Why didn't archers just wipe out legions and phalanxes?

Question

I mean, these formation--especially the phalanx--were pretty slow compared to unarmored archers or slingers. Even with all their armor, after being pelted by arrows (or for that matter, sling bullets) for long enough, wouldn't even these famous tactical formations have been wiped out? Why didn't ancient armies just train up thousands of archers or slingers?

Answer 1

Well, it's hard to train archers so that they can shoot far *and* fast. In England they managed it by banning soccer, and forced archery exercise with the longbow for all able men. Hence the outcome of the battles of Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415).

But on the Continent, the Nobility - who constituted the cavalry - would never allow the Commoners in the archery troops to win a battle! They would prefer to hire more Swiss mercenaries, with their halberds and rapid close-quarter maneuvering, then to mobilize more archers. Hence the Battle of the Golden Spurs AKA The Battle of Courtrai (1302).

Answer 2

The Legions did have the famous Tortoise but yes they could be highly vulnerable to archers. But each legion had auxiliaries which included bowmen and slingers, and they could help hold off any archers they faced. Not to mention the archers were poor against the Roman Calvary.

But when used right, like at the battle of Carrhae the Legions could be defeated by archers. In this battle an army of some 30,000 men were nearly wiped out by Persian horse archers used with heavy Calvary.

Answer 3

Proper army tactics are like scissors paper stone. One form will beat another but will be beaten by the third.

Cavalry will usually beat archers - (until the Welsh longbow proved decisive against armoured French cavalry at Agincourt (soon to be replaced by firearms).

Infantry in formation will be impregnable to cavalry but won't be able to fight effectively.

Infantry in a line will be able to fight effectively but are vulnerable to cavalry.

Archers are good at thinning out and disrupting a formation but considering a Welsh Longbow "only" has an effective range of 100 yards they only have say 30 seconds before the infantry reaches them. An archer would have to retreat and keep moving - they would be lightly armoured and lightly armed, and lightly killed. The clever bit at Agincourt was to pick a wet boggy field which was unsuitable for cavalry and to place pointed stakes in the ground to shelter the archers.

Ancient bows - Greeks/Romans/Persians would have been small and weak compared to Longbows.

The idea of a storm of arrows hiding the sun is not realistic at all. Even if it was -all you need to do is put your shield over your head.

An exception which proves the rule.
Before anyone mentions the arrows at the battle of Hastings. The Housecarls were axemen and wielded double handed axes and didn't hold a shield.

Answer 4

Sometimes there was just a great difference in the quality of arrow versus armor. To use an example that's in current popularity, the arrows used by the Persians at Thermopylae against the 300 were basically "homemade" by the individual archer and were designed to be used against armor nowhere near the quality that the 300 had in their armor and shields. Except for the occasional lucky shot that slipped through a chink in the Spartan armor defenses, the arrows did little damage.

Answer 5

The Hoplites armor what strong and arrows had a hard time penetrating it. The Roman Legions preformed a maneuver called a Testudo where the soldiers aligned their Shields in a manner were all the solders were covered from the front and above.

Answer 6

Roman. Greeks had tiny armies. They have been extra like city squabbles. Roman's had worldwide wars. Sparta as an occasion has 3,584 squaddies at on factor. for the duration of the 2d punic, the Roman's had between 50-a hundred, thousand. And this substitute into earlier the empire! of direction, in case you communicate Alexander the super as a greek military, he had 50K. The maceoic wars--the place Rome relatively fought for Greek lands--weren't all out battles. some cities sided with rome until Phillip kinda gave up. plenty substitute into politics, no longer battles. and of direction the romans have been discovered of the greek traditions and custom. Later, the Roman armies greww to as much as 0.5 a million!

Answer 7

It wasn't until the advent of the longbow that archers really had enough power to stop an armoured formation of soldiers.

Answer 8

Calvary and shields wielded by foot soldiers. Traned shield formations kept foot soldiers alive until calvary could harrass the archers and draw their fire, that is if the calvary didn't kill them outright. Shifting winds also play their part in make bow fire less than accurate.

Answer 9

Archers were not effective at close range. They need space to rebow and shoot.

Answer 10

archers generally arent goin hand to hand combat and they rely on stelth and speed and they would need a number to match their enemy so they cant always rely on stealth