08-30-2007, 07:41 AM
First, I would like to correct some assumptions
1) Western medieval armies did not have a large proportion of archers, you may be mislead by the use of the word "archer" in pay rolls to denote any infantryman that gets the salary of a professional soldier.
2) They did have a large proportion of crossbowmen, especially Urban Militias. The reason is very simple, crossbows are much easier to master than bows, and they fit very well into siege warfare.
3) Ancient armies were not that large, that is a misconception due to lack of reliable sources, mainly documentary, and the credulity of classicist scholars.
In any case, it is true archers were less prominent in the West than in the East. The answers I see
a) Archers, like slingers, were basically the product of a pastoral way of life, that you can find mostly in the Eastern steppes.
b) Composite bows did not work well in the wet West
1) Western medieval armies did not have a large proportion of archers, you may be mislead by the use of the word "archer" in pay rolls to denote any infantryman that gets the salary of a professional soldier.
2) They did have a large proportion of crossbowmen, especially Urban Militias. The reason is very simple, crossbows are much easier to master than bows, and they fit very well into siege warfare.
3) Ancient armies were not that large, that is a misconception due to lack of reliable sources, mainly documentary, and the credulity of classicist scholars.
In any case, it is true archers were less prominent in the West than in the East. The answers I see
a) Archers, like slingers, were basically the product of a pastoral way of life, that you can find mostly in the Eastern steppes.
b) Composite bows did not work well in the wet West
AKA Inaki
