Non composite recurve bows used by the auxiliary archers?

[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..........