Crispvs, consider why the crossbow became so incredibly popular in medieval Europe. Yes, I know this is not Roman period, but the crossbow is a very easy weapon to learn to use well, compared to a trained archer who has spend an entire lifetime learning his trade. The crossbow, especially before the advent of steel bow arms, is a very expensive, and much more difficult and expensive to build than a simple wooden bow (in the case of medieval Europe). You don’t need the strength, either, that you do with a war bow. And, as the cross bow evolved from a simple wooden bow to a composite bow to the gigantic monsters with the cranquen (spelling?) mechanism to span them, the sheer power of the things left the hand bow far behind in power enough to defeat any plate armor of the time. The knight class was in an uproar, and one pope excommunicated cross bowmen, if I recall correctly. Bowmen were considered common rabble, but crossbow men were considered scum, a woe be to the cross bow man who was captured alive. But cross bows remained on the battlefield until the advent of gunpowder because they worked, were easy to use, and generally outclassed hand bows after a certain period.
I am thinking a belly cocked torsion or tension machine will be very fast to reload and shoot (not as fast as a hand bow, of course, but you do gain the advantage of no fatigue. An archer, no matter how well trained, will tire after a time, while someone with a torsion machine can shoot all day and his accuracy is not diminished from muscle fatigue), and that is one of the tests I mean to carry out. I can’t help but think that a small machine could have many applications, such as on a waterborne vessel on patrol, in naval warfare, protecting cargo ships, in fortified positions such as fortresses, for riot control in crowded city streets, during sieges of enemy cities, and in fluid field campaigns. And if they perform better than, say, a 150 lb. wooden or composite war bow, in killing power, they probably existed and were used. Based on what we know about the length of time it took ancient war societies to develop proficient bowmen, and comparing that to the dirty lousy crossbow, why not accept the possibility? And add the type of discipline we know the professional Roman army exhibited in combat compared to Gaul or Germanic enemies, it probably took far less torsion shooters supported by infantry to defeat an opposing group of archers, or to get to important targets such as chieftains or other high-value targets. If it really was accurate enough to use as a sniper weapon (and why would a small machine be less accurate or well made as a large counterpart) as some say the scorpion was, even better.
I also wonder, why not more evidence for the existence of these small machines, if they were used commonly? I am guessing they probably were relatively rare specialist type weapons, and consider how little physical evidence exists regarding Roman / Auxilia bows, which we know were used extensively by auxiliary troops, I think more evidence will be found in the future.
So, regarding testing, what I am interested in is not just chronographing the velocity of projectiles, finding maximum range, effective range, etc. Penetration testing is important, too – you know, the standard stuff. But taking the machine out and putting it through situations a field-based weapon may experience is important, too. That means to me humping it on marches, seeing how the best way to carry the thing around might be in full kit, how fast it can be deployed and fired in case of “surprise attack” on a marching camp or supply train or pay wagon, how weather conditions affect the machine, different ways of aiming it, different ways of firing it (standing, most unlikely to me), across a wall or parapet, in deeply wooded environments, open areas such as fields, during wind storms, etc., from a boat, perhaps to floating targets and to shore, in bad lighting conditions, in sunny conditions, facing into the sun, and so on. You get the picture.
Does anyone else have suggestions for testing scenarios? I don’t know much about ballistic gels (but will learn), but maybe that should be looked into, or something that can be used to give similar results on how the arrows / projectiles perform against the human body. That, in the end, is the purpose these little military machines existed, as do all weapons.
I suppose, I will say in closing, that the tiny catapult was some sort of training aid, or even some ancient defense contractor’s model to sell weapons to clients
If it ends up performing as well as a Sleestack crossbow, I will be bummed but publish the results for all of you to see.
Dane
PS Nerva, thanks for your insights into rope, you too Gaius.
hock: 
![[Image: DSCF8493.JPG]](http://www.romansireland.ie/romanarmy/DSCF8493.JPG)