The End of Civilization – Bows and Arrows

Every since early man fought with sticks and stones, Civilizations have tried to improve the tools of land warfare and in effect their chances of winning armed conflicts. A large majority of battles in the world have been decided by the superiority on tools of arms, there are exceptions of course, but it always resulted that the side with the superior tools inflicted more casualties.

Since warfare was invented, logic dictates that the ability to inflict harm from a distance is a huge advantage. The advancement of weaponry to automatic firearms changed ground warfare forever. Automatic firearms trace it’s roots directly from siege weaponry and not as an individual range weapon, and its development as an individual ranged weapon effectively turned the bow and arrow obsolete.

There are three eras in history where the bow and arrow have played a pivotal role in history, First was when several tribes of the steppe have used cavalry archers out maneuvering and inflicting casualties on solid static infantry formations this resulted in several centuries of fear over what was then called the hordes. Effectively saying that Genghis Khan is the developer of the drive by shooting. The second time was when the English developed the Long Bow, a type of bow who’s range and lethality far out ranges any sort of individual ranged weapon before and used them en masse instead of just a way to soften formations before the actual skirmish. This was used effectively in the battle of Agincourt in 1415 against the French in the hundred years war. The last was the advent of the crossbow which was used by ordinary footmen it was such an effective weapon that the Pope lobbied for the weapon to be banned for it allows men of substance (such as knights) to be killed by lowly peasants with no training.

Early firearms are more inaccurate than bows but their ease of use and increased lethality allowed armies to train large numbers of range warriors protected by the standard melee/shield formation created a superior form of army employed by the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. The adoption of the bayonet allowed one foot soldier to do both range fire and become a melee warrior changed the science of warfare.

Keeping these in mind shows that the best way to use a bow and arrow is to have them in numbers large enough to make a difference, they are stealthy but they require skill to use, a crossbow however greatly reduces the need for training and quality materials sacrificing range. If ever you plan to use the bow and arrow as a weapon for your community, make sure you have dedicated time for practice. the materials needed to forge a bow, crossbow, or arrow is much simpler than firearms, Modern composite bows uses hard plastic, carbonfiber, ceramics and fiber glass as a replacement for wood allowing a stronger build but the concept is the same. Consider this only when you have a trained Archer to instruct your personnel on the use of bows. Trial and Error to learn the bow is time consuming but a serious alternative when ammunition runs out.

The Indian Wars of the USA have proven the in spite of superiority in terrain and training, firearms have been proven superior even in their crude form in the late 1800′s. Indians learned the value and use of firearms and was able to gather them from fallen Union troops and used them effectively against them. Eventually other factors resulted in the Defeat of the Native American Indian nations forging the modern United States. It does prove however that even a crude form of firearm is a superior weapon to a bow and arrow.

Other individual ranged weapon such as the sling and the blow pipe are much less effective than the bow and arrow. They have even less lethality and in some cases harder to use than the crossbow. (Such as the Rhodesian sling) Blowpipes were effective only when used in conjunction with poison but that concept can also be applied when using arrows. Neither the sling nor the blow pipe or other individual ranged firearm has affected any battle or war in such a way that it is worth mentioning in history, they have inflicted casualties in their time but never enough to warrant serious use against any army.

Consideration of using bow and arrow as a replacement for firearm should be given serious thought, the major advantage of a bow over a firearm is only it’s lack of sound when firing. Sound Suppressors for firearms do not really work as well as they do in the movies but it is still advisable to use them if they are legal in your country simply to reduce the sound and protect your ears nothing more. The bow however also gives away the location of the shooter more obviously than a firearm does, the smokeless powder have advanced in such a way that it no longer creates a huge cloud of smoke whenever a firearm is discharged as early muskets have. If technology has regressed further that smokeless powder can no longer be manufactured in quantities required then and ONLY then can bows be seriously considered returning to the bow as a major weapon for an army. Wooden firearms, fired from smooth bore tubes maybe less accurate but is still historically proven as more lethal than the bow.



Return…