07-10-2008, 06:46 PM
Dane,
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to sound offensive and no I don't expect everyone to read the ancient languages. I don't and so I don't expect other people to. It is simply that I know Alan has good command (as did Marsden) of Greek and Latin and so will always have a better understanding than I will if I only read translations. This is a sad fact but true.
I was not aware of Alan making any modifications to the dimensions of a machine and normally I find him to be very firm on the fact that things like the spring hole diameter are integral to the overall formula for producing all of the dimensions of the machine and so all the dimensions of the washers and the spring holes have to be correct to achieve the desired result. Perhaps it was a misprint. Maybe Duncan can comment?
I have often noted that Len's washers tend to be somewhat taller than most of the pictures I have seen of the real things but this in itself does not affect the crucial measurment of the spring hole diameter.
The vertical positioning of the crescentic piece of the cheiroballistra in Len and Alan's reconstruction is not intended to be used as a shoulder stock as far as I know (I have never seen it used this way). I have normally seen it used as a pair of handles used the stablise the cheiroballistra during use. Alan's objection to suggestions that its use is to facilitate the machine's use as a belly bow or 'gastrophetes' is that Heron states that winches were added to artillery because tortion springs made them too powerful to draw by the force that a human being could on his own.
I am not totally convinced of the validity of the use I have normally seen this piece used for but unfortunately although the manuscripts are quite specific about the shape of this piece they do not give any clear indication of what it is for (as far as I know) so we are all left to make our own best guesses.
Incidentally, Alan's main objection to some of the alternative reconstructions of the cheiroballistra is that if it surplanted the earlier Vitruvian catapult, it is reasonable to think that it must have been at least as good as the Vitruvian version, if not better. Therefore, if a reconstucted ceiroballistra / manuballista cannot match the performance of a reconstructed Vitruvian catapult (whose details we have more information on) then it is unlikely to be an accurate reconstruction.
Crispvs
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to sound offensive and no I don't expect everyone to read the ancient languages. I don't and so I don't expect other people to. It is simply that I know Alan has good command (as did Marsden) of Greek and Latin and so will always have a better understanding than I will if I only read translations. This is a sad fact but true.
I was not aware of Alan making any modifications to the dimensions of a machine and normally I find him to be very firm on the fact that things like the spring hole diameter are integral to the overall formula for producing all of the dimensions of the machine and so all the dimensions of the washers and the spring holes have to be correct to achieve the desired result. Perhaps it was a misprint. Maybe Duncan can comment?
I have often noted that Len's washers tend to be somewhat taller than most of the pictures I have seen of the real things but this in itself does not affect the crucial measurment of the spring hole diameter.
The vertical positioning of the crescentic piece of the cheiroballistra in Len and Alan's reconstruction is not intended to be used as a shoulder stock as far as I know (I have never seen it used this way). I have normally seen it used as a pair of handles used the stablise the cheiroballistra during use. Alan's objection to suggestions that its use is to facilitate the machine's use as a belly bow or 'gastrophetes' is that Heron states that winches were added to artillery because tortion springs made them too powerful to draw by the force that a human being could on his own.
I am not totally convinced of the validity of the use I have normally seen this piece used for but unfortunately although the manuscripts are quite specific about the shape of this piece they do not give any clear indication of what it is for (as far as I know) so we are all left to make our own best guesses.
Incidentally, Alan's main objection to some of the alternative reconstructions of the cheiroballistra is that if it surplanted the earlier Vitruvian catapult, it is reasonable to think that it must have been at least as good as the Vitruvian version, if not better. Therefore, if a reconstucted ceiroballistra / manuballista cannot match the performance of a reconstructed Vitruvian catapult (whose details we have more information on) then it is unlikely to be an accurate reconstruction.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
