in all history, archer is always a higher class soldier than footman. Many commander would prioritise the life of archer over footmen if loss is inevitable.
Depending on your definition of footmen. In most cases that would be the case because footmen are levies and archers are men-at-arms. However, not every countries takes bowmen seriously and may have never invested in training/upkeeping them to begin with.
@tragedyofwind3 жыл бұрын
@@benlex5672 true. If it is regular infantry units. They will be value higher than just Bowmans. Footmen and Bowmen are just regular people with little training. For any type of infantry unit who can use a bow there will most likely be an lower rank equivelant. For high position officer even if they are famous of using polearm, most of them know how to use bow. In Japan, all samurai have to practise archery. In the west, not every army is like the Spartan or the roman, most footmen are just random people they recruited for a short period of time with basic training, hence the boot camp. Once u finish boot camp you are combat ready, not meaning u are going to be combat effective tho. And as a war strategist they often have to think how to use these number effectively. Which units are the main force and which units are there just to stall or use as canon fodder. Also the concept of having a combat effective regular army is something that empire can afford. Most small states war, they only recruit men when they are having a war or prepare for a war. So typical well trained warrior are knight.