A horror story by Josephus

[D B Campbell]

Then surely the ballista fired a bolt rather than a stone, which still gives credence to the story.

At BJ 3.246, Josephus clearly refers to the damage being done by lithoboloi (= "stone throwers"), which is what he calls the Roman stone-throwing ballistae.

(For what it's worth, I always assumed that the story could be true. Horrific, but true.)

[Matt Lukes]

@Matt
Matt, are you suggesting that if it was a bolt it could not go through an unarmoured person? I find that hard to believe. I also don't agree with your idea that the Romans would have had to deliberately target her. She stepped out of a buidling straight into the path of the 'missile', which suggests it was already aimed and fired before she was even through the doorway. Skin and muscle are not too tough to be torn by a heavy sharp object travelling at high velocity.

No but the tip of the bolt is very small and would either stick in or go straight through- a hole maybe 1-1.5cm in diameter wouldn't be enough for the kid to fit through. The tear would have had to be qite sizable thus my suggestion that the only way for a pointed weapon to do this is if it had edges and flew across the target just cutting, not piercing. And I don't see how it could have been a 'wrong place, wrong time' since this is an aimed weapon, not an area one- why would they be shooting at the door of a house without a specific target? Even if the argument was that they were waiting for someone to exit, the timing would be amazing to see the door move and expect to get the target and not the door. The shooter had to have seen the target...

Perhaps it is a bit much to think Josephus was taking a veiled shot at the Romans by this story- but I can't beleive I'm the only person who saw it- I have no doubt there were lots of people through the centuries who read it and thought 'Roman bastards!' (not that I did :lol: )

The only possibility for this being truth that I buy is the more oblique impact, the force transmission by fluid causing a rupture... but even that is a touch hard to swallow.

[Matt Lukes]

It is of course what we might expect from a Jewish author. Historical facts were created to give meaning to the events. For example, the rabbinical sources say that Bethar (last stond of Bar Kachba) fell on the ninth of Ab, which is impossible but stresses the parallel with the fall of the temple in 70. Other example: Jesus was, to Matthew and Luke, the messiah, therefore, he had to be born in Betlehem, and there had to be some sort of celestial sign.

Exactly. Objectivitiy is not something that can be assumed from a writer on a particular side in the story that's being told. Were this an account written by a Greek, Persian, etc., I'd be more inclined to wonder if it might be accurate (although exaggeration for a good story is still possible).

[Magnus]

But what about a stray shot? Happens all the time right? Could have been a lull in the siege, and civilians were moving about, or caught in a surprise roman artilliery barrage.

I think it's plausable anyway...at least for the woman to be hit. Probably some embellishment in the part of the damage...the old story of the 2 lb. fish turning into a 20 lb. fish after the 6th telling.

[Matt Lukes]

Could be- if it was the very first shot that missed. Otherwise the pregnant woman would have had to be pretty dumb to just walk out of the house during a barrage...

[Tarbicus]

Then surely the ballista fired a bolt rather than a stone, which still gives credence to the story.

At BJ 3.246, Josephus clearly refers to the damage being done by lithoboloi (= "stone throwers"), which is what he calls the Roman stone-throwing ballistae.

(For what it's worth, I always assumed that the story could be true. Horrific, but true.)

Thanks for the info Duncan.

No but the tip of the bolt is very small and would either stick in or go straight through- a hole maybe 1-1.5cm in diameter wouldn't be enough for the kid to fit through. The tear would have had to be qite sizable thus my suggestion that the only way for a pointed weapon to do this is if it had edges and flew across the target just cutting, not piercing. And I don't see how it could have been a 'wrong place, wrong time' since this is an aimed weapon, not an area one- why would they be shooting at the door of a house without a specific target? Even if the argument was that they were waiting for someone to exit, the timing would be amazing to see the door move and expect to get the target and not the door. The shooter had to have seen the target...

Now, about the exit hole. As far as I know, a bullet can cause far more mess and damage on exit than it can on entry. But that's academic anyway as we see it was a stone. But even here I can believe that with enough velocity it could cause serious damage and make an unsightly mess of an unarmoured person.

As for it having to be a far too lucky shot, just look at the amount of non-combatants that get killed even with today's precision weapons. Wrong place, wrong moment.

[Matt Lukes]

Now, about the exit hole. As far as I know, a bullet can cause far more mess and damage on exit than it can on entry. But that's academic anyway as we see it was a stone. But even here I can believe that with enough velocity it could cause serious damage and make an unsightly mess of an unarmoured person.

As for it having to be a far too lucky shot, just look at the amount of non-combatants that get killed even with today's precision weapons. Wrong place, wrong moment.

You really can't equate modern bullets to arrow-type missiles. An average rifle bullet (7.62mm x51) has a muzzle velocity of about 840m/s so has a huge amount of energy for its size and cause ballistic shock as they move through a target. They also often tumble which is what largely causes the internal and exit damage. Arrows don't do that- they move in a straight line so all their energy is expended along the axis of the point. There's also the long shaft that is exposed to a lot of friction in comparison to a tiny bullet, so they're stopped.

I don't think the comparison to modern 'collateral damage' is valid either- considering that I'd be surprised if you can find any examples of single aimed shots that hit an unintended target. That's usually a result of a lot of fire or indirect fire- neither of which is anything like an aimed ballista shot. Remember modern ammunition is available in prodigious quantities so is expended without a thought sometimes- ballista bolts, stones and arrows all have to be made by hand and aren't around in the tens of thousands so aren't likely to just be wasted in unaimed shots.

[Tarbicus]

You really can't equate modern bullets to arrow-type missiles. An average rifle bullet (7.62mm x51) has a muzzle velocity of about 840m/s so has a huge amount of energy for its size and cause ballistic shock as they move through a target. They also often tumble which is what largely causes the internal and exit damage. Arrows don't do that- they move in a straight line so all their energy is expended along the axis of the point. There's also the long shaft that is exposed to a lot of friction in comparison to a tiny bullet, so they're stopped.

But the weight of the bolt is far heavier than a modern bullet, giving the bolt more momentum. Surely that would add to its ability to carry through?

I don't think the comparison to modern 'collateral damage' is valid either- considering that I'd be surprised if you can find any examples of single aimed shots that hit an unintended target. That's usually a result of a lot of fire or indirect fire- neither of which is anything like an aimed ballista shot.

Sorry Matt, I don't believe that a ballista shot over the walls of Jerusalem during a siege was intended to hit a particular person. Get as many bolts as you can and where you can figure out that there are congregations of enemy soldiers. Shoot as many as you can into that area with the hope of the laws of averages depleting their numbers. If you're in a siege tower then it's easier, or within the outer walls then also it's easier.

Remember modern ammunition is available in prodigious quantities so is expended without a thought sometimes- ballista bolts, stones and arrows all have to be made by hand and aren't around in the tens of thousands so aren't likely to just be wasted in unaimed shots.

There you go - unaimed. Which is it? :wink: In that case the idea could be to rain missiles on the hapless occupants. Considering accounts of another engagement were Roman soldiers were caught in a camp (also a siege) the skies rained arrows, with pretty much nobody escaping a wound or two. I don't see why it is unfeasible for thousands of missiles to be available to the artillery, the nature of the missiles being very easy to mass produce.

[Matt Lukes]

You really can't equate modern bullets to arrow-type missiles. An average rifle bullet (7.62mm x51) has a muzzle velocity of about 840m/s so has a huge amount of energy for its size and cause ballistic shock as they move through a target. They also often tumble which is what largely causes the internal and exit damage. Arrows don't do that- they move in a straight line so all their energy is expended along the axis of the point. There's also the long shaft that is exposed to a lot of friction in comparison to a tiny bullet, so they're stopped.

But the weight of the bolt is far heavier than a modern bullet, giving the bolt more momentum. Surely that would add to its ability to carry through?

Slow speed and huge surface area available for friction to stop it so I'd say no, it's doubtful. Bullets are usually stopped and they're a LOT faster and have a tiny surface area for friction to act on.

I don't think the comparison to modern 'collateral damage' is valid either- considering that I'd be surprised if you can find any examples of single aimed shots that hit an unintended target. That's usually a result of a lot of fire or indirect fire- neither of which is anything like an aimed ballista shot.

Sorry Matt, I don't believe that a ballista shot over the walls of Jerusalem during a siege was intended to hit a particular person. Get as many bolts as you can and where you can figure out that there are congregations of enemy soldiers. Shoot as many as you can into that area with the hope of the laws of averages depleting their numbers. If you're in a siege tower then it's easier, or within the outer walls then also it's easier.

Are you sure it was a shot over the wall? Certainly that would be an indirect shot. But still if this were going on, someone would be pretty dumb to leave her house unless it was the very first shot. Would a seige be conducted that way? Just indescriminant indirect shooting of missiles?

Remember modern ammunition is available in prodigious quantities so is expended without a thought sometimes- ballista bolts, stones and arrows all have to be made by hand and aren't around in the tens of thousands so aren't likely to just be wasted in unaimed shots.

There you go - unaimed. Which is it? :wink: In that case the idea could be to rain missiles on the hapless occupants. Considering accounts of another engagement were Roman soldiers were caught in a camp (also a siege) the skies rained arrows, with pretty much nobody escaping a wound or two. I don't see why it is unfeasible for thousands of missiles to be available to the artillery, the nature of the missiles being very easy to mass produce.

But there's a difference between raining arrows down on a military camp and just shooting into a city. In the former case there are lots of good targets and mainly tents and a minmum of structures to offer protection. A city has mainly buildings that would provide complete protection from arrows. Anyway, for an indrect shooting arrow 'barrage' to be at all useful, they have to be shot fast and in large numbers. Ballistae are slow weapons. All I can see it doing is providing an enemy under seige with ammunition to shoot back...

[Tarbicus]

Are you sure it was a shot over the wall? Certainly that would be an indirect shot. But still if this were going on, someone would be pretty dumb to leave her house unless it was the very first shot. Would a seige be conducted that way? Just indescriminant indirect shooting of missiles?

Jerusalem had not only formidable outer wall defences, but also walls inside the city separating different parts of the city. To fire a shot where you could see your target you would need to be on a siege tower or in the hills (if memory serves me correctly) to the east and south. But I suspect the shot would not reach far enough to enter the city. How better to hamper enemy movements than make their movement about the city dangerous, or at least risky? We're not talking about an army that seriously regarded those who stayed within a city they were besieging with much sympathy, especially given the fierce resistance. Like with most ancient situations, if you stayed inside you're sympathetic to the enemy and are fair game. Just look at what happened afterwards, which mirrored the fate of fellow Roman citizens not so long before at Cremona.

Anyway, for an indrect shooting arrow 'barrage' to be at all useful, they have to be shot fast and in large numbers. Ballistae are slow weapons. All I can see it doing is providing an enemy under seige with ammunition to shoot back...

So don't constantly do it. Leave gaps between the barrages for more people to feel it's safe to come out, then let loose again. We know the Romans could see into the city from the hills, so it would be easy to judge when to fire. As for ballistae being slow: How many legions, and therefore how much artillery?

[Tarbicus]

It's probably worth getting the city in context at this point. The map on Livius.org:
[url:1xcjfmxn]http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/jerusalem_titus.jpg[/url]

[D B Campbell]

But what about a stray shot? Happens all the time right? Could have been a lull in the siege, and civilians were moving about, or caught in a surprise roman artilliery barrage.

We seem to have strayed far from Josephus' account!

Remember, he's describing the siege of Jotapata (not Jerusalem), and the context is a barrage aimed at clearing the battlements so that the battering ram can do its work unhindered.

At BJ 3.240, Josephus writes about "the hail of missiles from the catapults and stone-projectors" (Loeb trans.). I think our pregnant woman was probably struck by a ballista stone which overshot the battlements and crashed into the town.

Anyway, for an indrect shooting arrow 'barrage' to be at all useful, they have to be shot fast and in large numbers. Ballistae are slow weapons. All I can see it doing is providing an enemy under seige with ammunition to shoot back...

Off-hand, I can't remember what ballista balls were excavated at Jotapata, but there were hundreds from Gamala and Masada. The Romans don't seem to have been overly economical with their barrages! And the Jotapatans didn't have catapults, so there was no danger of re-used shot.