I mean look at League. Why do soldiers (master Yeesus) try running in close when the enemy would just kite them with their pro as heck ashe/Varus mains?
(Actual question: Why bother sword fighting when you can one shot an enemy? Also doesn't it mean that ranged soldiers are always superior and we should give all our farm to the Vayne mains)
Doozku1 votesI mean people had shields that completely negated bows and arrows. They also couldn't fight at all in close range and it took more than one shot to kill someone(unless it was a headshot, but that sounds very difficult to land on a bow in a hectic fight where people are running towards you).
zlumpy1 votesThats usually why they were a harassing tactic to thin numbers, slow charges, and disrupt enemy formations while sapping their morale. Much easier for your own fresh melee fighters to kill the guy that just rain through the hell of an arrow rainstorm.
Around999People1 votesHistorically speaking,
Bows and arrows did a lot but most people didn't know how to use them short of pull this back and point up. They were peasants conscripted into the army. Same for a lot of the sword people. But fighting with a sword was seen as honorable while bows were seen as cowardly and in that age being cowardly could make you a laughing stock for life so when given a choice they went with sword.
Plus, current media depicts swords as being cooler. Look at Game or Thrones and how many use ranged weapons in there.
Luxs Destiny1 votesWith swords, you're able to hold them on your body or create advantages during duels. With bow and arrow.. you're pretty damn susceptible to being rushed. You've the range advantage but other than that you're a sitting duck. In old times, there was no time to be sitting there and wasting time nocking an arrow, aiming, etc.
Samflash31 votesWhat makes now different? And what made guns kick out swords from war? Or do we need to be PROJECT CYBORGS for swords to be relevant again?
zlumpy1 votesIt was easy to train a gunman. And a guy with a few days training and no real gear could kill multiple swordsman in heavy armor easily. Mostly it was the speed and effective range mass gun formations provided that pretty much did away with most all forms of melee combat.
Samflash31 votesIf we do go into the in-game world, does it mean it's okay for ranged to be the dominant class? Because it just seems like History is repeating itself.
Doozku1 votesI mean the game is different than in real life. We don't have barbarians that can just refuse to die for 5 seconds, or killer cats that can go invisible and pounce on you.
zlumpy1 votesWell if you mean IRL?
Bows take longer to make, were more prone to breakage/equipment damage, and you have to have ammo at all times. Plus ittakes a really long time to train good archers compared to handing a basic soldier a sharp object and pointing him in the right direction to stab things.
Then we get to the part where lords didnt wanna train a bunch of possibly disgruntled serfs how to basically assasinate people from afar.
And lastly a good cavalry charge would see all those archers dead or dispersed whereas a swordsman can still fight back.
All in all every weapon had a purpose. Depending on culture and region you could have seen more range warfar but it was generally easier to hand poor people sharp objects and get them to shank eachother in the name of whatever they were fighting about at the time.
CrazyBear19871 votesthe invention of the bullet killed the swordsman, not arrows.
Watch the "Last Samurai"
[slayer-jinx-wink]