Bow and Arrow Never Develops

Blackwood

Banned
Let's imagine for a moment what kind of effect the bow and arrow had on humanity. It allowed a much greater scope in the area of warfare, as well as gave an increased safety to groups of attackers and revolutionizing technology in that period. Along with the bow and arrow, other weapons, such as maces, slings, as well as extremely old weapons, such as spears and clubs, existed and were in widespread use. So let's posit for a moment what might have happened had the bow and arrow never developed.

The reasons for this could be any number of possible PODs. As we simply have no clear idea about how the weapon was developed, much less who invented it, or where, we have many ways in which the development could have been hampered. If we say that the bow and arrow was a weapon invented by a single man, group, or society, it would only be a matter of eliminating that man, group, or in other ways changing the development of their society in the past. If we take the bow and arrow to be a universally-invented weapon, created by several societies spanning the entire inhabited globe, we would be forced to alter the spread of humans, development of society, or otherwise create an event that would eliminate the bow from existence for a time.

For simplicity's sake, we'll say that the bow and arrow was invented by an unnamed and unknown group of hunter-gatherers somewhere in the globe, and that several generations ago, this group brought in less food, leading to some starvation, and thus butterflying away the would-be inventors. Society should then continue as normal up to that point, but what I'm interested in is how the world, civilization, territory, and warfare in particular, would have developed onwards. We could say that the bow might have just as easily been invented by a neighboring society, but that wouldn't be any fun. Try and hold off the invention of the bow and arrow for at least a few generations, so as to get an idea of what society and civilization might have been like without the invention of the bow.


What are your ideas?
 
If you set conditions then anything is possible - but not entirely probable.

I would think you would have to conditionalize things further by supposing that knifes or sharp edges develop either. The bow and arrow are really the integration of two seperate ideas - the sling (to a degree) and the spear. Its a fairly easy weapons system that any hunter society should develop.

I would think it possible that simple devices may experience spontaneous developments seperate regions without contact with each other.
 
No bow and arrow means that hunting is less efficient. That means that human groups would be smaller. The advantages of agriculture are proportionately greater; so agriculture may be adopted sooner.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
If you set conditions then anything is possible - but not entirely probable.

I would think you would have to conditionalize things further by supposing that knifes or sharp edges develop either. The bow and arrow are really the integration of two seperate ideas - the sling (to a degree) and the spear. Its a fairly easy weapons system that any hunter society should develop.

I would think it possible that simple devices may experience spontaneous developments seperate regions without contact with each other.

Wasn't there population which did'nt use bow and arrow like the Australian native population? Maybe because they didn't need them because of their use of other ranged weapons.
 
Absolute minimum the bow was invented twice - palaeoindians didn't have the bow and arrow, it was (re?)invented in the Americas. Plus, of course, it was invented in the old world.
 
I think the bow and arrow only failed to appear in Australia...

It's just too good of a design to pass up...

Perhaps the use of boomerangs is more widespread? :confused:
 
The Australian Aboriginies had access to the bow and arrow from at least one and possibly two points. Firstly it was used in New Guinea, so Aboriginies in the area of Torres St could have easily transmitted it to the mainland. Secondly, the north coast of Australia was regularly visited by Asians from about 1000bc through to modern times, surely these ships had people who used bows for hunting.

But the Aborigines in these contact areas didn't take up the bow when they saw it. They seemed happy enough the with the woomera (atlatl) and spear for ranged weapons, perhaps kangaroos are stupider than placental animals so the spear is good enough.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Without the bow, spearthrowers and slings will be more common. They are not as good, but still pretty good.
I'm thinking the same thing. Assuming it's possible that no human culture develops the bow, the atlatl would likely become the main projectile weapon in warfare.

Atlatl2.gif


I did a bit of research about that weapon for gaming-related reasons, and some of the sources I came across said that the Spanish were impressed by the range and penetrative power of Aztec atlatls, which could even punch through iron armor.

Incidentally, atlatl-throwing is practiced as a sport in the present day.
 

Hendryk

Banned
More online atlatl resources:

Thunderbird Atlatl

World Atlatl Magazine

Northern Plains Atlatl Association

And an article that calls the atlatl "the Stone Age Kalashnikov"...

A dart thrown with an atlatl can kill a deer at 40 metres and will fly more than 200 metres. For comparison, the world record for throwing the, admittedly heavier, javelin is just under 100 metres.

According to archaeological evidence, the atlatl first made its appearance between 25 000 and 40 000 years ago in the region that today encompasses Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. From here, it radiated outwards to Europe, Australia, Asia, and eventually the New World. Then, about 15 000 years ago, the bow and arrow began to displace the atlatl. The power and range of the two weapons are comparable but the bow and arrow is easier to aim.

Atlatl_lg.jpg
 
Top