During battle that ended the revolt, Dio refers to archers being deployed to counter the chariots, are there any references to archers in the invasion force or the second half of the first century? They can't be Hamians as they arrived with Hadrian and if I recall correctly weren't part of the empire at this point of time. Thracians are attested in the first century in Britain but not specifically archers. Your thoughts please.
Richard Craig AKA Aulus Maximus
Cohors I Tungrorum
Cohors I Batavorum
To the best of my knowledge there is no extant reference to the particular Auxilia units involved in the original invasion, or the revolt over 20 years later; but there certainly may have been Sagitarii cohorts present, quiet possibly Thracian indeed.
However, it is also possible that other troops, particularly legionnaires, could have been so armed. Vegetius, of course, refers to all legionary recruits being trained with a range of weapons, including javelins, slings and bows; as well as riding and swimming. So, just like Arrian is supposed to have famously armed more troops with spears instead of, we assume, javelins/pila, then perhaps bows were issued out this time - just like slings often were in sieges.
Doesn't, however, mean that the archers were particularly good - it takes a long time to train a truly effective archer. But how effective do you need to be against light chariots, especially given the terrain the Roman Army is detailed as occupying where the archers could quite probably shoot overhead.
I would think it logical to assume the Roman army deployed archers long before the Hamians came on scene. The reference to Vegetius correctly implies legonairy to be trained in using a bow. Now, on training an archer, I have stated in earlier posts that this very much relies on what you want that archer to be able to do. For a crack shot, able of plugging a targeted individual in the vitals at 50 to 60 meters at first shot, yes, this requires extensive training and much practice. But for shooting at a massed band of enemy, the situation changes as the requirements of marksmanship are less.
I recently gave a friend an afternoons training, teaching him barebow or instinctive archery. Within an hour, he was able to consistently hit a target of 1 meter square at 15 meters. Then, as the afternoon progressed, we increased the range to 25 meters, and he stayed on target. Now, he was not consistantly shooting all arrows within the dinnerplate area wanted yet, but he could confidently shoot a bow with a good idea of where his arrow was going to end up. So even having had basic instruction and moderate practice, a group of archers could and would make life very difficult for an enemy approuching head on or in a band moving diagonaly. Also, shooting a bow the instictive methode is like riding a bicycle, once learned, the knowledge stays.
I would be wary of taking Dio's account of the battle too literally. Although his writings do contain a lot of odd and interesting details, some of which are supported by evidence, this scene in particular seems a little too much like a rhetorical 'battle piece', with the various types of troops contrasted and opposed for dramatic effect. Tacitus also describes the battle, and mentions neither archers nor battle chariots. While the description in Tacitus might exaggerate the ease of the victory, he was a contemporary source and Dio was not.
As for legionary archers - Vegetius was writing about the legion at an unknown earlier point, but presumably post 1st-century. There's also the possibility that he was just suggesting an ideal situation rather than describing a real one. Legionaries may have been trained as archers, but without further 1st-century corroboration I would suspect their sole missile weapon was the javelin (which Tacitus describes them throwing at the Britons during the battle).
There many have been archers among the auxiliaries even so - Thracians seem plausible, as others have suggested. Tacitus just mentions 'light armed troops' formed up on the wings of the Roman formation, but implies that they fought in the same manner as the legionaries.
So this calls for first century arrowhead finds in Britania, I suppose. Although I cannot think of a good reason for not using archers to soften up the enemy at a range way beyond a pila throw, there must be some proof to back up such an assumption, I agree.
Quote:So this calls for first century arrowhead finds in Britania, I suppose. Although I cannot think of a good reason for not using archers to soften up the enemy at a range way beyond a pila throw, there must be some proof to back up such an assumption, I agree.
Twenty-three arrowheads were found at the 1st century site at Hod Hill, Dorset, an Iron Age hillfort with a Roman fort inside it (J. W. Brailsford, Hod Hill, Vol. 1: Antiquities from Hod Hill in the Durden Collection, London 1962, p.6 & Pl.VI). Nos. B85, B86, B106 & B107 in Pl.VI (bottom left) are identified as arrowheads.
[attachment=6011]HodHill.jpg[/attachment]
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
[attachment=6012]100_0749.jpg[/attachment]
Arrowhead B107 is very like the Roman arrowheads discovered in a large quantity at Xanten. Here is a picture taken at their great new museum. There is one of this type known from the fort at Nijmegen. These are very distictively Roman in that these are iron trilobates and are not classed as hunting arrowheads, as those are broad biblades with large cutting edges and no barbs. The barbed trilobate was very much an "anti-personel warhead".
