08-30-2007, 03:48 AM
Why did Classical warfare outside the Middle East never see archery have a very important role? Archers tended to be a small proportion of any army, and always seem to have been used as skirmishers rather than as troops of the line. Specialists like Cretan archers and Balearic or Rhodian slingers could be very good, but were few in number. Some troops with other specialties seem to have served as slingers or artillery crewmen in sieges, but that is different.
This is quite different from medieval warfare in many places where archers or crossbowmen made up a large proportion of infantry. Eleventh and twelfth-century forces were usually said to consist of infantry, archers, and knights (milites, armoured heavy cavalry) for example. Crossbowmen were also very important in Chinese armies from the Iron Age on.
Two reasons I can think of are that the ancient world didn’t have common, effective crossbows, and ancient armies were larger. The 200- to 300-yard range of a good warbow is small relative to a battlefield where tens of thousands clash on each side, and larger in a battle with 5,000 to 10,000 on a side like most larger medieval ones. However, the ancients did have composite bows, slings, and longbows. (Two fact that should disturb technological determinists are that Europeans have known how to make longbows since the Stone Age, and that the best yew grows in Spain and Italy not England. What the English did with archery in the fourteenth and fifteenth century, they did because of culture and chance). And most ancient armies were much worse armoured than those of late medieval Europe, although they sometimes had better shields. We are dealing with many cultures, so Greek or Roman prejudice against missile troops can’t be the whole answer (especially since so many Greeks and Romans fought as javelin-throwers).
This is quite different from medieval warfare in many places where archers or crossbowmen made up a large proportion of infantry. Eleventh and twelfth-century forces were usually said to consist of infantry, archers, and knights (milites, armoured heavy cavalry) for example. Crossbowmen were also very important in Chinese armies from the Iron Age on.
Two reasons I can think of are that the ancient world didn’t have common, effective crossbows, and ancient armies were larger. The 200- to 300-yard range of a good warbow is small relative to a battlefield where tens of thousands clash on each side, and larger in a battle with 5,000 to 10,000 on a side like most larger medieval ones. However, the ancients did have composite bows, slings, and longbows. (Two fact that should disturb technological determinists are that Europeans have known how to make longbows since the Stone Age, and that the best yew grows in Spain and Italy not England. What the English did with archery in the fourteenth and fifteenth century, they did because of culture and chance). And most ancient armies were much worse armoured than those of late medieval Europe, although they sometimes had better shields. We are dealing with many cultures, so Greek or Roman prejudice against missile troops can’t be the whole answer (especially since so many Greeks and Romans fought as javelin-throwers).
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
