Len Morgan\'s latest project....

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Good question Nerva. I only know the few things I hear.

Perhaps you have better responses to your questions?
I know Len has been extrememly busy with this for several months , to the exclusion of most other projects, and seeing the photos I can understand why.

But unfortunately, as I was unable to make it to help assemble Bestia for a variety of reasons, I have to pick up the scraps of info that I can, where I can. These things are another reason I got into re-enacting.

[Nerva]

Salve Byron

I only asked the question because I know how much work both Alan and Len have put into this project. It's one thing to write about weapon construction and model building, but quite another thing to actually build a full scale working machine. The research that has gone into the design and construction of this project is truly enormous. When the technical paper is published I believe it will set the bench mark for similar future projects and publications.

For all I know Len and Alan may have no problem with what's being discussed here, and may well have given their permission to publish details but, I would check with them first as this is a very serious project.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I can well imagine this is a benchmark project.
I look forward to seeing the published material too......but can't help wanting teasers. As I said, I never even managed to help assemble it, which I would have liked to have. It's not like I don't have some
industrial skills that could have assisted........but that being besides the point......

[Crispvs]

Duncan,

Yes the spring frames are clad in steel plating, which accounts for much of the weight at the head end. We felt that some extra metal might be needed at the end of the tail to stablise the weight.

Nerva,

A very perceptive question there. Len had seen the thread and was furious, when I spoke to him, about the publication on RAT of a picture of the machine before it had had its first public showing on 5th July. He was not so bothered about discussion of the balista but was also very annoyed at the title of the thread being 'Len Morgan's new toy'. He said that this name belittled the hard work of eighteen months, as well as the investment in time and money and failed to acknowledge the great contribution of Alan Wilkins and to a lesser extent Tom Feeley. In addition to this, although the use of the word 'toy' was clearly tougue in cheek, he felt that it was an inappropriate word to use when speaking of a well researched, time consuming and potentially dangerous piece of artillery. Alan said that he had not looked at RAT recently (suggesting that he, like Len, sometimes lurks here) so could not comment but I had the impression that his feelings were similar to Len's. I saw Tom but did not discuss the issue with him.

Crispvs

[AuxArcher]

This is a fascinating turn of events, if Len Morgan is furious over a simple discussion of his work. Perhaps he should come on and ask politely that no one post pictures and so on? And why would he do that? The cold fact of the matter is, 2,000+ years from the time of Vitruvius and the other engineers, we know very little about these ancient machines, and so all of us just interpreting a handful of ancient Greek texts and trying to come up with what are reasonable working machines based on today’s knowledge.

None of this, I would think, can be considered anyone’s “property,â€

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Dane,

You clearly did not read Crispvs' post properly. Len Morgan never did (and I trust would never) deny others the right to discuss a topic like this.

Len was not angrered about the discussion, but by:

a) the time of the discussion (BEFORE he showed the machine in public). I can understand that, but then I think that there was no official embargo in place, either. So he has no real reasons to be angry.

b) the 'belittling' of his project by the words used for the topic. I can understand that too, in theory, but as this was obviously tongue-in-cheek, and the rest of the discussion clearly expresssed respect for Len and his work, I see no reason here, too, for Len to be angry. Nevertheless I will change the wording to 'Len Morgan's latest project'.
I think that Len nor Alan did read this thread properly. Besides, if they are mad about a thread such as this, I think they should join RAT and properly discuss it with us. If not, I see no reason to get worked up about. :wink:

[Nerva]

AuxArcher\\n[quote]This is a fascinating turn of events, if Len Morgan is furious over a simple discussion of his work. Perhaps he should come on and ask politely that no one post pictures and so on? And why would he do that? The cold fact of the matter is, 2,000+ years from the time of Vitruvius and the other engineers, we know very little about these ancient machines, and so all of us just interpreting a handful of ancient Greek texts and trying to come up with what are reasonable working machines based on today’s knowledge.

None of this, I would think, can be considered anyone’s “property,â€

[Crispvs]

Dane,

Which ideas are the "strange and unworkable" ones?

Also, have you read Vitruvius, Heron or Philon in their original languages?

Crispvs

[Eleatic Guest]

Is this blue-black iron plating on top of the machine authentically Roman?

[AuxArcher]

Nerva, yes, indeed. In fact, my 2" machine will sport horsehair rope. I'm just touching up the stand for a static display of the machine for a timeline over this coming weekend. I expect the machine to be functional by the end of summer or fall, as I still have to cast the bronze washers.

Dane

[AuxArcher]

Hi Crispvs. No, I don't read Greek or Latin, perhaps you do. I do have Marsden's translations, since I seem to be able to handle English I expect you don't really believe only those who are only fluent in those ancient languages should be allowed to play, eh?

One that comes to mind immediately is the Iron framed balista Alan build that is featured on page 41 of Duncan's book Greek and Roman Artillery 399BC - AD 362. According to the caption, Alan increased both the inner diameter of the washer and the length of the arms to increase the power of the machine. But why? Why, if you are trying to reconstruct or interpret an ancient machine, you go and monkey around like that? Perhaps it punches through a steel sheet or the bolt can go farther down range, but you don't learn much about what the original may have been capable of.

The MG42 "shoulder stock" seems, to me, to be totally useless, but Len and Alan like that, and they keep showing up, such as the Xanten machine reconstruction. No recoil, no need for a shoulder stock.

Last one I can think of off the top of my head - looking at the Comitatus machine that Len built, he uses cotter pins quite liberally - such as around the circular ratchet. Is that an anciet way of fastening components together? If so, I may have to adapt that idea for my own work, but I suspect the Roman fabriactors would have used rivets. Maybe Alan or Len can come here and discuss these things?

There are other examples I have discussed with a colleague, but it is too late, so I will say good night.

[M. Demetrius]

Is this blue-black iron plating on top of the machine authentically Roman?

Yep. That's how it comes out of the forge, if you do nothing more than give it a wipe with an oil rag while the metal is still hot. Think of a cast iron skillet in the kitchen. Same process, more or less, same result, same moderate rust protection.

[D B Campbell]

Wow -- I missed this flurry of activity yesterday. That'll teach me to go off and watch Prince Caspian (it is a very poor movie, I'm afraid) rather than checking in to RAT! :wink:

The cold fact of the matter is, 2,000+ years from the time of Vitruvius and the other engineers, we know very little about these ancient machines, and so all of us just interpreting a handful of ancient Greek texts and trying to come up with what are reasonable working machines based on today’s knowledge.

True, Dane. But Alan Wilkins sets a new benchmark by studying the original manuscripts rather than just the versions printed by Marsden et al. In this way, he has the potential to turn up new evidence, overlooked by previous editors.

Len and Alan are no one’s masters in the art of torsion artillery, and are simply two men who have been messing about with ancient artillery longer than some of us.

I see what you mean, Dane. But the fact that Len and Alan have been "messing about" longer than the rest of us surely entitles them to a little respect?

Some of their ideas, in my view, are strange and unworkable in the first place, which may come from trying to force a pet theory to work no matter what. So from my end, their interpretations are safe as a baby with a blanket.

I'm not sure about that baby and its blanket, Dane! :? Also, I don't think Alan is trying to force pet theories. From our conversations, I'd say that his intention is to interpret the texts as best he can.

Why, if you are trying to reconstruct or interpret an ancient machine, you go and monkey around like that?

I, too, have reservations about Alan's cheiroballistra, but I respect his right to try out a different interpretation of the machine. Particularly when he publishes his ideas in detail, so that the rest of us can decide whether to agree or disagree. Personally, I take a minimalist view, which is to try and make sense of the evidence we have, without adding bits and pieces that we don't have. But every reconstruction is valuable in showing what might have been.

The ballista that's at the core of this thread ("Bestia"!) is exciting because Alan has gone back to the manuscripts of Vitruvius in an attempt to make sense of what is really (if we're brutally honest) gibberish. I'm certainly looking forward to the full publication, which will surely follow. I'm sure you are, too.

[AuxArcher]

Hi Duncan. Make no mistake that I highly respect the work and craftsmenship of those two men. A triumverate of two?

I do feel though that, to do this artillary stuff right, the shortcuts in materials and techniques have to be minimized or eliminated, or putting forward theories based on the results of questionable interpetations will be detrimental for perhaps generations. The use of cotter pins, of nylon rope, and so on has to leave big ???? in the final results of the work. And if you undertake even a very small machine and find out just what the huge amount of time and funds will go into one of those splendid toys, why take those shortcuts?

I used to be involved in black powder US Civil War competition shooting. But the "serious" competitors glass bedded their Enfields and Springfields, and worked on the triggers etc. so they could maximize their scores...and thus, they were not experiencing what a private soldier of 1863 would have used in the great battles.

Is Alan totally fluent in Greek and Latin? Are his translations to be trusted, and have they been checked by other language scholars? Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to have multiple translations of the original documents compared and disected. Does such an animal exist?

Like all of us, I am interested in what this new machine does! And all the other new machines that are going to come down the pike. And I am guessing that every single new toy (I do think of my own work as big, lethal toys ) will create brand new discussions and passions.

[D B Campbell]

Is Alan totally fluent in Greek and Latin? Are his translations to be trusted, and have they been checked by other language scholars?

Yup. Ex-Classics teacher. I think he worked with Eric Marsden, but I'm not sure. He certainly put me in touch with Marsden's family when I was trying to clear the copyright on a photo for [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363[/amazon]. But the good thing is that he publishes, fully and promptly -- so we can all make up our own mind. You can bet that, even now, he's working up a paper for JRMES!

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to have multiple translations of the original documents compared and disected. Does such an animal exist?

Multiple translations? Well, each translator does his best to interpret what Vitruvius et al. originally meant. The real problem is that the technical texts often use words that don't crop up anywhere else, so it requires an educated guess to translate properly. (The key word there is "educated"! )

Ideally, any translation is backed up by a commentary, where the translator highlights any difficulties and explains why they've gone for a particular translation of a difficult bit. You can see this in Marsden's [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery. Technical Treatises[/amazon] (which I hope you've got a copy of!). And, of course, Alan Wilkins has included this kind of commentary in his interpretation of the Cheiroballistra text in JRMES. Also, in his interpretation of Vitruvius' scorpio (also in JRMES).

That's why I have absolute faith in his ballista. If he's gone for a particular interpretation, you can be sure (a) that there's a good reason for it, and (b) that he'll highlight the fact in his commentary. So, if you don't like it, you're free to disagree. But you'd better have a good reason!!