07-12-2007, 02:32 AM
Quote:It would seem strange to fire over the mules, as an elevated firing position would really hamper accuracy and this is just where these engines come into their own. For laying down suppressive fire, a group of archers would be far more useful, as they have somewhat the same range, but not the knock down, shield smashing power of a ballistabolt aimed at chest level. The heavy projectile of a ballista soon succumbs to gravity, greatly lessening it's effective range because of the flatter trajectory.
It's the old discussion on caliber versus speed. Modern rifles sacrifice mass of the projectile for speed and distance. As speed was limited by the mechanics involved, mass caused the destructive penetrating power of the ballista bolt in an equal range situation. The .44 has the greater stopping power, but the .22 with a long barrel and a good charge will kill well over the effective range of a .44. The .50 caliber single shot sniper rifle is probably the exception to the rule, but packs a massive charge.
Possibly, the artist took a liberty here, as showing a gun crew in action would be impossible if they were behind raised sides but could be well depicted when standing at the rear of the assembly.
Robert,
While attempting to find a mule team to work with my carrus I have asked several experienced mule-skinners how mules would react to bolts flying over their heads. The usual response is that they wouldn't care as long as it didn't fly right past their heads. This would seem to support my theory that the carroballista was primarily used for high angle plunging fire at maximum range. Your comment about the .50 cal is precisely what I'm talking about. What if some weapons designer (let's call him Hiramus Maximus) :lol: had a moment of brilliance and designed a catapult that had a significantly greater range than previous engines? (see Aitor Iriarte's cheiroballistra page concerning in-swingers). Previous "Vitruvian" design weapons (out-swingers) could only fire about as far as archers. This doomed them to defensive roles since they could never hope to match the archer's rate of fire and would be swamped by volleys if they attempted to take the field. Now they can can sit back out of arrow range and hurl bolts with impunity. Volleys of arrows coming in at high angle can be seen and shield raised in defense. Just like a .50 cal round, a ballista bolt doesn't care much about distance or shields. It's mass stays constant, and if you're in range..... you're dead. The best part is that now you can mount them in a mule cart, toss in a supply of ammo, and follow the infantry on the offensive. If the enemy manges to push the shield wall back so that his archers can engage, you just pull the cart back and set up on the next bit of commanding terrain. (can you guess who used to be a tanker?) Some folks have proposed that the "little arch" on the top frame in Trajan's, Orsova, etc. was intended to open the field of view and aid in aiming. I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Previous weapons often had decorative plating covering nearly the whole front of the frame. Obviously they didn't consider that an issue. When firing line of sight this would probably act as a scope, isolating one particular target. Widening the frame alone would open up the field of vision. The arch would only be need when one was firing at high angles/long range.
As they say, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it".... I'm working a "unified field artillery theory" that starts from the assumption that Trajan's Column is basically accurate and working from there. It's funny how people who will base their gear on one grave stone carved by some provincial artist are so willing to dismiss the work of artisans in Rome working under the direct supervision of the Emperor on the crowning masterpiece of his forum. :wink: ..... No offense to anyone in particular, especially you, but I'm sure I'll hear it about that last bit. :lol: To test my theory I will have to build an in-swinger catapult, mount it in my cart, hitch up some mules, and challenge an experienced archer to a duel. How's you composite bow coming Dane?
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
