01-29-2009, 02:03 PM
Quote:I feel that far too much emphasis is placed on the direct fire role. A ballista could be used like a mortar, but its far more likely that it was used like a howitzer. There is a significant difference. You make use of artillery's superior range and lob the projectiles out to keep the enemy's siege works and weapons at bay. If you don't hit, keep firing until you do. The main reason for placing one's artillery in towers is to gain the additional range and observation that an elelvated platform provides. If you wait for the enemy to close the distance to where a weapon can be used direct LOS (line of sight) you will be in danger of being inundated by lighter weapons such as slings and arrows which have a much higher rate of fire.
Artillery in towers were intended for antipersonnel use. The elevation gives better line of sight. If you look over your sources you'll find they are often described as being with archers and slingers. They had better range than bows (as is pretty clear from the Macedonian use of catapults to support a river crossing against Scythians) allowing defending archers to be picked off from out of range. They also allowed defenders hiding behind shields and wooden screens to be picked off. This was the case when they were first used and continued to be the case throughout antiquity. (admittedly i have only studied up until the late republican period).
Heavier catapults for attacking walls were built seperately. After a few unsucessful attempts by Demetrius Poliorcetes to try mounting heavy artillery in towers nobody else followed his example. Large artillery used by attackers was always seperate from the siege towers. The defenders may have placed them in towers to improve range and protection but that says nothing about how they were fired. Single arm machines, like the onager and whatever the one armed catapults metioned offhand by Philon in his poliorketika was, were used as indirect firing weapons but the balista was almost certainly a direct firing weapon.
Colin
