05-27-2006, 03:43 PM
That's a beautiful piece of workmanship, Stefan. Is it yours?
The defining feature of the cheiroballistra is its iron frame. So, a manuballista ought to have the same construction.
What you have here is a small version of the classic catapulta or scorpio, which the Romans may well have called the scorpio minor (although we don't know precisely how small it had to be before it qualified as a "minor").
The defining feature of this machine is the one-piece timber spring-frame. (The stone-projecting ballista's spring-frame looked fairly similar, but was actually constructed in two halves.)
The only feature I would argue with is the "shoulder rest". There is no evidence that any ancient machines ever had this sort of thing.
It seems to have derived from an early reconstruction drawing of the cheiroballistra by Dietwulf Baatz, which he quickly amended.
The cheiroballistra (which, remember, is a post-AD 100 design) has a semi-circular component at the rear. Baatz originally drew this in an upright arrangement (as in your example), but he (along with most commentators) is now happy to interpret this component as the stomach rest of a belly-bow.
It may well be that any hand-held torsion machine would require a stomach-rest to facilitate "spanning" the device.
Maybe some of our colleagues with experience of small torsion arms can comment on the need (or otherwise) for this feature?
)
Quote:Do you think the following pictures of a replica of a Roman manuballista are true to the literary and archaeological evidence we have of the weapon?In my opinion, this machine would not be called a manuballista. I follow Marsden's logic, when he suggested that manuballistae were "very similar indeed to Heron's cheiroballistra" (Historical Development, Oxford 1969, p. 197; cf. Technical Treatises, Oxford 1971, p. 209: "cheiroballistra [was] equivalent to the Latin manuballista".)
The defining feature of the cheiroballistra is its iron frame. So, a manuballista ought to have the same construction.
What you have here is a small version of the classic catapulta or scorpio, which the Romans may well have called the scorpio minor (although we don't know precisely how small it had to be before it qualified as a "minor").
The defining feature of this machine is the one-piece timber spring-frame. (The stone-projecting ballista's spring-frame looked fairly similar, but was actually constructed in two halves.)
Quote:... especially the lock mechanismYour trigger mechanism looks fine. Most reconstructions follow this basic pattern which (I believe) was originally worked out by Schramm and followed by Marsden (and others).
The only feature I would argue with is the "shoulder rest". There is no evidence that any ancient machines ever had this sort of thing.
It seems to have derived from an early reconstruction drawing of the cheiroballistra by Dietwulf Baatz, which he quickly amended.
The cheiroballistra (which, remember, is a post-AD 100 design) has a semi-circular component at the rear. Baatz originally drew this in an upright arrangement (as in your example), but he (along with most commentators) is now happy to interpret this component as the stomach rest of a belly-bow.
It may well be that any hand-held torsion machine would require a stomach-rest to facilitate "spanning" the device.
Maybe some of our colleagues with experience of small torsion arms can comment on the need (or otherwise) for this feature?
Quote:Can I show these pics with good faith around?I would! It's a splendid machine. (Just hide the shoulder-rest!
)
