Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Why weren't archers still used?

  1. #1

    Default Why weren't archers still used?

    Obviously, you won't be able to recruit archer units playing as Great Britain, but why weren't archers still utilized by colonial armies? I mean if you consider that your average Joe Musketeer was pretty much worthless beyond 50 meters, volleys of arrows would have been devastating against unarmed redcoats.

    Is it because of improved artillery or just because a decent archer took too long to train? I just have to think that several hundred Longbowmen could have caused quite a headache for Napoleon if positioned right.

    It sounds like a goofy question, and I imagine the better artillery had something to do with it, but as a history major, I can't help but wonder.
    "If a monkey is hanging by his tail from a tree, it's easier to get him down by cutting his tail than kicking him in the face. We are kicking him in the face."

    -George Patton

  2. #2
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοėtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Perhaps some of the native factions might use it. I do not know, are there Native American factions in ETW?

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Doc View Post
    Obviously, you won't be able to recruit archer units playing as Great Britain, but why weren't archers still utilized by colonial armies? I mean if you consider that your average Joe Musketeer was pretty much worthless beyond 50 meters, volleys of arrows would have been devastating against unarmed redcoats.

    Is it because of improved artillery or just because a decent archer took too long to train? I just have to think that several hundred Longbowmen could have caused quite a headache for Napoleon if positioned right.

    It sounds like a goofy question, and I imagine the better artillery had something to do with it, but as a history major, I can't help but wonder.
    It's because Joe Average could only fire his arrow to a maximum of 50 meters. 15 meters he could his something, and 5 meters would be deadly.

    Archery takes skill.

    (The problem was the archers had to get in range of their target, which meant being attacked by cannons and muskets, well beyond the archers range.)

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chukada1 View Post
    It's because Joe Average could only fire his arrow to a maximum of 50 meters. 15 meters he could his something, and 5 meters would be deadly.

    Archery takes skill.

    (The problem was the archers had to get in range of their target, which meant being attacked by cannons and muskets, well beyond the archers range.)
    During some point of the middle ages, it was stipulated that by law, every fit man should train with a longbow. A trained longbowman's range is quite a lot more than 50yards...
    I think that the art of archery died because of a number of reasons:
    - it takes a long time to train a decent archer. A musketeer just needs to learn drill before you can stick him on a battlefield.
    - it's expensive & time-consuming to produce a whole shedload of decent arrows & transport them on campaign, whereas ball & powder is less so.
    -the price of decent bowstaves rose rapidly due to the deforestation of yew trees.
    - muskets need no physical body strength involved for a shot to pierce armour
    - muskets with their bang and smoke produce a more :wub:-your-pants "what the feck was that" effect on enemy soldiers
    - the rich & wealthy in power wanted to be as up-to-date and cutting-edge as possible, with cooler newer stuff than the neighbouring countries
    - in wet weather, if a bowstring is wet, it can be as useless as a musket with wet powder

    That last point was a bit looser... I agree though, that archers would still have been effective on the battlefield - rate of fire is much much faster than a musket, and the effective range is further (200m?)

    From wiki:
    "The last recorded use of bows, in an English battle, seems to have been a skirmish at Bridgnorth in October 1642, during the English Civil War. The most recent death in war from British archery was probably in 1940, on the retreat to Dunkirk, when a former archery champion who had brought his bows on active service "was delighted to see his arrow strike the centre German in the left of the chest and penetrate his body"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "Riflllllles! To me!.... Fix Swords!"

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    The short and sweet answer. It took to much time, money, and effort to train an effective archer. A decent archer took a lifetime of training, a musketeer took a month including formation and marching drills.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Archers were just worthless on a European battlefield. Once weapons and drills were standardised and integrated into pike and shot warfare it became possible to raise a large army quickly and have its constituent infantry formations move independently on the battlefield and perform complex manouevres. Bows simply had no place in this sort of warfare - why bother to raise them if they are just going to get run over by cavalry or shot up by skirmishers?

    Also the effectiveness of bows at 200 yards on an 18th century battlefield would be questionable. Firing at a line of men 3 deep they probably would have gotten no more hits than musketeers. In the Middle Ages they were usually firing at a mass of men. Furthermore, successful archers almost always fought from behind obstacles even if they carried them around with them, usually bringing the battle to a climax by provoking the other side into charging. If the same thing had been tried in the 18th century they would have just gotten bombarded with artillery.
    Last edited by Furious Mental; September 02, 2008 at 05:23 AM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Archer should be used in factions:

    - Polish and Russians -> Mongol Tatar Archer;
    - Persians, Turks, Mughals;
    - American Indians;
    - Chinese and Japanese;
    - African Warriors

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Arthur Wellsley wanted longbowmen for his campaign against Napoleon, only to be informed "such men no longer exist".

    Longbowmen would have shredded musket formations. 200m range. 1 arrow every five seconds. Targets are utterly unarmoured.

    They were just lucky people always go for the cheap option, I suppose.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Why would you shoot someone with an arrow, when you could shoot someone with a gun, seriously?

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Yeah exactly. People seem to be forgetting that the English had archers when they fought on the Dutch side in the Eighty Years War, back before the flintlock and the bayonet and back when they were fighting Spanish tercios - blocks of thousands of men which should have been perfect targets for archers. And what was the consensus of every English general that went to Holland? Archers were completely useless! The only people that still persisted in favouring archery were armchair generals like John Smythe who also thought everyone should be armouring themselves a medieval knight.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sargon_of_Akkad View Post
    Arthur Wellsley wanted longbowmen for his campaign against Napoleon, only to be informed "such men no longer exist".

    Longbowmen would have shredded musket formations. 200m range. 1 arrow every five seconds. Targets are utterly unarmoured.

    They were just lucky people always go for the cheap option, I suppose.
    Exactly the point. Archers, useful ones anyway, take ages to train and serious resources to maintain and arm. Musket armed infantry can be raised relatively quickly and in large numbers. Anyway, they had the means to shred enemy formations - artillery, a much more versatile and cost effective weapon system than any so-called arrow storm.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Logistics:

    - Using a longbow took a lot of skill and training over the course of years or decades. A soldier could be adequate with a musket in a few weeks. This was especially important with the growth of urban populations and the increasing improbability that your soldiers would have had experience with bow-and-arrow hunting when they were civilians.

    - Mass production. Identical musket barrels could be produced in large scale by machine work. The Model 1812 Flintlock Musket, for example, was produced by the Springfield Armory in a quantity approaching 30,000 during the 1814-1816 time period. Similarly, making a large number of round metal bullets was far easier to mechanize than fletching arrows.


    Battlefield Conditions:

    - Bowstrings are affected by rain. Though early flintlocks were unusable in damp conditions, firearm technology alleviated and eventually overcame the effects of weather.

    - Armor penetration and stopping power. Even if the musket ball didn't go through a knight's helmet, he'll probably suffer a concussion. Arrows, on the other hand, simply bounce off. This was, interestingly, the experience of Aztecs and other Mesoamericans who found their slings more effective against the armored Spanish than their obsidian arrows.

    - Fatigue. If you were tired, your arrows couldn't shoot as far, as fast, or as hard. Your aim suffered as your muscles shook from the effort to draw the bow. Tired musketmen were similarly affected, but not to as great a degree. Musketballs also always hit just as hard, no matter how tired the shooter was.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Apparently, the Duke of Wellington looked into the idea of forming a longbow company, but was told there simply wasn't the manpower for it anymore. To be any good with a longbow you had to train your entire life - without that kind of training you couldn't even draw the string.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    It's easy to get focussed on how effective a corps of well-trained longbowmen would be in this time frame, but the single most important factor is the training time involved. Not because it takes a long time to train your initial corps, but because as you take casualties, you don't have the capacity to replenish it.

    Over the course of an 18th century war, which country will be able to amass and field the larger force? The one that can draft any able-bodied man and train him in a few weeks, not the one that needs more archers with 20 years of experience.

    Just imagine the catastrophe if your longbowmen were caught in a flanking cavalry charge or mowed down by artillery fire - you could effectively loose the war in a moment!

  15. #15

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    i remebered reading internet from this website http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ that the avearage french soldiers during the Napoleon era only firie 2 round per year!!.lol.
    maybe this statistic is not accurate but the deviation should not be very big i suppose.
    so maybe numbers is a larger factor of importance during the musket era??

  16. #16

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    All the points exposed are valids.

    By the way, for how long do you expect your archers to fire at the theorical maximum rate of fire without wasting all their ammos and getting exhausted ?

    Firing with musket at the maximum rate of fire for long on a battlefield would be pretty tiring both nervously and physically i would guess, while there is almost no strenght required, so firing heavy war bows...

  17. #17
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Graz (Austria), Devonport (Australia)
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    and what about crossbows? they can probably reload as fast as musket but have a far greater range. so why didnt any armies in the 18th century field any crossbow companies? now that wouldve been devastating

  18. #18

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Warfare is, in many ways, the ultimate Darwinian environment - generally speaking, if its not meant to survive, if its not a viable concept, it dies off. So armchair amateur history channel surfers may say "hey, I know, if they had just used crossbows in the 18th Century things would have been way better" (which I sort of read as "gee Im much more used to playing Medieval Total War." ) ... but trust me, it dont work like that.

    But look, if it wasnt used, you can be pretty sure there are very valid reasons why. Heres just a couple with regarding the crossbow question (Ill not address bows/longbows as thats already been handily put to rest by others). First, a crossbow has more working parts than a musket or rifle and therefor more to maintain and more that can go wrong. Second, the crossbow weighs more and is far bulkier. Third, the crossbow cannot be used as an effective melee weapon. Fourth, it suffers much of the training issues as bows do compared to muskets/rifles (meaning its much easier to train men to use muskets/rifles). Fifth, the battle drill of loading, aiming, and firing a crossbow is far more tiring than musket/rifle drill.

    I could go on and on. War is an evolutionary hot house - ideas that no longer work are quickly left behind. Sometimes old ideas get picked up again, but they invariably come back transformed.

    So yeah, next time you think, "hey the sling is a handy weapon, and cheap ... I know if the Prussians only had a special regiment of slingers ..." save your breath and keep the idea in your head.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Gora sahib; March 19, 2009 at 01:37 AM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Natives use bows in the game and it is soooo annoying, they can fire from farther than all musket units so you have to melee them as they can skirmish out of range of your guns.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Why weren't archers still used?

    Guns when they came were all the new and powerfull stuff, anyone could use them. Archers commonly trained all their life to use bows.

    Then, when the generals discovered that the new guns were awfully inaccurate, that big formations would be juicy archery targets, there simply weren't anyway to raise units of archers since probarly only a few hunters retained the skills.

    I think the big bOOOOOOoms were probarly thought of as a part of the new weaponry too, much more noisy than bows!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •