11-01-2010, 02:36 PM
It can also depend on the soldiers (Your side and the enemy) if they're heavily armoured missile weapons would be relegated to S&A (Support and Annoyance). If your enemy isn't armoured then a few razor sharp broadheads in their exposed flesh will teach them that maybe revolting against the empire wasn't such a good idea after all.
Artillery? I was under the impression that until the 1700's Artillery was for the most part heavy cumbersome and a pain to lug around for a battle. Can you elaborate?
Indeed. (Although Knights in certain units and countries used bows and later, pistols)
Fiatjustica, another factor in using missile weapons is your tactical mindset/paradigm. 'Knights' were heavily armed and armoured shock cavalry, so they don't have much use for bows, they've got crossbowmen to do that for them. The Hoplites had Psiloi and Peltastoi to support them and their shields which was large factor in making the phalanx viable precluded the use of a bow. And like Paullus said the offensive technology of the persian bows couldn't defeat the defensive technology of their armour. So their thinking was.
Quote:I'd say that, although we aren't given enough details for every battle, the fact that Roman battlefield strategy saw a continuous use of many missiles (slings, spears, javelins, arrows, plumbatae, not to mention artillery) from the times long before Ceasar to well into the Middle Ages, they must have thought of it as quite useful. Not to say essential.
Artillery? I was under the impression that until the 1700's Artillery was for the most part heavy cumbersome and a pain to lug around for a battle. Can you elaborate?
Quote:'Fashions' in warfare can also have an effect too - Greeks of the Classical era despised archers as 'cowards', preferring the' gentlemanly' warfare of armoured men in close combat - which had a social skew, because only the wealthy could afford the gear ( as did Western European knights for much the same reasons) ......until the Persian invasion reminded them that the bow was a powerful weapon in the right hands. (BTW; those same Hoplites saw nothing cowardly in butchering 'naked' defenceless opponents without armour, decent shield or weapons.... and luckily for them the technology of their defensive shields and armour was better than the offensive technology of Persian bows).
Indeed. (Although Knights in certain units and countries used bows and later, pistols)
Fiatjustica, another factor in using missile weapons is your tactical mindset/paradigm. 'Knights' were heavily armed and armoured shock cavalry, so they don't have much use for bows, they've got crossbowmen to do that for them. The Hoplites had Psiloi and Peltastoi to support them and their shields which was large factor in making the phalanx viable precluded the use of a bow. And like Paullus said the offensive technology of the persian bows couldn't defeat the defensive technology of their armour. So their thinking was.
Ben.
