It is universal esp in the West for knives to be the traditional weapons of Foot Archers. But in Mongolia and Northern China (which was influenced by Mongol warfare) and esp Japan with its Archer Samurai were armed with swords. Why the difference?

by ArnieLarg

I saw this post.

If you have ever fired a bow, the sword hanging by your side could disrupt the movement if it is too long. They usually had a shot sword or dagger to counter this. But a knight in armor with a long sword and shield will womp on an unarmored bowman with a dagger any day in 5 seconds of melee combat.

Indeed the above post can be supported by the fact not only did European armies in particular most famously the English longbow men equipment with daggers instead of swords but across cultures from Arab armies to Aztec warriors to American Indian Raider and even within Asia as seen in from India to Vietnam and Java all the way to Korea, most archers were equipped with floaty close quarter weapons that were almost always shorter and lighter than your stereotypical Gladius. Often being pretty small featherweight knives that make the bowie knife feel like a barbell in comparison.

So I can believe the quoted post that the nature of bows and the hamper on pull and draw movements was the reason much lighter and less complete armor and light stuff like 1 lb 10 inch warclubs and 6 inch knives were the backup weapons of archers. But there is one loophole to this theory.................

Mongols as well as the foot archers of many Northern Chinese armies use regular length swords that are comparable to arming swords (well in the mongol's case they classically use sabers around the size of typical two handed blades like European longswords and katanas).

While the argument can be made that the Mongols rode on horseback thus negating the need to keep a sword by your waist and Chinese archers still used shorter lighter swords that are more similar to the short Gladius, the simple fact that the Samurai used bows that had similar power to European bows (with the most powerful drawing similar weights to English longbows and even being similar in size esp height) but still also used two handed blades like the katana and some even used longer Japanese swords sorta makes the quoted post a bit questionable.

So I have to ask why these cultures esp the Samurai footarchers are able to shoot fluidly without hamper despite having a proper sword by the side and often wearing armor? I mean I can easily believe the theory of daggers and similar short weapons being the main weapons of archers because of obstruction in movement because of how it is a universal pattern all across the world.

Yet the Samurai as well as Mongol cavalry and Chinese infantry contradict this pattern and are able to operate in formation of shooting volley fire after volley fire nonstop despite having swords as their backup melee. Why is this?

In particular what makes the English longbow so different that even a typical Gladius length weapon would make it unwieldy and many recruited yeoman even have knives less than a foot long?

wotan_weevil

Medieval European archers are often shown in art with full-length arming swords:

According to literature, they carried mostly swords and axes, and sometimes other weapons, such as mallets. From various accounts of the Battle of Agincourt, "having axes or swords hanging from their belts", "swords, hatchets, mallets, axes, falcon beaks and other weapons" (from the accounts collected and compared in Anne Curry, The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, Boydell Press, 2000, pg 160 & 162). From the Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, the Battle of Agincourt, 1415:

Their archers, amounting to at least thirteen thousand, let off a shower of arrows with all their might, and as high as possible, so as not to lose their effect: they were, for the most part, without any armour, and in jackets, with their hose loose, and hatchets or swords hanging to their girdles; some indeed were barefooted and without hats.

The English took instant advantage of the disorder in the van division, and, throwing down their bows, fought lustily with swords, hatchets, mallets, and bill-hooks, slaying all before them.

Archers would also use weapons other than their usual sidearms, such as the large mallets used to drive in stakes for field fortification.

Early Medieval archers sometimes (perhaps often) carried knives rather than swords. This was the era of part-time military service by free men, and the weapons they were required to have available depended on their wealth. Armoured infantry and cavalry need armour, which was expensive, and those in the higher wealth brackets served as such soldiers. At the bottom of the wealth categories were those who would serve as archers. Lacking the money to serve with helmet, spear, and shield, it is quite likely that they would bring a large knife or an axe, rather than a sword. In the Statute of Winchester, 1285, we find that men in the highest wealth category below those that required armour were to use sword and bow:

and from Forty Shillings Land and more, unto One hundred Shillings of Land, a Sword, a Bow and Arrows, and a Knife

Men in the next two wealth categories were to be equipped with polearms and swords respectively, and in the next category (the lowest), a bow, with no sword required:

and all other that may, shall have Bows and Arrows

In late Medieval Europe (e.g., during the Hundred Years War), when warfare had professionalised, and archers were reasonably well paid professional soldiers, they could afford swords, and often armour as well (and by this time, swords and armour had become relatively cheaper).

Japanese samurai archers were professional soldiers, and could usually afford armour and swords. Thus, they used armour and swords. Chinese archers were also typically professionals. In addition, their usual bow was a composite reflex-recurve bow, which was far more expensive than a longbow - if they could afford their bow, they could probably afford a sword as well, if they had to provide their own equipment.

These archers can be interpreted as using short swords, possibly shorter than the arming swords carried by the soldiers to the right (but maybe the same length, too):

However, they appear to be used reflex-recurve bows, and are probably Saracen archers (this art shows a siege of Jerusalem).

it is possible for a large sword to get in the way of a bow. While using a shorter weapon is one solution, it's also possible to just wear the sword so that it doesn't get in the way. One-point suspension from a waist belt, at the left hip, is convenient for drawing the sword, keeps it away from the quiver (on the right hip), and keeps it out of the way of a bow.