04-26-2014, 03:11 PM
Many thanks for your detailed replies, everyone! Indeed, I was referring to the 2nd/3rd century AD, basically the army at the height of the Imperial era. I've done a lot of research into infantry organisation and logistics, but artillery seems to be a grey area in both the era of Classical Antiquity and the Medieval era. The only place it starts to really become more detailed is the early Modern era, when brass and iron gunpowder cannons started to find their way into dedicated artillery units in the organisational structure of European armies.
When I was reading about the capabilities of both Roman and Medieval armies, I began to question if they could still maintain such capabilities while dragging fully-assembled cumbersome siege equipment with them; such as the Roman army's attested capability to march 25 miles per day. I also heard that sometimes, the Mongol armies invading Europe in the High Medieval era could march up to a staggering 65-70 miles per day, due to their armies being predominately cavalry based, though this would mean leaving Mangonels and Trebuchets straggling miles behind, assembling them only when they were needed in sieges.
When reading on the historical accuracy of Ridley Scott's Gladiator, I came across a point that mentioned the Romans would not have used onagers in pitched battles as the film depicts, as they were too cumbersome to assemble and transport, only being used in sieges or to support dangerous river crossings. I imagine it would be a similar story with Medieval trebuchets, although I can imagine that once they were built, they were transported along with the army and perhaps disassembled at the end of a conflict?
I suppose it wouldn't matter too much if said fictional cohorts began assembling their own onagers from stored wood and rope when they were needed, I'm just a sucker for accuracy
I feel the little details in a story is what makes a story realistic and believable - thinking up an overall plot and story is the easy part, its the little details that make the world seem real and lived-in, rather than a world that is constantly referencing itself.
When I was reading about the capabilities of both Roman and Medieval armies, I began to question if they could still maintain such capabilities while dragging fully-assembled cumbersome siege equipment with them; such as the Roman army's attested capability to march 25 miles per day. I also heard that sometimes, the Mongol armies invading Europe in the High Medieval era could march up to a staggering 65-70 miles per day, due to their armies being predominately cavalry based, though this would mean leaving Mangonels and Trebuchets straggling miles behind, assembling them only when they were needed in sieges.
When reading on the historical accuracy of Ridley Scott's Gladiator, I came across a point that mentioned the Romans would not have used onagers in pitched battles as the film depicts, as they were too cumbersome to assemble and transport, only being used in sieges or to support dangerous river crossings. I imagine it would be a similar story with Medieval trebuchets, although I can imagine that once they were built, they were transported along with the army and perhaps disassembled at the end of a conflict?
I suppose it wouldn't matter too much if said fictional cohorts began assembling their own onagers from stored wood and rope when they were needed, I'm just a sucker for accuracy
I feel the little details in a story is what makes a story realistic and believable - thinking up an overall plot and story is the easy part, its the little details that make the world seem real and lived-in, rather than a world that is constantly referencing itself.
