Under what circumstances are archers effective? They were decisive

File: bkHHbDP.png (942KB, 743x816px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 743x816px

>>2390978
>but for some reason bow-wielding infantry seem to have taken only a minor role in the history books?
aristocratic bias, a lot of the historians and peoples with the disposable income to follow and pursue history were aristos whose ancestry was connected to knights and lords, so they misrepresented a lot of it early on, this trickled down and may have unknowingly influenced more recent and non aristo writers into marginalizing their position due to lack of reference.

>>2390978

It depends on so many circumstances, the exact interplay of weapon and armor, organization and cohesion, morale and supply, as to be almost impossible to answer without writing a 500 page book.


Generally though, at least in European military history, archers and lighter troops in general occupied a support role. You have to remember that battles were relatively non-lethal; the killing of more than 20% of the losing army's force in a battle was a very rare thing, and the winner would have far, far fewer casualties, as many of the defeated killed would be done so in the post-rout chase.

The amount of enemy soldiery killed while fighting back was a relatively small one, and archers wouldn't be the sole cause of killing in that phase either. But of course, killing is only one part of battle; you usually won not by outright slaughter, but by disruption, by breaking the enemy's morale and cohesion and forcing them to flee. And archers were pretty good for that. They can focus firepower on a part of the enemy force that's out of position or looking like they're wavering far more easily than people with hand to hand weapons. They can cause a reckless charge, as very few troops have the discipline to stand there and be shot at and just take it, even if the arrows themselves aren't doing much killing. They can do things as simple as forcing the enemy into a more defensive position, visors down, shields up, which is tiring and restricts breathing and visibility.


Also, consider that in real life, you often don't have these strict divides that video and old timey board games have. In HYW battles like Crecy and Agincourt, the difference between "archer" and "Light infantryman" in the English forces was a pretty academic one; the bowmen were expected to wear armor and be able to fight in the line as needed. You didn't often have people who could use one and only one weapon in battle.

>>2390978
In medieval warfare the chance of being killed outright by an arrow (or even a sword or lance blow) was slight.If hit, one would be incapacitated long enough to be bludgeoned or hacked to death while squirming in the mud as was the fate of the French Knights at Agincourt

>>2391036
So you're saying the close-ranged soldiers were killstealers?

>>2390996
Don't crossbows work completely differently from bows, not only because of how much power is behind them but because you can only fire them linearly as opposed to an arc?

File: pppppp.jpg (60KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x495px

>The French had originally drawn up a battle plan that had archers and crossbowmen in front of their men-at-arms, with a cavalry force at the rear specifically designed to "fall upon the archers, and use their force to break them,"[42] but in the event, the French archers and crossbowmen were deployed behind and to the sides of the men-at-arms (where they seem to have played almost no part, except possibly for an initial volley of arrows at the start of the battle). The cavalry force, which could have devastated the English line if it had attacked while they moved their stakes, charged only after the initial volley of arrows from the English.

>>2391034
>Also, consider that in real life, you often don't have these strict divides that video and old timey board games have. In HYW battles like Crecy and Agincourt, the difference between "archer" and "Light infantryman" in the English forces was a pretty academic one; the bowmen were expected to wear armor and be able to fight in the line as needed.

Wasn't Agincourt famous for the French not even counting them as soldiers?

>For example, the chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were "ten French nobles against one English", ignoring the archers completely.

When the enemy cannot erect mantlets, their archers or crossbowmen are at a disadvantage and their close combat troops can't close in quickly enough.

Archers are effective if you have good infantry to protect them.

That is the main thing that is basically always overlooked in the English vs French debates.

The English longbowmen had 1500 to a few thousand dismounted war men encased in armor formed in tight formation with polearms to protect them, that is why they were so effective.

Because most other archer units through history would be protected by nothing or just by regular light infantry and could be easily swept away by a cavalry charge if the charge succeeded(as happened often to the massive Fatimid armies when small crusader cavalry charges obliterated them).

The issue with cavalry vs archers is that horses can gallop 9-14 m/s, meaning if the charge is already on the way, the archers will have only about 8-12 seconds of time before the cavalry smashes into them.

This usually means just one or two volleys, and if they fail to break up the charge, basically everyone not on horse is a trampled dead man.

Luckily for the English archers, the French knew that they had to break the heavy infantry wall as well, so they were forced to charge up the speed slowly in order to keep perfect formation for maximum impact.

That is why the English were so massacred at Patay, as the French cavalry charged into them without delay or build up so the archers had only a volley or two before the Frechies were upon them.

They're not actually that lethal.

Most arrows will be stopped by most armour (barring the endless longbow debate, most bows through history aren't as powerful as those), and most arrow wounds aren't immediately lethal even if infection kills later you could still fight much of the battle depending on where hit.

Missile troops have always been used as a screening force to pester the enemy, not wipe them out.

>>2393833
>Wasn't Agincourt famous for the French not even counting them as soldiers?
Well that was their mistake then wasn't it.