Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5077317" data-attributes="member: 58197">So, what you're saying is that because archers can't win battles all by themselves, archers "suck?" Baloney. You can't win a modern war with air power alone, but air power is still immensely valuable. Archers were a devastating force on the battlefield when deployed in combination with other troops. Just because other troops were required does not make archers "suck." Look up "combined arms" sometime.As for the specific battles in question: At Agincourt, the archers effectively negated the enemy cavalry, a major contribution. At Crecy, they laid waste to the whole opposing force. The infantry just protected them while they did it. At Carrhae, the Parthians forced the Romans into an impossible dilemma; they could fight in open formation and be devastated by Parthian horse archers, or they could lock their shields and be unable to defend themselves against cataphract charges. Both archers and cataphracts were required for victory.The Mongols carved out the largest empire the world has ever seen, using arrow fire to break up enemy formations, then charging into melee to finish off the disorganized foe. The first part of that maneuver was absolutely crucial for the second to have any hope of success. English longbows were so deadly, and so vital to England's military victories, that Edward III issued an edict requiring every able-bodied man in the country to "learn and practise archery."Bows are obviously not as good as modern guns, but for most of history they were highly effective weapons and widely used in warfare. Like all weapons, they had their limitations, but they certainly did not "suck."</blockquote>

Verification