07-16-2007, 11:48 PM
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!
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!
Dane Donato
Legio III Cyrenaica
Legio III Cyrenaica
