this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
940 points (99.4% liked)

[Dormant] moved to !historymemes@piefed.social

3511 readers
1 users here now

THIS COMM HAS MOVED

!historymemes@piefed.social

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 32 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Quite right and why make your fastest, best archers wait for your slowest ones?

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but each archer will only be able to have so many arrows. What good is an archer if he only had 20 arrows and fired them all, already? If command thinks they'll need archer support for more strategic things, they may not want them firing off as many as they can quickly, even if the archer believes each arrow will hit its mark.

[–] j_overgrens@feddit.nl 1 points 6 months ago

Armies relying on archers often had a continuous resupply running towards archers in position.