Topic: Why didn't Greeks and Romans use archers?
Posted by teapots.nli
Unregistered


They seemed to use archery for hunting but not very much at all for war.  Persian archery was only marginally useful but they knew about composite recurve bows (one in Homer has a 300 pound pull), and the Romans were defeated by mounted archers.

I read somewhere that Greeks thought it unmanly to kill from a distance, which kind of rings true, but they used slingers and light infantry who would just run up and hurl a rock at your head and run away again.  That's not exactly rope-a-dope.  Also Romans threw javelins which is just a heavy arrow.  Why didn't they use archers, mounted or on foot?

Maybe it was too much trouble or they just didn't understand the technology.  Mongols really looked after their bows.


Posted by .
Unregistered


teapots.nli said: They seemed to use archery for hunting but not very much at all for war.  Persian archery was only marginally useful but they knew about composite recurve bows (one in Homer has a 300 pound pull), and the Romans were defeated by mounted archers.

I read somewhere that Greeks thought it unmanly to kill from a distance, which kind of rings true, but they used slingers and light infantry who would just run up and hurl a rock at your head and run away again.  That's not exactly rope-a-dope.  Also Romans threw javelins which is just a heavy arrow.  Why didn't they use archers, mounted or on foot?

Maybe it was too much trouble or they just didn't understand the technology.  Mongols really looked after their bows.

Interesting, how do you know they used bows/arrows for hunting?  Also, how do they reconcile the conflicting ideologies of killing from distance and not using bows/arrows but throwing rocks and Pilums.  Same shit, different tomato.


Posted by .
Unregistered


Also, didn't they throw spears?


Posted by .
Unregistered


A quick Google says they did.


Posted by teapots.nli
Unregistered


. said:
Interesting, how do you know they used bows/arrows for hunting?  Also, how do they reconcile the conflicting ideologies of killing from distance and not using bows/arrows but throwing rocks and Pilums.  Same shit, different tomato.

I think I've seen references to them using bows for hunting and since they clearly knew about bows it's hard to imagine they didn't hunt with them.  It's a good way to hunt especially birds and fish for sure kids would have hunted that way even if adults didn't.  So I don't really know.  They hunted boars with spears (this is mentioned a lot) but that was considered a very military thing to do and I don't think regular people hunted boars.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: Also, didn't they throw spears?

They imported Spearchuckers from Africa for that task.


Posted by .
Unregistered


They did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarii


Posted by .
Unregistered


A special friend could tell me but he has moved beyond the ebiz


Posted by .
Unregistered


Teapots needs to shut the fuck up and go read some more books on Greek and Roman history.


Posted by Duckford.nli
Unregistered


The pilum was a regular part of Roman heavy infantry kit.  Two of them, they were to be thrown and then the hand to hand fighting would start.  They had long iron heads that would bend in shields after penetrating, thus making the shield to unwieldly to use, so even if you stopped the pilum from hitting you, their javelin would make your shield near worthless. 

As for archers, they were never effective.  Modern kids who focus on guns and firepower, as well as people TRYING to rewrite history to defend revisionism after WW1 and the big "anti bayonet, all gun" mantras, think that ranged weapons ALWAYS dominated, on the mentality that if guns dominate today then archery and crossbows MUST have dominated throughout history.  Thus the romance of military archery is nothing more than ignorant modern assholes looking backwards and ignorantly supplanting history with modern ignorant viewpoints based on current technology. 

Bows and arrows suck.  They do poor damage in tissue, often don't penetrate well at distance through living tissue.  It sucks against armor, and arrows designed to better penetrate armor suck even worse at doing damage to living tissue.  Short ranged, low powered.  No matter your rate of fire, they just plain don't work well, especially on heavy infantry and cavalry.  A simple shield can stop them, decent armor stops them.  By the time you get off a few arrows, an attacking force will simply march through your hail of arrows and stop and stab you to death.  Who wants to be an archer? 

"Buh muh eastern horse mounted bownmen".  Retards conveniently forget it was the cataphract lancers that were most effective, not the pussy horse archers.  Retards conveniently forget that half of Mongol/Turkic forces were actually cataphract like lancers as well.  Even here, modern revisionism has destroyed history.  The power of the lance and sword overshadowed by the romanticized and over rated bow and arrow.

Romans and Greeks didn't care much for archers, even if the Romans did use archer auxillary troops.  A javelin is a dangerous fucking weapon, can be carried by regular heavy infantry and light infantry, can be fought with behind a shield along with regular infantry arms.  The reasons are simple, and they were correct.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: Teapots needs to shut the fuck up and go read some more books on Greek and Roman history.

­
Sagittarius was an archer.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: Teapots needs to shut the fuck up and go read some more books on Greek and Roman history.

He did. That's why he got together with D2M, Kat, and 2 gallons of olive oil.


Posted by .
Unregistered


I hate sober dots


Blah blah blah


Posted by .
Unregistered


The Mongols did very well with mounted archers.


Posted by .
Unregistered


The Romans used the shield and gladius, close combat, the Zulus also used this method to detrimental effect on their foes.


Posted by .
Unregistered


The OP's understanding of ancient warfare clearly derives from cereal boxes and his 'query' should therefore be spelt with two E's and discounted.


Posted by .
Unregistered


At Carrhae the Parthians simply fired off enough arrows to get through the gaps in the testudo. The Romans belatedly adopted a Hunnish compound bow when they finally defeated the Huns.

There were plenty of archers and skirmishers, used even more against lightly or unarmored foes.

The Romans just didn’t use them much in the western Mediterranean because it wasn’t a major part of warfare. Heavily armored hoplites and the like were hard to down with volleys. The Romans used a lot more archers in the endless eastern wars.

Movies also focus on hand to hand and generally dress the Romans in the lorica segmentata, only in widespread use for 200 years.

The samurai were obsessed with kyudo, yet the peak effectiveness was 10 meters at a particular 45 degree angle due to samurai armor effectiveness.

Agincourt was more about dead horses from arrow volleys and a crowd disaster in the mud. Even the longbow didn’t penetrate advanced French plate armor of the time.


Posted by .
Unregistered


They did use archers both on foot and on horses ( and even on elephants ). However, the real archery tactics that were truly revolutionary were developped by the Mongols when they attacked the Chinese centuries later. They figured out that archers in concentrated groups made them too vulnerable to both other archers and infantry or calvarly flanking them so them developped units that were more scattered. Calvalry archers would go in circles and fire while moving, making it very difficult for the Chinkoïds to hit them. The reason why archers became more important later was that keeps, walls and fortresses became much more common and also better built by the 1000's. Before that, defending was more-or-less effective when under siege because the defenses weren't as good. But the romans and greeks did have slitholes in their defenses. And like others have said, they also had projectile weapons. Alexander the Great even had slinger units.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
Interesting, how do you know they used bows/arrows for hunting?

­
I've played Age of Empires on countless occasions. Trust me, I know.
\
:trev:


Posted by .
Unregistered


didn't you tards watch gladiator?


Posted by .
Unregistered


Video unavailable

This video contains content from Universal Pictures (Vobile), who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: They did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarii

So what you're saying is, the entire premise of this thread is wrong, and Teapots is a drug addled cretin. Got it. :thumbup:


Posted by .
Unregistered


I've found many pilums in my adventures, even a few magical, but wielding them demands more dexterity points that I am willing to commit.


Posted by teapots.not. woke
Unregistered


my country has destroyed it's native people!
               /
            :teapots:


Posted by .
Unregistered


Duckford.nli said: The pilum was a regular part of Roman heavy infantry kit.  Two of them, they were to be thrown and then the hand to hand fighting would start.  They had long iron heads that would bend in shields after penetrating, thus making the shield to unwieldly to use, so even if you stopped the pilum from hitting you, their javelin would make your shield near worthless. 

As for archers, they were never effective.  Modern kids who focus on guns and firepower, as well as people TRYING to rewrite history to defend revisionism after WW1 and the big "anti bayonet, all gun" mantras, think that ranged weapons ALWAYS dominated, on the mentality that if guns dominate today then archery and crossbows MUST have dominated throughout history.  Thus the romance of military archery is nothing more than ignorant modern assholes looking backwards and ignorantly supplanting history with modern ignorant viewpoints based on current technology. 

Bows and arrows suck.  They do poor damage in tissue, often don't penetrate well at distance through living tissue.  It sucks against armor, and arrows designed to better penetrate armor suck even worse at doing damage to living tissue.  Short ranged, low powered.  No matter your rate of fire, they just plain don't work well, especially on heavy infantry and cavalry.  A simple shield can stop them, decent armor stops them.  By the time you get off a few arrows, an attacking force will simply march through your hail of arrows and stop and stab you to death.  Who wants to be an archer? 

"Buh muh eastern horse mounted bownmen".  Retards conveniently forget it was the cataphract lancers that were most effective, not the pussy horse archers.  Retards conveniently forget that half of Mongol/Turkic forces were actually cataphract like lancers as well.  Even here, modern revisionism has destroyed history.  The power of the lance and sword overshadowed by the romanticized and over rated bow and arrow.

Romans and Greeks didn't care much for archers, even if the Romans did use archer auxillary troops.  A javelin is a dangerous fucking weapon, can be carried by regular heavy infantry and light infantry, can be fought with behind a shield along with regular infantry arms.  The reasons are simple, and they were correct.

­
I dont know what strain you are smoking tonight but this is bullshit. :lol:

Both the Greeks and Romans took heavy losses from archers, especially mounted archers, when they encountered them in battle.



Quick Reply
Moniker:
 

Registration Required

Thank you for your vote!

But in order to make it count, you must be a registered user.

Log In | Register | Close