Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/24/2026 8:57:47 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Why did the world's most powerful empire almost never use archers in battle?
The Romans had access to bows. They trained archers. Yet they refused to make them central to their military strategy -- even as enemies surrounded them with arrows.
It wasn't ignorance or cowardice.
It was a deliberate choice rooted in Roman military philosophy, engineering, and culture. The Romans built their empire on heavy infantry, disciplined formations, and controlled violence. Archers -- with their unpredictability, distance, and dependence on open terrain -- threatened everything Rome's military system was designed to achieve.
In this video, we uncover why the Roman Empire rejected the archer: how Roman military tactics evolved, why the legion's armor and formations made archers secondary, what role archers actually played in the Roman army, how the Romans viewed ranged combat compared to close-quarters fighting, what changed when Rome faced mounted archers from Parthia and beyond, and why this military philosophy shaped Rome's greatest victories -- and contributed to its eventual defeats.
We'll also explore the auxiliary archers Rome did employ, how other civilizations weaponized the bow while Rome weaponized discipline, the rare moments when Roman commanders broke their own rules, and how Rome's reluctance to embrace ranged warfare reveals something fundamental about Roman culture itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Why Romans Refused To Use Archers | 13:27
Ancient Romans | 1.42K subscribers | 40,725 views | September 23, 2026Because the Roman refusal to use archers wasn't a weakness in their system -- it was the foundation of it.
YouTube transcript reformatted at textformatter.ai *may* follow.
Bkmk
Probably a cost benefit analysis.
Without even viewing; a combat archer is a specialized role, requiring long training, and tactical placement and protection from… well just about any other unit.
Lots of trade offs. Also swords don’t run out of ammunition.
So you mean hollywood lied to us?
THE very 1st scene in Gladiator showed hundreds of archers.....you can’t trust anybody these days. SMH
Was thinking the same thing.
Akin to snipers. They are an important part of the military but not the main force.
selections from the FRchives, 'archery' keyword, sorted:
Someone forgot to tell the people who filmed the Russell Crowe movie Gladiator (2000)!
The Roman Army was definitely using archers against the Germans in the opening battle scene.
By the Middle Ages, the Archers lived in one neighborhood, but there was always one Fletcher family there.
Thanks all! 🏹
More like light artillery. To snipe with a bow, even a war bow, takes years of training.
But, plinking a load of arrows onto a bunch of enemies who don’t carry good shields will mess up their formation — making an infantry charge effective.
Armies in that era were more into slings. Cheaper to make and carry, and just as effective if your helmet is not steel.
After coming out on top, Augustus consolidated legions, eliminated duplicate numbers, and reorganized them into 28 legions (plus the Praetorian Guard, which was the City’s police force and his personal bodyguard), and 28 auxiliary ‘legions’ drawn from various conquered peoples, making special skills available where and when needed.
Artillery (catapaults etc) remained a specialty of the regular legions, and while there was auxiliary cavalry, Roman cavalry also remained standard.
Among the auxiliary units would be found archers and slingers.
Brave search: roman empire archers
The Roman military integrated archers, known as sagittarii, as a vital component of their army, primarily recruited from auxiliary units rather than the citizen legions. Initially, Rome relied on foreign mercenaries like Cretans and later Syrians due to a lack of indigenous archery tradition, but this shifted significantly after the catastrophic defeat at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE against Parthian horse archers.
Equipment and Tactics varied by region and era. Eastern archers typically used powerful composite bows capable of ranges up to 200 meters, while Western units often employed simpler self-bows. Archers were strategically positioned on the flanks or behind infantry lines to disrupt enemy formations with volleys, supporting the heavy legionaries who closed in for melee combat.
By the Late Empire, the reliance on archery increased substantially, with the Roman army fielding numerous specialized mounted archers (equites sagittarii) to counter nomadic threats like the Huns. These units became a core part of the field army, maintaining the tradition of horse archery even after the fall of the Western Empire in the Eastern Byzantine forces.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=roman+empire+archers
Roman legionaries were trained and skilled in the use of javelins, which were used as an enemy closed (or were closed in on), a disruptive “whites of their eyes” tactic that just preceded the swordplay. Augustus also reduced the century to 80 men (formerly 100, but kept the name, sounds like gov’t to me) and the legions, even when full strength, shrank to about 4000 men. But 4000 javelins arriving over the course of 1 or 2 seconds did a lot of damage, and caused loss of manpower & morale and sudden desertions among adversaries.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/pilum
The pilum was a heavy javelin used by Roman foot soldiers. It was about five feet long and had a heavy head of soft iron that made up nearly one-third of its total length. This design restricted its range but increased its impact. The soft iron head was intended to bend upon impact, preventing the enemy from throwing it back. The javelin, in general, is a shorter, lighter throwing spear compared to those used for shock combat. While spears evolved into various forms like pikes and lances, the javelin, including the pilum, retained its characteristic form for a long time.
This summary is created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Because there was more money to be made by mass-producing gladii.
Swords were manufactured by the Military Industrial Complex...
Whoops, from 100 to 80 got started earlier, but not standardized until Marius. My apologies.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=reduction+of+roman+legion+from+100+to+80
The reduction of the Roman century from 100 to 80 men occurred gradually during the Middle Republic (roughly the 2nd century BC) as the army shifted from the maniple system to the cohort system. Originally, a maniple consisted of 100 men (one centuria), but as tactical roles differentiated, maniples were split into two centuriae to allow for dual command by senior and junior centurions. This split standardized the fighting strength of a century at 80 legionaries (derived from halves of 160 or 120-man maniples), with the remaining 20 men often consisting of non-combatant support staff or servants (calones) to maintain the administrative total of 100.
Under the Marian Reforms and into the Imperial Period, this 80-man fighting unit became the standard baseline for all cohorts, except the First Cohort, which eventually consisted of five double-strength centuries of 160 men each. The term century (centuria) remained in use despite the drop in combatants because the unit originally denoted a civic levy of 100 men, and later because the inclusion of support staff kept the total headcount at 100 for logistical purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
