Why There Are No Roman Archers in Rome: Total Realism

[Tackowat]

This question has been asked frequently, so I figured I'd answer it here.

The Roman army never relied much on archers. In fact, they didn't even have an official branch of their military that used bows. If they ever needed bowmen, they hired mercenaries, and even then, they never relied on them to win a battle, or even gain the advantage.
Never fear, however, as the heavy Roman infantry can easily survive a barrage of missile fire, and their armour-piercing pila make decent pre-mêlée missile.

[florin80]

Thank god it you weren`t asking! I couldn`t take another one of where are the roman archers threads. Thanks! I`ll add a link in the faq to this. Anyone wanting to add to the discussion is free to.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Well, it's true, but i think a western faction should train Cretan Archers as soon as possible: they are devastating against lightly armoured barbarians units!

[florin80]

Well, I`ve added the question to the rtrpe faq above and an answer too (that also has a link to this thread). I think it will do as it is, but if someone cares to suggest a more academic answer than the one I`ve given is welcomed to.

[AqD]

Never fear, however, as the heavy Roman infantry can easily survive a barrage of missile fire, and their armour-piercing pila make decent pre-m?l?e missile.

Foot archers are nearly useless anyway, because archery in RTW is all wrong: infantry and cavalry can easily block arrows by shield without raising it, and they wouldn't mind to be shot. Pila are also less effective than what they should be - they're supposed to be able break the shields!
________
URLUCKYCHARMXXX cam

[Tiberius Nero]

I have noticed that troops take more casualties from arrows when marching than when standing still, so that could represent that they are using their shields when standing to block projectiles.

Also the pilum was designed to render the shield useless by embedding itself in it so that it couldn't be easily removed, it wasn't really expected to pierce a shield and the man holding it (not that it can't happen, but that isn't what it was designed to do).

[Andy5]

Never fear, however, as the heavy Roman infantry can easily survive a barrage of missile fire, and their armour-piercing pila make decent pre-mêlée missile.

Although they didn't against the amour piercing arrows of the Parthian horse archers at Carrhae. Approximately 20,000 Roman Legionaries died in the battle and from their wounds. I 'm a bit surprised the Romans didn't adopt the use of horse archers soon after Carrhae given the magnitude of the defeat.

[horatius]

Although they didn't against the amour piercing arrows of the Parthian horse archers at Carrhae. Approximately 20,000 Roman Legionaries died in the battle and from their wounds. I 'm a bit surprised the Romans didn't adopt the use of horse archers soon after Carrhae given the magnitude of the defeat.

It would have been very difficult to adopt horse archers then, and would be nearly pointless. The Romans dominated most other enemies with their heavy infantry, and thus didn't need horse archers to win, and probably wouldn't have been able to beat the Parthians with HAs since the Parthians were already so effective with them. Not to mention training horse archers and generals on the use of them. It would have been just too impractical.

[Andy5]

It would have been very difficult to adopt horse archers then, and would be nearly pointless. The Romans dominated most other enemies with their heavy infantry, and thus didn't need horse archers to win, and probably wouldn't have been able to beat the Parthians with HAs since the Parthians were already so effective with them. Not to mention training horse archers and generals on the use of them. It would have been just too impractical.

But they could have 'bought off' the Parthians and used Parthian horse archers as auxiliaries with Roman commanders. I would think Parthian auxillaries would have provided a highly mobile reaction force particularly when they had problems in Judea.

[AqD]

It would have been very difficult to adopt horse archers then, and would be nearly pointless. The Romans dominated most other enemies with their heavy infantry, and thus didn't need horse archers to win, and probably wouldn't have been able to beat the Parthians with HAs since the Parthians were already so effective with them. Not to mention training horse archers and generals on the use of them. It would have been just too impractical.

The parthians are not nomads - they have cities but lack good infantry and siege/anti-siege engines for defense, so they could do nothing once you bring legionaries under the walls.

However, heavy infantry and foot archers are nearly useless against nomads such as sarmatians and huns, whom the romans were never been able to defeat.
________
GLASS PIPE

[Ivanelme]

However, heavy infantry and foot archers are nearly useless against nomads such as sarmatians and huns, whom the romans were never been able to defeat.

Aetius defeated Attila at the Battle of Chalons. You could say it was a draw, though, but Attila withdrawing from his camp would give the tactical victory to Rome for halting his advance into Italy.

[AqD]

Aetius defeated Attila at the Battle of Chalons. You could say it was a draw, though, but Attila withdrawing from his camp would give the tactical victory to Rome for halting his advance into Italy.

Yes but it's merely "halting" - only to stop raiding or invasion for a while. They were never able to enter the steppe area to cause serious threat to Sarmatians or other nomads.
________
GracefulDoll

[Tiberius Tosi]

A pila wouldn't really break a shield, it would go in and usually bend so the person couldn't take it out and the shield would be too heavy and awkward to hold, so they would be forced to throw it away.

[Mikail Mengsk]

i think introducing too many anomations for showing the uinits that lift their shields when targeted by arrows, and show the real pila's effect was too difficoult.

[AqD]

Yes but that's why they're effective in the real world. If nobody fear to be shot by an arrow, bows would probably never be used on battle field......
________
spanish girl Cams

[Mikail Mengsk]

Well, Trajan conquered Parthian's capital and also conquered the whole Mesopotamia. How did he do? Did he have some auxiliary troops?

[Ivanelme]

No, but Attila never managed to get into mainland Italy after that. Nor was he ever able to break the Eastern Roman Empire. Attila managed to get further into Central Europe then other steppe empires (Mongols mostly) did, but not even he could completely crush the weakening Roman Empire.

Had Aetius actually decided to give chase to Attila, his reign might have ended much sooner then it did two years later.

[AqD]

No, but Attila never managed to get into mainland Italy after that. Nor was he ever able to break the Eastern Roman Empire. Attila managed to get further into Central Europe then other steppe empires (Mongols mostly) did, but not even he could completely crush the weakening Roman Empire.

Nomads have no advantage in attacking fortifications and well-defended cities, and most of them are not even capable of launching a long-lasting campaign. It's their raids that threaten settled people.

Also, the huns in roman's time are no longer nomads, and the majority of their army are infantry from various barbarian tribes.
________
LIVE SEX

[Ivanelme]

Nomads have no advantage in attacking fortifications and well-defended cities, and most of them are not even capable of launching a long-lasting campaign. It's their raids that threaten settled people.

Also, the huns in roman's time are no longer nomads, and the majority of their army are infantry from various barbarian tribes.

I think that is debatable depending on which Nomads we are talking about. The Mongols managed to launch a wildly successful, and long campaign, starting in the steppes.

Military composition of Roman and Nomadic armies would have been roughly similar. The Roman military was increasingly dependent on allied forces being infused into the Roman system.

And that first part is exactly the point. When encountered with a city that actually had a garrison that could put up a fight, they were unable to really compete, unless they starved their enemies into submission (like the Visigoths did to Rome). When it came to the heavy weight (Eastern Rome) they were unable to do anything but really be a pest to then.

But when it finally came to a straight fight between Rome and her allies and Attila and his, the Romans managed to beat him.