Our new cheiroballista...

[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.