Mounted Archers in Britain

[Surena]

Hi all,

This is my first post, although I've been reading the forum for some time. Seems like the best possible place to ask about my area of interest, which is horseback archery.

I'm writing a paper on horseback archery in Britain and one area I'm looking at is the Roman period. I didn't think there were mounted archers as part o the Roman army in Britain, but I'm having second thoughts.

I read (although not in detail yet) a thesis that somebody linked to here: https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/2551 and at the end is a lst of mounted archer units. He includes cohors I hamiorum sagittariorum, who were stationed, as far as I can tell from other sources, in Britain in the second Century, if not before.

That thesis is the only reference I can see to this cohort's being mounted? I note the lack of 'equitata' from the title but I've seen indications elsewhere that later on in the principate some cohorts had mounted sections without reflecting the faction the name.

Can anybody shed any light on whether the I Hamians were mounted, wholly or in part? Or whether there were any mounted archers stationed in Britain at any point?

I should have said that the thesis apparently takes its list from a list by Eric Birley, "Roman arrowheads from Dinorben and the sagittarii of the Roman Army", in Britannia 8 (1977). Anyone able to check that for justification of the claim?

Thanks

[ValentinianVictrix]

There was at least one Equites Sagittarii unit in Britain during the Late Roman period, the Equites Syri, if my contention that Catafractarii/Clibanarii units were dual armed with contus and bow then the Equites catafractarii iuniores is another contender.

[Surena]

There was at least one Equites Sagittarii unit in Britain during the Late Roman period, the Equites Syri, if my contention that Catafractarii/Clibanarii units were dual armed with contus and bow then the Equites catafractarii iuniores is another contender.

Thanks! At the risk of being lazy, are there any sources I could check out on either point? I know the Syri were in Britain but can't see, in my very brief check, that they were archers. Quite happy to believe they were though...

Intrigued by your theory on catafractarii/clibanarii. I assume there's a thread somewhere. I'll have a search...

[Renatus]

I should have said that the thesis apparently takes its list from a list by Eric Birley, "Roman arrowheads from Dinorben and the sagittarii of the Roman Army", in Britannia 8 (1977). Anyone able to check that for justification of the claim?

This article is by Jeffrey L. Davies and includes in an Appendix the list compiled by Prof. E. Birley, augmented by Davies himself. This comprises units of sagittarii of all types, cavalry and infantry. The article does not claim coh I Hamiorum to be mounted. Neither, to be fair to him, does the writer of the thesis. He reproduces the list, further augmented, but again it is of units of all types and, as far as I can tell, he does not suggest that they are all mounted. I should say, however, that I have not read his full text. I have had a look in RIB I and do not see anything there to indicate that coh I Hamiorum was anything other than an infantry unit.

Intrigued by your theory on catafractarii/clibanarii. I assume there's a thread somewhere. I'll have a search...

This is the thread to look at:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...&id=278996

You might also consider looking at the thread in the other forum that I mention in my first post there.

[Surena]

This comprises units of sagittarii of all types, cavalry and infantry. The article does not claim coh I Hamiorum to be mounted. Neither, to be fair to him, does the writer of the thesis.

You're absolutely right. Don't know how I missed that! I think I must have been concentrating so much on the fact that the thesis was about mounted archers that I never really read the introduction to the list. D'oh!

Guess that leaves the Notitia units...

I'll have a look at the threads, thanks.

[Surena]

Any sources people would recommend for learning more about the Syri?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hardly.

They are only listed in the Notitia Dignitatum for the British field army: (Occ. VII: DISTRIBUTIO NUMERORUM, Intra Britannias, Comes Britanniarum, 204. Equites Syri, vexillatio comitatenses).

Luke Ueda speculated that:
"they might well be one of the units listed under the Dux Britanniarum. A now lost alter from Kirkby Thore seemingly attests (according to one reconstruction of the text) to a N(umerus) M(ilitum) S(yorum) S(agittariorum); horse archers seem likely enough for a Syrian unit, although it is hard to see a unit of sagittarii in the cavalry units listed under the two British limitanei commanders and described as equites; accordingly they could well be one of the alae, but again, which one is hard to make out. Perhaps they are instead the men under the Praefectus numeri barcariorum Tigrisiensium. The origin of this unit (meaning the Tigris bargemen) is clearly from the Tigris river, which was not normally accounted as being part of Roman Syria, but this was usually because the Roman border stopped at the Euphrates, and did not normally extend as far as far as the Tigris. However, it is difficult to see a unit of boatsmen being equated with horse archers, and it maybe that the Equites Syri have nothing to do with the horse archers (as the inscription can easily be read another way that does not mention either Syria or Sagittarii) in which case they could easily be any of a number of the the equites or alae units mentioned under the Dux."

True, but as speculation goes, it gets us no hard facts. ad:

One thing's for certain, as this was a vexillatio, there was once a parent unit, but as the ND was drawn up (c. 394 AD) this one no longer made it to the list (either lost or disbanded).
Also, we tend to think of 'Syrian' units as archers, but of course under that designation we could as likely find Arab light cavalry.

[John Conyard]

I fear hard evidence for horse archers in Britain will be very hard to find. And indeed the same would be true for the use of the contus or for horse armour, with the exception of early Imperial chamfrons.

All this nice equipment and no hard evidence for it........
But the way forward may be to suggest that in the late Roman period elite cavalry units would know how to use mounted archeryin the Hunnic tradition, at speed and close to the enemy. I am sure many units may have used the bow stationary, or just used hand thrown weapons.

So I think it is fair to portray horse archery as a late Roman cavalryman in Britain. Not many enemy units would use long range missile weapons in any quantity, so even relatively static horse archery could be used. Barbarians would have little answer to such tactics. But horse archery at speed looks far more impressive.

Comitatus portrays the Roman army in Britain. Horse archery and the resulting need for horse armour is really an eastern phenomenon, as is the use of the contus. But we display all three, but make limited use of the contus and armour.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hardly.

They are only listed in the Notitia Dignitatum for the British field army: (Occ. VII: DISTRIBUTIO NUMERORUM, Intra Britannias, Comes Britanniarum, 204. Equites Syri, vexillatio comitatenses).

Luke Ueda speculated that:
"they might well be one of the units listed under the Dux Britanniarum. A now lost alter from Kirkby Thore seemingly attests (according to one reconstruction of the text) to a N(umerus) M(ilitum) S(yorum) S(agittariorum); horse archers seem likely enough for a Syrian unit, although it is hard to see a unit of sagittarii in the cavalry units listed under the two British limitanei commanders and described as equites; accordingly they could well be one of the alae, but again, which one is hard to make out. Perhaps they are instead the men under the Praefectus numeri barcariorum Tigrisiensium. The origin of this unit (meaning the Tigris bargemen) is clearly from the Tigris river, which was not normally accounted as being part of Roman Syria, but this was usually because the Roman border stopped at the Euphrates, and did not normally extend as far as far as the Tigris. However, it is difficult to see a unit of boatsmen being equated with horse archers, and it maybe that the Equites Syri have nothing to do with the horse archers (as the inscription can easily be read another way that does not mention either Syria or Sagittarii) in which case they could easily be any of a number of the the equites or alae units mentioned under the Dux."

True, but as speculation goes, it gets us no hard facts. ad:

One thing's for certain, as this was a vexillatio, there was once a parent unit, but as the ND was drawn up (c. 394 AD) this one no longer made it to the list (either lost or disbanded).
Also, we tend to think of 'Syrian' units as archers, but of course under that designation we could as likely find Arab light cavalry.

I thought the western Half was written by Ioannes C. 420

Also, we musn't forget to include Foderati in theis argument, it is likely sarmatian horse archers could have been sent to Britan, I read something of it happening in a general information book I got from the library.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I fear hard evidence for horse archers in Britain will be very hard to find. And indeed the same would be true for the use of the contus or for horse armour, with the exception of early Imperial chamfrons.

All this nice equipment and no hard evidence for it........
But the way forward may be to suggest that in the late Roman period elite cavalry units would know how to use mounted archeryin the Hunnic tradition, at speed and close to the enemy. I am sure many units may have used the bow stationary, or just used hand thrown weapons.

So I think it is fair to portray horse archery as a late Roman cavalryman in Britain. Not many enemy units would use long range missile weapons in any quantity, so even relatively static horse archery could be used. Barbarians would have little answer to such tactics. But horse archery at speed looks far more impressive.

Comitatus portrays the Roman army in Britain. Horse archery and the resulting need for horse armour is really an eastern phenomenon, as is the use of the contus. But we display all three, but make limited use of the contus and armour.

Ah yes I've seen you guys as the Taifali Cataphract unit before. We tried to make a unit model based off of you guys in RTW modding. Came out good I'll try and send it to you if you want.

[John Conyard]

Thank you Ewan. One day I may take you up on it.

Dan, would you be married to Claire? We did an article for the BHAA last year on Roman horse archery.

[Surena]

Thanks everyone, very interesting stuff.

John: yes I'm married to Claire. I read your article with interest although to be honest I'd not realised that you wrote it. I know Claire was in contact with Amy(?) and had thought she wrote it. Just revisited it and yes, your name is on it! I really need to start reading the top of documents...

Ewan, I'd also seen somewhere that Sarmations had been posted to Hadrian's Wall (and it wasn't just in the film King Arthur!). Not sure now where I saw it.

My motives for finding out are threefold:
1. Generally interested.
2. I've been asked by the World Horseback Archery Fedaration to research and give a talk on the history of horseback archery in Britain (could be an awfully short lecture!). That's what drives the questions about particular units/inscriptions etc.

3. Costume. Horseback archery is an odd sport and one of the odd things about it is costume. You are encouraged to wear traditional/historic costume when competing. It's not compulsory but encouraged and frankly adds to the atmosphere and the fun of competing. Competing in Romano-British war gear is something I'm looking at (along with possibilities of Pict (there being a legend/myth that they were descended from the Scythians) or C14 archer from the Crecy campaign (some artistic evidence of use of the longbow from horseback). There's also a possible mounted archer at the end of the Bayeux Tapestry, but that might be a mistake in restoration.

I'm never going to be competing in full reenactment kit, for two main reasons. First, I ride in a riding hat/helmet (Claire's orders!) albeit one that I have disguised as a spangenhelm with horsetail plume. Second, I am a sportsman first and foremost, so I won't compromise on performance. I will, for example, continue to use my own quiver, which hold 9 arrows tightly in place so they can be drawn with the correct orientation. Not historical but very quick and reliable to use in sport. I also use a thumb draw. Oh, and I don't have my own horse so the options for Roman saddle/tack are zero. I hesitate to mention cost...

That said, I would like to be as historically accurate as I can within those limits. A mail shirt is fairly high on my list, and I was interested to see elsewhere on RAT that butted mail has been found in Britain, albeit not Roman. Seems much more affordable than rivetted, much as I would love a good coat of rivetted mail. Maybe in a few years' time! I also fancy a spatha (I'll follow John's advice and hang it on top of the bow case). I've been following the discussion of greaves with some interest. The buckler is something I'd be interested to try just to see whether it does affect my performance.

I may start a different thread about options for gear that is affordable and practical for sporting use. My basic thought was tunic, legwear, mail shirt with belt, with options of spatha, buckler and possibly a good helmet for when not riding.

All of which is rather beside the point of the main reason for this particular thread, which is seeking information on horseback archery in British history. Slight digression...

[John Conyard]

Dan, if I may make so bold as to suggest you come along to a riding session some time. Not because you will learn anything about horse archery, but because you can look at the kit and assess what you may want to buy in the future.

An elite cataphract in late Roman Britain could simply be an armoured horseman able to use the bow and the lance. Do not worry about greaves, thigh guards, horse armour etc. Mail and a good reproduction helmet would be an excellent start. A shield is not needed but a small shield can be carried displaying the design of an elite field unit. A good 3 metre long cavalry lance could be carried using a shoulder strap, and a good belt and sword are also standard. A sword can be reconditioned easily enough. If anything the tunic would be the hardest item to obtain. Expensive cotton versions are commercially available, but woollen and linen examples are harder to find.

Roman military saddles are hard to source, but they do fit a wide variety of horses. As military saddles they have to. We do sell them but there is a waiting list and the cost is a major investment. Steppe saddles would perhaps be more common by the late 4th century and can be purchased from horse archery suppliers. Many just make do with Spanish, Portuguese or McClellan saddles with a sheepskin thrown over the top.

All this is fairly obvious. But my major point is that reproduction helmets can be safely worn, and quivers can be made to suit your needs. Reproduction equipment has to be fit for purpose and is generally superior to modern examples. Helmets should be padded out like a modern motor bike helmets to make them equally if not more effective. Many re-enactors do not bother padding their helmets, but for cavalry it is vital. You could use an unstrung bow case and tubular quiver, or an “Orlatt style” quiver consisting of a strung bow case with two tubes holding arrows attached to the front. Whichever design you go for the arrows can be held in such a way that you can remove them in your preferred method for easy stringing. My quivers generally hold around 30 arrows, but nine should be easily accommodated. Any skill lies in the speed of shooting and it sounds like you need more speed than us.I do appreciate that our aims are different, you are taking part in a sport and we are trying to recreate the Roman cavalry, but we have a great deal in common.

In terms of horse archery in Britain I am relatively certain elite late Roman cavalry could have done it. Although I fear Roman thumb rings are rare outside 3rd century Dura and the western draw seems to have been common. I think we can safely discount the Picts, and the Bayeux Tapestry mounted archer is almost certainly a result of modern restoration. Although there is limited iconography showing medieval horse archery, it would have been very unusual. The self bow and indeed the arrows are not exactly optimised for it. Mounted crossbow men would have been more common.

The Sarmatians at Ribchester spawn many myths and legends as they all seem to be called Arthur and went around Lancashire planting swords in stones. Allegedly.

I suspect the horse archery in the UK leaves with the Romans and is not resurrected until the modern period. Your article may be short indeed.

Take a good look at http://comitatus.net/cavalry.html and http://earlyridinggroup.org/ for ideas on equipment.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Is there.. something up with my display name because my Name is Evan, and the Display is supposed to Say Magister Militum Flavius Aetius, and bot of you guys put Ewan...

[Surena]

Dan, if I may make so bold as to suggest you come along to a riding session some time. Not because you will learn anything about horse archery, but because you can look at the kit and assess what you may want to buy in the future.

I'd love to! I suspect that I'd learn a lot about riding, quite apart from the kit. I approached the sport very much as an archer and my riding is not all it might be. You're based in York, aren't you? A friend of mine is stationed at Strensall, so I daresay I'll be able to come by. Are you active through the winter or are you like horseback archery and basicaly hibernate until spring?

If anything the tunic would be the hardest item to obtain. Expensive cotton versions are commercially available, but woollen and linen examples are harder to find.

Posts elsewhere suggest they can be made without too much trouble. Might have a go as a starter. I'm sure there's more to it than getting a bolt of 60" wool or linen and cutting a head hole, but I daresay I'll be able to produce something that would work.

Roman military saddles are hard to source...

At competitions you basically ride the horse with the tack it comes with. Most events are run a bit like modern pentathlon - there's a stock of horses and you are allocated one (albeit we get some choice). You can take a horse if you have one but with most events being abroad, I'm not sure we'd take horses even if we had them. Adds to the skill requirement, in my opinion: you have to able to perform on the horses available.

But my major point is that reproduction helmets can be safely worn...helmets should be padded out like a modern motor bike helmets to make them equally if not more effective. Many re-enactors do not bother padding their helmets, but for cavalry it is vital.

That had actally been my thought as well, but it had been fairly firmly put down by the lady wife, who is much my superior in riding and domestic authority. Luckily she's read your post and is now reconsidering. All I have to do now is prevent her from reading what I've just written...

Any skill lies in the speed of shooting and it sounds like you need more speed than us.

My current aim (no pun intended) is 1.5s per arrow (from loose to loose).

I do appreciate that our aims are different, you are taking part in a sport and we are trying to recreate the Roman cavalry, but we have a great deal in common.

I entirely agree! I had some trepidation in posting in such an august and obviously learned forum, in case others didn't see us as having much in common. The way I see it we are simply approaching the same ideal from opposite ends - you start with the kit and the riding and the open field etc, I start with the speed and accuracy of shot and work towards you.

In terms of horse archery in Britain I am relatively certain elite late Roman cavalry could have done it. Although I fear Roman thumb rings are rare outside 3rd century Dura and the western draw seems to have been common. I think we can safely discount the Picts, and the Bayeux Tapestry mounted archer is almost certainly a result of modern restoration. Although there is limited iconography showing medieval horse archery, it would have been very unusual. The self bow and indeed the arrows are not exactly optimised for it. Mounted crossbow men would have been more common.

The Sarmatians at Ribchester spawn many myths and legends as they all seem to be called Arthur and went around Lancashire planting swords in stones. Allegedly.

I suspect the horse archery in the UK leaves with the Romans and is not resurrected until the modern period. Your article may be short indeed.

At the moment it consists of "the Romans almost certainly did it and people have speculated, probably wrongly, about this and this and this"!


cheers

Dan