07-14-2008, 09:23 PM
Happy Day!
The UPS driver just dropped off my very own copies of Marsden's Vols. I & II. Now I won't have to e-mail others (Thanks Dane) and ask them to look for referrences that might help prove or disprove my latest theory or as some would say, heresy. While Dane is reading up to find out what, if anything, is said about the relative positions of the string, case, and frame, I would like to interject that what brought the possibilty to our attention that a frame could be mounted "underslung" (lower on the case and therefore vertically off-center) was a wire-frame drawing analysis of the Cupid Gem. It showed a distinct offset which did not square with the conventional wisdom. This ideal either originated, or was at least championed by Mr. Wilkins. I'm sure he can clarify it's origin far better than I. If one cites Vedinnius or the more recent Xanten find, I would point out that they are most likely hand-held weapons. Under my current view of the catapult universe, this would indicate that they were subject to a different set of design criteria than stand mounted weapons. Being oversprung (due to the need for compactness) and therefore posessing shorter arms, the angle at which an offset string met the slider would be greater than on an undersprung larger weapon. Perhaps that would cause problems. A quick glance at the at Marsdens Gatraphetes (T.T. p 47) the angle on a theoretical underslung Cremona would be no greater. Another point which would make underslinging desirable would be everyone's favorite catch-all "field of view". By lowering the top hole carrier relative to the case it is much easier to see one's target when firing elevated at long range. This would probably not be as beneficial on hand held weapons where one would likely be using a more direct aim through the aperture.
I depart now to cook supper and read my new books, confident that I have caused enough aggravation and/or boredom for now.
The UPS driver just dropped off my very own copies of Marsden's Vols. I & II. Now I won't have to e-mail others (Thanks Dane) and ask them to look for referrences that might help prove or disprove my latest theory or as some would say, heresy. While Dane is reading up to find out what, if anything, is said about the relative positions of the string, case, and frame, I would like to interject that what brought the possibilty to our attention that a frame could be mounted "underslung" (lower on the case and therefore vertically off-center) was a wire-frame drawing analysis of the Cupid Gem. It showed a distinct offset which did not square with the conventional wisdom. This ideal either originated, or was at least championed by Mr. Wilkins. I'm sure he can clarify it's origin far better than I. If one cites Vedinnius or the more recent Xanten find, I would point out that they are most likely hand-held weapons. Under my current view of the catapult universe, this would indicate that they were subject to a different set of design criteria than stand mounted weapons. Being oversprung (due to the need for compactness) and therefore posessing shorter arms, the angle at which an offset string met the slider would be greater than on an undersprung larger weapon. Perhaps that would cause problems. A quick glance at the at Marsdens Gatraphetes (T.T. p 47) the angle on a theoretical underslung Cremona would be no greater. Another point which would make underslinging desirable would be everyone's favorite catch-all "field of view". By lowering the top hole carrier relative to the case it is much easier to see one's target when firing elevated at long range. This would probably not be as beneficial on hand held weapons where one would likely be using a more direct aim through the aperture.
I depart now to cook supper and read my new books, confident that I have caused enough aggravation and/or boredom for now.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
