Aulinus Perrinius wrote:
Quote:Agreed. But my point was that I thought the launching platform would such a pain to lug around for a battle that it would limit the numbers and thus the impact. Don't get me wrong, I would like to know if that's a myth.
Yes and no !! :wink: Generally speaking, artillery was too 'static' for use on a mobile battlefield, but could be useful in certain tactical situations. Certainly mobile artillery was in use in the Roman Army by 100 AD.
We first hear of large 'stonethrowers' being used in an open field battle ( as opposed to sieges) in 353/2 BC, when the later 2nd C AD Macedonian writer Polyaenas tells how Philip of Macedon was defeated by Onomarchus the Phocian. His troops carried out a feigned retreat, leading the Macedonians into a valley surrounded by heights from which 'stonethrowers'/
petrobalai bombarded the Macedonians over the Phocian troops heads, causing them to panic and flee, pursued by the Phocian troops in the valley.
(Note
uncan Campbell has argued that this was not the first use of stonethrowing artillery recorded, but that the 'stonethrowers' were men lobbing pebbles by hand over the Phocian troops heads from the hillsides. This seems unlikely because hand-throwers would not have had the necessary range, nor would shielded and helmeted heavy infantry have been too perturbed by showers of pebbles. This defeat evidently led to Philip taking an interest in catapult artillery, for a few years later in 345 BC, his pre-occupation with '
katapeltaioi' was the subject of Athenian comedy. Duncan and I debated this subject elsewhere on RAT)
Alexander too is reported to have used his 'artillery' in the field if a suitable tactical situation arose, such as a river crossing. Thereafter 'artillery', though normally only used in 'static' situations such as sieges, proliferated throughout the Mediterranean world. Both Philip V of Macedon and his son Perseus used artillery to defend a riverbank against the Romans in the Pydna campaign.In Roman times, Sulla and Caesar both used catapults in field battles, and appreciated that, being essentially 'static' they needed to be behind the line or protected by fieldworks. Machanidas of Sparta failed to appreciate this and stationed light catapults brought to the field in carts "
at intervals in a line along the whole front of his army",as recorded by Polybius. Predictably, they were overun by Philopoemen's Achaeans.Like Alexander, the Romans used artillery whenever the tactical situation was favourable - e.g. Germanicus clearing an opposite riverbank of Chatti tribesmen so his troops could cross in AD 14, and again at the battle of Angrivarii in AD 16, to dislodge Cherusci tribesmen from an earthen bank. Tacitus and Josephus speak of stonethrowers as well as boltshooters being used in field battles, (e.g. Cremona, 69 AD) and of Legions possessing their own organic artillery, as does Vegetius, on a scale of roughly one stonethrower per cohort, and one bolt-shooter per century. Arrian describes stonethrowers and boltshoters deployed in his 'order of battle against the Alans'.
On Trajan's column ( recording the Dacian Wars c. 100 AD) we first see mobile artillery, in the form of '
carroballistae' - boltshooters being used mounted and firing from carts, as opposed to merely being transported in them and set up statically.
By the 4 C AD, artillery was concentrated in special Legions of '
ballistarii', perhaps having around 50 pieces of various types. The '
Notitia Dignitatum' records one or two of such Legions in each half of the Empire's mobile field army.