Was artillery used in the field?

[Ildar]

Allow me to cite here our (with Aitor Iriarte) discussion on the old RAT.

We prepared first publication of Anonymi De rebus bellicis in Russian. I commented two ballistae there and the last sentence of ascogefiri. Below are some fragments of my comments translated into English.

Before the introduction of the carroballistae by the Roman army about AD 100, the occasions of catapults’ employment in the battlefield were rather rare. The machines were deployed on the beforehand-prepared position, in addition usually fortified by temporary ramparts and defensive works (Livy, XXXII, 5, 13; 10, 11; XLIV, 35, 9; 22; Caes. BG, II, 8) or placed on hills and heights (Polyaen, II, 38, 2; Caes. BG, VIII, 14; Tac. Hist., III, 23). Besides, Romans have used artillery either for the defence of their field-camp (Caes. BG, VII, 41; Tac. Hist., III, 29) or for the attack of the enemy’s field-works, especially when it was passive (Tac. Ann., II, 20). Static warfare of Caesar and Pompey at Dirrhachium can be served as a spectacular example of such sort of operations (Caes. BС, III, 45, 51, 56, 63). Attempts to station machines on open position, in front of the battle line or at its intervals, likely didn’t lead to a desirable result (Plb., XI, 12, 4).
The real field artillery was created only when the all-metal spring-frames have invented for arrow-shooters and, consequently, battle mass of these pieces of artillery was decreased, which allowed for mounting them on mobile carriage.
Ballistae on military carts appeared for the first time on Trajan’s Column (AD 113); these engines have two wheels only (TC 104-5; 163-4) and most likely harnessed with two mules instead of horses. The same two-wheeled artillery cart, with mules harnessed and possibly with a base and stock of arrow-shooting ballista mounted, depicted on the Column of Marcus Aurelius (AD 192). The absence of the machine’s spring-frame can be explained by the fact that it was probably dismantled for transportation and storage. The earliest literary evidence of employment of ballistae on military carts in the battlefields of the Bosporian-Roman wars referred to the period from the end of third century to the beginning of fourth century AD (Const. Porph. De adm. imp., 53 || 28-44, 131-135). In the battle near the Bosporian city-walls ballistarii of Chersonesos with cheirobolistras on military carts covered false retreat, probably being moved from rear side of the battle line and operated from ambushes. Apparently, the detachment of ballistarii, armed manuballistae, in armed forces of Chersonesos played a rather significant role and according the message of the author of the treatise has made the decisive contribution to a victory in battles near the Bosporus and on the Ister river. The list of materials for manufacture and repairs established to annual output by the emperor Constantine II (Const. Porph. De adm. imp., 53 || 150) specifies that these cheirobolistras most likely were torsion engines with all-metal spring-frame. The list included sinews (neuron), probably intended for manufacture of spring-cord, hemp (kannabon), either for the cord or for the bowstrings, iron (sideron), probably for manufacture of spring-frames, olive oil (elaion), either to lubricate sinews (Philon, Bel., W61) or to preserve iron parts of the machines from rust.
The best evidence for the battlefield use of ballistae contained in late-Roman (latter half of fourth century) treatise of Flavius Vegetius Renatus Epitoma Rei Militari. There he sometimes mentions hand-arrow-shooters – manuballistae (Veg. Epit., II, 15; IV, 22) – and men who worked this weapons – manuballistarii (Veg. Epit., III, 14; IV, 21). The main battle line of the antiqua legio, according to Vegetius, was formed up in six parallel lines (acies). Tragularii stood behind the first line (Veg. Epit., II, 15), operating manuballistae and arcuballistae (probably, being an ancestor of medieval crossbow). Some of the carroballistae and large quantity of manuballistarii were in the fifth line, mixed with an light infantry and all kinds of throwers (Veg. Epit., III, 14), while the large carroballistae with the largest range took position behind the battle line (Veg. Epit., III, 24). In the days of Vegetius for travelling of artillery carts, side by side with the mules, the horses were already used (Veg. Epit., III, 24): carroballistas aliquanto maiores … superpositas curriculis cum binis equis vel mulis post aciem convenit ordinari … Probably, it was associated either with necessity to increase mobility of units of ballistarii or with enlargement of engines itself. By the way, two carroballistae, depicted on Trajan's Column (TC 104-5) most likely shooting, also placed behind the battle line. According to Ps.-Mauricius, ballistae mounted on carriages were distributed evenly all over the infantry battle line, however most of these pieces of artillery were placed on wings (Mauric. Strat., XII, B, 18), that quite corresponds to the position of machines in the battle order of Arrianus (Arr. Alan., 19).
Late-Roman anonymous treatise De rebus bellicis contains one more mention of mobile engine. Unlike the previous ones, ballista quadrirotis, harnessed with two armoured horses, have four-wheel carriage.

By the way, Aitor, turn your attention that ballistarii of Chersonesos operated cheirobolistras, mounted on military cart (harmata polemika) only. Even you 9-kg reconstruction of cheiroballistra is too heavy for fully hand-held weapon.

---------------

Avete,

Good recollection, Ildar! Nevertheless, Ps-Maurice's Strategikon deserves a more detailed quote: "There should be other wagons carrying revolving ballistae at both ends, also the artillery crews, carpenters, metal workers, all under a single officer" (XII, B, 1, 6) This is a very interesting phrase, let's remember that we possess no description of a carroballista and also that we don't know for sure if the wheeled machines on Trajan's Column are really carroballistae or just ballistae being transported on common carts and forced into action by chance (It's a real possibility that the Column's cartoonist was biased to depict exceptional facts, rather than common ones). We could even wonder if Constantine's 'cheirobolistrai' on military wagons were not just the same thing...

About the cheiroballistra, two ideas: First, our conception of which is wieldy and which is unwieldy can be as modern as we are. A heavy mediaeval crossbow weighed around 7 kg without its windlass (almost two kg more) and most sixteenth century muskets were in the range of 9-10 kg. Of course, they used many times a forked stick to help in holding the weapons but that didn't prevented them to be termed as hand-held weapons. Second, although not directly related with the subject, remember that Greeks termed gastraphetai all the heavy non-torsion arrow-shooters, all of them possessing stands and windlasses. Maybe (only maybe) the term 'cheiroballistra' was shifted to a wider meaning in Byzantine times.
All this said, of course that any minimally brained manuballistarius would have preferred to shoot his machine using the benefits of a parapet or a wagon's side!(Anyway, please remember that my 'cheiroballistra' is reconstructed only on Ps-Heron's text and, if it was a real weapon, it was undoubtedly not the only extant kind of manuballista, the Gornea field-frames and the Volubilis washers speak of heavier machines, though being still manuballistae)

The complete phrase on the distribution of ballista carrying wagons is. "The ballista carrying wagons should be distributed along the whole front, with most, included the most powerful, stationed on the flanks" (id, 18)
On (id, 21), there are references to small ballistae mounted on the prows of warships, remember the PBRs at Mainz!

Oh, Ildar,
I forgot to make you an awkward question. What do you think is the propulsive system of both ballistae at De Rebus?

---------------

Thank you, Aitor and Sander.

As to this paragraph of Ps.-Maurikios (Id., 6), I assumed in my comments that probably this fact explains crew of Vegetius' carroballistae size (11 men).

I don't think that the sculptors have depicted any uncommon things on the Column, there is a quite clear sequence of events. But you are right in one: now we can only guess what this pieces of artillery looked like actually and make on that score hypotheses only. As to heavy medieval crossbows, mentioned by you, they had enormous draw force (300-600 kg). Therefore their and especially muskets' military efficiency was, I think, many times more.

Do you believe that medieval copyist could not be mistaken in transmission of digits?

The matter is that I am writing the paper about cheiroballistra too and independently has come to a conclusion that it arms, most likely, were pointed inwards. You have some forestalled me there and I have learned about Anstee's reconstruction only from your publication. But I am initially building two machines. The reconstruction of the machine according to Wilkins is already completed. The drawings of my own interpretation I have already given to a forge. In addition to discussion of my version of this machine and criticism your (many) and Wilkins (even more) ones, there will be mathematical simulation of these two arrangements (inwards and outwards). I hope that I'll complete all by the end of the year.

By the way, I consider that transfer of inward scheme of arms, after Prou, on Hellenistic engines is unreasonable.

As to your question, I don't have any doubts practically that a propulsive force of both ballistae were torsion springs and that they had iron spring-frames; and arcus ferreus is none other than kamarion. Arguments of the principal opponent of this version, Chevedden, are very weak and unconvincing. Besides he has translated these fragments very carelessly and fantasized much. If you want I can comment in more detail. By the way, illustrations to this treatise is one more indirect proof of the inwards theory. And the application of manuballistae for a cover of the river crossing indicates that they were not such a low-power machines.

And more. If you want, I can translate and post the same comment on support by catapults of the river crossing. Though, the text there is larger and consequently required the time for translation.

---------------

Hello, Ildar, sorry for the delay!

I look forward to see your cheiroballistra (I use to say that there will be as many different reconstructions as scholars are!But remember always, Ps-Heron's cheiroballistra is the incomplete description of ONLY ONE PECULIAR -or concrete, if you prefer- MACHINE! Therefore, we should carefully avoid mixing it with other cheiroballistrai or manuballistae that clearly existed. Even more to equate the small machine to the whole family of metallic-framed ballistae) Last week-end I saw Bernard Jacob's (ESG) one at Tarragona. It is an outswinger with long arms, the frame pushed to the extreme forward tip of the case and the kambestria placed like Baatz says. Its more interesting feature is that he has widened the 'handle' at the back of the slider to engage two short side ratchets. That enables to grade the strength of the weapon, unlike my (After Prou and Baatz) nail, which only allows for one cocking position. Jacob's machine's springs are 1 1/3 d thick. He claims a range of 150 meters, but I've not seen the machine at work.
I've been always in doubt about the real effectiveness of Ps-Heron's machine as a real war weapon (now I'm a little less sceptic, I've surpassed 70 meters with the springs not heavily twisted, after modifying the arms I shall test the machine at full power of its horsehair rope springs) but the 1 1/3 d figure is not arguable, in my opinion. In the treatise there are three interlocked measurements, really (the kambestrion's ring's hole, the washer's hole and the lever's length) and all three match together very well. I'll insert here a paragraph of my first paper on the cheiroballistra, already published on JRMES 11 (Sorry, folks!)

The inner diameter of the washers
This is one of the main points in my argumentation. Let us remember that the figure given by PH for the inner diameter of the kambestria rings (B d = 2 d) have been refuted by previous reconstructors as inadequate and corrupt because of its smallness. Marsden proposed 3Ѕ d (GC d), Baatz rectified it to 3 d (G d), finally, Wilkins realized that these corrections were palaeographically unsound and sought to reconcile his assumed wider diameter and pa laeography by turning what the mss text clearly says is the inner breadth to outer diameter (but we have already talked about the respective meanings of euros and platos earlier) and then changing B d (2 d) to E d (5 d) .
Consequently, they continue, the inner diameter of the washers that appear in the mss text (AG d = 11/3 d) cannot be right. Marsden suggests 21/3 d (BG d), Baatz accepts it and adds 2Ѕ d (BC d) as another possibility, Wilkins simply adheres, this time without regard to the palaeographical difficulties .
What happens with the levers, then? Marsden leaves untouched the length which PH marked for them (G d = 3 d), with the result of clumsily short levers in respect to the washers and thetotal impossibility of using the spanner for twisting the springs. Baatz also retains the length of 3 d, but the ensemble gains in appearance as he makes the external diameter of the washer of 3 d, too; anyway, it is again impossible to use the spanner. Wilkins once more realizes this problem and, therefore, dares to do what his predecessors seemed afraid of doing: to recover the much needed overhang by lengthening the levers, leaning on the handy palaeog-raphical excuse of the repetition (GG d = 31/3 d) .
Summing up, although the practical use of only slightly wider springs is attested from the archaeological record (Ephyra 6 = 34 mm, Elginhaugh = 35 mm ), the search for a powerful weapon has forced almost everybody to alter the spring diameter given by PH, after which, it is unavoidable to change the inner diameter of the kambestria rings and the length of the levers. This means the modification of three perfectly interrelated figures given in the text, which should be under little or no suspicion of being altered (all three at the same time) by careless copyists in all the manuscripts (there is no reading variants at these points), which stem at least from two different first copies of a supposed original . I think that, in any event, this heavy ‘emendation’ of a quite coherent ancient text is plainly excessive. Marsden had decided beforehand that ‘Heron of Alexandria’s second artillery treatise, the Cheiroballistra, provides the description of a very powerful, torsion, arrow shooting engine’ . If a spring diameter of 11/3 d (25 mm) did not fulfill his expectations, even if the cheiroballistra was ‘little more than a toy’ , nothing authorizes him or his followers to change the text numerals at will: due to the total lack of information about the machine’s purpose, the power output should be the conclusion, not the premise of our reconstruction work.

Oh, by the way, you'll have surely realized that my machine is now configured as an inswinger. Things have evolved a little since I wrote that first paper in 1999 and started testing seriously the machine!

Enough about the cheiro for now (I must write a section on the reconstruction for the web page, I suppose that you've already visited it)

My question on the power source of the Rebus machines was an indirect way of testing your opinion on inswinging . Now you've made it clear! I've got a paper on torsion ballistae and inswinging forthcoming in the Spanish journal 'Gladius' (the paper is written in English). I've used the Rebus' illustrations as an additional proof for inswinging. I have heavily shortened that paper for the section on my web page and eliminated the quote to 'De Rebus'. If we both have arrived independently to the same conclusion, maybe we're on the good trail!
On Hellenistic machines, please, just keep on thinking on them (but from the very beginning, read the treatises again and act as if Schramm's reconstruction were only and arguable new hypothesis!) When published, I'll hang my paper on the web page, so everybody can anger reading it. In the meantime, I've put that abstract to allow people to start sharpening their knives.

I'm really enjoying this meeting with another artilleryman, we're really a scarce kind of maniacs!

Aitor

P.S. Aitor, De Rebus Bellicis will be published in the middle of this year at last. Sure I’ll send it to you with translation of my part of comments into English.

P.P.S. Unfortunately I didn’t receive the e-mail with your opinion on my onager’s interpretation in case you have written it. This winter I had problems with my e-mail account (anti-spam software worked incorrectly).

P.P.P.S. Now I’m fully confident that you are right about figures of the pseudo-Heron’s treatise. As for this there is amazing evidence! It is an archaeological find of tiny bronze kambestrion excavated in 1965 and still unknown to the western scholar community. One of these days I’ll send you the copy of paper about it and my correspondence with the person discovered it.

P.P.P.P.S. Aitor, you somewhere on RAT mentioned about Philon's "Poliorketika". I have "Exzerpte aus Philons Mechanik B.VII und VIII" by Schramm and Diels. I can scan and send it to you.