How did the average swordsman in antiquity view the archers in their armies? Was they looked down on or was being an archer an elite status?
>>29554518
Were*
>>29554518
depend on the culture. Greek and Roman missiles troops were normally the poorest section of society.
By comparison, the Japanese placed more importance on their archery kill.
From my loose knowledge they probably looked down on them or as equals; swordsmen had to be somewhat trained while archers didn't have to be as skilled to do volley fire. Longbows took some strength to use so they would be ok. Then again it's 2:45 in the morning and I'm drunk.
Tldr; marines and army. Equally capable but give each other shit
>>29554518
ealier in greek warfare they looked down upon archers and slingers. Later on after fighting the persians they started to realize the potential skirmishers had
>>29554518
how does the infantry view the artillery in modern armies?
>>29556901
That's a shit comparison, artillery sits several Km back where as longbow men were maybe 100 feet back. From what I've seen in old British culture, you had commoners with their self bows (they were generally looked down on) and thenyou had the longbowmen, these men had to be some of the strongest in the army due to the massive draw strength required. For this reason, actual longbowmen were highly respected, we'll trained and their equipment was expensive for the time as well.
Are pikemen the true patrician infantry?
>>29557402
>not billmen
Enjoy having a useless twig after your pike is cleaved in half by a bill. The Scots learned that lesson the hard way.
>>29557373
>That's a shit comparison
it's a directly relevant comparison. You are a shit poster.
>>29557499
I think a more direct comparison is how does the average rifleman view the guy with the LMG.
>>29557484
They lost because they were on uneven ground and couldn't form proper pike formations. You're not gonna chop through a pike with a halberd or bill.
>>29557514
Thank you, see this guy gets it, your original comparison is like what does the knight think of the fucking trebuchet. Not the lightweight mobile foot soldier that's able to put suppression down on enemy units.
>>29557514
no
archers deployed their weapons from behind the line at a distance that was safe from the infantry's weapons in the same way artillery is generally out of reach from the weaponry being used on the front line
>>29557583
If that's your measure the drones and ICBMs are like archers.
>>29554518
The status of a soldier depended mostly on his social status, just like the function he would actually perform. English longbowmen or mercenary crossbowmen had pretty high status (being free men with a certain wealth), while a peasant levy archer would be pretty low and city milita would probably be somewhere in between.
Also, archers or crossbowmen were not at all out of danger in the way an artillerist is. They were expected to fight in the melee as well if so needed, as they did at agincourt. They would also be easily cut down in the pursuit in case the battle went bad.
>>29557583
Maybe so, but archers also had other weapons that they were trained to use should the fighting reach them, I don't know about you but I haven't seen a howitzer go Optimus prime just yet.
>>29557402
If it's good enough for two Emperors of the HRE, it's good enough for me.
Pikemen in the C16th/17th were in fact thought of as the "patrician" infantry at the time. Shot/arquebus/musket was noisy, dirty, smelly, and in the early days rather heavy. Furthermore there was, then as is now, the idea that it is far more noble to meet your enemy in face-to-face combat than from afar with a gun. While many Gentlemen fought on horseback as dashing cavaliers, there were plenty that took up pike and fought on foot. And at that, they fought on the front ranks too, if records of injuries received are anything to go by. Both Emperor Maximilian and his successor Charles V at one point shunned their horse to march with their pikemen (their Landsknechts), and shamed the nobles for taking to horseback when they saw the emperor coming (so they could show off at how fancy they looked)
>>29557484
The metal "cheeks" on the end of the pike where you fasten the point to generally tends to stop the points getting chopped off. Also, sidearms like swords, daggers et. al.
>>29557795
>implying artillery units don't have the means to defend themselves from attack should the front line fall
>>29557907
>Implying artillerymen have enough fingers left to operate a rifle.
I think the best comparison would be how do infantry grunts feel about mortar-men?
>>29554628
>speculates wildly
>claims its knowledge
>>29557907
But they wouldn't though would they, they would pack their shit up and fuck off. I'm not quite up to date on the range of modern artillary. But I don't think they are in any immediate danger.
>>29554518
Generally speaking an archer on foot was a nobody, and an archer on horse or chariot was your boss.
>>29558051
>I don't think they are in any immediate danger.
because you are ignorant
>>29558156
The M777 has a 24 km effective range, I'm sure they are just quaking in their little boots knowing the enemy are that close to them.
>>29554518
As others have said, depends on the time period. Middle ages English longbowmen were trained from childhood I think, so they were something of a class unto themselves I'd imagine.
Let's not forget that typical soldiers throughout history would carry spears, not swords. Swords were expensive and upper class weapons. So possibly peasant soldiers and knights with swords would have different opinions on longbowmen.
>>29558222
If the front line was routed, I think the enemy could get to you fairly quickly with vehicles. Plus, artillery emplacements did get overrun in Vietnam.
>>29554518
In many cultures, archery was an expected skill of the elite warrior class that would also participate in hand-to-hand combat
See: Japan, China, Persia, Byzantium, all steppe peoples,
>>29558294
Yes but comparing artillary to archers on an open field of combat is idiotic. For your assumption to work you are relying on no CAS no secondary or tertiary lines of defense absolutely nothing between Jarhead Joe and howitzer Harry which is incredibly unrealistic. As for vietnam, you are not fighting in open combat it was close quaters, sneaky beeky jungle shit, they were not overrun because the front line routed, they were overrun because the VC knew the local terrain and how to get from point A to C while bypassing B.
I think a lot of it comes down to what civilization/era OP wants to know about
