You criticize the pay of an archer and then create a scenario that gives him the advantage. So, you believe they are worth more, but then you are missing why the others are paid more. Maybe it was harder to find guys who would wade into the battle field with swinging clubs, swords, and axes. Along with standing against charging cavalry and in the face of waves of flying arrows. Standing back at a safer distance and letting fly wasn't as hard, so it didn't take as much to find them and pay them.
Real life doesn't have only ideal scenarios. And many men had a variety of skills and weapons; it's how they lived longer. They did meet in a variety of circumstances, ranges, coverings, rural/urban, lighting, etc. So, a lot of your answer to find the true value of a warrior lies outside the bounds of your scenario.
Interesting question. Thanks
The archer would win. They were extremely precise with each and every arrow. A shield back then didnt have 100% protection the arrows still went through them, not to mention if the swordsman was able to reach the archer the archers were also equipped with short range weapons such as a small sword or knife. They even had the arrows that alone could be turned into a spear. It would be a close battle but the edge would have to go to the archer for being able to attack at any range.
The question is way too open ended to really answer. Some bows(like English long bow) can penetrate all metal plate armor(thus go through a wooden shield), however many of the bows cannot. Really the variation of bows and their power is as varied as today’s firearms going from sniper rifles to little pellet bb guns.
Also the shield is very varied. Are we thinking roman shield, made of leather and wood that covered the whole body? Or are we thinking of Viking shields rounded, and not covering the whole body. Or perhaps a metal bucker that is light enough for a civilian to carry, but doesn’t offer much of area protection against projectiles?
And let’s not even get started with the mentality of the swordsman having to march against deadly projectiles and mind set of a bowman quickly trying to shoot down a man charging at him for his death. Seriously though the mentally of the bow man is probably close to having a NFL player dashing at you and only thing you can do to make it stop is to solve a geometry problem. You are going to have a hard time focusing and you’ll probably start running away.(live to solve another day!)
As a swordsman I’ll favor the Roman shield for my march, then drop the shield and charge when I get close enough and the archer starts running away. But then again I’ll be really crossing my fingers and hope that the archer isn’t the elite English long bowman.(But then again a bowman of this caliber(no pun intended) was very rare so I’ll probably make it out alive.)
The swordsman's a dead man.
If the arrows are slow enough? A longbow can put an arrow straight through a shield at close range. Or the archer just puts an arrow into the swordsman's leg. The swordsman will be dead before he gets to the archer.
Kokoro is right. If you have a halfway skilled archer they are very fast at 'reloading' their bow. Different cultures had different ways but nevertheless they were very fast.
The reason they were not paid as much is archers were safer (as in a distance away from the front) than the guy with the sword who had to actually get in there to kill something. So their lives were not in as much of danger.
have you ever heard of a quickfire,
the archer holds the arrows in his bow hand, and does draw all the way back, he just does rapid fire at half draw or less. the swordsmen would have 3 arrows in him after the first step
The archer simply cause of his range.
The archer would win.
Who would win in a 1vs1 fight if both are masters in their respective fields?
Both fighters would have no armor, the swordsman will have a shield.
History teaches me that archers were the least paid - 6 pence per day for English bowman, the least of all soldiers. However, simple logic dictates that the archer will have the advantage since he has the range. Oh yeah, they fight on open grass field with no cover and start the battle at 250 yards distance from each other. I guess if the swordsman makes it to the bowman, he wins but the question is can he do so? The archer can run away and keep firing at the swordsman too. If the arrows are slow enough the swordsman can block them all with his shield. Movies always show the arrows moving too fast, but I've learnt a long time ago not to trust movies.
What do you guys think?
