetrate shields and many types of armor, but can only be used barely beyond melee distance. Guns upended this dynamic.>>64672734The problem is you are by any metric overextending in order to do this, as you will have to leave behind your own baggage train to pursue the steppe nomads. Good way to get your supplies looted and then picked off. I do not believe your method ever once worked historically.
>>64672288Don’t arrows just poke relatively small holes in people? I don’t think they’re generating the hydrostatic shock that gunshot wounds do. You’re better off just bludgeoning someone to death or skewering them with a spear like in your pic.
>>64672295This is one of the most retarded posts I've read on this board.
>>64672288there was a battle in the peloponessian war where hoplites got btfo by slingers who would attack them and run up a hill whenever the hoplites charged them and rinsed and repeated that.
>>64673276>>Why was fighting after the discovery of metals primarly Melee focused instead of rangedBecause armor and shields largely negate any attempt at ranged combat. Some of the main exceptions are javelins, which easily penetrate shields and many types of armor, but can only be used barely beyond melee distance. Guns upended this dynamic.all armor has weakspots or uncovered areas, especially the legs are rarely fully armored
>>64673503Okay retard, aim at the legs. In an arc, while volley firing. You cannot, and moreover they are protected by the shield.
>>64673470>Don’t arrows just poke relatively small holes in people?In an age where medicine was far from perfect, being punctured several centimeters deep by pieces of dirty metal and wood whose removal will fuck you up even more if done badly was avoided. As a general rime, you would still avoid it today.Hence armors, shields so the enemy will be less likely to wound you while also wasting ammunition.Hence from then, stabbing a motherfucker was a better way to get him dead.Hence formations to stab more efficiently rather than just everyone rushing in glorious duels then being stabbed in the back or isolated.
>>64673507the firing arrows into the sky thing is mostly a myth, archers usually direct firedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMzSx9Pdyc4
>>64673507As incredible as it will sound, ancient armies did develop counters to that.
>>64673540>archers usually direct firedSource?
