Archery in Classical Warfare

[Sean Manning]

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).

[Aryaman2]

First, I would like to correct some assumptions
1) Western medieval armies did not have a large proportion of archers, you may be mislead by the use of the word "archer" in pay rolls to denote any infantryman that gets the salary of a professional soldier.

2) They did have a large proportion of crossbowmen, especially Urban Militias. The reason is very simple, crossbows are much easier to master than bows, and they fit very well into siege warfare.

3) Ancient armies were not that large, that is a misconception due to lack of reliable sources, mainly documentary, and the credulity of classicist scholars.

In any case, it is true archers were less prominent in the West than in the East. The answers I see
a) Archers, like slingers, were basically the product of a pastoral way of life, that you can find mostly in the Eastern steppes.
b) Composite bows did not work well in the wet West

[S SEVERUS]

I think that crossbow men were very popular for Italian city militia.
In the beginning of the 100 year war France hired mostly crossbow men from Genoa.

[Aryaman2]

Now I recall another factor, bow construction was improved along time, in ancient times bows were much less powerful than later, that is why archers were used as skirmishers in front line, by the Late Empire in the IV century they were already deployed behind the front line.

[hoplite14gr]

In this site have appeared reconstruction that showed that bows of the time could not penetrate easily armor. A sizable amount of armored troops would clear any are from missile men.

Kind regards

[Sean Manning]

First, I would like to correct some assumptions
1) Western medieval armies did not have a large proportion of archers, you may be mislead by the use of the word "archer" in pay rolls to denote any infantryman that gets the salary of a professional soldier.

By archers I mean "longbowmen, composite bowmen, crossbowmen, and slingers". IIRC medieval authors often make little distinction between different types of bowmen (which is reasonable, since the man is more important than the weapon). Likewise, by "Medieval warfare" I mean "warfare involving Latin Christiandom and the adjoining civilizations."

2) They did have a large proportion of crossbowmen, especially Urban Militias. The reason is very simple, crossbows are much easier to master than bows, and they fit very well into siege warfare.

3) Ancient armies were not that large, that is a misconception due to lack of reliable sources, mainly documentary, and the credulity of classicist scholars.

The following figures are vast oversimplifications and generalizations, about thousand-year periods and continent-wide civilizations. A substantial ancient army after the period of city states was at least 20,000 strong. A substantial medieval army was around 10,000 strong. (Great medieval armies could be as large as great ancient ones, perhaps up to 60-70,000 combatants, but great armies are rare). We've debated this before, and you aren't going to convince me until I see your research.

In any case, it is true archers were less prominent in the West than in the East. The answers I see
a) Archers, like slingers, were basically the product of a pastoral way of life, that you can find mostly in the Eastern steppes.
b) Composite bows did not work well in the wet West

You might have a point about the shortage of pastoral regions to provide archers, though. Its easier for an amateur to become a competent spearman or crossbowmen than archer, and most medieval militias used spears, crossbows, or polearms. So I agree that the lack of common, effective crossbows was an important factor, as I suggested in my first post.

The "composite bows work poorly in the wet" argument has never entirely convinced me, though. The Chinese and Japanese made heavy use of composite bows despite their moist climate; similarly, Roman auxillia used composite bows in Dacia and Germany. As I understand it from a fair bit of research into composite bows, composite bows tend to suffer from changes of climate but can be designed to work in almost any single climate.

In this site have appeared reconstruction that showed that bows of the time could not penetrate easily armor. A sizable amount of armored troops would clear any area from missile men.

I agree. Archers had to be supported by heavy troops, and preferrably natural or artificial barriers. Medieval armies often mixed crossbowmen with spearmen; the English preferred to protect archers with terrain or artificial barriers (wagons, the stakes of Agincourt) and intermixed blocks of men-at-arms. But as I said, medieval armies were often better protected than ancient ones, especially after 1200. So changes in the amount of armoured troops would tend to favour ancient more than medieval troops.

[Aryaman2]

"A substantial ancient army after the period of city states was at least 20,000 strong. A substantial medieval army was around 10,000 strong. (Great medieval armies could be as large as great ancient ones, perhaps up to 60-70,000 combatants, but great armies are rare). We've debated this before, and you aren't going to convince me until I see your research"

I am not sure what you mean here, because I would subscribe those figures, provided that those "great armies" are formed by the conjunction of 2 or more field armies for a battle.

[Carlton Bach]

I think the first question we'll hae to ask ourselves is whether archery was actually ineffective, or whether this is merely a matter of intrerpreting the source material in one way or another. For example, IIRC finds from the Jewish Rebellion invariably contain large numbers of arrowheads. I also recall archers, slingers and javelineers playing important roles in ancient Greek battles, and in Ancient Egypt and Assyria, archery was considered the warlike activity par excellence. May this be more of a cultural bias, in that the military tradition of Greece, Rome, and the Celtic and Germanic peoples did not have a traditional niche for bows and thus warriors would - traditionally - seek to become heavy fighters? Archery need not be ineffective to be relegated to a secondary role, just non-desireable.

By way of a non-sequitur, the Greeks were mightily impressed with catapults. I wonder, maybe they were just discovering a combat technique that more archery-friendly peoples long had mastered? A catapult, though, was a proper manly weapon, not a wimpy oriental now...

IIRC medieval Europe developed a tradition of archery about the time when we begin having records of armies including large numbers of crossbowmen or archers. Did the Romans shoot at popinjays or between butts on the Field of Mars? I don't think so. Medieval Italians, Germans and Englishmen, on the other hand, spent much leisure time perfecting the art in friendly competition. Archery had status with them. So another reason might be a dearth of recruits. Of course, the Roman army could have trained its troops in archery had it wanted to.

I can't really give you an answer at the end of this ramble, but my guess is; look to cultural factors. Reconstructions of bows from Germanic graves have been found very effective weapons of war, and I much doubt the composite bows of the ancient Mediterranean were inferior to them.

[Sean Manning]

"A substantial ancient army after the period of city states was at least 20,000 strong. A substantial medieval army was around 10,000 strong. (Great medieval armies could be as large as great ancient ones, perhaps up to 60-70,000 combatants, but great armies are rare). We've debated this before, and you aren't going to convince me until I see your research"

I am not sure what you mean here, because I would subscribe those figures, provided that those "great armies" are formed by the conjunction of 2 or more field armies for a battle.

OK, then we are agreed. I was reacting to your comment "ancient armies were not that large", which seemed to disagree with me, and feeling a bit defensive. I think we are agreed about more than we disagree (especially that "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics"), but it seems we have a hard time not squabbling about details.

A great Roman army would be a combination of several field armies, I agree. Other great armies might be raised by a coalition (Alexander's war with Persia, the largest Crusades before hunger/disease/poverty/exhaustion took their toll) or in an all-out effort by a great warrior king- either would have the same effect of creating an army too large to sustain for long.

[Aryaman2]

Retaking the issue of crossbowmen, I think they come to replace javelinmen, who disappear around that period. Both are weapons easy to master, and crossbow had the additional power to contend with more heavily armoured enemies.

[geala]

I cannot agree with the assumption that missile troops were of greater importance in the middle ages than in the ancient times. The use of missile weapons was always a dynamic process. When powerful easy-to- master missile weapons like crossbows came in use, the heavy infantry and cavalry reacted and vice versa. In the end the armour won and from the middle of the 15th c. onwards bows and crossbows lost importance.

I think one important reason for the restricted use of bows and crossbows is that missiles before the invention of powder weapons were not powerful enough to achieve considerable killing. If you cannot shoot down the slowly approaching heavy infantry or the attacking cavalry you have to hold them back with own heavy troops.

Only a certain time frame is given to take affect of missile weapons. The time frame is influenced by the range of the weapon, the trajectory of the projectile and the speed of the enemy. The time frame for bows and arrows is just much too short to get decisive results. You can shoot at the enemy from perhaps 250 metres. He would need perhaps 5 minutes to close. In this 5 minutes a well trained archery force could surely destroy most unarmoured attackers because a lot more arrows would fly at them than musket balls on later battlefileds. But the use of armour and/or simple shields changed the situation drastically. The archers became more or less a tool of annoyance, slowing and disheartening the approaching enemy and partly achieving casualties. They would have never been able to stop the attacker, so the focus always had to be with the heavy infantry or cavalry in the western way of war.

A very different situation occurs when you can shoot from walls (city militia) or from behind field fortifications (f.e. Hussites). Or when you are sitting on a horse and can use its mobility. That armies with horse archers and heavy cavalry often showed themselves superior to western foes (until decisively beaten in the 18th c.) has a reason. And here we come back to social and cultural behavior: if the western states had used horse archers the bow would have been much more prominent.

[Aryaman2]

Don´t forget that a crossbowman could be heavy infantry as well, the typical infantryman of the XV century before the advent of pikemen was an armoured (usually brigandine or a combination of mail and plate) infantryman armed with crossbow, sword, bucklers and some kind of halberd. The same happened in ancient times, a phalangite could be quickly reconverted in a skirmishers by dropping his sarissa and taking a couple of javelins. In all I think that missile weapons in the west didn´t substancially change in his role until late XVI century at least. OTOH I agree with you that in Eastern cultures the Horse archer is the leading figure in the battlefield until XVIII century.

[geala]

It it not precisely an ancient theme but could you give me some sources for the all-purpose infantryman with crossbow and halberd? Never heard of it.

Of course crossbowmen were more or less heavily armoured, mostly with gambesons and mail or brigantines, helmets and often carried pavises. But if the crossbowman tried to fight heavy infantry with his sword, he would have been in dire straits. While the sword is superior to the halberd/bill in single fights, in battle line fights sword user had only the position of the second winner due to less reach and armour piercing ability.

[Sean Manning]

Don´t forget that a crossbowman could be heavy infantry as well, the typical infantryman of the XV century before the advent of pikemen was an armoured (usually brigandine or a combination of mail and plate) infantryman armed with crossbow, sword, bucklers and some kind of halberd. The same happened in ancient times, a phalangite could be quickly reconverted in a skirmishers by dropping his sarissa and taking a couple of javelins. In all I think that missile weapons in the west didn´t substancially change in his role until late XVI century at least. OTOH I agree with you that in Eastern cultures the Horse archer is the leading figure in the battlefield until XVIII century.

I don't think its quite as simple as issuing different weapons! You would need troops trained to fight in the very different styles of peltasts and pikemen. Elite troops like Alexander's seem to have managed it, but not all.

I also can't think of any examples of halberdiers with crossbows. How would you carry the two weapons at once? Some Swiss troops fought as skirmishers with crossbows and handgonnes, but they didn't carry their pikes and halberds with them to do it.

You could be right that crossbows largely replaced javelins, and the different qualities of the weapons drove different tactics. In many ways spear-throwers make better skirmishers than foot archers or crossbowmen do, since they can carry a shield and move while shooting. (The author of the infantry appendix to the Strategikon takes this view). Bowmen can skirmish, but they can also be used in a massed, fairly static role. The heavy equipment of many medieval crossbowmen supported the later tactics (although it was also useful for both sides in sieges).

But I certainly can't agree that "missile weapons in the west didn´t substantially change in his role until late XVI century at least." The tactics of massed, formed archers are fundamentally different from those of skirmishers. I can't think of any Iron Age Meditteranean army outside the Middle East that raised archers that Phil Barker would call Bw rather than Ps, if you know the wargames DBA/DBM.

[geala]

Sean, I agree with you about the crossbow-halberdier. But where do you see a massive and important use of archery in the western world in the middle ages? I can think of Italian and German city militia with the use of crossbows in the 13th and 14th c. AD and the English with the "long"bow in the 14th and 15th c. AD. In the ancient times missiles were used in extense in defending fortified places too, so the crossbow was new but not the form of fighting. And the English were rather special, an exception, not the rule and btw only partly successful and not necessarily because of the massive use of archery (if you don't look only at the frequent victories in the Scots wars but also at the performance against the French and Swiss).