Editing Bows and Arrows (section)

== Archery in Warfare ==
The big advantage of a bow in pre-modern warfare was simple and obvious: range. When compared with javelins or thrown axes and spears, bows have a notable advantage in terms of range (Only the Aztec atlatl could get close), rate of fire and the amount of ammunition which could be carried into battle. Certain bows such as Welsh Longbows had range of up to 300 meters. Though when bows were used at such distances they were more akin to artillery than a modern sniper rifle, being loosed in volleys at the area in which enemy forces were standing rather than individual archers trying to hit individual enemy soldiers. A fit, well-trained archer could loose up to twelve arrows a minute, a rate of fire which was better than that of most [[firearm]]s until the 19th century and the rise of breech loading rifles. The biggest downside of bows and arrows is that they are basically useless in hand to hand combat. At best, they are an inefficient club and a short brittle spear. For this reason archers in battle would carry a backup weapon in case of close quarters fighting: usually a [[dagger]], a short [[sword]] or a [[warhammer]] (which is also used to set anti-cavalry spikes).

As mentioned, the basics of archery were common across the world for both hunting and as a sport, and archery continues to be practiced in the present day. A basic bow and basic arrows are fairly easy to make and use and save for Australia basically everyone made use of archery. Military archery was much less common however. Arrows loosed from a simple hunting bow may kill a deer or a naked human being, but they can be stopped by a basic wooden or even wicker [[shield]]. Their range was also limited. To a formation of well armored and/or shield equipped soldiers, arrow fire from common hunting bows were little more than a annoyance, and they would only be used in warfare as a weapon of last resort. For bows to be worthwhile against such forces, they needed to go beyond a simple oak branch and hemp string. Large bows made of yew and ironwood were one option if said trees were available. The English were famous for using such bows. Another option would be to make bows by gluing together layers of horn, sinew and either wood or bamboo.

Both heavier longbows and composite bows had considerable power and could penetrate shields, mail and even plate armor at close range but were more difficult to make and were (in the case of composite bows) more sensitive to moisture. Either way, both of these types of bows took a lot of time to master. Training an archer usually began in childhood. Archeologists can identify the skeletons of such archers with just a glance because the constant strain on their bodies from using the bows forced their skeletons to compensate (enlarged left arm bones and bone spurs on the left arm, left wrist, and right fingers). Due to their value in battle and the time which needed to be invested in training them, said archers were considered elite soldiers and were seen as valuable. In 1571 at the Battle of Lepanto, the Ottoman Fleet was dealt a major defeat. Amongst the biggest losses they had suffered was the deaths of many skilled composite bow armed archers. While their forces of galleys was reconstructed and recrewed fairly swiftly, it took a decade to train replacement archers. It should be noted that at this time, both the Ottomans and the Christians were making heavy use of matchlock [[firearm]]s, yet the superior rate of fire and accuracy of archers made they were still in high demand along with the arquebus-wielding soldiers.

Archers could fight either on foot or on horseback. Mounted archers equipped with composite bows could be quite devastating, raining arrows on forces armed with spears and swords from a safe distance while easily avoiding the slow moving masses of men. Many ancient armed forces are known for their use of mounted archery, and the resulting [[rage]] it inspired in their foes: See the Parthians (i.e. Persians) vs. the Romans, the Huns vs. Europe and the [[Mongols]] vs. Pretty Damn Well Everyone. Foot archers sacrificed this mobility for increased accuracy, increased numbers (cavalry archers also need to be trained in horsemanship and have a horse) and the ability to hide and dig in. Foot archers, if used properly and backed up with pikemen, were the best pre-gunpowder counter to cavalry archers. In fact, up until the invention of the breech loader Longbows were STILL better weapons then muskets because you could fire several volleys of arrows in the time needed to reload after firing a musket only once. It's also one of the major reasons the American and Russian militaries didn't establish a permanent presence on the Great Plains and the Central Asian steppes while they were still armed with muzzle loaders. Until the mass adoption of the breechloader and the lever action rifle, trying to hold your ground against raving bands of mounted archers was suicide without forts or reliable supply lines that aren't razed to the ground by angry natives.

On foot, bowmen excelled in forests. At close range the bow had a chance to either go though early armor (and longbows had decent odds against all but the heaviest of plate), or pick of weak unarmed points. Further against other armored foes a bowmen would have higher speed and could be a lot more quiet then the walking tin cans of the other guy, additionally armor has a tendency to get caught on things further accenting the maneuverability advantage. While Robin Hood may never have existed, bow armed [[bandit]]s most certainly did terrorize woods.