+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) (/showthread.php?tid=21779)
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Eleatic Guest - 11-23-2012
Römer-Artillerie auf antikem Schlachtfeld getestet
Today they tested six reconstructed Roman mechanical artillery pieces on the battlefield of Harzhorn, Germany. The torsion catapults were constructed by several universities, among them the Bundeswehr university, and a Gymnasium, and the shooting experiments were supervised by scholars.
The purpose was to optimize the devices and to find out more about the battle conditions in 235 AD, with the catapults set up at the location of the ancient Roman pieces during battle. They had some troubles in finetuning and targeting (targets were set up in 100 m distance) and believe there is much room for improvement.
The Cremona arrow shooter had a range of 370 m. The Orsova piece, with 200 kg the largest, had a velocity of ca. 40 m/s.
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-23-2012
The infamous in-swinger!
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Ildar - 11-24-2012
Quote:Today they tested six reconstructed Roman mechanical artillery pieces on the battlefield of Harzhorn, Germany.
Another pointless effort from the experimental archeology perspective.
Quote:The Orsova piece, with 200 kg the largest, had a velocity of ca. 40 m/s.
200 kg??? Are they kidding? Consider, for example, the model ballista of Nick Watts, which is based on the same proportions of the finds from Orşova. It has more than 2-ton draw weight and shoots a half-kilo bolt with the muzzle velocity of nearly 100 m/s! Of course, it is over-engineered, but it clearly demonstrates what such an engine can be capable of when unrestricted by the modern European safety requirements and the fear of breaking an expensive toy.
By the way, at the last Limes Congress Dr. Schalles and I argued whether the Xanten scorpio was a hand-held arrow-shooter. My point was that had it been hand-held, it would have been impossible to properly cock its torsion springs of 4.5 cm. For example, the engines of Wilkins / Morgan with the torsion springs of the same diameter have draw weight of over 300 kg! Dr. Schalles admitted that they have not pulled the torsion springs at the full power because of fear of breaking the expensive sinew ropes.
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Eleatic Guest - 11-24-2012
The machine itself weighs 200 kg.
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Simplex - 11-24-2012
Hi, since Stefan already spread "the essence" (Thanks a lot for that !)
it's my turn for the "nonverbal communications" -- read: more P-I-C-S !!
And since every link I found, sported various different photographs--
here they are :
1) http://www.haz.de/Nachrichten/Der-Norden/Uebersicht/Roemische-Artillerie-feuert-auf-Harzhorn The "local press" part 1
2) http://www.hna.de/nachrichten/landkreis-northeim/northeim/schlacht-harzhorn-germanen-lagen-roemischen-kreuzfeuer-2634495.html The local press part 2
3) http://idw-online.de/pages/en/news508733 ( da "official scientific" one :woot: )
4) they even made it into t-online:
http://nachrichten.t-online.de/spannhaspel-pfeife-und-schieber/id_61050572/index?news
Enuff pics ?? :wink:
Greez
Simplex
Another one from the local TV :
http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/harz/harzhorn159.html
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Vindex - 11-24-2012
Quote: Another pointless effort from the experimental archeology perspective..
I'm not sure I would say it was entirely pointless as perhaps there is a confusion of understanding between the physical weight of the piece and draw weight which you refer to. I am sure there will be many positive findings as there will be comparisons between the different types of artillery tested in the same conditions at the very least.
Quote: Dr. Schalles admitted that they have not pulled the torsion springs at the full power because of fear of breaking the expensive sinew ropes.
Would the preservation of the rope not be a realistic concern for the original users of these artillery pieces? How long does it take to replace the rope when it does snap? Is it realistic for the Romans to have carried spares? :???:
Also, as sinew can stretch of itself, would the draw weight not change the more use the rope had? By that I mean more tension required to "take up the slack" as the ropes stretched under use.
This is what I find quite frustrating about these experiments - they always leave you wanting to know more!
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - D B Campbell - 11-24-2012
Quote:The machine itself weighs 200 kg.Pah! I bench-pressed 200kg only this evening. (Sorry -- that's the Shiraz talking :whistle: )
Presumably the Orsova replica weighs 200kg (really? 200?!) because it has such a large iron component. The original was clearly a static, stand-mounted machine. The tiny Xanten scorpio, on the other hand, could well have been "humped" (like the WWII bren gun) rather than strictly hand-held -- I would argue that it still needed to be propped for comfortable shooting. (Unless the owner -- like me -- had just bench-pressed 200kg ... sorry, that's the Shiraz again. :wink: )
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Nathan Ross - 11-24-2012
Quote:that's the Shiraz talking
illy: Meanwhile - pardon my ignorance, but what's this extraordinary-looking machine based on?
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - D B Campbell - 11-24-2012
Quote:Meanwhile - pardon my ignorance, but what's this extraordinary-looking machine based on?That's the large iron kamarion ("arched strut") from Orsova, designed to hold the twin kambestria ("field-frames") apart. All the wooden components are conjectural (I cannot speak for this particular reconstruction, but the components are usually based on scaling up the instructions in the Cheiroballistra text, which describes a small weapon). The size (width) of the kamarion suggests that it belonged to an "inswinger" (not as reconstructed here, which seems to have bow-arms protruding to the sides).
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - P. Clodius Secundus - 11-24-2012
Quote:Nathan Ross post=325064 Wrote:Meanwhile - pardon my ignorance, but what's this extraordinary-looking machine based on?That's the large iron kamarion ("arched strut") from Orsova, designed to hold the twin kambestria ("field-frames") apart. All the wooden components are conjectural (I cannot speak for this particular reconstruction, but the components are usually based on scaling up the instructions in the Cheiroballistra text, which describes a small weapon). The size (width) of the kamarion suggests that it belonged to an "inswinger" (not as reconstructed here, which seems to have bow-arms protruding to the sides).
Duncan, it looks to me like you weren't the only one hitting the bottle recently. The design team on this one must have gotten into some good schnapps! They've taken the case and slider from an inswinger and mated it to an Orsova frame used as an outswinger. Just to liven things up they've added a Vitruvian base and possibly the most ridiculously huge hexagonal winch drums I've ever seen. At least they didn't even try to dream up some bronze adapters to angle the frames and give it a decent draw length. Could someone please enlighten me as to where people keep finding evidence to justify hinging the rear stay down from the case?
Call me picky if you like, but if the object was to test weapons that would have been at the battle in 235AD, why do we still see wooden-framed scorpions that are only evidenced up to the first century and fixed-handle winches and saw-toothed ratchets that went out with the Greeks?
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - D B Campbell - 11-24-2012
Quote:I'm not sure I would say it was entirely pointless as perhaps there is a confusion of understanding between the physical weight of the piece and draw weight which you refer to. I am sure there will be many positive findings as there will be comparisons between the different types of artillery tested in the same conditions at the very least.Actually, Ildar is probably right. It's certainly an entertaining exercise, and it will engage the public. But there should be an "accuracy warning". If they are using a hotch-potch of reconstructions, built to entirely different criteria of accuracy by different research teams, and even utilizing different modern materials to approximate the ancient originals, then ... yes, as experimental archaeology, it's pointless. We already know that ancient catapults shot missiles quite far at amazingly high velocity. This exercise can tell us no more than that.
At least Schramm's reconstructions from last century all, for example, used horsehair rope, which we know was historically valid. So his tests with the Ampurias scorpio can still stand. (There's not much to quibble with in the scorpio's design, current doubts about sliders notwithstanding. And we know that, if it can shoot X using horsehair springs, then using sinew-rope springs would have been even more effective.) Alan Wilkins and Len Morgan's more recent scorpiones are basically similar, and (iirc) they have, on occasion, used horsehair rope (though more often neoprene, I think).
But, if we're brutally honest, reconstructions of any other artillery-piece are bound to be problematic, as we simply don't know them in enough detail. And that goes particularly for the Orsova machine, which is ironic as it would probably have been machines of similar design (and not, as far as we can tell, the well-known first-century scorpio) that would have featured in an AD 235 battle.
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - P. Clodius Secundus - 11-24-2012
Putting aside most of the historical and design arguments, it is worth noting that the Orsova in-swinger is clearly the most powerful engine on the field. This echoes the continuing trend among reconstructions. In the big picture, the reliance on sliders doesn't really make a difference in the range or power of a a particular machine, just it's historical fidelity. I really need to get working on a Lyon-sized engine so I can join the fun.
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Simplex - 11-25-2012
Da pics started movin' 8)
http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/harz/harzhorn169.html
Greez
Simplex
Pics gallery :
http://www.hna.de/nachrichten/landkreis-northeim/northeim/kaempften-roemern-schlacht-harzhorn-fs-2634554.html
MoPics:
http://www.haz.de/Nachrichten/Der-Norden/Fotostrecken-Der-Norden/Forscher-testen-roemische-Artillerie-auf-dem-Harzhorn =>17pics
http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/harz/harzhorn159_p-3.html
=> 9pics
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - Nathan Ross - 11-25-2012
Quote:http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/harz/harzhorn169.html
I was wondering what an Orsova ballista sounded like when fired and now I know. That's quite a powerful thwack at 1 minute 58!
Artillery Test on Harzhorn Battlefield (235 AD) - P. Clodius Secundus - 11-25-2012
Quote:Simplex post=325120 Wrote:http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/harz/harzhorn169.html
I was wondering what an Orsova ballista sounded like when fired and now I know. That's quite a powerful thwack at 1 minute 58!
Nathan, If you thought that was loud, be sure to check out some of the videos that Nick Watts has posted on his ballista blog at Watts Unique. You can hear the rounds actually whistle through the air. If you go far enough back in his video archive you can even hear what it sounds like when a Dura Europas stlye bolt hits a pigs head wearing a trooper helmet.