Posts: 626
Threads: 30
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
Why didn't the Romans come up with a machine using sinew like those others ballistas etc to catapult a horizontal "log" into the enemy formations?!?! Romans were already making massive siege equipment right? Better yet, have metal spikes punched into it!! I mean, maybe this was just too easy as it would knock over and spike about the first 10 lines or more of infantry or cavalry it was sorry enough to land on!
I know this sounds kinda dumb, but I'm kinda annoyed if they never made such a thing, coulda saved their a$$es a few times...
Samuel J.
Posts: 960
Threads: 24
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
1
um...
I seem to get the idea you're thinking of a rolling log - sort of like that scene in Star Wars on Endor with the Ewoks, rolling trunks into the legs of the AT-AT walkers, which it then trips upon.... But with spikes.
I think it's more likely those spikes would dig into the ground and stop the log from rolling. Kinda useless then.
The other problem I see is that it would be pretty obvious to see such a thing being loaded and launched, and re-loaded. something with that size and weight would probably end up reducing it's "range' if being launched from an Engine, as opposed to being rolled down a hill. Such a huge engine would not be easily portable, likely to break, often, and require a lot of hands to operate, hands that could be put to better use. The other problem from the Hill perspective, is getting your enemy to walk into that kind of trap. Not easy when as the enemy, you could see the trap being built, or, just seeing its position and adding up the numbers, and walking around it.
Maybe the [Romans] DID try it, but it failed miserably...and never got put into public artwork records for us to discover today! (allegedly Romans used to use solid throwing spears, but had them thrown back, so the pilum started to show up as a disposable javelin)
Andy Volpe
"Build a time machine, it would make this [hobby] a lot easier."
https://www.facebook.com/LegionIIICyr/
Legion III Cyrenaica ~ New England U.S.
Higgins Armory Museum 1931-2013 (worked there 2001-2013)
(Collection moved to Worcester Art Museum)
Posts: 213
Threads: 6
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
The Romans dedicated a huge amount of thought to the possibilities of how to kill and subdue enemies. If they didn't try it, it was probably a bad idea to begin with. They made great and effective use of siege engines. They used barbed logs as barriers so if the things could have been thrown effectively I'm sure they would have used them.
Posts: 626
Threads: 30
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
 haha thanks guys, that's a good point you have there.
Samuel J.
Posts: 68
Threads: 7
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
0
Romans where very efficient at killing using al sorts of nasty weapons.
But a lot of things simply don't work. In our reconstruction efforts of siege engines we keep finding things that work in a way that nothing short of spectacular and things that we with our XXI cent Engineering knowledge, CAD dynamic simulations think that will work just right until we try them.
Just like companies keep trying to find the most efficient way to produce, the Roman Army was very concerned with efficient ways to kill and subdue other people.
Now for the siege weapon bit, most torsion siege weapons like a balistae would fire a relative small projectile in comparison with the mass of the weapon (we shoot 200gr projectiles from a 45kgs balistae and 2,5kg projectiles from a 65kgs Onager), so just taking those values, imagine the size and mass of the necessary weapon to shoot a "log sized" projectile.
There are many variables, and we cheat a lot (for instance by reinforcing all wooden structures with high steel alloy on the inside, or using high tensile nylon - instead of sinew/human or horse hair etc) because there is a point where you can't take more from wood and sinew.
Would such a weapon be feasable? Sure.
Would it be eficient* ? No
*by eficient I mean the whole process of (building + assembling + using + reparing)/death toll
Posts: 152
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation:
0
The Romans were not very innovative when it came to weapons and tactics. Sure they copied a lot of ideas from others but they didn´t develop very much themselves. Building your ridiculous log throwing machine would have had no advantage over ordering a cohort of bruisers in armour to go over and stomp on the enemy in the good old, tried and tested fashion (¨If it was good enough for Camillus/Marius/Scipio/Caesar/Germanicus/Paulinus/Corbulo etc then it´s good enough for us! 1st cohort advance!¨)
Hello, my name is Harry.
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Give Sam a break, he is 15 or sth.
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 626
Threads: 30
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
No it's fine, I can handle an insult...and how'd you guess 15?!?!...damn, you're good, guess my favorite food...wait...I don't even know that :oops: tooo many ;-)
A log throwing machine isn't stupid. How's this for you...why did the Romans even bother with ballistas when it took ages to wind up, and if aimed perfectly, only kill or wound about 2-3 guys ( less or slightly more). I think that if those men were on the front line ( 3-4 men?) they would be killing more every 2 minutes it took to wind with their swords than the machine...just using the machine, less hand to hand contact, equals less loss of friendly lives.
A machine that is capable of throwing a log roughly 5 feel long, ( possibly armoured ) 6 or more inches in diameter would knock down and kill more men, AND disrupt the enemy line a hell of a lot more.
What I was asking wasn't ridiculous...just an innocent uneducated question, with the intent to become educated. Maybe there was such a thing, would it still be too imaginative? I can't see why you have to be the only disruptive person here...
Sam :mrgreen:
Samuel J.
Posts: 626
Threads: 30
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
also, read the topic heading...
thanks.
Samuel J.
Posts: 7,668
Threads: 117
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
A machine that could throw a 30kg rock fairly accurately at 500m range would be a horrendously terrifying thing. It could easily kill or cripple a dozen men with such a stone, if the men were packed in close order. And the Roman legions would not have just one, they would have had quite a few if it were a battle that included the siege machines at all. How about a steady rain of a stone like that every two or three seconds--somewhere in the line--maybe in your direction next, or maybe on the bounce it rips off a leg?
They did it against groups of men to break morale, instill fear, and make the infantry's job easier. Some of the really big machines could throw 50kg stones about the same distance. Remember, they were out of arrow range, and could launch their missiles as they wished with no return fire, so to speak. And if you retreated behind your walls, they'd just move forward and batter the walls and roofs of your town. Gates don't fare well against incoming force like that.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
Posts: 68
Threads: 7
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
0
Quote:(...) I think that if those men were on the front line ( 3-4 men?) they would be killing more every 2 minutes it took to wind with their swords than the machine...just using the machine, less hand to hand contact, equals less loss of friendly lives. (...)
We are nowhere near a competent crew (more like weekend crew) and still we can shoot our balista twice per minute, while aiming, 3 times per minute blind firing.
Computing Kinetic energy Momentum and Section Density vs Human Body density + Hard Leather 1.6 mm thick we estimate that at 150m we could pierce 3 human sized targets, reducing to 2 around 150 - 250m, 1 after that.
Not sure if you could get them "just right", but the scorpius is unbelivably accurate even with little training. Maybe you could "snipe" important elements of the opposing army.
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
@ Sam, as a teacher of history in secondary school I have some experience with the minds of youngsters xD... apart from that I am still a child. 
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:... to catapult a horizontal "log" into the enemy formations?!?! ... Better yet, have metal spikes punched into it!! I mean, maybe this was just too easy as it would knock over and spike about the first 10 lines or more of infantry or cavalry it was sorry enough to land on!
I know we're just having a bit of fun here, but you might be interested in a snippet from the fragmentary Histories of Sallust: "round wheels connected with an axle were set in motion downhill, and two-foot iron spikes jutted out from the axles in the manner of the military hedgehog" (Sallust, Histories 3.36 M). Is that destructive enough for you? 8)
Posts: 7,668
Threads: 117
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Maybe you could "snipe" important elements of the opposing army.
Although it could be just a legend, I read somewhere (but I don't remember the source at this time) of a ballista doing exactly that. At some distance away on the nearside of a hill, iirc, an enemy general and his staff were looking over the Roman lines, planning a strategy. A ballista bolt ripped through the aide on the general's left. Thinking it a fluke, they continued their strategy session. A ballista bolt killed the aide on the general's right. Around that time, the staff decided it might be good to hold their meeting on the backside of the hill.  hock:
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
Posts: 626
Threads: 30
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
0
wow some awesome stuff here!!!! Thanks! How far could it fire?
Samuel J.
|
