Aitor Alert! Manuballista found!

[AuxArcher]

Salve, all. First, Robert, yes, I did leave myself wide open, and thank you! If we can't laugh at our country and cultures, what can we laugh at?

First, from the perspective of an archer. And P. Clodius Secundus, you wanna duel? No sane archer would take you up on that offer, no way. Maybe no one is taking into account who the enemies were Rome was facing at any particular time? Facing Gaulic and Germanic rabble, they would have been armed with self bows, meaning plain old all wood bows. Maximum effective range would be not that much. Remember, this was 2000 years ago, and the self bow as developed by the English is far in the future. Bows were used with varying success by various peoples, but I am guessing Celts, Germans, etc. would have had bows up to perhaps 100 or a bit more in weight. Not that much, eh? I have to revisit the data on the Nydam find, and will soon.

A good 150 lb. bow will get your arrow out about 200 yards. How far can a ballista / scorpio / whatever you want to call it shoot? And how accurately? Very. I am going to assume a well trained crew can put quite a few bolts downrange pretty fast, and they, unlike the bowman, never get that tired. No locking of muscles from fatigue, and no real issue running out of ammo.

You take on the nomadic types with composite bows, and you have a far deadlier missle throwing enemy, eh? Fast horses, men trained from birth to become one with the bow and horse, and devestating tactics, such as the feint and so on, and no army, even Romans, are going to match them man for man. Did ballistas / scorpios face that kind of threat? Anyone know?

I think no one is considering how well trained a Roman crew would have been, eh? These guys I imagine were trained to use not only the weapon optimally, under just the kind of combat conditions they prefered, but lots of other situations. I'd nearly kill for a Roman artillary manual! Why not high trajectory plunging fire? Why not over walls and moats and even stands of trees if necessary? If they could do that, I bet that would illiciet some serious terror in the enemy. A staff sling would maybe be more suited for hurdling heavy things down on people's heads, but within reason, why not sent some 3 foot long iron tipped arrows up and down again? I am guessing mules that pulled the carts would have been very okay with what those crazy gunners were up to. I know US cavalry horses in the 19th century were trained to have the soldier lay down and use them as cover, firing over the animals, so why not Roman mules being trained for combat sitautions?

How about sighting? Were there possibly sights we don't know about? And why limit the gunners to just that little appature (sp?)? How about instinctive shooting? If they knew what range the missile would be able to handle at a given elevation, and how wind and weather such as rain or snow or heavy winds would affect their accuracy, they woudl have adjusted accordingly. As a grunt, I knew my M16 very well, what I could and what I may be able to do if necessary, and a tanker knows what he is capable of, as does every other soldier. Maybe we are not giving the Roman gunners of long ago enough credit?

Instinctive shooting is a tried and true method for achery, by the way, so why not with catapultas? Mortars and M60 machine guns, any weapon to varying degrees, depends on most of all the expertise of the users, and I am guessing a dog fight or a bombing mission is as much the skill of the pilots as any sights or procedures.

Well, my wine glass needs refilling, and I am wiped, so more later. What a fun conversation!

[Crispvs]

"I am going to assume a well trained crew can put quite a few bolts downrange pretty fast, and they, unlike the bowman, never get that tired. No locking of muscles from fatigue, and no real issue running out of ammo."

A few years ago we decided to try to see how many bolts we could shoot off in a minute. Working as hard and as fast as we could we managed to shoot three bolts in just under a minute. Based on the assumption that while we were working to our maximum physical capacity but that a Roman crew who practiced frequently and knew their weapon well would be able to shoot faster, we guessed that a Roman crew might have been able to shoot off perhaps 3.5 bolt per minute on a regular basis. Due to the manner of operation of the machine I cannot see a rate of fire much over this being a possibility.

As far as running out of ammunition goes, catapult bolts are much larger than bullets and it is not possible to manually carry an unlimited supply. Even though I am sure they allowed for as much available ammunition as possible, I can't imagine that they would have been able to keep their maximum rate of shooting for very long, even at only 3.5 shot per minute. Ten minutes' continuous shooting alone would require thirty five bolts, which would be collectively quite heavy and which would take up some space.

Crispvs

[AuxArcher]

Did you have a supply train with men standing by to feed you new ammo as you needed it? And did you have your catapulta mounted on a cart, with associated storage of extra bolts?

And, how much safety did you incorporate into your experiment? Meaning, did you keep safety of operation paramount, as you should, and would a Roman crew in battle be as safety concious as you were? And did you have to factor in the machine's safety, and not have specialists standing by to repair damage to the machine if it occured from pushing it to the max?

I would think that you have to push you and your crew beyond what we would consider safe operations to really find out how you a machine would be weilded in combat. We had a philosophy in the army that you train under as realisitc conditions as possible, and we always had at least a few deaths and some bad injuries each time we had a large field exercise. I got a bit mangled more than once, but we had great docs. Tragic always to loose guys in training, but the price willing to be paid to be as well trained as possible. In this hobby, no one goes that far.

Cool though that you did try to see what your crew could do, and instructive.

[Crispvs]

Just to clarify. On the occasion in question we only shot for two minutes and it was under our normal operating conditions - ie: two man crew for each machine, around 12 bolts per machine, normal safety precautions as employed during public displays and one officer supervising all four artillery pieces we were operating that day and their associated crews. So we had nine men, arranged into four artillery crews and one officer and we were shooting according to our normal method, only concentrating on shooting for speed rather than accuracy as we normally do. I was not designed as a proper scientific test. Rather, it was to demonstrate the capabilities of the Roman machines compared to the theoretical Hellenistic polyibolos which was being demonstrated at the same time.

I agree that a good supply of ammunition would be available to a genuine Roman catapult, purely on the basis that each artillery piece, large or small would be expected to travel disassembled on its own cart. With a smaller machine such as a trispithimus or manuballista a reasonable amount of spare ammunition would be able to be packed in next to the catapult, in addition to a further cart or carts loaded with ammunition (a little like the limber which was pulled behind a Napoleonic cannon). I was simply meaning in my last post, that it would not be possible to keep an unlimited supply, and even with a plentiful supply at a time of heavy use, such as an assault during a siege, a high rate of shooting might still not have been possible for very long, even allowing for extra ammunition.

Crispvs

[Robert]

OK, let's for the sake of the argument asume that a well trained crew could get off 4 bolts a minute. 5 for all I care. How many engines would you require to get of a decent long range barage? Moving the troops forward the distance you can cover in 15 seconds striding in formation(about 20 yards or meters) would really change the aim. With only 5 shots (the ultimate max as far as I am conserned) 100 meters will have been covered. The "rabble" being refered to was nowhere near as thick as we would like to presume. Yes, there was a technological gap when faced with artillary, but let's not forget these tribes were pretty fierce fighters. What really killed them was trying to penetrate a shieldwall of highly diciplined troops. The Romans suffered quite a few defiets when forced to do battle on the conditions impossed by their adversaries (when they could not opperate in a chosen field using trained formations). Using artillary for long range suppresive fire seems unlogical for torsion weapons due to firing rate (forgive me for sounding like Spock :lol: ). It really came into it's right at a flatter trajectory fire punching through advancing troups, killing all in its path, shield, armor, whatever. That would really knock the spunk out of you.

[AuxArcher]

Well, what were the things used for? Weapons of terror? Battlefield domination? Sweeping away hordes of uncouth long haired SOBs? Highly accurate sniper fire to take out key personnel, standard bearers, officers, and such? Augmentation for the legionaries as the pressed forward? Shooting the bad guys along the flanks as they try to get out of the way of the approaching Romans?

Crispus, I understand what you were saying, and I tend to think out loud via the keyboard, so if I ramble or stray a bit, forgive me. And beware all for the future, that is how my thought process works sometimes.

Maybe surpressive fire, Robert, was not a known concept? You use that to keep the heads of the bad guys down, pin down a section of the enemy so you can do other neat things somewhere else, and so on. No one would have been ducking and bobbing much out there, except maybe when they saw arrow volleys coming at them, not that hard to do, especially as the archer shooting at you is further away, and his trajectory has to be pretty high.

However, a tension machine fires bolts fast and flat, and they skewer lots of intestines, shields, eyeballs, armor, horses, etc. Maybe that was called freakout fire back then?

Anyone found a Roman artillary manual yet? FM-XXIV, maybe? The 2nd century edition, please.

[Crispvs]

Dane,

For what it's worth, I think all of the uses for bolt shooting artillery which you suggest are valid possibilities and are all roles for which bolt artillery was used. I think that the 'terror weapon' role is one which is often overlooked but I think that it could have been quite important. With a range probably twice that of the bows which the opposition may have been equipped with as their longest distance weapons, the Roman artillery crews would have been able to start killing the opposition well before the opposition would have the chance to let off a single shot in return, let alone get into hand to hand combat. If you are moving steadily towards the Roman line and know that you will be in combat with them in three or four minutes (for instance), speeches, chants and songs can boost your morale to a suitable level but as you start to see your comrades knocked over and killed, sometimes two at a time, when all you can do to stop it is to carry on walking forward as fast as you can, then your morale is going to start taking a battering which is probably greater than the physical battery you are taking. After three minutes of passively walking forward into a barrage being shot off by sixty or more machines (60+ x 3 x 3.5 = 630+ bolts to contend with before being able to offer resistance) your morale is likely to be far lower than it was when you started walking, and your ability to fight against infantry with an undamaged morale correspondingly lower. You will also have used precious energy in trying to close the gap faster. That is, of course, if you have not already broken and run.

There is evidence from Hod Hill in Dorset of artillery being used in a similar way. Like its near neighbour Maiden Castle, Hod Hill would have been relatively easy to defend against an enemy as the steep banks and ditches which surround it are tiring to climb and the defenders wouyld have the advantage of hieght. The large size of the area to be defended would probably not have been an issue as the warriors would have been able to move to where they were needed most and would not have had to protect the entire perimeter at once. When investigating the site, archaeologists identified the sites of a number of houses. They also found a number of artillery bolt heads embedded in the chalk (presumably those bolts which the Romans had been unable to retrieve). Almost certainly of great significance was the fact that the majority of the bolt heads were found within one house, which was also the largest house the archaeologists found and which had almost certainly been surrounded by an extra fence. This is likely to have been the chieftain's house. It seems then that Vespasian, stationed on the hill opposite, commanded his artillery to concentrate their shooting on this one building, in order to demonstrate that he could pour down missile fire on any particular point in the hill fort he wished without the defenders being able to do anything at all to stop him. It is likely that the defenders capitulated soon after, as no evidence has been found of any battle past the bolt heads.

Crispvs

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Crispvs,
Excellent example. Long range, high angle (presumably since it had to clear two? walls) registered on a single area target in a hilltop fort. It illustrates my point that although catapults can be devastating line-of-sight, indirect fire, properly employed, can shape the battle space. The bigger question remains. What could have changed around 100AD that allowed the catapult to leave the wall tops and siege trains to go on the offensive?...
Since that discussion centers more around the carroballista and larger 3 span engines I will stop hijacking this post which was originally supposed to be about the Manuballista/Cheiroballista and invite those of you with interest and insight to join me in a thread devoted primarily to field artillery.
Regards,
Randi R.

[Crispvs]

From the position on the opposite hilltop Vespasian could probably see directly into the hill fort. If his artillery was positioned close to him they would have been able to see as well. Although there may well have been a palisade along the top of the defences the defences would not have been much of a problem from a position of near equal height on the opposite hill. The distance to be covered would have been quite long but it was clear from the bolt heads which were recovered that they had been shot at quite a high trajectory, probably both to achieve a greater distance under the right wind conditions and to allow the bolts to drop onto the house without being impeded by intervening objects. It makes sense to think that ranging shots were probably shot prior to the main barrage.

Pictures of Hod Hill can be seen here:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/pos ... tream=date

and here:
http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/php/show-im ... ?id=DW1717

In the photo in the second link you can see the fort the Romans built at one end of the hill fort.

Crispvs



Crispvs

[D B Campbell]

It illustrates my point that, although catapults can be devastating line-of-sight weapons, indirect fire, properly employed, can shape the battle space.

Not necessarily, Randi. The catapults directed at Hod Hill could have been positioned on a siege tower or similar temporary structure in order to command a view into the hillfort. We simply don't know.

[Paullus Scipio]

.....or maybe not. IIRC, didn't Len Morgan duplicate the original feat and fire into the supposed 'chieftains hut' successfully for a BBC program, from ground level at the presumed firing point??

[Crispvs]

Actually that little bit was faked up somewhat, as our machines are not as powerful as the originals must have been and our crews less experienced. In addition, the weapons are normally 'powered down' to a lesser tension for reasons of public safety. What actually happened in the filming for the documentary was that the catapultas were operated as if shooting at the hut and bolts were shot off while the crew was filming. These bolts were then picked up and placed as if they had landed in the hill fort. They were then filmed again as if they had been found to have landed directly on target. In the edited sequence the catapults appear to have the range and accuracy to prove the theory. Unfortunately, because we do not have access to sinew, women's hair or even horsehair rope we have to use the next best thing, but that does not give us the range which was required by the film company and which the Romans presumably had.

Crispvs

[Paullus Scipio]

.........that's a disappointment !!

[AuxArcher]

Actually that little bit was faked up somewhat, as our machines are not as powerful as the originals must have been and our crews less experienced. In addition, the weapons are normally 'powered down' to a lesser tension for reasons of public safety. What actually happened in the filming for the documentary was that the catapultas were operated as if shooting at the hut and bolts were shot off while the crew was filming. These bolts were then picked up and placed as if they had landed in the hill fort. They were then filmed again as if they had been found to have landed directly on target. In the edited sequence the catapults appear to have the range and accuracy to prove the theory. Unfortunately, because we do not have access to sinew, women's hair or even horsehair rope we have to use the next best thing, but that does not give us the range which was required by the film company and which the Romans presumably had.

Crispvs

Ah, Hollywood trickery, eh?

Seriously, I don't see myself making sinew rope for my in-progress scorpio, however, I don't see why it is out of the question for the manuballista project (and, anyone know about the publication of specs and such from the find?). Reverse twisted strings are easy enough to do, and larger rope likewise. Not exactly cheap, but I can talk to some hunter friends and such, as well as purchase backstrap and leg sinew over time. Cow sinew would be cheap, in fact may be free from my friendly wholesale butcher. I have heard that cow sinew is a bit greasy and not that ideal for backing bows or strings, but for rope, maybe it would be fine.

As for women's hair for rope, is that really grounded in history? I did read one of the Sagas, Norse dude slapped his wife about, and when his bowstring broke at a critical time, she refused to give him her hair for a new string.

[Crispvs]

I have always been led to believe that women's hair is considerably more elastic than men's hair and there is at least one account from the ancient world of women in a besieged town donating their hair so that it could be spun into cord to use for catupult springs when there was no more sinew available. I do not have the reference on me right now but I am sure Duncan can supply it.

As far as I understand, sinew was what everyone preferred for catapult springs. Women's hair would do if there was no sinew available and horsehair rope, the next best option was what you might use if you had absolutely nothing else.

Crispvs