As long as they are protected by some melee troops to counter cavalry charges, what's the downside?

Wouldn't such an army be able to defeat a Greek Phalanx or a Roman legion, for instance?

Well if the enemy army is nothing but cavalry, how many melee troops are you going to need to protect your missile troops?

As for phalangite armies, no, I seriously doubt that missile troops alone, even in fantastic quaintity, could perform effectively against them.

Also, remember such formations as the testudo, or "tortoise," that are virtually impenitrable to archery.

To make the final point, armies by the eighteenth century were, by and large, missile troops, in a manner of speaking; certainly in comparison to "heavy" infantry of earlier centuries.

Also, remember such formations as the testudo, or "tortoise," that are virtually impenitrable to archery.


Yeah i remember watching something about this on the history channel, when they all gather together they can block almost any arrow with there shields in the right formation

Professional armies were pretty rare in ancient times, the mass of your force was usually peasants given a pointy stick or sharped hunk of metal they called a sword. Arrows cost money, rain could damage a strung bow, and it took a fair amount of training to use it effectively. If you saw 300, one of the few historical truths was how they survived massed arrow fire.

Watching a band of archers try to police a captured city would be amusing.

Arrow cost money. The dead, cost nothing.

it would cost a lot of money to have enough arrows to be effectively used.

Arrows are considerably less effective than popular culture would have you think, plus training could take years. You could spend months paying one of your men at arms to train, only to have him beaten by 3 peasents with an hours worth of practice with pointy sticks.

I advise you to read up on wiki the articles pertaining to for instance the sling or javalin, the sling article I know has some comparisons with the bow and why its better.

Do arrows cost that much more than melee weapons? Also weren't arrows recollected and reused AFAIK?

Archers not being good at capturing and policing cities indeed makes sense.
As does archery requiring more training and experience.

According to Wiki though, the turtle formation wasn't all that useful, except for military parades and Hollywood.

Anyway, I discovered a line in Wikipedia which could explain my question: "The Persian army depended on archery, mobility, and cavalry, and while these tactics were effective on the vast plains of the east, in confined areas they could be defeated easily." Thus explaining Marathon for instance.

I guess a 25% hill (uneven terrain) defense bonus for archers doesn't make sense then?

Btw, were there any advances in infantry bow production or tactics between the invention of the recurve bow (2000 BC) and the longbow? (useful to know for civ ancient era mods)

Certainly the crossbow and its later improved variants lead to huge changes in late medieval warfare, and would be something to include.

Do arrows cost that much more than melee weapons? Also weren't arrows recollected and reused AFAIK?

Archers not being good at capturing and policing cities indeed makes sense.
As does archery requiring more training and experience.

According to Wiki though, the turtle formation wasn't all that useful, except for military parades and Hollywood.

Anyway, I discovered a line in Wikipedia which could explain my question: "The Persian army depended on archery, mobility, and cavalry, and while these tactics were effective on the vast plains of the east, in confined areas they could be defeated easily." Thus explaining Marathon for instance.

I guess a 25% hill (uneven terrain) defense bonus for archers doesn't make sense then?

Btw, were there any advances in infantry bow production or tactics between the invention of the recurve bow (2000 BC) and the longbow? (useful to know for civ ancient era mods)



It is clear that many ancient peoples used the sling in combat and that organised armies included specialist slingers as well as equipping regular soldiers with slings as a back up weapon. As a weapon, the sling had several clear advantages. In general, a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges approaching 600m[6] — significantly farther than what could be achieved by bows in any period, including the famed longbow. Arrows were typically loosed along relatively flat trajectories that seldom managed to send them beyond 100 meters. The current Guinness World Record distance of an object thrown with a sling stands at 477.0 m, set by David Engvall in 1992 using a metal dart. Larry Bray held the previous world record (1982), in which a 52 g stone was thrown 437.1 m. Modern authorities vary widely in their estimates of the effective range of ancient weapons and of course bows and arrows could also have been used to produce a long-range arcing trajectory, but ancient writers repeatedly stress the sling's advantage of range. The sling was light to carry and cheap to produce; ammunition in the form of stones was readily available and often to be found near the site of battle.


And of course the Javelin has much greater weight behind it and is thus much more likly to penetrate the armour of the opponant. Arrows on the other hand, less weight (compared to stones and javelins) etc.

The real problem apart from the training costs behind creating a sufficiently trained archer 'unit' is that the rate of fire from any projectile unit and the rate of 'kills' will insufficient to rout any attackers (there are some notable exceptions, usually when the attacker lacks any skirmisher support i.e battle where the spartans got killed by pelasts)

Certainly the crossbow and its later improved variants lead to huge changes in late medieval warfare, and would be something to include.
QFT, you didn't need as much training, and much less practice to be able to effectively use the crossbow.

Certainly the crossbow and its later improved variants lead to huge changes in late medieval warfare, and would be something to include.

Indeed. As missile weapons progressed, they became much easier to weild; this continues to the present day, where pretty much anyone can pick up a gun and, with an hours' instruction and a little practice, more or less fire it in the right direction and maybe hit something. I'm sure with considerable instruction, I could still not operate a bow effectively; hell I'm lucky to get the arrow in the air, much less actually hit something, especially at range.

I agree with cheezy, it takes much less practice to use a gun, so it's much cheaper to use in terms of time saved...

The Chinese frequently used massed crossbows unit in battle thrughout most of its dynasty. They were quite powerful (http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4470&hl=crossbows) things as well, at 200-250lb draw weight, very powerful weapon for its time.

There was also a limit to how many arrows an army could carry and archers used them up pretty quick. If the enemy had adequate cover and sheilds then they could simply wait for the archers to run out of arrows and then your (assuming it was all archers and a small vanguard of melee troops) army would be in lots of trouble.

Certainly the crossbow and its later improved variants lead to huge changes in late medieval warfare, and would be something to include.

Yeah, but unfortunately that's no longer ancient (western) era.

The real problem apart from the training costs behind creating a sufficiently trained archer 'unit' is that the rate of fire from any projectile unit and the rate of 'kills' will insufficient to rout any attackers

Is that an opinion or do you have some sources for that? Basically opponents don't need to be killed right away to remove them from battle, and apparently an archer could fire ten arrow per minute.

There was also a limit to how many arrows an army could carry and archers used them up pretty quick. If the enemy had adequate cover and sheilds then they could simply wait for the archers to run out of arrows and then your (assuming it was all archers and a small vanguard of melee troops) army would be in lots of trouble.

I'm also wondering if this is your opinion, or you base it on some sources you read earlier. (I'm trying to distinguish between useful information and not so)
Considering an army could fire (ten) thousands of arrow, even with shields, wouldn't even a couple arrows get through, and that be sufficient to damage the opponent. In any case, it could render the shield useless for further combat. For instance apparently the purpose of light troops such as javelineers in Greek combat was not to actually kill a hoplite, but for instance force him to discard his shield because it was useless with a small spear smashed in it.

Also if light troops such as archers or javelineers run out of ammo, they can simply retreat. Heavier armoured troops can't keep up. This is how light infantry can defeat heavy infantry: whenever the heavies get close, the lights just run away and restart the attack from a distance.

For the record, I'm basing my hypothesis that mass archery coupled with some pikes or so to protect against charges is pretty good on the following article I found somewhere on the internet (don't know a link anymore):

I just finished Archer Jones' The Art of War in the Western World, which is a dandy book (Archer Jones is one of my favorite military historians, and I recommend his books to anyone with an interest in the subject. He is always clear and incisive, and makes complex situations highly understandable without needing to simplify).
In his latest book, he points out that, starting with the Macedonians, ancient warfare consisted of four combat arms: Light Infantry (missile-armed), Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry (missile-armed), and Heavy Cavalry. These have a very specific interrelationship, which has been demonstrated in numerous battles throughout history (up till the invention of the pistol).

"Offensively Superior" means that the combat arm is able to defeat its rival in an attack -- though the "attack" may not look much like one. The classic example is Light Cav vs. Heavy Cav. The Light Cav constantly retreats during an action, so it can't be caught, but it is offensively superior because it can force an action upon the Heavy Cav, who can't get away from the faster, more loosely-organized horse archers.

"Defensively Superior" means that the combat arm's rival is not able to successfully overcome its rival in an assault.

Light Infantry is offensively superior to Heavy Infantry.
Light Cavalry is offensively superior to Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry is offensively superior to Light Infantry
Light Infantry is defensively superior to Light Cavalry
Heavy Infantry is defensively superior to Heavy Cavalry
When fortifications are involved, of course, these relationships change. Cavalry becomes useless, and the offensive superiority of light infantry is canceled out.
Also, if heavy cavalry can get to the flank of heavy infantry, they can triumph. This was one of Alexander's techniques -- by pinning down the enemy hoplites with his own, and thus keeping them from maneuvering, he could take his Companions and charge the enemy mass from the side or rear.

Note that at Hastings (for instance), the Norman knights were unable to penetrate the Saxon infantry line until they'd broken it up with repeated small charges and sustained archery, thus slowly wearing down the Saxons.


NOTE: light infantry and light cavalry normally take much longer to reach a decision when offensively superior than do the heavies. This is because light troops have to run away when the heavies charge (usually they can do this, because they're faster), then run back when the heavies try to flee. This continual ebb and flow takes quite a while, but the decision is no less certain than when heavy cavalry smash into a batch of slingers -- just slower.

There are exceptions to this general rule, but not nearly as many as you might think. Some well-known sample exceptions are below:

"At Marathon, Athenian heavy inf defeated Persian light inf." The Athenians were able to close with the Persians, whose back was up against the sea. Under normal circumstances, the Persians should have been able to flee while keeping up harassing fire upon the Athenians. There were many cases in which peltasts were able to destroy unsupported hoplites. Obviously, if lights (cavalry or infantry) can be trapped so as to prevent retreat, the heavies have it all over them. But this is the exception.

"At Crecy, English light infantry (longbowmen) defeated heavy cavalry." In fact, the French did not attack the longbowmen, but instead charged the main English line, basically heavy infantry. The infantry was well able to resist the charge, especially after the archers had sowed confusion. On those occasions when cavalry charged longbowmen, the longbowmen ran away, were massacred, sought shelter among accompanying heavy infantry, or were saved by a countercharge from friendly cavalry.

"The Romans managed to rule an entire empire, relying entirely on their excellent heavy infantry". The Roman infantry was excellent. But the Romans also had significant numbers of auxiliaries serving as light infantry. In addition, they invariably had locally-recruited cavalry forces, normally the equivalent of heavy cavalry. They did generally lack light cavalry, and this showed in their Parthian campaigns.

NOTE: "heavy" cavalry does not necessarily mean heavy armor. It just means they're trained to fight in large masses in a melee rather than in the Parthian style. For example, during the Crusades, the Crusaders learned to hold off Saracen horse archers by using crossbowmen (using light infantry to defeat light cavalry) for their heavy infantry and cavalry to shield behind. The Saracen light cavalry was trained to fight both with bow and sword, and thus could "switch" over to a heavy-style melee combat. On occasions that the Crusaders crossbowmen did not have support from nearby heavy infantry or cavalry, the Saracen cavalry was able to charge and, despite their light arms and armor, disperse and kill the crossbowmen. In effect, they could act as light or heavy cavalry. Of course, if they had to face genuine Crusader knights, the Saracens couldn't hold up in melee with these horsemen. Instead, they evolved their own form of genuine heavy cavalry, which was still not as good as the Crusaders, but a heck of lot better than nothing.

While not quite what the OP had in mind, the Mongol army was almost all made up of horse archers. Even the Mongol heavy cavalry carried bows.

Another point not yet mentioned is that some regions did not have enough trees (or the right kind) to produce the large numbers of arrows that would be necessary for such an army. Some of those cultures developed highly developed skills with slings, but usually not in the numbers implied by the original post.

Just moving the historical context on slightly to the hundred years war, looking at the English and their initial devastating use of the longbow, they were using massed archers with a combination of men at arms/knights. Up against the French crossbows, in this case the crossbows just werent that good because the Longbows could reach the crossbows wuite a bit before they could reach them but to train a longbowmen took years and years of practice. To shoot a smaller bow could be achieved quicker but not much quicker.

Simply it took time for a peasant (as that's what the bow was, a peasant weapon) to learn to use the bow and they had better things to do such as avoid being raped/pillaged, sowing and gathering the crops.

Also your stating that the main reason was not for the archers/skirms etc to get the hoplite or whatever to discard their shield. For this to happen they would have to masse a lot of men, the army with the predominantly archers would need to be huge in comparison with the enemy for the arrows to have that massive effect. Armies, on the whole, just werent as big as that for quite some time.

edit- your was implying the OP btw.

Just moving the historical context on slightly to the hundred years war, looking at the English and their initial devastating use of the longbow, they were using massed archers with a combination of men at arms/knights.
Key words here being "combination of men at arms/knights". Look at the Battle of Navarrete for a more balanced English longbow battle than Crecy or Agincourt (i.e. the opponents weren't as stupid). Longbows are all well and good, but against a reasonably skilled opponent who doesn't, say, attack a bunch of longbowmen across a lot of open ground, you need units to protect the longbowmen and to exploit the weaknesses in the enemy formation created by said missile fire.

In basically every era of warfare, the real decisive successes have been scored by armies who rely on combined arms armies as opposed to just spamming one kind of unit. There's the English (in many different forms, too: for another, look at how the Brits basically sucked at life unless their army was reasonably up to par along with the navy, and how their greatest successes - the conquest of India, the War of the Spanish Succession, the First World War - were scored when they had a reasonably powerful land arm in addition to their perennially powerful navy), the USSR (combined arms steamrollers FTW), Alexander the Great (it wasn't all phalanx; in addition to the famed pezhetairoi, Alex coordinated set-piece combined arms battles using the hypaspistai (a form of extremely high quality light infantry), psiloi and peltasts (missile troops) and of course his amazing hetairoi and sarissophoroi cavalry), Napoleon (Murat, artillery, and the Imperial Guard...when he started really spamming the "artillery" bit, after 1806, things started going less and less well), hell, even Fred the Great (the truly magnificent Prussian infantry combined with Hans von Ziethen's cavalry, plus good cannoneering). The Romans didn't do badly at all when they concentrated on the legionary infantry, but possibly the greatest victory Rome ever secured, that of Zama, was done with excellent Numidian cavalry aiding the top-quality legionary and velites maniples; and Roman commanders made the intelligent choice to incorporate alae and auxiliaries from the earliest stages, so that Gallic cavalry aided Julius Caesar effectively during the Civil War and Roman units incorporated not only the elephants, which are fun to use, but also hoplite infantry at Cynoscephalae. The Mongols, it's true, built a gigantic empire off of horse archers and achieved tactical supremacy for either a half century or a full century (depending on if you think Ain Jalut was important or just a fluke), but they were smart about picking their battles. Note the lack of Mongol success in places like Vietnam, where their horse archers didn't do so great against Champa. And they never even tried to go into Western Europe or India, other places where the mounted horseman isn't so tactically superior.

As to the 25% hills bonus for archers, I think that they were thinking having the archers stand on a hill as compared to the archers be in the spaces between hills. Agincourt compared to Thermopylae. ;) And props for mentioning Archer Jones - I have Art of War in the Western World too, and it's a really good primer. Highly recommended for anyone who hasn't read it yet.

I'd be tempted to say that horse archers were an extremely powerful force, one that could pretty much destroy any army in the ancient world if used effectively. However, the cost of training and maintaining a horse-archer force on the scale of the sarmatians, mongols or huns was unimaginably high. Only nomadic peoples could field these soldiers in quantity and the same nomadic way of life that made that possible also doomed them to destruction once they attempted to control their conquests. Nomadic life requires huge territorial expanses and can only support sparse populations.

The Mongols, it's true, built a gigantic empire off of horse archers

No so much, the Mongols had 4 heavier lancers for every 6 horse archers, and they all generally had axes and swords if a role shift was required. So...I guess your even righter!

Though of course combined arms is less necessary when you have vastly superior intelligence, strategic mobility, tactical mobility, better average training, and generally superior weaponry to your opponents ;).

As long as they are protected by some melee troops to counter cavalry charges, what's the downside?

Wouldn't such an army be able to defeat a Greek Phalanx or a Roman legion, for instance?

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but in Medieval european culture, such a thing would have been viewed as "not honourable".

And its not strictly true about the mongols and horse archers, they annexed the majority of china using an army of Chinese infantry in the majority and horse archers. (and siege crews obviously).

I understand the attractiveness for using pure archery units in games like rome: totalwar, "0' casualty is a real posibility. I guess realistically speaking, ancient armies are more flexible. historically there are some cultures whichare known to favour ranged combat, like the persians, but they also have different forces as well.

As long as they are protected by some melee troops to counter cavalry charges, what's the downside?

Wouldn't such an army be able to defeat a Greek Phalanx or a Roman legion, for instance?

Ancient bows had short ranges and could easily be countered by shields and armor. There was a time when massed archers were widely used but that was before technology caught up that could manufacture effective shields and armor. That was sometime around 600 BC. After that, archers were only useful to scatter enemy forces. When the longbow was invented in the Middle Ages, massed archers became useful again, because the arrows could be fired a longer range. The crossbow had also appeared on the scene. Both devices could fire arrows fast enough to pierce shields and armor. Also, arrows of the day had their heads modified to pierce armor.

Even so, it was still possible to outmaneuver archers simply with a well placed cavalry charge.

I understand the attractiveness for using pure archery units in games like rome: totalwar, "0' casualty is a real posibility. I guess realistically speaking, ancient armies are more flexible. historically there are some cultures whichare known to favour ranged combat, like the persians, but they also have different forces as well.

Against a computer maybe, but against human players, there are simple too many protection systems that can mess up your archers:

-Hoplon shield, covers from the head, sholders, arms till the knees, from knee to feet, graves are used.
-Phalanx/Childron deep formation that deflect enemy missiles.
-Roman Testudo Formation.
-Cavalry charges.
-Long range missile devices.
-Heavy body armor.
-Terrain
-Buildings/Walls/Fortifications

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but in Medieval european culture, such a thing would have been viewed as "not honourable".
True, but the Medieval European was the only period in European history when something when majority archer armies were used, at least as used by the English. "Honour" and "success" where not necessarily the same thing, remember. ;)

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but in Medieval european culture, such a thing would have been viewed as "not honourable".

I imagine many cultures at many times would have found it not honorable, the classical Greeks for one.

I imagine many cultures at many times would have found it not honorable, the classical Greeks for one.
True- cultures which valued hand-to-hand combat tended to look down as archery as unfitting for a warrior, citizen-soldier or whatever. However, some cultures, such as those of Japan and central Asia, held archery, particularly in it's mounted form, to be the most noble form of combat.
Basically, it all comes down to the status quo. Whichever forms of combat that was practiced by those that become a culture's fighting class become "honourable", while others are disdained.

Against a computer maybe, but against human players, there are simple too many protection systems that can mess up your archers:

-Hoplon shield, covers from the head, sholders, arms till the knees, from knee to feet, graves are used.
-Phalanx/Childron deep formation that deflect enemy missiles.
-Roman Testudo Formation.
-Cavalry charges.
-Long range missile devices.
-Heavy body armor.
-Terrain
-Buildings/Walls/Fortifications
But archers specifically calvary archers are soooo useful:lol:. I would field 1/4 of my army with them, against the computer. Using whole armies of calvary archers against them would be too unfair. I never used testudo formation when i play roman, too slow. The only thing that kills me is the scythian chariot! Anyway, we all know games is not a true representation of real life:(

Archers aren't so versatile as average swordsmen. In a forest-battle or during ambush archery aren't useful.

Ancient bows had short ranges and could easily be countered by shields and armor. There was a time when massed archers were widely used but that was before technology caught up that could manufacture effective shields and armor. That was sometime around 600 BC. After that, archers were only useful to scatter enemy forces. When the longbow was invented in the Middle Ages, massed archers became useful again, because the arrows could be fired a longer range. The crossbow had also appeared on the scene. Both devices could fire arrows fast enough to pierce shields and armor. Also, arrows of the day had their heads modified to pierce armor.

Even so, it was still possible to outmaneuver archers simply with a well placed cavalry charge.

Emphasis mine. And it seems like somebody has never heard of the Recurve Bow ;)

True- cultures which valued hand-to-hand combat tended to look down as archery as unfitting for a warrior, citizen-soldier or whatever. However, some cultures, such as those of Japan and central Asia, held archery, particularly in it's mounted form, to be the most noble form of combat.
Basically, it all comes down to the status quo. Whichever forms of combat that was practiced by those that become a culture's fighting class become "honourable", while others are disdained.

It's worth remembering here that some cultures disdained all forms of soldiery, most specifically, the Chinese. They were a necessary evil, not a status revered or respected.

It's worth remembering here that some cultures disdained all forms of soldiery, most specifically, the Chinese. They were a necessary evil, not a status revered or respected.
I think China is a good example of mixed feelings towards soldiery for centuries. I would say a lot of this has to do with how domestic politics have played out back then. On one hand, you need strong army to take on nomadic tribes to the north and the west, as well as conquest and suppressing internal revolts. On the other hand, stronger army means more political influence generals gain. From the point of view of civilian ministers, generals should be on a short leash or they may become ambitious enough to threaten the imperial capital. From the throne's point of view, while it needs the army's loyalty to hold onto the empire, too much reliance on the army means the throne will have to make more concessions to the army. Short-term gain; long-term liability. They have not been terribly successful at coming up with retraining their generals but not stifling them at the same time. Still the same problem exists today in China, although not to the same extent so far (after all, unlike the past dynasties, today's China is a police state). Even then, the Communist Party has not had an easy time messing around with People's Liberation Army. (Remember Tienanmen 1989? The Communist Party had to 'shop' around for a while before they could find a division willing to crush the student protestors.)

It's worth remembering here that some cultures disdained all forms of soldiery, most specifically, the Chinese. They were a necessary evil, not a status revered or respected.
Later Chinese society, yes, but earlier periods, particularly the Zhou Dynasty, followed a feudal model in which a chariot-riding warrior aristocracy dominated, and in periods of unrest, such as the Three Kingdoms, the aristocracy were essentially warlords. It was the development of Chinese society away from feudalism towards centralised bureaucracy that lead to the withdrawal of the aristocracy from warfare (as well as the development of the a gentry comprised of retired bureaucrats) rather than an inherent disdain for warfare.

However, it's a fair point. Warfare, whatever the variety, only tends to remain "honourable" as long as the ruling class has a personal interest in it. When that is lost, it becomes a political and economic tool, not a social role.

Note the lack of Mongol success in places like Vietnam, where their horse archers didn't do so great against Champa. And they never even tried to go into Western Europe or India



Actually the Mongols did go deep into India. And the mongol leader Timur even managed to conqure some of it.

Actually the Mongols did go deep into India.
Lessee...Genghis Khan stopped at the Indus after smashing Jalal ad-Din, Hulagu couldn't keep anything going for very long and had to ask for peace, the Chagatai khanate was defeated several times in the 1290s, the Mongols failed to finish the siege of Delhi in the 1300s and were repulsed, and were again twice defeated later in the decade, and after that made few attacks, none of which lasted very long. Note that none of these attacks before 1350 went beyond Delhi and only a few of them reached it, and out of all those only one was a serious siege, which was abandoned. That's not very far. After 1350, there are no major incursions until Timur's.

You may be thinking of the Mughals, who actually did get fairly far into India and who claimed descent from Timur. Their warmaking style was vastly different from that of the Mongols, though, inasmuch as they incorporated gunpowder weapons from the first, and as such don't really have any effect on my original point.
And the mongol leader Timur even managed to conqure some of it.
He drove through the Punjab and into Delhi, smashing the two armies he encountered along the way, then torched Delhi and went back, retaining none of the land he had marched across. Of what is now India, his empire only ever controlled Kashmir (which is disputed :p), and even much of Pakistan wasn't captured. Delhi, being on the northwestern side of India and relatively close to the frontier, doesn't really count as "deep" when virtually none of the Gangetic Plain or any of the Deccan even saw a Mongol army.

It's worth remembering here that some cultures disdained all forms of soldiery, most specifically, the Chinese. They were a necessary evil, not a status revered or respected.

Ironicly during i believe the three kingdoms periods the use of massive archery (or crossbows to be accurate) was by then accepted to be the most potent and weaponary they had avaliable, not even fast moving calvary was effective against the rains of arrows. The chinese armies had these massive blocks of crossbowmen which would shower volley after volley at each other.

Ironicly during i believe the three kingdoms periods the use of massive archery (or crossbows to be accurate) was by then accepted to be the most potent and weaponary they had avaliable, not even fast moving calvary was effective against the rains of arrows.
Not if you read Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Bloody thing is chock full of duels between cavalry just like the Europeans a few centuries later. Apparently Cao Cao liked his shock cavalry. But Shu definitely used an awful lot of crossbowmen - later on they'd call them chu'ko'nu after Zhuge Liang, who theoretically invented their weapon. This is probably why Shu only lasted about forty years.

Not if you read Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Bloody thing is chock full of duels between cavalry just like the Europeans a few centuries later.
And if you read Arthurian legend you'll find plenty of knights but very few shield walls...
Historical fiction is not always accurate. ;)

Still, you're right that the Three Kingdoms period was more than just an exchange of missiles, at the very least to the extent that, say, the Napoleonic Wars were.

Both seem to meander around how within these battles there were often duals between 'heroes' though.

You don't need mass archer armies to be successful...

Just look at Dark Age Gaelic armies, they had almost no archers of any kind, yet they ended up conquering much of western Britain, and collecting large amounts of tribute and slaves from the Britons and Picts. The only Gaelic kingdom to use archers in any sort of role were the Dál Riada, and they only used them because of their maritime kingdom's requirements.

Instead of bows, however, nearly every Gaelic soldier carried a javelin or a few darts to throw along with his sword, axe, club, or spear. Some of these soldiers were actually professional, men who were paid for their services and trained in their free time.

As Norman Davies points out, the only reason the Gaelic colonies and vassal states fell was because of the unforseen amount of Britons migrating west. So, the Gaelic kingdoms are evidence that you don't need bucket loads of archers to be successful.

A few problems with having large armies of archers In general archers came form nomadic or semi nomadic people. Empires tend to be urban based and in the cities theres no reason to use a bow exxcept maybe as a sport for a few nobles. Its also alot harder to train archers than peasant with pointy stick. Early bws also lacked alot of power and most cultures didn't have access to the right materials to make decent bows.

The mongols used a composite bow IIRC and the English/Welsh bowmen used Yew which wasn't avaialbel in many parts of the world. Clever generals could just use cavalry charges, terrain, or even the night to limit the effect of your archers.

lol ask the persians after they got stomped by alexander the great why this is. better to specialize in mele than to make archery the main facet of their army.