Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Romans Refused To Use Archers [13:27]
YouTube ^ | September 23, 2026 | Ancient Romans

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 ...


TOPICS: History; Science; Travel
KEYWORDS: archery; godsgravesglyphs; romanempire

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.


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
To: SunkenCiv

If the English longbow is any guide, it takes longer to train a bowman and the unit he belongs to proficiency in battle than it does to train up a legionnaire to use the sword, the shield, the pilum, and helmet in battle.

That sort of training builds confidence and cohesion in a team. And the rigors of marching and camp-building build his stamina for the battles ahead when he must march, endure slings and arrows, and fight hand-to-hand with the slingers and shooters at the place of decision.


21 posted on 09/24/2026 10:44:43 AM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradyLS
The Khan’s took over all of Asia because they could ride horses and shoot arrows at the same time.

It was only the Kamikaze(divine wind) that kept Kublai twice from taking over Japan.

22 posted on 09/24/2026 11:08:04 AM PDT by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

Right. Rome had to learn the hard way against the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae.


23 posted on 09/24/2026 11:20:37 AM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paal Gulli
It cuts down on the stupid comments if you watch the video first and pay attention.

You must be new around here.

24 posted on 09/24/2026 11:43:19 AM PDT by LimitedPowers (Citizenship is not a Hate Crime!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

No artillery, huh?


25 posted on 09/24/2026 11:44:59 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The Bible speaks truth! Don't believe it, you do so at your own peril. You'd better be right!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

My recollection is that the Romans often recruited or allied with other military formations that included archers but did not make them a permanent part of the Roman army itself. Close quarter fighting was the Roman army’s unmatched core competency and they saw little value in adding archers that could be had when needed.


26 posted on 09/24/2026 12:05:52 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Heh, good one!


27 posted on 09/24/2026 12:15:03 PM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4396740/posts?page=16#16


28 posted on 09/24/2026 2:39:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (TDS -- it's not just for DNC shills and jihadists anymore -- oh, wait, yeah it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: No.6
Meanwhile, the Roman scutum (large rectangular shield) and the testudo (turtle) formation protected heavy infantry long enough to close with the enemy and hack them to pieces with their short swords.


29 posted on 09/24/2026 2:43:36 PM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Perhaps the plumbata filled that niche?


30 posted on 09/24/2026 3:11:35 PM PDT by The Duke (Not without incident)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

They were among the aux I’d guess (without typing in a search, I’m tired, and just got the old CPAP cleaned up so I can nap decently in the recliner in an hour or so).

Oh, okay, here, some legionaries carried them later in the main imperial period, by that time the only thing Roman about the Roman legions was the training and Latin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumbata


31 posted on 09/24/2026 3:19:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (TDS -- it's not just for DNC shills and jihadists anymore -- oh, wait, yeah it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
The Romans considered archers as force multipliers, who they often used as auxiliaries along with slingers and cavalry. They also considered ballistae and other spring-driven artillery as multipliers but not winners.

The main force being multiplied was always the heavy armored infantry.

32 posted on 09/24/2026 3:46:35 PM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Heavy, 155mm or 4.2 mortar??


33 posted on 09/24/2026 3:49:50 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (The Bible speaks truth! Don't believe it, you do so at your own peril. You'd better be right!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; BradyLS; BenLurkin; Jonty30; Red Badger; bobbo666; No.6; Resolute Conservative

More details on the Battle of Carrhae. The Parthian horse archers were armed with the short powerful recurved bow. they carried a quiver with 70 arrows which they could fire very rapidly. In combat there were support troops who carried many quivers of arrows to be given to the horse archers as they emptied their allotment of 70 arrows. The captured Roman general Crassus who was famed for his greed, was reportedly killed by pouring molten gold down his throat. Probably not true but a good story illustrating the price of greed.

Shakespeare’s “yon Cassius of the lean and hungry look” as a Roman officer succeeded in gathering around 10,000 defeated Roman soldiers and successfully escaped back to Syria where he fought off attacks by Parthians before returning to Rome and the killing of Caesar just before Caesar was leaving for Parthia to avenge the battle loss, recapture the Roman military standards, and rescue 10,000 Romans soldiers enslaved by the Parthians. Cassius was against this plan and killed Caesar either because of the stupidity of fighting again with the Parthians, or because winning would cement Caesar’s power as dictator of Rome.


34 posted on 09/25/2026 1:09:43 AM PDT by gleeaikin (Question Authority: report facts and post their 'links" in your messages.I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

This is news to me. I wasn’t explicitly aware that the Roman military did not employ massed archery formations in warfare.

That said, I am reasonably certain that had the Roman military chosen to employ archers en masse up to including mounted archers, they would have been highly proficient. I have no doubt that Roman military archers would be highly trained and very capable. The Romans excelled in whatever skills they required their troops to master.

The bottom line is that massed archery formations apparently were not needed for Rome to win battle after battle. The Roman defeat at Carrhae cited in the video is the exception that proves the rule, demonstrating how pathetically rare enemy archers were able to defeat Roman armies.

Necessity is the mother of invention. There was no necessity for Roman armies to feature massed archery in their military strategy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.


35 posted on 09/25/2026 3:13:11 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (America -- July 4, 1776 to November 3, 2020 -- R.I.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

The Mongols took over Asia because they were savage, brutal and merciless.


36 posted on 09/25/2026 3:17:44 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (America -- July 4, 1776 to November 3, 2020 -- R.I.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

“The Mongols took over Asia because they were savage, brutal and merciless.”

I suspect they said the same thing about the Greeks, Romans, Moors, Turks, Normans, Incas, Aztecs, Boars, Nazis, Soviets, US Calvary(except Little Big Horn), Apache, Sioux and every other conquering army in the history of the world.

I think the Mongols had the largest empire based on total land mass controlled ever. From Venice to China and south to Malaysia.


37 posted on 09/25/2026 7:15:47 AM PDT by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson