Late roman archery (aiming)!

[Arngrim]

I do not compete in archery, neither do i have any formal training. My experience with archery is limited to horsing around in the garden with a compound take-down recurve for fun. I do not aim, yet (at the end of summer) i seem to hit an apple size target at ten meters more often than not. Neither do i aim when throwing a baseball or a (in the olden days) a hand-grenade. I just concentrate on the target, with both eyes open and let the bow and arrow handle itself-es. I think its called instinctive shooting.

As far as i understand it, combat shooting was a matter of saturating an area more than picking of individual targets. If the opposition was so close that you could aim at individual enemies, you should really consider drawing your sword instead. Or practice the ancient Ninjutsu technique of RUNNING...

[Virilis]

Your´re also right, Arngrim!

There is no consensus of how to aim with the traditional bows, there are numerous different techniques, your`s is one of them. I know that the bows were used in late roman times mainly for shooting masses of enemies, not so much individual targets.

In spite of this I think that a certain level of accuracy and aiming was necessary. If I´m not able to hit a man`s upper body from 50 meters with A STRONG BOW (50-100 pounds of draw-weight) I would not be able to hit a group of dozen men from 150 metres! Remember that the battles were quite limited in scale in everyday fighting and skirmishing, it was not Adrianople every time :wink: ...

I forgot to mention that I am not an expert on archery (I think that some of you have noticed it already :wink: ). I just started to shoot again last spring and also put my Burgh Castle helmet on and picked up some quick thoughts about late roman archery while doing it...

[Arngrim]

No critics against Virilis practical testing intended. A nasal guard would have been in the way of my "instinctive shooting" to. I just think that relating to modern competitive archery confuses things. The Romans did not use counterweight-bars, sights, releases, infra-red sensors, support wheels, kick starts, remote controls, can-holders et cetera on their bows like modern "archers" seem to love.... :twisted:

[Tarbicus]

As far as i understand it, combat shooting was a matter of saturating an area more than picking of individual targets. If the opposition was so close that you could aim at individual enemies, you should really consider drawing your sword instead.

Not according to the Batavian who was so good he shot his previous arrow out of the sky. Whether he did or not, he obviously valued aiming in archery and the deed went on his tombstone.

I know what you mean about being instinctive, I think there's even a golfing philosophy that uses it. Modern archery also isn't only about aiming, but you get the 'feel' for when it's right as well. Aiming is still important though. Perhaps if the apple was running at you with a big sword you'd learn to aim, though.

I just think that relating to modern competitive archery confuses things.

I wasn't doing so actually, just pointing out the differences if anything. Or at least that was more the intention. But I do believe the ancients would have used their back muscles to pull, not just their arm. It gives a different stance.

As an aside, does anyone put marks on their bow to help judge angle for distance?

[Virilis]

Good points again, guys!

Of course you will use your back muscles when shooting, also in traditional archery. I still believe that you should also be able to shoot very accurately individual targets, not just masses. In my limited experience I will hit a running enemy from 30-40 metres quite accurately (I know the "real thing" is very different :wink: ). I remember a finnish women`s magazine`s reporter asking from a Finnish winter war`s veteran that "Is it very hard to shoot a living human being?" and the veteran answered that "Yes it is, those bastards tend to move all the time!" :wink: .....

To measure the distance when shooting, that`s where the instincts really come to play. It is quite amazing when I am shooting and changing the distance and altitude of the target how one is able to measure instinctively the shot. I have some kind of "mind picture" of the whole process of shooting, not just the limited view along the arrow shaft. To make some kind of marks on the bow or arrow shafts just is a too limited approach in my view...

Ps. I will go to the country tomorrow to shoot for a couple of days and maybe fishing a bit, life is sometimes gooooood!!!

[Virilis]

If it is not recommended to draw the arrow behind the corner of your mouth this guy propably has not heard the advice :wink: ...

http://english.chosun.com/media/photo/n ... 009_00.jpg

[Aryaman2]

Your´re also right, Arngrim!

There is no consensus of how to aim with the traditional bows, there are numerous different techniques, your`s is one of them. I know that the bows were used in late roman times mainly for shooting masses of enemies, not so much individual targets.

In spite of this I think that a certain level of accuracy and aiming was necessary. If I´m not able to hit a man`s upper body from 50 meters with A STRONG BOW (50-100 pounds of draw-weight) I would not be able to hit a group of dozen men from 150 metres! Remember that the battles were quite limited in scale in everyday fighting and skirmishing, it was not Adrianople every time :wink: ...

I forgot to mention that I am not an expert on archery (I think that some of you have noticed it already :wink: ). I just started to shoot again last spring and also put my Burgh Castle helmet on and picked up some quick thoughts about late roman archery while doing it...

Musketeers were not able to hit most of the times a target further than 30mts, and there was very little chance to hit anything at 150mts, Muskets were not really aimed, they were levelled, and I think the same could be true for archers, they fired a mass volley trying to keep their bows levelled to get similar distance and thus saturate an area.

[Pompeius Minus]

Muskets were not really aimed, they were levelled...

Yup, the command was actually "level muskets". They had just a crude front sight or no sight at all, and the battalion worked as a giant shotgun. Like you I very strongly suspect it was the same with archers. Anything else seems unworkable.

Note that you can still have "specialist" archers who shoot individually; it just won't be the norm in battle. Most of the skirmishers in the 17/1800s used the same smoothbore muskets as the line infantry, and they of course aimed and fired individually. I imagine it was the same with archers, i.e. they could do "area fire" or act individually as skirmishers.

[locksley]

I have been an Archer and deer hunter for many years and shoot recurve bows instinctively . I and all my fellow hunters in Tennessee USA practice to hit a deer or target at from 10 yards to 30 yards as a humane kill is hard to accomplish at greater ranges than 30 yards. We must remember that the bow is primarily a hunting weapon and as such would have been used to supplement the food supplies of the Roman soldiers. Europe during the Roman Empire was a different wilder place than it is now and there were a lot of game animals to shoot and eat then and the soldiers would have taken advantage of those food items while on the march. In my opinion the Roman Archers would have practiced to hit those close shots at food first then as they progressed in there skills they would have learned to shoot at long range. I do not think the army that controlled the western world ate only wheat cereal and bread while on long campaigns in the wilderness of Germany Is there any proof that Romans used Thumb rings or is it the Hunnish mercenaries that we are talking about when we speak of thumb rings.??

[Martin Moser]

Is there any proof that Romans used Thumb rings or is it the Hunnish mercenaries that we are talking about when we speak of thumb rings.??

On this see my post at

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5414

[Virilis]

Thank`s Locksley and Martin!

If I remember correctly, syrian auxiliary archers used thumb-rings. Locksley, do you have any opinion of the problems of the helmet with the nasal quard and bowshooting? I find it a quite difficult combination (which was the original purpose of this thread....)

See you guys again in the weekend, I`m going shooting :lol: !!

[ratty]

hello guys

eye dominance does not apply to archery of old, you shoot with both eyes open (instinctive)eye dominance is a modern recurve archers /target style with influence from the dreaded horace ford,and victorian archery.

ive found shooting with a thumb ring keeps the bow away from the body and no bracer is needed because the string comes no where near the bow arm.

if you look at the video you can see the way i am holding the bow before draw,and start from high away and in front of my body bringing it back into my body at full draw.

i hope this helps

[Virilis]

Hi Ratty, great video :wink: !

I shoot too with the both eyes open and with this thumb-ring tehchnique one-eyed aiming seems to be even more unpractical. It seems that this thumb-ring style allows a very rapid firing, especially suitable for horseback archery!? Have you tried to shoot a bow of "warbow-weight" (from 80# up) with this style, it must be a helluva stress to your thumb...

Ps. congratulations again for the newborn yeoman :wink: !

[ratty]

Hi Ratty, great video :wink: !

I shoot too with the both eyes open and with this thumb-ring technique one-eyed aiming seems to be even more unpractical. It seems that this thumb-ring style allows a very rapid firing, especially suitable for horseback archery!? Have you tried to shoot a bow of "warbow-weight" (from 80# up) with this style, it must be a helluva stress to your thumb...

Ps. congratulations again for the newborn yeoman :wink: !

hello virilis 8)

thankyou 8)
how are you getting on with your new bear Hungarian?

i have tried thumbdraw with my heavy weight Hungarian,i can only draw it about 31" at the moment which is 100# and struggle to hit anything smaller than a bus :lol:

drawn to 34" is 120# which i can manage with a Mediterranean draw but i need to improve my strength in the thumb draw discipline.

I've just started making some replica arrows from cane i need to get some tang points and look a bit closer at the nock,I'm a little concerned by following the measurements i have,i may be making hunting arrows rather than war arrows.(for eg archers paradox with an underspined arrow for the draw weight of the bow.) the usual guide for a war arrow is stiff enough is good enough,which will give good matching consistancy for accuracy, but we will have to see when i finish them. :wink:

[Et tu brute]

Hi Ratty, fancy seeing you here! (same Et Tu Brute from the warbow forum ) Interesting topic, I agree with Ratty that you can easily be as accurate drawing to the ear as you can drawing and anchoring to the cheek/side of mouth, I've shot like this, and despite me being a pretty poor archer anyway my accuracy doesn't really suffer. The only thing that does make it harder is the fact that you are holding more weight on your fingers.

By they way Ratty, I've seen Hector Cole has some tanged arrow heads, not sure how accurate they are though, perhaps John Marshall could make some?