RomanArmyTalk

Makes me feel better.
Ordinary care, just as we would do to a firearm, would keep a recurved bow up to snuff.

Quote:My contact came up with this reply;

very interesting please thank him for his informative reply.i understood the glue as well as the string were the main weak points.
how effective is a composite say during a wet summer?
can it be used in fog or light rain?
i know tombstones of roman soldiers here in the west tend to show recurve composites

any idea why the english and welsh and the vikings (and probably the franks.slavs and saxons) also used large self bows and continued to do so?every invading nomadic (steppe ie huns and avars) group that came into europe had composites.
is there a different reason(s) for the poor performance of the avars against the west?-when arguably they were one of the most advanced steppe groups (besides the mongols)who invaded europe.

I've linked Peter to this thread and invited him to join in.

Quote:how effective is a composite say during a wet summer?
can it be used in fog or light rain?
i know tombstones of roman soldiers here in the west tend to show recurve composites

any idea why the english and welsh and the vikings (and probably the franks.slavs and saxons) also used large self bows and continued to do so?every invading nomadic (steppe ie huns and avars) group that came into europe had composites.
is there a different reason(s) for the poor performance of the avars against the west?-when arguably they were one of the most advanced steppe groups (besides the mongols)who invaded europe.

I would think that localized tradition influenced which type of bow was used. In the extreme west, the self bow was used since the stone age, and it continued in use after the steppe influence to the Roman army had faded. The requirements needed to make a self bow were easier, and the materials were less complicated. What we really would like to know is how long the composite bow was used in Britain.

Quote:

marka:13s8i6z9 Wrote:how effective is a composite say during a wet summer?
can it be used in fog or light rain?
i know tombstones of roman soldiers here in the west tend to show recurve composites

any idea why the english and welsh and the vikings (and probably the franks.slavs and saxons) also used large self bows and continued to do so?every invading nomadic (steppe ie huns and avars) group that came into europe had composites.
is there a different reason(s) for the poor performance of the avars against the west?-when arguably they were one of the most advanced steppe groups (besides the mongols)who invaded europe.

I would think that localized tradition influenced which type of bow was used. In the extreme west, the self bow was used since the stone age, and it continued in use after the steppe influence to the Roman army had faded. The requirements needed to make a self bow were easier, and the materials were less complicated. What we really would like to know is how long the composite bow was used in Britain.

the vikings (and the rus) and the franks used and continued to use self bows (as did the slavs)despite coming into contact with numerous steppe groups over hundreds of years.the franks did well in main battles against the avars,huns and magyars and they would have had access (as would the rus)to composites.Ease of production is probably part of the answer but there must be others.

I'm beginning to lose track of this discussion. Has anyone yet established if the British used bows on horseback?

No, bows came up in a compound answer on page six.

Thanks to Agraes for that great photograph of the Aberlemno Stone. Very instruction on several points.

Quote:Has anyone yet established if the British used bows on horseback?

Hi Vortigern Studies,

The horn siyah-piece pictured in Webster is identical to my "Roman bow" built by Grozer, who apparently had authentic material as a guide. But this would be only connected to Roman Britain, not sub-Roman Britain. I have a picture of a horseman with recurved bow taken from a late Romano-British mosaic (perhaps 4th century); but the bow looks Scythian even though the rider could be British or Roman. (He wears boots.) I think the depiction is nothing more than artistic convention and proves nothing, one way or the other.

I'm not saying that the sub-Roman British DIDN'T use bows, but there's no hard evidence... as of yet. This type of bow was well-built, the glue nearly water-proof when cured; and with adequate care, it might remain usable for generations. But it appears not to be common. Perhaps an "anomalous" weapon. :?

Hi Ron,

What's interesting about that stone-carved picture is the way the cavalryman is holding his javelin. I would imagine that any member of the present Equites Taifali would use it in the same manner. The "lancea" carried by Morgan's man (Cadoc records, mentioned earlier) would be this type of weapon, rather than a full-lengthed contus.

So what are we looking at for a sub-Roman cavalry style? :?:

I find it interesting that riders seem to be carrying spears both over- and underhanded, but not tucked under their arms as we commonly think of "knights" carrying a lance.

If we can establish that Roman calvary (usually auxilliaries, right?) in Britain used bows from horseback, that gives us a clue about sub-Roman practice. I don't see much use for mounted archers unless they were to be employing the infamous "Parthian" (parting) shot manuver credited to Asian horsemen. Wouldn't massed, dismounted archers be more effective? (The "machinegun" effect. hock: )

I thought the presence of archers in Britain before, during and after Roman occupation was well established, but someone has called that into question. I suspect they aren't the pinnacle of authority, but the cover illustration of Osprey's Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars shows a crouching archer who is identified (p. 35) as a "Welsh tribel warrior, 6th-6th century." Authority for the design of his bow is given as "fragments of Roman bow from Carnuntum."

How would these Late Roman bone tips from eastern reflex bows from Caerleon figure in that argument?

Kewl. 8) Are they new to your site? I don't remember seeing them before.

What period? Were they A-S or Briton? (I'd assume Briton, since they were from Cearleon, but know better than to assume so much.)

Thanks.

Not new, been there for a few years. It's from that Böhme article that I have been stuck halfway translating for 5 years now...

The assumption is that it's either Late Roman or early British.

Guess I need to delve deeper.

Thanks.

Quote:How would these Late Roman bone tips from eastern reflex bows from Caerleon figure in that argument?

"LATE" Roman?

They're from the destruction layer of a third century building.

Quote:I find it interesting that riders seem to be carrying spears both over- and underhanded, but not tucked under their arms as we commonly think of "knights" carrying a lance.

If we can establish that Roman calvary (usually auxilliaries, right?) in Britain used bows from horseback, that gives us a clue about sub-Roman practice. I don't see much use for mounted archers unless they were to be employing the infamous "Parthian" (parting) shot manuver credited to Asian horsemen. Wouldn't massed, dismounted archers be more effective? (The "machinegun" effect. hock: )

I thought the presence of archers in Britain before, during and after Roman occupation was well established, but someone has called that into question. I suspect they aren't the pinnacle of authority, but the cover illustration of Osprey's Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars shows a crouching archer who is identified (p. 35) as a "Welsh tribel warrior, 6th-6th century." Authority for the design of his bow is given as "fragments of Roman bow from Carnuntum."

horsearchers would have been more effective for small scale battles and skirmishing as well as being more mobile