12-18-2008, 07:49 PM
Greetings Roman Artillery enthusiasts,
The following is my interpretation and design of the onager as described by Ammianus. I apologize in advance for being so long-winded. It is a lot of material to cover. For those who are not completely bored by it, I am preparing a full article on the matter including proper citations, bibliography, etc. In the meantime, I am posting this in its current form just to stimulate discussion over the holiday season. In the spirit of the season please be charitable and don't savage me too badly for my heresy. The translations included are a mixture of those commonly available (Loeb, Schneider, etc.). There are many who deserve credit, but I would especially like to acknowledge Duncan Campbell for keeping the the De Reffye Onager alive in the public consciousness.
Warm holiday wishes to all, and may Santa leave a fresh copy of Marsden's "Treatises" in you stockings,
Randi Richert, AKA Publius Clodius Secundus LEG III CYR.
The Onager was the simplest of all Roman torsion artillery weapons. It should, therefore, be the easiest to reconstruct. Unfortunately there are several factors that conspire to make the task more difficult. The first is a lack of artifacts or iconographic evidence to aid the researcher. Major pieces and some carved images of other weapons like the catapulta and ballista have been discovered. Technical manuscripts on them written by noted engineers such as Vitruvius and Heron have also survived. The dimensions and formulas they contain provide a solid basis from which to proceed. In the case of the onager there are only a few passing references to their tactical use and a description by Ammianus Marcellinius, a Military Officer, rather than an Engineer. Written from an historical perspective his four sparse paragraphs rely on descriptive imagery instead of technical jargon. Characterized as vague, mistaken, or ill-informed, his observations are often disregarded by leading scholars. I would suggest that this perception may be due more to the ignorance of the reader than the author. In his defense I will attempt to provide a rational explanation of his text and in so doing, point out where scholars may have erred.
The first paragraph, though seemingly straightforward, manages to introduce controversy. It can be translated thus;
The scorpion, which is now-a‑days called the wild ass, has the following form. Two posts of oak or holm-oak are hewn out and slightly bent, so that they seem to stand forth like humps. These are fastened together like a frame-saw and bored through on both sides with fairly large holes. Between them, through the holes, strong ropes are bound, holding the machine together, so that it may not fly apart.
Nearly all scholars agree upon this description this of the ground frame and spring bundle. Their versions of it vary little except whether the spring bundle is in the center or front portion of the frame. It is with the last statement, “holding the machine together, so that it may not fly apartâ€
The following is my interpretation and design of the onager as described by Ammianus. I apologize in advance for being so long-winded. It is a lot of material to cover. For those who are not completely bored by it, I am preparing a full article on the matter including proper citations, bibliography, etc. In the meantime, I am posting this in its current form just to stimulate discussion over the holiday season. In the spirit of the season please be charitable and don't savage me too badly for my heresy. The translations included are a mixture of those commonly available (Loeb, Schneider, etc.). There are many who deserve credit, but I would especially like to acknowledge Duncan Campbell for keeping the the De Reffye Onager alive in the public consciousness.
Warm holiday wishes to all, and may Santa leave a fresh copy of Marsden's "Treatises" in you stockings,
Randi Richert, AKA Publius Clodius Secundus LEG III CYR.
The Onager was the simplest of all Roman torsion artillery weapons. It should, therefore, be the easiest to reconstruct. Unfortunately there are several factors that conspire to make the task more difficult. The first is a lack of artifacts or iconographic evidence to aid the researcher. Major pieces and some carved images of other weapons like the catapulta and ballista have been discovered. Technical manuscripts on them written by noted engineers such as Vitruvius and Heron have also survived. The dimensions and formulas they contain provide a solid basis from which to proceed. In the case of the onager there are only a few passing references to their tactical use and a description by Ammianus Marcellinius, a Military Officer, rather than an Engineer. Written from an historical perspective his four sparse paragraphs rely on descriptive imagery instead of technical jargon. Characterized as vague, mistaken, or ill-informed, his observations are often disregarded by leading scholars. I would suggest that this perception may be due more to the ignorance of the reader than the author. In his defense I will attempt to provide a rational explanation of his text and in so doing, point out where scholars may have erred.
The first paragraph, though seemingly straightforward, manages to introduce controversy. It can be translated thus;
The scorpion, which is now-a‑days called the wild ass, has the following form. Two posts of oak or holm-oak are hewn out and slightly bent, so that they seem to stand forth like humps. These are fastened together like a frame-saw and bored through on both sides with fairly large holes. Between them, through the holes, strong ropes are bound, holding the machine together, so that it may not fly apart.
Nearly all scholars agree upon this description this of the ground frame and spring bundle. Their versions of it vary little except whether the spring bundle is in the center or front portion of the frame. It is with the last statement, “holding the machine together, so that it may not fly apartâ€
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
