Non composite recurve bows used by the auxiliary archers?

[Robert]

Sebastian does look good, though. Just hope he never has to take flight before some charging cavalry with those flowing robes

And Yes Quadratus, we probably would ......

Mind you, its very hard to come by a good selfbow, most longbows and flatbows on sale by even traditional bowmakers are laminated (for the non-archer, same as composite). I recently saw some really great ones at a traditional bowers meet, made my mouth water.

On the Length of the bow necessary I must disagree, because I just recently shot targets to shreds using a Holgard style 150 centimeter ash flatbow. I did have to be careful not to overdraw the bow, but on shifting my anchor forward along my yaw got good grouping. It certainly felt over 50 lbs, although it had not been graded. :lol:

Good shooting to all! Become the arrow ...

[Quadratus]

I certainly won't argue about the precise length of a self wood war bow, and I am fascinated to hear about the very short 50lb bow - any more info Charles?

However, I still stand by my main observation about length. For a self wood bow, draw length and draw weight are linked, and In the Roman context, I would take a lot of persuading that Roman military bows had a draw weight as low as the 40-50 lb range.

It depends very much on the archer's tactics and methods, and whether the expected enemy were usually armoured and/or shielded. But what evidence we have from European and Asian contexts, such as the Mary Rose, various 'Viking' finds, surviving Tartar, Chinese, Mongol and Korean military bows, is that draw weights around 120 – 150 lb (approx 55 – 70 kg) were the norm. Some English longbows from the Mary Rose, and surviving Mongol bows seem to have had draw weights up to and beyond 180 lb (80+ kg). I have my doubts about the extreme weights; they are often, of necessity, based on reconstructions, and there are always problems interpreting ancient weights and measures. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the ballpark is not far wrong. These sorts of weights would be virtually impossible to attain with a short self bow and I remain unconvinced that any image that I, personally, have seen of Roman archers shows such a bow.

Do I know that Roman bows were all composite? No. Is there any evidence that that they used self bows? No. Is it probable that they did, at least occasionally? Yes. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that, and the Roman Empire was too wide, long-lived and diverse, and contained too many good bow woods for them to be ignored.

I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I don't know the rules under which re-enactors operate, but if I saw a re-enactor with a (long) self wood bow, I would be interested, but not offended.

[Robert]

No feathers ruffled, Quadratus! Nor on me, nor on my arrows. Just stating an observation, and as I implied with my comment on overdrawing the bow, I'm very aware of the relationship you mentioned.
In my earlier comment, I posed an argument for trying to find out more about the use of archers in the Roman army. I believe some information of the type of bow used may be derived from the way the archer was used. The weights of the warbow you mentioned are undisputed, but keeping a hail of arrows going at drawweights of 100 lbs are a though challenge. So that in my view poses the question "one arrow, one kill" (more drawweight, lesser arrows) or a hail of arrows achieving disarray and havoc (lesser drawweight, cheaper bow, more arrows)?
I have found a 50 to 60 lbs bow can be shot during a longer period of time by a more or less experienced archer. A 50 lbs bow still packs of lot of punch using the right spine and arrowhead, at 50 meters, even my nifty 35 # Browning recurve splits boards.

[Felix]

In re what Quadratus said, the "Viking" finds go back to Late Antiquity. There were bows found at Nydam:

"several well-preserved longbows were recovered from Saxon burial galleys found at Nydam Moor in Denmark in 1863. "These bows have been scientifically dated between 200 and 400 A.D..."80 Dr. Elizabeth Munksgaard, Assistant Keeper of the Prehistoric Department, verified that the Migration Period, Nydam Find artifacts are in the National Museum of Danmark. There are seven Nydam bows which closely resemble the Flodden, Mary Rose, Hedgeley Moor and Mendlesham artifacts. The Nydam bows are self wooden bows, of 5 feet 7 inches to 6 feet long, 'D'-shaped, and one of the bows has a nock of horn."

http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/ar ... gbow2.html

It seems longbows were known in Northern Europe ca. 200 C.E., so it would be plausible that archers recruited in the Western half of the Empire might use such a bow.

[Robert]

This would tie in with the line in the tread. Different bowtypes were probably in use. I would like to explore the use of the bow by auxilia archers, though. So far, my digging has unvieled two main uses of the bow in the Roman army:

Powerfull composite recurvebows in the hands of experienced archers used to kill and main.
Less powerfull longbows (self and composite) in the hands of auxilia footsoldiers to rain death and cause mayhem.

Discussion invited!

[mpferrell]

I want to thank all for participating in this discussion. As soon as I get my impression together I will put a photo in the "Show here your roman soldier impression" for all to see.

[Salvianus]

According to Stephenson (Stephenson, I.P. 2006 Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment, Stroud: Tempus & Stephenson, I.P. and Dixon, K.R. 2003 Roman Cavalry Equipment, Stroud: Tempus) Vegetius specified that archery training would take place with self bows, while the evidence for use in the field is for composite.

I get "exercised at the post with bows and arrows made for that purpose only" but it makes sense to start with a relatively cheap / available training weapon before investing in an expensive / slow to build composite (IIRC Bishop & Coulston suggest the best were made over the course of seasons & modern experience suggests best results when made for an individual, but that may be at odds with the semi-industrial scale of production that I imagine in the fabricae).

Comitatus follow this and it certainly works in practice today - I'm still wreaking terrible injustice on my training bow before thinking about investing in a proper recurve - which was presumably the only practical choice for the horse archers who formed the backbone of the Late Army.

[Robert]

Salve Salvianus,

Could you please be more specific on the sources of evidence for the use of composites in the field, especially in the early Empire?
I would fully understand the use of a recurve composite by a mounted archer in the Late Army, as a composite recurve is shorter and a bit more forgiving (being bounced around) because of its hefty power-stroke. It's the ideal weapon for a mounted archer! Warfare had gotten a bit more sophisticated around then, as had the logistics of war.
For foot soldiers in the auxilia in earlier ages, I still feel the selfbow or non-recurve composite would be the ideal ticket. Relatively easy to make from local stock, cheap, low on maintenance, rapid fire and still carrying a hefty punch, with a range of 100 meters +.
As to adjusting the bow to the archer, this is mostly a matter of drawlenght in regards to poundage, I have found. I have repeatably shot "borrowed" bows with good nocking speed and accuracy (I'm a barebow, traditional style archer), sometimes surprising the owner. If a trained archer, it is not very hard to get a "feel" for a bow, and perhaps this was also true for the Roman archers confronted with the semi industrial products of that time. It would make sense for archers to have their pick from an assortment of bows shipped in from the East, choosing a bow best fitting their drawlenght and referred poundage.
Speculations all, but some may make sense!

[Salvianus]

Ave Robert.

The early empire is before my time, as they say Stephenson 2006 (op cit) is specifically post 284AD, citing bow laths from Intercisa (& later & further afield).

Stephenson and Dixon 2003 covers C1st-7th, citing ear & grip laths across Britain, including Caerleon, the 'Triclinos' mosaic, Apamea, the tombstone of Flavius Proclus, Mainz & one of the 'Dura graffiti'.

Bishop & Coulston 2006 cite laths from Oberaden & Dangstetten, Velsen, Waddon Hill, Ri(ss)tissen & Vindolanda from the Augustan to Flavian period; Bar Hill, Carnuntum, I(z)a & a composite bow workshop at Micia in Roman Dacia in the Antonine chapter; Levantine mosaics & Palmyrene sculpture; ear laths from Stockstadt, Carnuntum, London, Belmesa, Mainz, Heddernheim, Intercisa, Micia, Tibiscum and Carleon up to the Dominate. I'll omit the late empire examples if I may ::phew!::

The other advantage of the recurved bow for infantry is that they can be shot easily whilst kneeling. I very much doubt they didn't use selfbows whilst awaiting supply or resupply but I don't know of any surviving evidence for it, other than for training purposes in the Vegetius I quoted.

Cheers

[Robert]

Wow Salvianus, laude to you! Good sourcing. Shame of it all is that the archaeological survival rate of a selfbow would be very pour, as was mentioned earlier. Of course your comment invited an experiment, so I have strung a 175 centimeter selfbow, went out and shot a few arrows kneeling. At short ranges, of 30 meters or so, this was a very bad idea, indeed, as I just clipped the ground with my second shot (the first being a bit high on target, which for safety reasons only has a height of a meter, when standing, my arrows travel down, versus up). However, when wanting a greater carry (or to pierce someones chest cavity), it worked OK, because the bow is lifted to a somewhat higher hold to increase the trajectory.
I dug around the RAT fora on archers, the general impression being that composite horn and sinew bows are a nightmare in maintenance in the boggy conditions of my part of the empire. We'll probably never know, but I guess it's a good bet both types were used not only for practice, but for showering arrows as well. Mounted archers, as displayed by Trajan:
www.trajan20.freeserve.co.uk/page6.html , would have always favored the composite recurve, I believe, a longer bow being very unpractical on a horse.

[Salvianus]

Cheers

Weatherproofing is an interesting point - I think I read there is little evidence for bowcases in the Western Empire which is a pity as they might help us a lot.

[Robert]

I don't think we'll find bowcases as such. An unstrung bow could fit quit nicely in a long leather (goatskin?) pouch (7 inches wide), protecting it from wear and damp. Make the pouch larger (12 inches) and the strung bow would fit. The problems would presumably start when you take it out and slog after an enemy in battle conditions. Even slight rain combined with the stresses on the bow being shot would wreck havoc on your sinews if this continued for any time at all. Look at what a steady drizzle does to rawhide. I would feel most uncomfortable riding or marching through enemy territory with my bow securely tucked away. :?
Speculations all, but hey, mankind would never have progresses but for "What if ....."