Orsova kamirion upgrade

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Like you guys, I've been following Nick's blog, on and off, for a while, and marvelling at his achievement.

I like that you've made the forked ends of your kimarion even. A lot of folks have made their front fork significantly longer than the rear (or is it vice-versa?).

Interestingly, this asymmetry is one of the features of the original cheiroballistra, as described in the Greek text of that name. Whether this feature was carried over into the larger versions of the machine is unknown. Frustratingly, as so often in archaeology, the one piece that might have helped here, the Orsova kamarion, is broken at the critical areas. (The reason for the asymmetry has not been adequately explained, so we do not know its significance. Yet.)

Duncan, as you have noted Heron's cheiroballistra text does indicate symmetrically opposed forks of greatly different length. They are also curved while the Orsova's appear to have been straight. Little differences like this as well as major incongruities such as the washer diameter, spring height, and omission of components (winch & base) are the reason why I feel it is a mistake to rely too slavishly upon Heron's text when reconstructing a larger and much later machine. It is akin to using the assembly manual for a rifle to reconstruct a cannon. While there will certainly be commonalities of function which may serve as a guide, the parts you've found will not likely be simply scaled up versions of the ones in the manual. Factor in three hundred years between the two and the margin of error only increases. This is one case where I feel it is better to "listen" to the artifacts and follow general principles for machines filling that role in the arsenal than to try to make them conform to an out-of-date text. Especially when there is no evidence that the cheiroballistra as origially described ever ammounted to anything more than an experiment or theoretical exercise.

Heron's only other foray into artillery Belopoeica was a rehash of Ctesibius' original work, while many of the other inventions credited to him (vending machines, automatic theaters, thunder boxes, etc..) were little more than theatrical gimmics or parlor tricks. Harnessing wind to power a pipe organ (windmill) and steam to spin a ball (the first steam engine) are the two most prominent examples of technologial breakthroughs he never seems to have fully exploited. Why is it then inconceiveable that this happened with his weapon as well? The only difference in this case appears to be that someone may have recognized the value in his design and developed into the weapons later seen on Trajan's Column. Apparently beasts and slaves were abundant enough that potential sources of motive power could be left on the table, but improvements in weaponry were always valued by the state. That's a lesson Hiram Maxim learned when he perfected his machinegun.