War machine on Trajan\'s Column

[Renatus]

I agree with Macedon that there are three separate machines, although I depart from him in his suggestion that there are no “pipes” that have the appearance of connecting them. The detached “barrel” to the right clearly has projections at each end and, if one looks at Lyle’s original photograph, especially when enlarged, the other “barrels” both appear to have similar projections on their right-hand ends. I also agree with Demetrius that the devices never existed precisely as depicted. As has been mentioned, we have here the sculptor’s attempt to render a verbal description in stone and not getting it quite right. A similar example would be his depiction of the Sarmatian cataphracts. He would also have had a problem with scale, if he did not have precise dimensions. Nevertheless, his representations may be taken as having some approximation to reality, if they can be correctly interpreted. What follows is my attempt at such an interpretation.

One of Apollodorus’ methods of attacking town walls was to drill a series of holes in the stonework, to fill them with combustible material and to set the material alight. If it did not burn fiercely enough, the fire could be enhanced using a form of bellows. The idea was that the heat of the flames would cause the stones to crack. It may have been thought that this method would be particularly effective against murus Gallicus, where the structure might be rendered unstable by the destruction or weakening by fire of the internal timbers. I suggest that the devices shown on the Column are the bellows mechanism. I will endeavour to explain how I see this working, although I concede that this may defeat my powers of description.

The “barrels” are the bellows themselves, probably made out of leather. Projecting from the front (right-hand side in the reliefs) is a tube, the nozzle of the bellows. This was inserted into the hole containing the combustible material. The front of the bellows possibly rested against the wall although, if the nozzle could be secured sufficiently firmly in the hole, the bellows may have been allowed to stand a distance from the wall to make it less vulnerable to attack from above. Projecting from the rear of the bellows is a solid bar joining it to the pumping mechanism. This mechanism is the triangular structure shown on the reliefs. At its base is an axle from which project pegs which are driven into the ground to secure the machine. The scythe-like objects may have been similar stabilising devices, in which case there should also have been equivalent devices on the right of the structures but these have been omitted. The “wheels” at the base are not wheels but swivels to which the framework of the structure is securely attached. The “wheel” at the top is a similar swivel to which the bar joining it to the bellows is attached. In operation, the machine is rocked forward and back, swivelling on the “wheels”. The “wheel” at the top also swivels, allowing the bar to remain horizontal or at whatever angle it had originally been set. This motion would drive the bar to and fro, forcing air from the bellows out through the nozzle.

I hope that this is intelligible and offers a plausible interpretation of these mysterious devices. At any rate, I hope that it is not “laughable”, as Duncan might have said!

[Justin I]

They could be chevaux de frise, on three wheels, with that "barrel" thing serving as an anchor once they're rolled into place.
The problem with that is the downward angle on the arm, a horizontal arm would make more sense.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Duncan and I have had a lively previous debate on the this topic on a thread called The Dacian Reaper. His interpretation follows that of Otto Lendle and mine agrees with Karl Tittel, with one major inclusion of my own which adds historical context. You can read my theory along with several others in my original post. To be brief I believe that the three machines pictured were Dacian weapon used in conjunction with log-filled barrels pictured behind them to attack the Romans as they marched uphill towards the Dacian redoubt. These were mentioned by Apollodorus as the wagons and barrels that his Ship's Prow Tortoise was designed to defeat. I have built a small scale model based upon the carvings and done some testing to see how it behaves when rolled downhill into objects simulating an advancing line of troops. Also included in the original post were images of the model photoshopped back into the column to show continuity with the carved image. Since they never seem to survive the various updates here on RAT, I will attach them once again.

[attachment=8508]SketchUpReaper.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=8509]reaperreplaced.JPG[/attachment]

[Caballo]

As its pantomime season here in UK , I get the overwhelming urge to shout " Its behind you" at the soldiers above as the "Dacian reaper" bears down on them....

Great thread though- huge fun. Though I am concerned that we haven't heard from Mike Bishop since he sentenced himself to death by cucumber, as I really rather like his books and writing generally.

[Epictetus]

Thanks, Randi. I don't remember the previous thread. For those interested: Dacian Reaper.

[mcbishop]

Though I am concerned that we haven't heard from Mike Bishop since he sentenced himself to death by cucumber, as I really rather like his books and writing generally.

He nearly died laughing as all the literalists forgot about turf blocks that look like stone, Sarmatians with scale on horses' legs, and mail chiselling on segmentata and took the damn thing seriously. ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Renatus]

Having now seen the illustration in Duncan's book, I have to say that, for me, whatever its merits as a depiction of Apollodorus' 'ship's prow tortoise', it bears scant relation to the devices shown on the Column. On the other hand, I think that Randi's suggestion has much to recommend it, despite presumably falling into the category of what Duncan would call "laughable".

However, I am worried about the "barrels". If they are single with a bar running through them to increase the width of the area of disruption that they cause, the bar must be equal in length on both sides and not be too long or else it is likely to cause the object to go off-course and, if the bar catches on anything or hits the ground, could cause the whole thing to slew round and stop. The bars projecting from the "barrels" on the Column, if that is what they are, appear to be of unequal length on either side. It is possible that the two left-hand "barrels" are joined by a single bar, which would minimise the effect but the bar projecting from the left side of the left-most "barrel" still seems too long.

More worrying still is that these objects do not resemble what clearly are barrels elsewhere on the Column, e.g.:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:0...l_XCVI.jpg

[M. Demetrius]

Well, if these are 3-wheeled antipersonnel carts intended to roll down a hill into lines of men, they would probably be pretty effective at breaking up a line, providing the soldiers could not simply step aside and let them pass for whatever reason. Even if they weighed only twice what a man weighs, which wouldn't take all that much wood, they'd break bones if they impacted a standing or running man.

But the "barrels" are not the same. They are not "attached" to the tricycles in the same way or the same place, suggesting that they were not attached at all, but were a second form of downhill rolling body breaker, perhaps, or something utterly different.

Shall we next speculate on from what sort of wood these things were constructed? I vote for pine, as that would be an easy wood to work with. Bring it on, Oak Believers (who of course base their belief on the apparent oak tree in the lower right of this inset.)

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Renatus,
I have done a bit of small-scale testing using wooden models of both the reaper and the log-filled barrels adapted as literally and accurately as I can from the carvings (which other than Apollodorus' words are the only evidence that these items existed BTW). My results, admittedly unscientific as they are, indicate that when rolled down a steep slope at lines of resistant objects at an oblique angle (again as our only evidence indicates) they tend to slew violently to the right mowing down a larger section of the line. The barrels on the other hand wobble erratically slamming the ends of the "logs" up and down and behave in a generally unpredictable manner. Both would appear to be novel and potentially effective methods of disrupting an infantry advance. Duncan's interpretation of the Ships Prow Tortoise would in turn be a very effective countermeasure to these "wagons and barrels" and it is easily plausible that an astute engineer like Apollodorus would invent and recommend them to the younger Emperor. All this talk about Sarmatian Horsemen, regardless how authoritative the source, is evidence of nothing except that they couldn't properly depict Sarmatian Horsemen.

[Renatus]

I have done a bit of small-scale testing using wooden models of both the reaper and the log-filled barrels

At what point does the reaper slew to the right, on making contact or before reaching the target? Also, what is it that makes it turn to the right? I would be happier if it slewed to the left, as that might explain why the scythe is mounted only on the right.

As to the "barrels", as I have said, these do not look like other barrels on the Column, although they may, of course, be something similar. How far, in your reconstructions, do the logs protrude to the side? On the Column, the projections on the right-hand "barrel" are quite small and do not seem to be much use. On the others, the projections seem to be excessively long on one side and non-existent on the other.