Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are Early Artillery Towers Misinterpreted?
#4
In my own research (my undergrad dissertation was on 'the evolving use and cultural representation of artillery in the Roman world') I have found that it is that both were viable, and that there is little relationship between the size of a tower's openings and the weapon behind it. Anyone with a ranged weapon (except a slinger due to space) would have been a valuable asset. As artillery works best with a height advantage, and had the potential to cause serious harm to enemy morale by gruesome spectacle, it would have made sense to place artillery as high as possible to get the most out of it. However, accounts of the Siege of Syracuse tell us that even the narrow slits lower down could have artillery behind them, as some unfortunate Roman soldiers found out when they tried to put up ladders against the walls. Artillery lower down is also recommended by Philon of Byzantium (who was writing just before the Second Punic War) in case an attack should slip beneath the firing arc of the upper towers.

I therefore suspect that artillerymen and archers could have operated anywhere in those towers, and probably moved about depending on enemy movements. That being said, the upper layer would have been the best vantage point as it got the most out of their machines and the wider openings maximised this advantage by offering a wider field of fire. So to answer the original question, the large rectangular windows probably are there primarily for the benefit of artillerymen, but certainly not their exclusive use.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Are Early Artillery Towers Misinterpreted? - by James Currie - 05-17-2018, 10:41 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Early Greek siege towers Eleatic Guest 4 3,508 01-18-2010, 01:00 PM
Last Post: D B Campbell

Forum Jump: