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

A Comm for Historymemes

2270 readers
1016 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days 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 2 days ago

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