Our new cheiroballista...

[Nerva]

Salve Derek!

You say you agree with everything Randi has said, so you are expressing an opinion and not a hypothesis or theory based on any published research. The only serious scientific research that I'm aware of has been done by both Eric Marsden and Alan Wilkins. Now this research was not subject to wild imagination, personal agenda or hairs on the back of their neck, this was research conducted from the ground up. They translated to original sources, designed, built and tested and re-tested working machines, not just drawings in a book.

As for the expansion of the springs, how do you then explain the Lyon machine frame with 3" holes? I have seen much opinion expressed here but no one has produced an interpretation of the source material to contradict Marsden or Wilkins. Now, as for torsion springs on a hand spanned machine, what in god's name would be the purpose of that hock: Why in the name of Jupiter would somebody put spring frames on such a low power device when bow technology was far simpler and easily capable of providing the draw weight provided?

Are you seriously suggesting torsion machines we're hand spanned :? ?

Now you say it's deadly accurate and can be fired from behind a shield etc. What purpose would this have actually served on the battle field with no more penetrating power than a bow or similar cross bow?

Look, I would love to continue this debate but unless you can present a clear scientific argument using alternative verifiable arguments and test machines from the original sources I see little point. I have invited Alan to participate in a serious scientific argument should one be presented.

[fasta]

Funny how these arguments are just surfacing now? :roll:

Ours has been on public display on our website for two years,why is it now that the research work Alan & Co. have done is in question?

[AuxArcher]

Salve, Nerva:

Why in the world would you not have a hand-held torsion machine? For one thing, a bow of the power needed to be effective in combat takes a lifetime of training, as you will see if you examine bow cultures such as the Steppe nomads and the Medieval archers. They trained from early childhood. A small hand-spanned machines gives the user a relatively easy to utilize device as much or more power than a hand bow. Romans were not known for proficiency in archery, hence the heavy use of auxilia for archery troops, unless I am wildly wrong.

Actually, a well made composite bow is not an easy thing to construct, and traditionally takes years to build, if we can trust the work of still living Korean bowyers and other composite builders. A small torsion machine is relatively easy to build in comparison.

What do you think the Xantan machine was used for? A child's toy? Looks very much like a lethal combat weapon to me. Perhaps it did have a tiny winch on the back, or one that attached like medival seige crossbows, but that is just my opinion.

If you can get Alan to contribute, excellent. HE never seems to, though.

Dane

Salve Derek!

You say you agree with everything Randi has said, so you are expressing an opinion and not a hypothesis or theory based on any published research. The only serious scientific research that I'm aware of has been done by both Eric Marsden and Alan Wilkins. Now this research was not subject to wild imagination, personal agenda or hairs on the back of their neck, this was research conducted from the ground up. They translated to original sources, designed, built and tested and re-tested working machines, not just drawings in a book.

As for the expansion of the springs, how do you then explain the Lyon machine frame with 3" holes? I have seen much opinion expressed here but no one has produced an interpretation of the source material to contradict Marsden or Wilkins. Now, as for torsion springs on a hand spanned machine, what in god's name would be the purpose of that hock: Why in the name of Jupiter would somebody put spring frames on such a low power device when bow technology was far simpler and easily capable of providing the draw weight provided?

Are you seriously suggesting torsion machines we're hand spanned :? ?

Now you say it's deadly accurate and can be fired from behind a shield etc. What purpose would this have actually served on the battle field with no more penetrating power than a bow or similar cross bow?

Look, I would love to continue this debate but unless you can present a clear scientific argument using alternative verifiable arguments and test machines from the original sources I see little point. I have invited Alan to participate in a serious scientific argument should one be presented.

[AuxArcher]

By the way, I don’t want you to think I’m just blowing smoke without backing up my ideas with hands-on practice. I have 2 machines in progress, a small handheld catapult with 1.5” springs, and a 2” machine that will mount on a stand. The smaller machine, yes, has a crescent thingie for spanning (which I like to call belly brace) just as a gastrophetes would be spanned. It will loose 13.5” arrows, and is designed using classic Vitruvian formulas. It is hefty but very handy to carry about. It should give a flatter, faster trajectory than a war-weight bow and I expect fully will punch through all known shields of the ancient world, but that remains to be seen once it is complete. Bronze casting is the last big step to get the machines finished, and of course I will publish results and data on RAT when I can. I have a long-range plan to create actual sinew rope, but will settle for first nylon and then horsehair rope, which is an approved alternative to sinew according to the fragments of text that have come down to us. Lots of dead animals are needed, after all, and a willingness to get in there with knife and gum boots.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Funny how these arguments are just surfacing now? :roll:

Ours has been on public display on our website for two years,why is it now that the research work Alan & Co. have done is in question?

Why is it now in question? John Antsee (who like Eric Marsden is unfortuantely deceased), Aitor Iriarte and others have been providing alternative theories and backing them up with functioning machines and testing for years. The debate was old when I joined the fray. I just happen to be an insolent Yank who likes to figure things out for himself and question the status quo. What concerns me and possibly others is the proliferation and standardization on one design. Just like Payne-Gallwey's onager it self-validates. "It works tolerably well and everyone else has one like it so that must be how the Romans did it." All contrary research and thought must cease immediately. The matter has been decided by the High Priests and their decisions are not to be questioned. Go and tithe among your people that ye may buy the approved idol to place upon your altar (or website). Seriously, I wish Alan Wilkins could find the time to join us here on RAT. His access to source material and knowledge would be of great value and at the glacial pace of academic journals and the traditional published debate it will take another 2000 years to find the truth.

[fasta]

Your snipes are uncalled for.No one has said that research should be halted or anyone claimed they are High Priests.I asked a valid question as to why it wasn't brought up about our machine, but you go on "attack stance".Please don't take the liberty to think or speak for me. :evil:

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Salve Derek!

You say you agree with everything Randi has said, so you are expressing an opinion and not a hypothesis or theory based on any published research. The only serious scientific research that I'm aware of has been done by both Eric Marsden and Alan Wilkins. Now this research was not subject to wild imagination, personal agenda or hairs on the back of their neck, this was research conducted from the ground up. They translated to original sources, designed, built and tested and re-tested working machines, not just drawings in a book.

As for the expansion of the springs, how do you then explain the Lyon machine frame with 3" holes? I have seen much opinion expressed here but no one has produced an interpretation of the source material to contradict Marsden or Wilkins. Now, as for torsion springs on a hand spanned machine, what in god's name would be the purpose of that hock: Why in the name of Jupiter would somebody put spring frames on such a low power device when bow technology was far simpler and easily capable of providing the draw weight provided?

Are you seriously suggesting torsion machines we're hand spanned :? ?

Now you say it's deadly accurate and can be fired from behind a shield etc. What purpose would this have actually served on the battle field with no more penetrating power than a bow or similar cross bow?

Look, I would love to continue this debate but unless you can present a clear scientific argument using alternative verifiable arguments and test machines from the original sources I see little point. I have invited Alan to participate in a serious scientific argument should one be presented.

Marsden and Wilkin's research is certainly not the only scientific or published work out there and more is being conducted. What is "scientific" about Alan's bronze locking rings. Where's the proof that they ever existed. Counting Gornea, Orsova and Lyon there have been five iron field frames and 10 associated washers found. How many bronze locking rings? None, but to make the frames work as out-swingers they must have existed so lets conjure them up out of bronze. Never mind that being massive hunks of stable metal they should have long survived even the washers. The only logic I see there is circular, and the only "science" is alchemy. The same emperical method was used to discover the "missing" portion of the Cremona battleplate, "Because the bolt is always positioned half-way up the spring-frame". The technique has been apparently perfected to the point where one can even divine what was written on the missing part.
The known iron field frames are all obviously too large to be hand-held weapons. They would need some form of base and winch. They would be better described as a carroballista than cheiroballista or manuballista. Perhaps it would end much of the confusion if we could first all agree on some general term like ferroballista. That would leave the cart and other issues aside.

[M. Demetrius]

MODERATOR INJECTION: We can keep the conversation sweeter than this, boys, even if we disagree, don't you think? Take a breath, clear your thoughts, then present them.

[John Conyard]

I certainly like the term iron framed ballista.

None of the points raised are new, but are perhaps new to some reading them.

Reproductions of Roman artillery seem to illustrate many of the limitations of reconstruction. There are varying ways to interpret original drawings, which don't always marry up to archaeological finds. And it is difficult to obtain period materials, which makes it difficult if not impossible to gauge the effectiveness of the original machines. I have yet to see a reproduction machine that could outshoot a good yew warbow.

But modern reconstructions do at least enable people to understand parts of the mechanism, and experiment with the shape and design of bolts. Modern machines certainly fire the public's imagination.

But enough of these platitudes. :wink:

Let's have a shoot out at the Living Frontier event in May.

[Nerva]

Salve Clodius!

Marsden and Wilkin's research is certainly not the only scientific or published work out there and more is being conducted.

Do you know of anything recently published? I'd be very greteful for direction to any current research.

What is "scientific" about Alan's bronze locking rings. Where's the proof that they ever existed.

Two things here. Firstly your being disengenuous and dismissive of the research Alan carried out and the results of the build and trials. The locking rings we're a solution to an engineering problem. If you have an alternative suggestion then please let us know.

Counting Gornea, Orsova and Lyon there have been five iron field frames and 10 associated washers found. How many bronze locking rings?

Fair point, I can't argue with you there...

None, but to make the frames work as out-swingers they must have existed so lets conjure them up out of bronze. Never mind that being massive hunks of stable metal they should have long survived even the washers. The only logic I see there is circular, and the only "science" is alchemy. The same emperical method was used to discover the "missing" portion of the Cremona battleplate, "Because the bolt is always positioned half-way up the spring-frame". The technique has been apparently perfected to the point where one can even divine what was written on the missing part.

Now now, stop being silly, stick to the point at hand and make you argument specific.

The known iron field frames are all obviously too large to be hand-held weapons. They would need some form of base and winch. They would be better described as a carroballista than cheiroballista or manuballista.

Your probably right but Alan and Marsden would argue otherwise based on the texts.

[AuxArcher]

Marsden, alas, is dead, and what if Alan misinterpreted the texts, or creatively interpreted them to suit his own purposes? Some of us think he takes too many liberties, and Randi is just in bringing up that "battle plate", as it shows that Alan is capable of strange paths. No ancient text, to the best of my knowledge, states the slider has to be exactly center of spring frame.

A reconstructed machine is supposed to give us an idea of what a Roman machine does, not what it can do if you create solutions to engineering problems that the ancients didn't pursue or "improve" upon techology as it may have existed 2000 years ago.

Can you get Alan or Len to come speak in their own voices? That would take this in a very interesting direction.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

For new scientific tests check out http://wattsunique.com/blog/ . Both that Orsova sized engine and "Carnifex" are configured as in-swingers. Compare their performance with Legio VI's outswinger Orsova which uses Alan's locking rings.
Being more specific in my objections to the design, I refer you to Figures 34, 35, & 36 of Alan's own book "Roman Artillery". Figure #34 shows the actual shape of the forked ends of the arch and suggests that one fork was originally longer than the other. I disagree and cite figure #35 taken from codex P which indicates equal length forks. The simplest explanation is that the forks were slotted into the pi-brackets and pinned in place, but that only works with an in-swinger configuration. Even if you insist that the ends were uneven, Alan's reconstruction has one glaring inconsistency. The longer forks in figure #34 are diagonal from each other on the artifact. On Alan's machine (see figure #36) they are directly across from one another.
There you have it, a specific objection referencing an original manuscript and artifact, taken directly from a text published by an acknowledged expert. Anyone care to refute it?

[Nerva]

Salve Randi!

I refute that right now :lol: Fair point.

[quote]There you have it, a specific objection referencing an original manuscript and artifact, taken directly from a text published by an acknowledged expert. Anyone care to refute it?[\\quote]

Sorry Randi, I may well be misreading your post but which expert wrote the article you are referring to that takes objection to Alan's publication?

[Nerva]

Salve AuxArcher

Actually, a well made composite bow is not an easy thing to construct, and traditionally takes years to build, if we can trust the work of still living Korean bowyers and other composite builders.

hock:

You amaze me. A composite recurve bow can be built in less than a day and a week to finish. I've personally seen this done. Do you think the soldiers of Genghis Khan waited 'years' for their bow’s to be constructed?

A small torsion machine is relatively easy to build in comparison.

Really hock: With tempered arms and iron frame when the technology of the bow powered machines was old hat hock:

What do you think the Xantan machine was used for? A child's toy? Looks very much like a lethal combat weapon to me.

Looks are looks, what can it actually do? It may well have been a Childs toy, who knows? Build and test one and let us know the results.

If you can get Alan to contribute, excellent. HE never seems to, though.

I very much doubt Alan even knows this forum exists. Even if he did, I very much doubt he would want to involve himself in debate without serious scientific evidence being provided.

Valete

Nerva

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Salve Randi!

I refute that right now :lol: Fair point.

There you have it, a specific objection referencing an original manuscript and artifact, taken directly from a text published by an acknowledged expert. Anyone care to refute it?[\\quote]

Sorry Randi, I may well be misreading your post but which expert wrote the article you are referring to that takes objection to Alan's publication?

My fault. I was employing irony to show that a careful reader, using Alan's (the acknowledged expert's) own book (the published text) comparing an original artifact (Orsova arch, figure 34) and an excerpt from source material (codex P, figure 35), with a part of his reconstructed machine (the arch, firgure 36) can find an inconsistency (the changed orientation of the interpreted long fork sections). Chalk this up as one of the rare occasions when I've been accused of being too subtle. I promise not to make a habit of it.