Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The logical use of archers and slingers
#1
We have discussed the use of archers in the Roman military before and often these have been depicted as auxiliary troops from the second century onwards, using recurve bows. There have been several instances where the use of the bow by the first century miles has been advocated, although we have scant proof of that, other than a lot of first century arrowheads and documentary evidence suggesting the use of a bow was part of normal military training. While writing a script for a battle involving the taking of a walled enemy village, I suddenly realized that in my whole line-up, there was a moment in the battle that rapid firing, ranged weapons would come into their own, allowing the taking of the village, where without them, things would look bleak for the assailants.
When approaching the walled village, the Romans form a testudo formation to shield themselves from the barrage of the defenders, but for them to then do things like tear down the palisade using roped hooks or attacking the gate, they would have to give up on the testudo formation. At that moment, the defenders are free to rain down projectiles at close range and stab out with spears UNLESS covering firing causing the defenders to crouch down behind the palisade is provided. This is a tactic many (ex) military will immediately recognize. This is the moment for the bowmen and slingers, who make life very difficult for anyone with enough brawn of enough lack of brain to expose himself in such a fashion.
So not only do I think bowmen (and slingers) were essential in all attacks on hillforts and stockaded villages, but that it stands to reason they were an integral part of military tactics and any first century group should portray this piece of equipment used by the common soldier when the need arose.
Salvete et Valete



Nil volentibus arduum





Robert P. Wimmers
www.erfgoedenzo.nl/Diensten/Creatie Big Grin
Reply
#2
While agree that the use of missle troops is absolutely logical in your scenario, don't we have descriptions, From Caesar at Gergovia for instance, of Legion artillary performing this role.

If my memory serves me correctly Caesar praised his artillary crews at the siege of gergovia for being able to keep the heads of the defenders down, and accurately hit anyone attempting to mount a defence from the wall.
M.VAL.BRUTUS
Brandon Barnes
Legio VI Vicrix
www.legionsix.org
Reply
#3
Whilst I have indeed been re-reading Simon Scarrow's Eagle/Legion/Roman series just recently (which does have fitctionalised examples)...

I do believe there are several, if not many, examples of Lead Slingshot (often marked with legion symbology and even graffiti) being found often in areas where a siege or siege assault took place; and we do have comment that legionaries (up to a quarter iirc) were trained and could use them.

Whilst use on the normal open-field battle (unless in the earlier days using mercenary Balaeric/Rhodian slingers as formed units) seems rare or non-existent - given that the legionary is otherwise encumbered with sword, shield and 1-2 heavy javelins; carrying a leather strop and collecting a bag of slingshot from stores for special occasions is fairly easy.

We have examples from earliest histories of boy shepherds, let alone David, using the sling; whereas Bowmanship has always been a rather more specialised skill that requires years of training to get right. We have the Cretan Bowman to rank alongside the slingers above, but it does seem that the Romans did not commonly use the bow until the formed sagittarii units of the Imperial period, which still seem fairly uncommon given the long held views of the power of the bow.

I am minded to therefore suggest that, for the average legion and its soldiers, support for such an attack is probably more likely from slingers from close range as well as ballistas (which were also used to cover river crossings, etc) as noted above.

Making good bows, crafting arrows and then the large training burden (I think the requirement to train after church in England is still technically on the statute books - it might even be useful if something like that were enforced! :whistle: ) is non-trivial.

All that said, it does seem that by the later Empire and then into the Early Byzantine period the bow was much more prevalent. We have Vegetius' one-quarter figure and this, I believe, is linked to the re-adoption of the spear as the primary weapon of the heavy infantry. This is also linked to both the influx of more bow-using tribes into the empire, let alone the enemies they were facing. Given that the average foot-bowman will out-range a horse-bowman, that seems eminently sensible.
Reply
#4
And with the advent of the crossbow in the late empire, you have a weapon that doesn't take nearly as much time to train a soldier with as well.
Reply
#5
A siege as such may be pushing it, but in the first century, the Romans would have encountered lots and lots of villages with a pallisade. It is that which compiles me to conclude the use of ranged weapons, even by and especially by smaller forces, like a numerus or a cohort, were in use in far greater numbers then we now presume. We tend to think of legions in set piece battles, but in fact, the Roman army was split up in much smaller units sent on missions against smaller targets such as villages.

What you want is a rapid firing rate to keep the heads down. As I have stated before, a servicable bow can be made in a matter of hours (I have done so myself) and will last for at least a year, arrows made from straight shoots of hazel, willow or dogwood are also no great chore and can be reused, so the logistical part of that may be less taxing then we would tend to think. A bundle of 50 unstrung bows is but a small parcel, it takes less space then a single ballista, but will make life very unpleasant for defenders when put to use at 50 paces/yards.

Also, even with a very moderate amount of training (say a day of instructed exercise to get the hang of it and a few hours of weekly practice to hone the skill), the desired results can be achieved. I can teach a novice to keep his arrows on target in a few hours. It is all about instilling the needed hand eye co-ordination and getting the instinctive sight picture needed to shoot. Some take to it like fish in the water. Having tried both the sling and the bow, the bow is the far easier weapon to master. I believe the need for pinpoint accuracy may well be overstated, a human makes a large target and the aim of sending an arrow his way in the use I am suggesting is to disrupt whatever he is doing. Sure, some of the party will be good shots and score kills, others less so.
Salvete et Valete



Nil volentibus arduum





Robert P. Wimmers
www.erfgoedenzo.nl/Diensten/Creatie Big Grin
Reply
#6
Hmmm...trying to remember where I saw it, but a recent find of a fortification found in a forest somewhere in Gaul implies that all the sling shot found was from the top down, ie from the defenders on the attackers and, as mentioned above, the Romans just used the artillery they had to batter the defences in true Ridley Scott style!
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#7
This is interesting, it does not rule out the Romans using bows in the manner I described. The slingshot being fired by the defenders suggest there was something to fire at, ie soldiers approaching the pallisade. The artillery evidently did not prevent the firing of these projectiles, which is logical given it's firing rate. I am sure some of the people on this forum have tried a rapid fire sequence with these boltshooters, but I think I recall some tests which were videotaped (I believe at the Harzhorn site), which showed they did not get away over three shots a minute.
Salvete et Valete



Nil volentibus arduum





Robert P. Wimmers
www.erfgoedenzo.nl/Diensten/Creatie Big Grin
Reply
#8
I can't quite get the idea of thread. Is it "Using archers and sligers for covering fire would be good idea."? If so then yes it is good method to keep defenders behind their walls while besiegers trying to either escalate or mine the wall. Yet, there is a problem with this since defenders have superiority in range with their elevated position. Thus, attackers have to step in range of defenders in order to engage in missile exchange.

At this point, artillery takes role since it had longer range, enabling attackers to pick of defenders from a safe position. In fact, all artillery till high medieval ages used primarily as antipersonnel weapon. Also, some artillery were capable of destroying crenellations thus denying defenders protection. Artillery's role was the clear of the defenders from wall in order to make safe usage of a ram or a tower, or protect miners while they are dislodging the base of wall.
posted by Semih Koyuncu

Reply
#9
Wasn't one of those 12 oz anti-armor scorpio bolts found embedded 3 inches into a wall?
Reply


Forum Jump: