Roman drawings and pictures

[P. Clodius Secundus]

If we only had the evidence of the iron kambestria (Gornea etc.), the theory probably would never have arisen. (I think I illustrated this in my [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363[/amazon], where I've shown the iron-framed ballista as a traditional "outswinger" but the Hatra ballista as an inswinger.)

In the iron-framer illustration you mention, the rear stanchions are conspicuously absent. :? That's where the out-swinger camp runs into trouble. They can't simply lock the forked ends of the arch into the pittaria brackets as you've shown them. To obtain any performance they need to rotate the entire field frame. To do this they gin up a set of bronze washers and angle the ends of the ladder. They also have to interpret the forked ends of the Orsova arch as being uneven in length. Even if you see it this way, the long ends are diagonally opposed not symetrical front and rear.

The field-of-view theory suggested by Dr. Baatz hardly applies to a stone thrower which operates as an indirect firing weapon.

To be fair to Dietwulf Baatz,.... But I've always been intrigued by the reconstruction drawing he published in Britannia 1978 -- if you look carefully, the arms appear to be inswinging, although Dietwulf has always denied that was his intention.

You're absolutely correct. Looking carefully I also see that it is being used in an indirect fire (high angle) role.

Also -- you have to understand that Dietwulf believes that all ancient catapults were used for reasonably short-range direct targetting -- and I agree with him. People tend to envisage a ballista working like a mortar, but the reason for a mortar's effectiveness is the fact that it's firing an explosive. It doesn't really matter if you're 6 feet short of your target when the projectile is designed to explode, creating a 6-foot crater. But if you're 6 feet short with a boulder, then you've missed!

I feel that far too much emphasis is placed on the direct fire role. A ballista could be used like a mortar, but its far more likely that it was used like a howitzer. There is a significant difference. You make use of artillery's superior range and lob the projectiles out to keep the enemy's siege works and weapons at bay. If you don't hit, keep firing until you do. The main reason for placing one's artillery in towers is to gain the additional range and observation that an elelvated platform provides. If you wait for the enemy to close the distance to where a weapon can be used direct LOS (line of sight) you will be in danger of being inundated by lighter weapons such as slings and arrows which have a much higher rate of fire.