- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
What was the range of archers in ancient warfare? Was it more than 200 yards? Were archers stationed at the back?(just a favor: sources would be appreciated. Trying to search this, but don't know what sources are good or not, plus they are giving all different answers)Reason for asking: Herodotus claims the Greek hoplites ran for a mile. The notes suggest this is unlikely and they only ran the last 200 yards "to get under the range of the Persian archers." Does this mean archers cannot shoot the target if it's less than that? That doesn't make sense. If they can shoot accurately for long distances, can't they be just as accurate at a short distance?
Can't speak for all, but for the Romans it looks like reports vary generally from 150 yards – 250 yards. According to the source, the variance with archery range depended significantly on the archer (compared to other hand-held projectile weapons).
Are you asking about Greek or Roman? I have found very scanty evidence of the Greeks using bowmen at all. Typically their auxiliaries and light infantry seem to have been either slingers or peltasts.
The effective range of Persian bows at the time of the Persian wars was about 100m. The source for that is here I did a Google search for range of Persian bows and this result came up on Google books. It sounds right to me. The Persians used a simple compound re-curve bow with minimal lamination. Penetration against armored targets was low and probably nonexistent at 300 feet. The effectiveness of bows in antiquity had little to do with its killing power though. Archery and arrow fire was an annoyance to heavy infantry and the frustration of sustained archery could often induce heavy infantry formations into charges that could be exploited by cavalry, which the Persians had and the Greeks did not.
Another book I just found here says the effective range is from 60-150 meters. This book also suggests archers were useless against the hoplites because of the armor. Unless at point blank range, the arrows could not penetrate the shields. This was also the case at Plataea. I also found two other sources on JSTOR that verify this and what you say. Majority rules.If the Greeks ran to get closer to them I'm wondering if this suggests the Persian archers were in the front and the Greeks wanted to take them out first? Cavalry was also useless against the Greeks because the battlefield was favorable only to infantry. Why is that? Was it because the field was too small for effective cavalry maneuvers?
The wonderful thing about archers is that they can run away from heavy infantry because they archers don't have to wear all that armor. The charge was to increase the physical impact on enemy heavy infantry, the Romans did the same thing. The Romans never stood to receive a charge as depicted in Gladiator, they always threw spears and charged right before the enemy line got to them. Light infantry could keep their distance from heavy infantry and continually harass them with arrows that the heavy infantry was helpless to do anything about.The Greeks did not use cavalry largely because the terrain in Greece would not support large numbers of horse and made it difficult for cavalry to maneuver anyway. They used many of the same battlefields for infantry battle repeatedly because that was the only suitable terrain available. If you ever go to Greece you will immediately understand why they did not use cavalry. Alexander had only a small cavalry corps and they were all nobles and elite fighters.
