Quote:I'm sure it must have been effective or it wouldn't have been used - but how? What does a ballista bolt do on an ancient battlefield that a man-carried bow or crossbow does not?
As others have said, they kill from further away, and more emphatically. That means they also give an army a strong psychological edge. It's one thing to face an anonymous arrow storm or a close-range javelin-throw - when that happens you are close enough to do something about it, such as charge back. This is hard to do when you are skewered to a wall from 400m away. I don't know if the bolt would be visible in flight, but that would add an extra kick.
Roman bolt-throwers could be used with devastating accuracy (their operators could aim for and hit individuals), so their use should be compared more to sniper fire than to high explosive artillery of gunpowder-era heavy weapons. That's a significant advantage considering the relative inaccuracy of other ranged weapons used at the time. That said, they would only really be useful in set-piece battles or seige situations, given the long preparation time they would need to use and their very static nature.
Indeed, the multiple ballista/catapults attached to a legion would have a devastating effect on enemy formations on the battlefield. The bolts were capable of going through several armoured men at once.
The would open holes in formations rapidly, and it would effect the moral, long before they were capable of retaliating! Also the stones of even the smallest would have an equally damaging effect on men and moral.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Quote:Roman bolt-throwers could be used with devastating accuracy (their operators could aim for and hit individuals), so their use should be compared more to sniper fire than to high explosive artillery of gunpowder-era heavy weapons. That's a significant advantage considering the relative inaccuracy of other ranged weapons used at the time. That said, they would only really be useful in set-piece battles or seige situations, given the long preparation time they would need to use and their very static nature.
Robert, I would agree with you about the relatively static nature of the earlier (prior to late 1st Century AD) bolt shooters. Those were the wooden-framed euthytone engines commonly called scorpions or catapulta. They appear to have been superceeded by an "up-gunned" version of Heron's Cheiroballistra (hand ballista). By switching to a palintone or ballista layout, which many of us believe had arms that swung inwards, they were able to greatly reduce the overall length of the weapon making it short enough to fit in the bed of a military mule cart on a specially modified base. The ability to shoot while mounted made the new weapon, the carroballista, much more useful in mobile and offensive operations.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Even mounted on a cart (especially ox-drawn), they would not have the same degree of maneouverability as archers on horseback, or even on foot. Given their range and power that's probably not so much of an issue though.
Would make them easier to moc=ve out of harms way, once the enemy closed woth your lines, assuming they have not been routed...
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
If they are on ox-drawn carts (max speed 2mph), they aren't going anywhere quickly - even infantry could easily capture them. I imagine that if the Roman force were made to retreat, they'd try to remove key metal components (such as the ratchet plate from Elginhaugh?) and leave the rest...
Quote:Even mounted on a cart (especially ox-drawn), they would not have the same degree of maneouverability as archers on horseback, or even on foot. Given their range and power that's probably not so much of an issue though.
As far as I know, the only evidence points exclusively to their use with mule carts, not oxen. Of course that doesn't mean it never happened, just that it wasn't established tactical doctrine. Relating this back to the original theme of popular culture and it's misconceptions, one of the most common myths is that the mule drivers or "gunners" rode in the carts with the weapon. Most miniatures companies perpetuate these errors.
Vegetius describes the carroballistae as being deployed well to the rear and flanks of the infantry line, and firing over their heads. This put them out of range of slingers and archers (keep in mind, we're not talking about English longbowmen). Like the advent of galloper carriages or light horse artilley the new iron-framed ballista seems to have moved artiliery from the siege trains, often ox powered, up into the forward elements. This is a much better fit with the Roman's offensive style of warfare. To me, the coolest thing about the images on Trajan's column is that they show the weapons being deployed in three distinctly different ways; Static within the fortifications as "mural" or wall artillery, mounted and firing while still in the bed of the cart, and forward deployed beyond the main camp atop wooden cribbing. It would take gunpowder artillery many years to develop a weapons system this versatile.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Quote:As far as I know, the only evidence points exclusively to their use with mule carts, not oxen.
...
Like the advent of galloper carriages or light horse artilley the new iron-framed ballista seems to have moved artiliery from the siege trains, often ox powered, up into the forward elements. This is a much better fit with the Roman's offensive style of warfare. To me, the coolest thing about the images on Trajan's column is that they show the weapons being deployed in three distinctly different ways; Static within the fortifications as "mural" or wall artillery, mounted and firing while still in the bed of the cart, and forward deployed beyond the main camp atop wooden cribbing. It would take gunpowder artillery many years to develop a weapons system this versatile.
Okay, good point. I wasn't full aware of the use of mule carts on TC so thank you for bring that to my attention! I think field artillery could also be used from the decks of ships, which would be a further tactical advantage.
You are also quite correct about their use on ships. Numerous accounts and at least one of the finds (Xanten) support this.
There are five separate contexts in which the new arched arrow shooting ballistae are depicted on Trajan's. One is in the hands of the Dacians being used against the Romans from a minor fortification. In Roman hands they are shown unmanned atop the wall of an encampment, shooting while mounted in the middle of mulecarts with the crew standing behind them, being brought forward to the battle area stored in the front of mule cart, and getting set up atop log cribbing. There is also one image from the Column of Marcus Aurelius that is assumed to be part of a ballista base in profile being transported.
The hard part was coming up with a base design that could accomodate all these tactical situations. We've covered it better in other threads here on RAT (just search carroballista base), but a normal tripod base as described in Viruvius' treatise on scorpions won't work. My design, which I've christened the Lazy-Rho style base due to its resemblance to a leaning Greek letter, is a varitation on what I call the itallic A base for the wood-framed scorpion shown on an artifact called the Cupid Gem. I have yet to finish working ballista and borrow a team of mules, but preliminary testing with my cart and prototype base indicates that the design works and corresponds well with all the available evidence.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Quote:Pardon the stupid question, but could I ask what the "win" is with a ballista?
I mean, I can understand the field pieces of the gunpowder age - how they can reduce fortifications and kill a number of men with each shot.
I'm sure it must have been effective or it wouldn't have been used - but how? What does a ballista bolt do on an ancient battlefield that a man-carried bow or crossbow does not?
Hello Jennifer.
I have often wondered the same thing. I do believe when you look at them individually, they look rather uninspiring. I think when you combine them with archers and especially en masse they could be exceptionally deadly. I have to imagine the psychological effect of seeing some of your mates skewered by one of these bolts as you are charging across a field to engage would be pretty demoralizing. They weren't very mobile either.
From what I've read, their range and accuracy was very impressive. Nothing like massing for battle while incoming bolts are peppering the troops (and a bolt could go through more than one person, especially the larger bolts), meanwhile the ballista crews are well out of range--and there would be a large open area to cross... Not the best morale-builder, I'd imagine. Plus some of the siege weapons could throw stones larger than a man's head 500-700 meters or more. Those take down more than one person if they hit in a mob, and a man's shield would do nothing but provide some shade against that kind of attack.
That would seem like a win to me, if I were on the ballista side of the battle.
Quote:If they are on ox-drawn carts (max speed 2mph), they aren't going anywhere quickly - even infantry could easily capture them. I imagine that if the Roman force were made to retreat, they'd try to remove key metal components (such as the ratchet plate from Elginhaugh?) and leave the rest...
"They (the people of Chersonesos in the Crimea) gathered together the men of the neighbouring forts and constructed military wagons and placed in them the so-called arbalests (cheirobalistrai), and they arrived at the city of the Bosporians and, after laying an ambush ... they made a show of flight, not having exposed the arbalests they had made, that were in their wagons. ... But the Chersonites, as it appears, retiring gradually, destroyed the pursuing Bosporians with the arbalests, and the Chersonites besides who lay in ambush started up and surrounded the Bosporians and put them all to the sword..."
This story from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, of events supposedly dating to the time of Diocletian, suggests enough tactical mobility for the cheirobalista-carts to conduct a fighting retreat, shooting on the way, to lure the enemy into an ambush.
Duncan: I agree, that sounds more like mules than oxen in that scenario - although if the latter were involved in a fighting retreat, it could hardly be anything other than 'gradual'!
Cheiroballistra, if the Carlisle example is representative of weight, would not be impractical for a weaker draft animal to pull or for an operator to aim reasonably easily.
Quote:Duncan: I agree, that sounds more like mules than oxen in that scenario - although if the latter were involved in a fighting retreat, it could hardly be anything other than 'gradual'!
Cheiroballistra, if the Carlisle example is representative of weight, would not be impractical for a weaker draft animal to pull or for an operator to aim reasonably easily.
Duncan,
Is the parenthetical term (Cheirobalistrai) present in the original text, or is it a later clarification? The Cheiroballistra is by definition a diminutive hand-held weapon. Taken in context the author seems to be describing individual weapons smuggled or secreted away in the wagons, rather than the Carroballista described by Vegetius and assumed to be the ones seen on Trajan's Column.
Robert,
Which weapon or artifact are you referring to as the Carlisle example?
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Quote:Robert,
Which weapon or artifact are you referring to as the Carlisle example?
Sorry - I'm referring to the (obviously speculative) reconstruction in the upstairs gallery, which can be moved around whilst fixed to a pivoting point.
