05-06-2009, 01:06 PM
Nerva,
Of course we’re all friends. Who else cares about this stuff besides fellow artillery geeks. Like Jesse James says “Do you know what I’d say to you if I didn’t like ya???......nuthin’!”
As far as determining when weapons were introduced and exactly how they functioned we’ll just have to settle for a circumstantial case at best. I fear that even if we found a complete engine along with a copy of the operator’s manual signed and dated by the reigning emperor there would still be controversy. It may be naïve, but the way I approach the subject is to start with the basic assumption that period authors and historians knew what they were writing about, sculptors tried to faithfully represent their subject matter, and artifacts are trumps. If two written sources appear to conflict the one more likely to have first-hand knowledge is favored. Better yet, look for a way that both can be right. If two answers can be imagined for a question of engineering, the simpler one is better. If your theory requires you to question the veracity of your only source or add “missing” parts, perhaps you should take a step back and look for alternative explanations. After all, “it is a poor workman who blames his tools”.
There are three reasons I push the introduction of the iron-framers back to 87-88.
First and foremost, Dio says so. You can quibble over matters of translation and phrasing all day, but the evidence points to weapons being captured then, and technology transfer as part of the peace treaty. Writing seventy years after the event isn't so far removed. I wasn't at D-Day or the Bulge, but I can tell you stories from men who did. He deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there is more direct evidence.
Second, Cremona is the last uncontested evidence of a large wooden outswinger. Trajan’s is the first solid evidence of an iron-framer. Split the difference between 69 AD and 101 AD and you get 85 AD. Basic evolutionary theory says that two competing species will usually exist side by side for some time before one wins out (Homosapiens & Neanderthal) and that related species occupying a different niche will usually coexist with their evolution decoupled ( man & other primates/large iron-framers & small wooden manuballistae like Vedinnius ). If the major reason for moving the springs apart was something as esoteric as field-of-view and not a dramatic increase in power, then one would expect them to have existed side by side even longer.
Third, delaying the iron-framer concept until the end of the century forces one dismiss Heron as its most likely author and to then conjure up a “Pseudo Heron” to take his place. Down south they call that “climbing a tree to tell a tale, when you could tell the truth standing on the ground.”
At the end of the day the best standard we can achieve is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. A new find (like Hatra) can always come along to overturn our decision, but that doesn’t excuse us from making our best effort based on the evidence at hand.
Of course we’re all friends. Who else cares about this stuff besides fellow artillery geeks. Like Jesse James says “Do you know what I’d say to you if I didn’t like ya???......nuthin’!”
As far as determining when weapons were introduced and exactly how they functioned we’ll just have to settle for a circumstantial case at best. I fear that even if we found a complete engine along with a copy of the operator’s manual signed and dated by the reigning emperor there would still be controversy. It may be naïve, but the way I approach the subject is to start with the basic assumption that period authors and historians knew what they were writing about, sculptors tried to faithfully represent their subject matter, and artifacts are trumps. If two written sources appear to conflict the one more likely to have first-hand knowledge is favored. Better yet, look for a way that both can be right. If two answers can be imagined for a question of engineering, the simpler one is better. If your theory requires you to question the veracity of your only source or add “missing” parts, perhaps you should take a step back and look for alternative explanations. After all, “it is a poor workman who blames his tools”.
There are three reasons I push the introduction of the iron-framers back to 87-88.
First and foremost, Dio says so. You can quibble over matters of translation and phrasing all day, but the evidence points to weapons being captured then, and technology transfer as part of the peace treaty. Writing seventy years after the event isn't so far removed. I wasn't at D-Day or the Bulge, but I can tell you stories from men who did. He deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there is more direct evidence.
Second, Cremona is the last uncontested evidence of a large wooden outswinger. Trajan’s is the first solid evidence of an iron-framer. Split the difference between 69 AD and 101 AD and you get 85 AD. Basic evolutionary theory says that two competing species will usually exist side by side for some time before one wins out (Homosapiens & Neanderthal) and that related species occupying a different niche will usually coexist with their evolution decoupled ( man & other primates/large iron-framers & small wooden manuballistae like Vedinnius ). If the major reason for moving the springs apart was something as esoteric as field-of-view and not a dramatic increase in power, then one would expect them to have existed side by side even longer.
Third, delaying the iron-framer concept until the end of the century forces one dismiss Heron as its most likely author and to then conjure up a “Pseudo Heron” to take his place. Down south they call that “climbing a tree to tell a tale, when you could tell the truth standing on the ground.”
At the end of the day the best standard we can achieve is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. A new find (like Hatra) can always come along to overturn our decision, but that doesn’t excuse us from making our best effort based on the evidence at hand.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
