Legionary Archer....

[Magnus]

Looking for anything regarding legionary archers during the mid-first century. All I was able to find was Vegetius mentioning that rear rank legionaries should be armed with bows (but this is later empire). The Notitia Dignitatum points at most archers being based in the eastern theater as well.

I'm looking for anything else, regarding the use of legionary sagitarii in the western front. I'm assuming their equipment would have been the same as a regular infantryman, though hamata would have been preferred. I'm also unsure of shield type...clipeus or parma?

Any help or logical ideas welcomed lol.

[jvrjenivs]

You might find this article interesting:
http://www.romanarmy.net/hamians.htm

[Magnus]

GREAT article. Thanks Jurjen.

[Robert]

Although there is a lot of evidence for composite bows, self bows should not be ruled out. These are a lot easier to make and maintain.
Then there is the written evidence for ordinary legionairs to practice with bows. So a Roman archer of the first century could very well be depicted in normal infantry gear, wearing a hamata, with a period helmet. In case of need (battlefield conditions) a group of soldiers would be issued bows and arrows. The backquiver is really unpracticle for drawing an arrow from, certainly when wearing a hamata, so I believe it would have acted as a means of transporting the arrows, but when wanting to use it, these would have either been propped up before him, allowing quick acces, or arrows were retrieved and stuck in the ground in front of the archer. Archers often act as a "back row soldier" shooting at the enemy over the heads of the own troops.
Have fun shooting!

[jkaler48]

. I'm also unsure of shield type...clipeus or parma?

Any help or logical ideas welcomed lol.

My theory based on scant funerary stele evidence is that some Legionary troops sometimes used a curved oval clipteus: Signifiers and light armed cohorts among them. It would be an interesting shield for an archer. It could be slung when not in use but provides more protection than a Parma in battle.

[Forty-One]

Were there actually any legionary archers in the mid first century? It has always been my understanding that there is no evidence for archers forming an organic part of a legion until the 4th century.

I suppose it's not entirely impossible that some mid first century legionaries might have been issued a bow out of stores for use in a siege. Then I'd expect them to just be in their tunics and sword belts, possibly with their helmets on.

[Gaius Colletti]

Why didn't archers make up a significant portion of the legions. Were legionnaires expected to just be the heavy infantry and auxillary to be the light infantry and archers? It's funny to think that the Roman's were soo big on effeciency and the most advanced fighting techniques, why wouldn't they use archers? Cleaner battle, less soldiers killed...

Was there just some sort of stigma that battles should be fought mostly with a sword and shield?

[Alanus]

I think many legions had auxillae, and within these auxilliary units there were archers... not necessarily a full unit of them but still there in the rear. And because they were in the rear and rarely charged with the legion, I wonder if they actually used or needed a shield at all.:roll:

From personal experience and through demonstrations, I don't find the back quiver a problem at all. It works fine, even for oldsters who are "stiffer" than men in their prime. My helmet, by the way, is a close pattern to the Sofia archer's model. It's light, as is my hammata. An archer was the lightest equipped soldier in the Roman Army, or in any army.

In Britain, many bone siyahs of steppe composite bows have been found, including the Hamian ones in the north. In Caerleon, evacuated at the end of the 2nd century, I think, a large number of bone bow parts were discovered. By choice, an eastern archer, whether Hamian or Sarmatian, would have used the horn-bow as opposed to a long-bow which "softens" in a short period of time. Composite horn and sinew bows were made with fish glue, not hide glue, and they were water-resistant (not waterproof, but neither was the long-bow). They do lose draw power in dampness, but it does not effect their inherent stability. A horn-bow, or steppe bow would last a lifetime if cared for, but a long-bow was useless after but a few years.

If you are thinking of garnering an archer's kit, do it! Archery is great fun.:lol:

[griffin]

I will puruse the 1st century and earlier literary sources for sagitta* and sagittar* and get back to you.

[griffin]

Tacitus Annals Book 13, Sections 39-40. Romans are attacking the Armenians, and storming many of their fortifcations. The Armenian king moves to intercept a Roman army on the move, and the army is arranged and ready for battle, with foot-archers on the flank.

When tiridates tries to encourage the Romans to break their line they do not. They mostly do not engage, except for one Armenian Cavalry commander who is shot with multiple arrows.

[Alanus]

Tacitus, a fine reliable source for 1st century archers. In this case, with the archers on the flank, they would have needed shields. Notice how the archers targeted an Armenian officer, a fine example of how to demoralize an enemy.:wink:

[Forty-One]

Tacitus Annals Book 13, Sections 39-40. Romans are attacking the Armenians, and storming many of their fortifcations. The Armenian king moves to intercept a Roman army on the move, and the army is arranged and ready for battle, with foot-archers on the flank.

The very same source says a few paragraphs earlier that the Roman general had "[E]qual numbers of citizen and allied troops, together with the auxiliary infantry and cavalry that were in winter quarters in Cappadocia." Given that we know there were auxiliary foot-archer units, and that allied troops had been used in such specialist roles for centuries, and that there is no other evidence at all for legionary archers in this period, the balance of probability is that the archers mentioned by Tacitus here are auxiliaries or allies. This passage cannot reasonably be admitted as evidence for the existence of legionary archers.

[Alanus]

... the archers mentioned by Tacitus here are auxiliaries or allies. This passage cannot reasonably be admitted as evidence for the existence of legionary archers.

I agree. In my last post above, I just took it for granted that they were auxiliaries and assumed everyone else did. Thanks to stating explicitly clear.:mrgreen:

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

What sculptural depictions do we have of Roman (auxiliary) archers?

[Peroni]

What sculptural depictions do we have of Roman (auxiliary) archers?

Famously - Column of Trajan showing levantine archers and the Housesteads soldier. Some grave stele from the Rhineland of soldiers of Cohors Sagittariorum, but they appear in their best off-duty clothing and look no different from legionary soldiers.

Couple of images in here..
http://www.romanarmy.net/hamians.htm

This post was really about legionary archers, but I am unaware of any specific depictions of such in sculpture. Vegetius tells us that all legionary soldiers were trained in the use of the bow and the sling, so as there were no seemingly regularised cohorts of legionary archers it was deemed commonplace.