geogus wrote:My point is that is easier for any army to give a spear or sword to a man and comand him to figth than to give a bow .
Actually that depends A LOT on the particular culture.
Serfs in most of Middle Europe had at least some expertise with a bow, in England even with a LONGbow.
A sword is a different thing though. A sword has no secondary use. A spear might have been any number of things and if it was not it is cheap to make, an axe chops people as good as wood, a bill can be used to trim trees or knights.
A sword is only good for killing and quite expensive.
If we look at any stratetegy game (total war series), for instance, a unit has more men accordind their expected casualities and complexity of task
I hope you did not cite the Total War series as any kind of historic accuracy reference.
These games are strictly games with history coating, not history simulators.
As for the original question:
The whole idea of mono-cultural infantry or archer is actually quite dubious anyway. In the middle ages a knight brought his retinue (3-10 people, 2/3 infantry, 1/3 'archer') and he fought with his retinue.
Company sizes if there were comapnies, were not fixed but depended on how many people you could get together. But these also tended to be mixed.