Non composite recurve bows used by the auxiliary archers?

[mpferrell]

Has anyone come across any hard evidence for auxiliary archers using non composite recurve bows? Or maybe just one piece recurve bows? I am gearing up to do a 1st century western auxiliary archer and want to get all the information I can on it,Thanks.

[D B Campbell]

Has anyone come across any hard evidence for auxiliary archers using non composite recurve bows?

What's a non-composite recurve bow?
I may be showing my ignorance, but I assumed that a recurve bow was a composite bow!

I am gearing up to do a 1st century western auxiliary archer and want to get all the information I can on it.

Again, my ignorance may be showing, but I assumed that all archer units were of eastern origin. (Whether they continued to recruit there is unclear.) The units themselves seem to be Hamian, or Palmyrene, or Petraean, etc.
(Of course, non-archer units seem to have been trained in archery, but that's another matter.)

Is there a specific "western" unit you had in mind?

[mpferrell]

Maybe I over stated when I said "Western archer", What I meant was an auxiliary archer wearing auxiliary gear. The only difference was the bow.


I read this from the Ermine Street Guard's Centurion's Corner:

"Archers

When it comes to archers, most re-enactors seem either not to have read or taken notice of John Coulston's article in BAR S275 (1985) where he argues that what is thought to be a typical Roman archer in flowing robes and pointed helmet, is unlikely. Archers would have looked like any other auxiliaries except, of course, for the fact that they carried a bow. It should also be remembered that Vegetius states that all Roman soldiers were trained in the use of the bow. "

I hope this clarifies my question and Thanks for all help.

[Matt Lukes]

A recurve bow simply has two curves- one direction from the handle and the opposite direction further along to the end- so each limb has an 's' shape- as opposed to, say, an English Longbow which is not a recurve. A composite bow is made of different materials- a composite. It has a wooden core, a layer of sinew on the front face and a layer of horn on the back face. The sinew resists extension and the horn resists compression, allowing a LOT of power in a smaller bow.

To be honest, since a composite bow is a relatively complex weapon requiring a lot of time and a fair amount of expertise to make, I would think the question would be more accurately is there evidence for more composite bows than just self-bows (one piece wood only). I know bow 'ears'- the limb end portions with the string nocks have been found at several Roman sites confirming the use of composite bows, but I honestly can't see them being the vast majority of the weapons. The problem of evidence is, of course, that wood doesn't survive particularly well. The bow ears are bone or some other tough material.

[Robert]

As an archer myself, this is a most interesting topic, as I was not about to go prancing around in a flowing garment, either. The Dracian depicted on Trajan's column would seem to be using a regular type longbow. I have added the address, great site on the column, brilliant search engine.

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/buildtrajanpage.cgi?356

Making a regular longbow does not take a great amount of time and I would be inclined to agree on the argument that Roman auxiliary would be fitted with a simpler kind of bow than the elaborate Syrian recurve. Several readily available woods may be used for making this type of selfbow, ash and yew for instance, but oak can work as well.
Mind you, an arrow shot from a 50 lb. longbow can still really ruin your day.

Composite bows don't have to be recurves, by the way. A composite bow can be made using two kinds of wood bonded with glue, a compression resistant wood on the "inside" and a stretch resistant on the "outside". Yew is a natural composite, the spintwood being very stretch resistant, the heartwood compression resistant.

There is another thing to consider. I have understood archers (and slingers) in the Roman army to be employed as a means of disrupting and harassing the enemy by lobbing fair quantities of very sharp arrows at him. It would make not make sense that an auxiliary thus used would need a very high powered and accurate bow. A 50 lb bow will easily carry 100+ meters and still have sufficient force to penetrate and kill.

[Firmus4474]

I don't know of any evidence for or against the use of "self-bows" but, here is a link that may help if you decide to go the composite route and,want to make your own.

http://www.primitiveways.com/pt-composite_bow.html

I'm going to give it a shot :lol: only I plan to cheat and use fibreglass as a substitute for the horn and sinew at least for the first try.

[Robert]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the link. It is an honor to reply to a truly brave man :wink: I looked at the bow and was daunted. Even with the "cheat" this will be some job. I refered to composite longbows (not composite recurve) in my text, but I am still hunting for a suitable piece of yew to make me a "Frogslayer".

[Firmus4474]

Thank you Robert,I do have some bow making behind me so,I'm not being overly brave ( I hope) .

I find getting started the hardest part. No doubt this will be more difficult than making a self bow but, I'm determined.

I agree with the opinion that probably only specalist archers where armed with the more complex bows and,others probably used simple self bows. The reason being the Romans seemed to have a pragmatic approach to war and,why make more complex bows when simpler bows worked fine.

Yew can be hard to find Ash, or even Oak can be used as well as American Hickory.
http://www.traditional-archery-supply.c ... ducts.html

[Eleatic Guest]

Did the Romans have the composite bow?

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... highlight=

[Robert]

Salutations all!

Great feedback and thanks for the links. Being in Europe (Holland) has the tendency to double prices to get things here from the US, but they sure have good blanks. I'm sure the Romans employed composite bows, the argument under review is more the number of bows they would have to field to be effective. I read the tread (link to forum) on penetration of mail, but draw-weights of English longbow are known from the Mary Rose Tudor shipwreck and we are speaking of a period in time more then a millennium before that. The discussion reminds me of the big game hunters debate on velocity versus bullet weight. All said and done, you end up real dead if you're on the receiving end of either. For those interested, velocity won in the end!
In the hands of an accomplished archer, a composite recurve makes good sense, he can pick of a single target at a distance, smashing through armor. When the aim is to cause disarray and break up a formation, a good shower of arrows is preferable to the "sniper" any day.
I think it is therefor most important to clarify how the bow was used in warfare by the Romans to be able to speculate on the type of bow (and its expense in making the bow and training the archer) most commonly used.
Of course, as I am more into first century Romans, this opinion perhaps only holds true for that period.

[Firmus4474]

It may have also depended on where the archers where from. It makes sense that an auxiliary archer from the east would use a composite bow because there was a long tradition in his home land of there use and,no doubt he would have trained with one in his youth.
An archer from the north and west would have been more familiar with a self bow.

[Quintus Julius Furius]

http://pic.aceboard.net/img/111935/1296/1158571707.jpg

[Virilis]

Great photo, Sebastien!

Can you tell me about the bow in this picture, who made it, draw weight?

[Quadratus]

It seems likely that Roman troops used self (ie non-composite) bows as well as composite, for all the reasons mentioned above. The fact that no remains have been recognised is not surprising, as a self bow is simply a piece of wood, much like any other. Even if the wood survived, it would be a very lucky and observant excavator to find and recognise the distinguishing features that turn the stick into a bow – string nocks and arrow pass. It is interesting to note that, until the discovery of the Mary Rose 30-odd years ago, hardly any English longbows, or positively identified remains of longbows, were known dating before the early 19th century – in fact, if my memory serves me well I think 'very few' was actually two!

On the other hand, I am not aware of any contemporary illustrations (in the broadest sense) that show a bow which is likely to be anything other than a composite. The basis of this inference is shape and length. A self bow can be slightly recurved or 'set back in the handle' to give a moderate complex curve, but it cannot have the severe recurves and 'cupid's bow' profile shown in, for example, the Housteads archer. Similarly a self war bow is unlikely to be effective if shorter than about 1.75 metres. The length is needed simply to get enough power to make it worthwhile to use as a weapon. I know it is not safe to rely on artist's impressions, but they are all we have at the moment and in a military context, a short bow, whether recurved or not, is likely to have been a composite bow.

However, it is important to remember that there are degrees of 'compositeness'. At one extreme, a straightforward, fully functional self bow simply has sinew and/or horn glued (or sometimes even bound) on to the limbs to increase its power. This is the case for many Native American bows. At the other extreme, say the Turkish flight bow (pishrev), the wood is kept to a minimum and does no more than hold the horn and sinew in place. The first version is easily made, requires no particular expertise, beyond that of the basic bowyer to make or the basic archer to shoot; it is no more fragile or complex than a bent stick, although considerably more powerful. The other extreme is a fragile, sensitive piece of high-status sporting equipment that takes days to string and condition, years to make and years to learn how to shoot. Clearly the pishrev and its like were totally unsuitable for military use. But the 'beefed-up' self bow and its slightly more sophisticated relatives would have been highly suitable and very effective.

My personal view is that, if you turned up with a self bow, no-one could argue, although, of course, they would, wouldn't we..........

[Caius Fabius]

Similarly a self war bow is unlikely to be effective if shorter than about 1.75 metres. The length is needed simply to get enough power to make it worthwhile to use as a weapon.

hmm, many of the plains Indians war bows are shorter than 1.75 meters, and they were very effective. I have one in my collection that is less than 1 meter 'long', and takes a 45-50 pound draw....