Why did the Romans never copy the Huns' use of mounted archers and composite bows?

by BlueTooth4269

From what I understand, the Romans (especially in their early days) excelled at stealing good ideas, technologies and concepts from everyone they came across and improving on them, like when they (purportedly) found a wrecked Carthaginian ship and used it as a blueprint for their new navy. Throughout their history, they seem to have consistently developed and reformed their military practices.

So, when they (like everyone else) started getting knocked around by the Huns in the 5th century, why did they never adopt the Huns' (clearly superior) military tactics? Specifically the use of mounted archers and composite bows? Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something here?

wotan_weevil

The Romans were familiar with the composite bow from early times. The composite bow had arrived in the eastern Mediterranean region before 1000BC, with for example, some found in Tutankamun's tomb. Assyrian mounted archers were using them by about 900BC. Composite bows, mostly Scythian-style appear frequently in Greek art, sometimes in Scythian or Amazon hands, and sometimes in Greek hands:

Closer to Rome, an Etruscan depiction of mounted archers:

Such bows appear in Cupid's hands in art.

However, in the early Republic, the Romans didn't make heavy use of archery. Some bows were probably in use, but slings and javelins dominated battlefields, missile-wise. As Roman frontiers moved east during the Republic, they encountered more enemies using bows, and mounted archery. If not before, the crushing Roman defeat by the Parthians at Carrhae (53BC) drove home the military value of mounted archery. Since the Romans (and Byzantines) would continue to fight the Persians (the Parthians, and later the Sassanids) for about 600 years, they would not forget this lesson. By this time, the Parthians were using the "next generation" composite bow, essentially the design that would persist over much of Eastern Europe and most of Asia until the spread of the Manchu/Qing-style of composite bow after the Qing conquest of China. The Romans adopted this as their standard military bow. (According to Vegetius, they would use, at least sometimes, use wooden self-bows for training new archers. This was probably a cost-saving measure.)

The Roman, well aware of the military value of mounted archery post-Carrhae, formed units of mounted archers: equites sagittarii. The Romans faced a common disadvantage of sedentary states fighting enemies who could recruit steppe nomads: their mounted archers were often fewer and less skilled. As with other states in similar positions, they recruited mounted archers from steppe peoples when they could. Just as Chinese armies could struggle against armies based on mounted archers, despite having their own, so could the Romans. While Chinese and Roman armies would include mounted archers, they still included large numbers of infantry, and could be less tactically mobile than enemy cavalry armies. Having your own mounted archers and composite bows is no guarantee of victory against steppe armies (but it does help!).

At the famous battle against the Huns, the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains AKA the Battle of Châlons (AD451), the Roman army included not only Roman, Visigoths, and Franks, but also Alans, many who would have fought as mounted archers. On the Hunnish side, their army was far from purely Hunnish - probably the bulk of their forces consisted of Ostrogoths, along with Franks and other allies. The battle was perhaps more a battle of Visigoths with allies (Romans, Franks, Alans) against Ostrogoths with allies (Huns, Franks) than Romans vs Huns. Both sides had much infantry, and both sides had mounted archers. It was not a battle between two greatly different military systems, but a battle between two quite similar armies.

Further reading: on Roman archery, including mounted archery, u/PapiriusCursor in https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54tra0/why_didnt_the_romans_use_archers/