Brisieis

I have been reading that archers had quite a negative reputation in ancient Greece. Mainly due to arrows not being able to penetrate armour and also that it was seen as not being heroic enough, especially in regards to Homer's Illiad, where apart from Paris and Philoctetes, archers were not used as primary weapons.

According to Euripides ' the measure of a man's bravery is not archery; rather he who stands fast in his rank and gazes unflinchingly at the swift gash of the spear (is teh brave man)'

When hoplites dominated Greek warfare, it seems that soldiers looked down upon archers, like they were not man enough to get down and dirty hand-to-hand in combat.

During the Lelantine War of the Archaic period, there was a ban on missiles, is this related at all?

Strabo on the Lelantine War - 'but they came to an agreement as to the conditions under which they were to conduct the fight. This fact, among others, is disclosed by a certain pillar in the Amarynthium, which forbids the use of long distance missiles.'

Also, there is the fact that the Scythians and Persians were great fans of the archer, how did this effect the feelings of the Greeks in this regard?

In Classical Greece the prejudice was apparently still there against the archers, but not as intense as in earlier periods. Athens had a body of Scythian archers as police and also 1600 citizen archers by the fifth century. Sparta developed a body of archers in 424 in response to the raids by the Athenians.

After Philip II and Alexander came along, archers became far more prominent in Greek warfare.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Salah

The Gauls and other Celtic peoples looked down on archers, thinking that warfare was only honorable if conducted with spear and sword. It seems to me the Greeks generally had a similar attitude.

Brisieis

I was not aware of this fact about the Gauls and Celts, thanks Salah.

Fireatwill

Archers and light troops of all kind were from lower classes, and hence they were looked down upon. On the other hand Cretan archers were highly praised mercenaries and they were paid in women apparently.

Anyway, Greek warfare was too ritualized, when during the battle of Cynoscephalae the hoplites got flanked they tried to surrender by raising their spears as a sign of surrender; however, the uncivilized Romans didn't knew this sign and they went ahead and disemboweled all of them...

Salah

As I understand it, most Greek light infantry were either peltastoi (equipped in imitation of the Thracians, with a 'luna' shield and a clutch of javelins); psiloi (carrying rocks or slings), or were simply unarmored hoplites.

As for why the bow was looked down upon but javelins and to a lesser extent slings saw heavy usage, I'm not sure.

Perhaps (again, as it was in Gaul) the bow was regarded as a hunter's weapon.

Brisieis

The Iliad has a lot to answer for in this regard, because the Homeric battles were executed using mainly spears.

NewModelSoldier

When hoplites were the preferred model and war was localized, it was very tribal in a way and appeals to the show-off in masculine identity. Can't show off how brave you are when an arrow thunks into your neck and bleed out.

As leaders were able to harness more and more manpower, the idea of gambling it all on a giant, brief and bloody melee becomes less appealing. Tactics evolve, technology progresses. In the end, people die, I find people's attitudes about what weaponry advancement is more "honourable" are quite bizarre.

Fireatwill

History of archery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the same link:

McGrunt

Interesting thread . As New Model Soldier and Salah said tactics of missles was evolving . And if the arrow would not penetrate armour , bow technology had a ways to go yet. Wonder what Ferrel and Hanson say about archery in warfare ?

cachibatches

In trained hands, a sling is a better weapon for an infantryman than a bow. It has a supperior range to most stave bows, and since it can crush bones and deform skulls through armor, it is supperior in that respect to the simple bows of the day that could not penetrate armor.

Even when the composite bow became heavily used, the sling showed itself to be as good or better a weapon, and the Romans used it to tremendous effect against the Parthians both in battles of Publius Ventidius, and Marcus Antonius (who, despite suffering a huge strategic defeat, won 18 engagements against the Parthians).

A good composite bow it usually said to have a maximum range of 300-350 yards if arrows are released at a 45 degree angle with a record of something like 566 meters for a Turkish bow. The record for the sling is something like 505 meters. Since not much is going to be hit at those distances, they have a comparable practical range. Rate of fire and killing power would also be comparable, with a perhaps slight advantage going to the archer.

But the sling would still outperform the composite bow since A) even gentle winds effect the flights of arrows- not true for stones or glandes, and B) The composite bow is a delicate weapon that is virtually useless in moist conditions, whereas the sling is one of the hardiest weapons. And, if a slinger runs out of specialized ammunition, he can pick it up off the ground.

The best advantage of a bow is that it is more easly used from horeback, from behind fortification, or in formation, though there were mounted slingers and slingers could maintain formation by casting underhand.

As for the javalin- its poularity was almost certainly due to the fact that it could be used as a missle, or in close quarters.