Len Morgan\'s latest project....

[AuxArcher]

Translations, like building these machines, is part science and part art then, Duncan. And I think that is a good thing.

I do have both of Marsden's volumes. They were a bit costly, but worth it. And speaking of, is he no longer alive? If so, that is a sad thing.

Dane

PS BTW, may be off topic, but are any of Schramm's machines still around? I read that most were destroyed during WWII.

[Crispvs]

Dane,

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to sound offensive and no I don't expect everyone to read the ancient languages. I don't and so I don't expect other people to. It is simply that I know Alan has good command (as did Marsden) of Greek and Latin and so will always have a better understanding than I will if I only read translations. This is a sad fact but true.

I was not aware of Alan making any modifications to the dimensions of a machine and normally I find him to be very firm on the fact that things like the spring hole diameter are integral to the overall formula for producing all of the dimensions of the machine and so all the dimensions of the washers and the spring holes have to be correct to achieve the desired result. Perhaps it was a misprint. Maybe Duncan can comment?
I have often noted that Len's washers tend to be somewhat taller than most of the pictures I have seen of the real things but this in itself does not affect the crucial measurment of the spring hole diameter.

The vertical positioning of the crescentic piece of the cheiroballistra in Len and Alan's reconstruction is not intended to be used as a shoulder stock as far as I know (I have never seen it used this way). I have normally seen it used as a pair of handles used the stablise the cheiroballistra during use. Alan's objection to suggestions that its use is to facilitate the machine's use as a belly bow or 'gastrophetes' is that Heron states that winches were added to artillery because tortion springs made them too powerful to draw by the force that a human being could on his own.
I am not totally convinced of the validity of the use I have normally seen this piece used for but unfortunately although the manuscripts are quite specific about the shape of this piece they do not give any clear indication of what it is for (as far as I know) so we are all left to make our own best guesses.

Incidentally, Alan's main objection to some of the alternative reconstructions of the cheiroballistra is that if it surplanted the earlier Vitruvian catapult, it is reasonable to think that it must have been at least as good as the Vitruvian version, if not better. Therefore, if a reconstucted ceiroballistra / manuballista cannot match the performance of a reconstructed Vitruvian catapult (whose details we have more information on) then it is unlikely to be an accurate reconstruction.

Crispvs

[Crispvs]

Sorry, I had my post open for rather a long time whilst doing other things (work does get in the way sometimes) and so it did not take acount of any of today's other replies.

Incidentally, Alan has a reconstrcted cheiroballistra which is sprung with horse hair rope. We have not had the opportunity to do a proper comparitive test but having used them side by side we are pretty sure that it is more powerful than the one sprung with nylon rope. The decision to use nylon in the springing of the scorpio and the chairoballistra was primarily (as I understand it) due to the difficulty of obtaining sufficient quantities of horse hair rope. Nylon was chosen because it seemed to have the best energy storage property and therefore might produce an effect closer to the original effect than other available materials.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So how do you go about obtaining copies of these papers?
Do you have to be a member of an academic institution? Or can anyone gain access to them?

[Crispvs]

I would start here:

http://www.jrmes.org.uk/


Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ahhh, brilliant, thanks Crispvs!

[D B Campbell]

And speaking of Marsden, is he no longer alive? If so, that is a sad thing.

Sadly, he passed away in the 1970s, so he never got to see the rich assemblage of archaeological remains that we take for granted.

are any of Schramm's machines still around? I read that most were destroyed during WWII.

One or two survived, notably the Ampurias catapult (my avatar!), which is still functional. Until recently, it still had Schramm's original horsehair springs. I'm not sure if they've replaced them now.

Schramm had a go at a Vitruvian ballista, but it was one of the machines that was destroyed.

I was not aware of Alan making any modifications to the dimensions of a machine and normally I find him to be very firm on the fact that things like the spring hole diameter are integral to the overall formula for producing all of the dimensions of the machine and so all the dimensions of the washers and the spring holes have to be correct to achieve the desired result. Perhaps it was a misprint. Maybe Duncan can comment?

The machine in question is the cheiroballistra. As you probably know, all we have is an incomplete list of components, some of them with dimensions. These are absolute dimensions -- i.e., not proportions of a spring-hole, like previous artillery pieces -- which result in a very small, low and wide spring-frame. (One of the components is a half-moon, semi-circular feature, fixed at the end of the stock.)

Alan Wilkins has followed Marsden in assuming that the dimensions must be wrong, because they're too small. My own approach is to assume that the dimensions are correct and see where that takes us.

Scaling the frame up has several knock-on effects. One of these is the fact that the resulting machine is obviously too powerful to be a hand-held belly-bow. And if it's not a belly-bow, then it can't have a horizontal stomach rest. So the half-moon component can't be horizontal; it must be vertical. (Logical?) And if it's vertical, it can't be a stomach-rest, so it must be for something else.

You'll see there's an element of circular reasoning here. If we retain the original small size (as, for example, our friend Aitor Iriarte has done), the half-moon component is easily explained as a stomach rest. What else could it be? (That's an educated guess, by the way! )

So Alan and Len have a half-moon component on their full-size iron-framed arrow-shooter (for no particularly good reason other than the fact that the Cheiroballistra text says there's one). As they have no need for a stomach-rest, and their machine is far too powerful to have a stomach-rest, they've turned it through 90° and it becomes a kind of redundant feature that isn't really useful for anything at all. But then others come along, see their vertical half-moon feature, and incorporate it in their own hand-held machines as a shoulder-rest. And a myth is born!

[AuxArcher]

Crispvs, thank you for the reasoned comments. Emotions can suddenly peak quite high, much like happens with the English War Bow people, where conversations become very passionate indeed. Deaths may even occur

That bloody crescentic thingie is a real bugaboo with me, at least. These machines, from the smallest to the largest, are so perfectly balanced on the fulcrum point, they can be elevated and traversed with one hand, or even finger, and it is a wonder to do that with a 2 ton ballista. A handle seems totally unnecessary. Perhaps we will never know what it was for.

Indeed, you would thiink the iron framed cheiroballistra would be better in a number of ways. But what if it wasn't? Not that I believe that, but perhaps the simplified construction and time to build one had something to do with it surplanting the wooden framed models. One real life example of an improved weapon system falling short is the US M60 machine gun. It was designed, I believe, after the MG42, or was supposed to have many of the amazing features of the German machine gun, but it was in many respects never a successful weapon. I was a pig gunner, so I am speaking from painful experience with the damn thing. Still, it was kept in the inventory from the 1960s until not that long ago. History is filled with these kind of strange happenings.

Regarding horse hair rope, the only viable way to obtain it and not burn up your wallet is to make it. Horse hair is not horribly expensive, fortunately, and as tempting as going to the hardware store and coming home with enough nylon rope for multiple springs, making it is the way I am going. I am still wondering wheather to braid it or twist it. Any ideas for Roman rope, since I am not an expert in what kind of rope was available in AD100?

The personal holy grail for me is sinew rope, and as I have pointed out here on RAT, it will take a very gruesome set of trips to slaughter houses to extract the sinew from newly slaughtered animals. That is not something I am looking forward to, and it will be years perhaps before I undetake that journey. Something to look forward too, however, and I am guessing that the performance of sinew rope would blow away any other type of rope. And, it would be facinating to find out just what its strengths and weaknesses would be in actual field conditions, which is one of the most interesting reasons to build accurate field artillary. Failure can often teach us more than success can.

Human hair rope is a bit more simple to ponder, as there are dealers in human hair, I guess for wig making is what they use it for. If I can find all women's hair, all the better.

[AuxArcher]

And speaking of Marsden, is he no longer alive? If so, that is a sad thing.

Sadly, he passed away in the 1970s, so he never got to see the rich assemblage of archaeological remains that we take for granted.

are any of Schramm's machines still around? I read that most were destroyed during WWII.

One or two survived, notably the Ampurias catapult (my avatar!), which is still functional. Until recently, it still had Schramm's original horsehair springs. I'm not sure if they've replaced them now.

Schramm had a go at a Vitruvian ballista, but it was one of the machines that was destroyed.

Ah, thank you for the sad info, and what a shame Eric Marsden isn't around to see so many others following in the paths he helped to blaze.

And, the info on the Schramm machines. Have you actually seen the Ampurias machine in action, or examined it? It is a sexy thing, isn't it?

[Crispvs]

Thanks Duncan,

Regarding Aitor's reconstruction. I listened to his paper at RoMEC in 1999 and read it later in JRMES. I admire his attention to the manuscripts and the work he has done but I cannot help but come to the conclusion that if the resultant machine is only able to shoot a small bolt a fraction of the distance an arrow can be shot from a bow (and of course takes longer to reload, ruling out close range shooting against an advancing enemy) then it must incorporate at least one mistake somewhere. For me this goes a long way to suggesting that Marsden was right to believe that the text incorporated mistakes.


Dane,

"Something to look forward too, however, and I am guessing that the performance of sinew rope would blow away any other type of rope. And, it would be facinating to find out just what its strengths and weaknesses would be in actual field conditions, which is one of the most interesting reasons to build accurate field artillary. Failure can often teach us more than success can."

I think we can safely say that we would all agree with your sentiments here!

"Human hair rope is a bit more simple to ponder, as there are dealers in human hair, I guess for wig making is what they use it for. If I can find all women's hair, all the better"

I would try shops that sell hair extensions for black women. Generally the hair is long when sold and is then cut shorter by the hairdresser who attaches it and then cuts it into a style. Watch out for synthetic hair which claims to be human - look closely at it first. It is strange that I never thought of this before, considering my wife buys hair extensions. :roll:

Crispvs

[D B Campbell]

Have you actually seen the Ampurias machine in action, or examined it?

I once slept in the same room as the Ampurias catapult! (Don't ask.)

I admire his attention to the manuscripts and the work he has done but I cannot help but come to the conclusion that if the resultant machine is only able to shoot a small bolt a fraction of the distance an arrow can be shot from a bow (and of course takes longer to reload, ruling out close range shooting against an advancing enemy) then it must incorporate at least one mistake somewhere. For me this goes a long way to suggesting that Marsden was right to believe that the text incorporated mistakes.

Hmmm ... to my way of thinking, you've committed the cardinal error of assuming that the ancients are always right, Crispus! And that, if they invented a machine, it must've been a good one.

Remember that the survival of texts from antiquity is almost completely random. It has absolutely no bearing on the reliability or usefulness of the text. Only that at some point somebody found it fascinating.

You also assume that, because we have one modern reconstruction, it's performance must replicate the performance of the original device. If I remember correctly, Aitor believes that his cheiroballistra shot short darts, rather than the Dura-style bolts. And, of course, his torsion springs are not sinew.

Now, the machine in the Cheiroballistra text is clearly related to machines which actually existed and probably supplanted the Vitruvian-style catapults. We have archaeological finds which resemble key components, only at a larger scale.

In my opinion, there is no reason to suppose that the text must have described these larger machines. A literal reading of the text results in a perfectly proportioned but tiny machine (as I illustrated in [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363[/amazon]). We know that tiny machines existed all along: Philon mentions them, Arrian mentions them.

I think it's a mistake to assume that, because we don't think they'd be any good, they couldn't have existed. To me, there's a flaw in this logic. I'd rather accept the text at face value and see where that takes us.

If Dane ever manages to manufacture sinew rope, his findings may blow both of us away!

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Greetings to all,
As the mysterious colleague and conspirator Dane mentioned in an earlier post and a notorious Carroballista fanatic I feel I should join the fray. The following is not intended to be an insult or commentary on the craftsmanship of creativity of others. It is just a summary of some of my views on the topic. Since these are just opinions and not core values they can be changed, but anticipate a spirited defense.
To begin with, the Cheiroballista text as written by Heron (the real one) describes a hand held weapon. Like the wooden-framed euthyone weapons (see Xanten, Elginhaugh, and Tomb of Vedinnius) it was intended to replace, its design was limited by the human operator. Due to the need to belly-cock and probably also hand span the weapon the length of the case was limited and a horizontal crescent-shaped stock fitted. A simple hands-free linear ratchet (see Elginhaugh) would have been fitted. To keep the size manageable they were over-sprung by Vitruvian standards. The taller/narrower frame allowed for shorter arms and a shorter draw for a given washer diameter. This trend apparently continued on into the metal-framers. The most striking difference in the new weapon was it's in-swinger configuration as described by John Antsee, Aitor Iriarte, and others. The arch was included in the top frame to allow the operator to reach forward between the frames to hook the bowstring, and not for a better view as previously thought.
When the concept was scaled up (probably some time before 87 AD) the larger version, often called the Carroballista took on many features common to it's wooden predecessor. The unneeded crescent was dropped and a double-handled winch with circular ratchet was fitted in it's place like any other large engine. Similar to it's wooden counterparts it was under-sprung, since case length and draw were not as much an issue on a stand mounted weapon. A braced monopod stand similar to the Italic A shaped one on the Cupid Gem was eventually modified to work with the capabilities of the new weapon. The new type, which I call a "Lazy Rho" due to its resemblance to a leaning Greek letter, was far more versatile than previous types. It was much simpler and portable and allowed the weapon to be used in the traditional defensive roles atop walls and field fortifications as well as offensively while still mounted in the cart. I have built and tested a working prototype of this design and it dovetails well with all the images on the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. Contrary to conventional wisdom there is no contemporary evidence that wheels were ever fitted directly to the stand. There have been a number of such "cartapults" and 'barrowlistas" built, but I dare their builders to carry them up a milecastle ladder, hitch them to mules, or control them on a pitching ship's deck.
I will be away this weekend, an thus unable to respond immediately to comments, questions, insults, or threats my opinions may prompt. I will return Sunday night to play again. Until then "Go Ballistic!"

[M. Demetrius]

...gentlemen, every one of them....

[Crispvs]

Duncan,

Actually I don't assume that reconstructions replicate the performance of the originals. I wish they could, but to my thinking, even if we have all the correct materials, there are still myriad ways in which the way we have reconstructed it or the way we use it might differ from the ancients, therefore meaning that reconstructs can sometimes show what was not done but can rarely show what was done. Sorry if what I said earlier seemed ambiguous.

Randi,

I fear that there are rather a lot of unsupported or tennuously supported assumtions in you post. This is not to suggest that you are wrong in your assessment but I wonder how much evidence exists for some of what you say.
In particular:

Does the cheiroballistra text state anywhere that the cheiroballistra was a gastrophetes of any sort? As far as I know it does not.

Also, does the cheiroballistra text state that the machine was an 'inswinger' (in fact does any text prior to the discovery of the Hatra catapult [which can itself be seen in different ways, according to how you reconstruct the missing stansions] ever refer to 'inswinging' catapults)?

Does the cheiroballistra text (any of the four surviving versions) describe the exact purpose of the arch?

Is there any surviving text which states, not only what the crescentic piece was for, but that it was also later removed?

Is there any evidence to show that the sculptors of Trajan's column (which I know you have paid some attention to) were particularly knowledgable on the subject of artillery?

I know that much of what we need to know to build reconstructed artillery pieces must be replaced with suppositions and assumptions due to the lack of so much evidence and so every reconstruction will contain a significant element of assumption, but I think we need to acknowledge which pieces are fact and what are assumptions, no matter how good the thinking behind the assumptions is.

Crispvs

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Duncan,

Actually I don't assume that reconstructions replicate the performance of the originals. I wish they could, but to my thinking, even if we have all the correct materials, there are still myriad ways in which the way we have reconstructed it or the way we use it might differ from the ancients, therefore meaning that reconstructs can sometimes show what was not done but can rarely show what was done. Sorry if what I said earlier seemed ambiguous.

Randi,

I fear that there are rather a lot of unsupported or tennuously supported assumtions in you post. This is not to suggest that you are wrong in your assessment but I wonder how much evidence exists for some of what you say.
In particular:

Does the cheiroballistra text state anywhere that the cheiroballistra was a gastrophetes of any sort? As far as I know it does not.

Also, does the cheiroballistra text state that the machine was an 'inswinger' (in fact does any text prior to the discovery of the Hatra catapult [which can itself be seen in different ways, according to how you reconstruct the missing stansions] ever refer to 'inswinging' catapults)?

Does the cheiroballistra text (any of the four surviving versions) describe the exact purpose of the arch?

Is there any surviving text which states, not only what the crescentic piece was for, but that it was also later removed?

Is there any evidence to show that the sculptors of Trajan's column (which I know you have paid some attention to) were particularly knowledgable on the subject of artillery?

I know that much of what we need to know to build reconstructed artillery pieces must be replaced with suppositions and assumptions due to the lack of so much evidence and so every reconstruction will contain a significant element of assumption, but I think we need to acknowledge which pieces are fact and what are assumptions, no matter how good the thinking behind the assumptions is.

Crispvs

Crispvs,
I agree completely that many of my statements are assumptions. Until time travel is perfected they will have to remain so. They are not however unsupported. In each case I have tried to analyze the evidence and see where it leads me. I place the most trust in dug artifacts followed by contemporary iconography, and lastly manuscripts, since of the three they are the most easily corrupted. I realize that most scholars prefer the written word, my talents are more mechanical. I have tried to avoid inventing missing pieces to make my designs functional. If the MS doesn't mention a stand or winch, rings or washers, then why add them just to fit a pet theory. No text mentions inswinging catapults. An inswinger, by it's very nature would be a ballista. A far as trusting Trajan's stone masons I have far more faith in their talents than those of some medieval copyist (any questions, refer to De Rebus Bellicus). If they were working from sketches as many assume then the sketches were probably drawn by someone who was there. The artist who carved The Cupid Gem shows a remarkable grasp of the subject. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to have cared much for Vitruvius's neat little formulas. Truth be known, neither do I. What I am looking for is an understanding of the trends and evolution of torsion weapons. None of the weapons found conform to his formulas entirely. Why do reconstructionists do so slavishly. They make a good point of referrence to discuss concepts like over/underpringing, but why fixate on Augustan ideals at the expense of all future progress. In the broadest terms the trend over time was that hand held weapons were taller/narrower (oversprung) and larger, presumably, mounted weapons were undersprung.
Regards,
Randi R.