How would a Roman army deal with a crossbow?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

yes, thanks, I should have written "I know of no no mention of military crossbow in the roman period before this specific text".

[AqD]

But isn't it true that Romans did not encounter any kind of armies who had powerful bows like the Huns (known also Xiongnu in the East)?

Parthians did have very good bows, even better than scythian ones (used by roman auxiliary archers).

 

BTW huns are not really as same as Xiongnu - their appearances and cultures were very different and the only thing that connects them is the vast steppe in which nobody really know what happened there

 

Is this the reason why Early Roman Army did not fight in loose formation?

They did employ loose formation to avoid arrows if needed. But fighting in loose formation? Hack no. Against a few arrows their shield combined with mail armour is usually good enough; Even in the battle of Carrhae, when they're completely surrounded and unable to fight back, they didn't suffer more than a few thousands of casualty during the actual battle - and those were mostly wounded not dead.

 

Also, I thought that cataphracts in those days did not have massive effects as seen in later period since the lack of stirrup?

Which is not needed unless they're forced to fight in melee (which means they'd lose and die no matter what). Their saddle could absorb charge power and the lance is basically a psychological weapon meant to rout enemies. In fact the parthian/sassanian/sarmatian cataphracts should be even more effective than medieval knights, because they charged in very close square formation, and always operated together with horse archers or foot archers, whose arrows could usually force enemies to employ loose formation and become vulnerable to charge.

 

I think the Osprey makes a mistake, since crossbow should appear in Europe no lesser than 9th-10th century. The only powerful hand-held crossbows with magnificent trigger mechanism is of Qin-Han Empire, who possessed an entire different style of warfare to the Romans.

It's just a primitive crossbow, more likely to be a hunting tool rather than real weapon. Note that crossbows alone are not very useful except for ambush, due to the painfully slow rate-of-fire. In china the crossbowmen were usually used together with archers - in Tang and Song dynasties for instance, the number is about 1:1 for foot archers and crossbowmen.

[caldrail]

But isn't it true that Romans did not encounter any kind of armies who had powerful bows like the Huns (known also Xiongnu in the East)?

The romans encountered lots of cultures with expert bowmen, and employed them for that very purpose.

 

 

Is this the reason why Early Roman Army did not fight in loose formation?

The early romans romans fought in close formation for protection, although the the period where they used phalanxes dictated that they should. Hence the development of the gladius, a short stabbing sword. The late empire had evolved a looser style of warfare and the troops employed longer swords in the same hack and slash style as their opponents, thus the need for tight formations was lessened - but even then, against cavalry they gathered together. Battles like Adrianople show that being pushed together too closely can reduce fighting potential considerably.

 

Also, I thought that cataphracts in those days did not have massive effects as seen in later period since the lack of stirrup?

A fallacy. The stirrup makes horse riding more comfrotable, not more effective. The roman cataphracts were hampered because the horsemen were too worried about tiring their mounts with all the extra weight, hence they were none too keen to gallop unless necessary.

[Northern Neil]

On the other hand...

 

http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6025

[Kosmo]

On the other hand...

 

http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6025

 

"The ancient world was probably very much like the flintstones with all those nifty dinosaur powered inventions, only they were run with slaves."

 

Romans had a professional army so they had ample time to select and train people in more efficient archery. They had no need of a crossbow except maybe defending fortifications.

[caldrail]

But the romans didn't generally train them in archery. They employed people who already knew how to as auxillaries. I know Vegetius makes a reference to training in the use of bow and arrow, but you need to realise that that doesn't mean the legions actually did that as a matter of course. What he was writing was a manual for new raised standards in the armies of his time, which the commentators of that period all remarkably agree that training was very poor overall.

[Kosmo]

The romans recruited people that were already trained in archery, but I believe that they were making more training with them, drilling them to obey orders and to act like a unit and also to keep and improve their level in archery.

Regarding the crossbow romans could train some infantry soldiers to use them like they did with other siege weapons.

[caldrail]

Not as standard practice. Vegetius mentions this in his De Re Miltari and so some people believe archery training was widespread - it wasn't. Vegetius thought it would be a great idea if roman troops were so trained and suggested it as part of his treatise on how to improve training in the late empire legions, which wasn't carried out. In fact, at the end of the fourth century onward in the wake of the Adrianople defeat large scale recruitment of Goths ionto the legions as feoderatii provided all the archers they needed. It is an interesting point that prior to this, without any widespread experience in archery, the romans had become well-practised at skirmishing warfare despite their lack of formal training and unwillingness to fight at all (mentioned by both Zosimus and Marcellinus).

[barca]

The only powerful hand-held crossbows with magnificent trigger mechanism is of Qin-Han Empire, who possessed an entire different style of warfare to the Romans.

 

What were the main differences between the Qin/Han crossbow and the Greek Gastrophetes?

 

Power? Range? Speed of reloading? Trigger Mechanism?

 

Was the Han crossbow powerful enough to go through the Scutum and pierce the armor?

Edited June 3, 2012 by barca