Artilary

[Anonymous]

To save me reading up can anyone tell me who operated the artillary ? was there a speacial cadre ?<br>
<br>
Conal <p></p><i></i>

[Matthew Amt]

As I understand it, there was one scorpio or catapulta (small bolt-shooter) per century, and one ballista (larger stone-thrower) per cohort. Presumably each centurion delegated a few of his men to man their machine in any battle it was used (and these bolt-shooters were used as field artillery), though I don't recall how large the crews were. Two to four men, I'm guessing, and I wouldn't be surprised if this duty was regularly assigned to the guys who were most talented at it. And I believe the catapultae were massed in batteries for more effect. With 59 or 60 machines per legion, you could have 3 batteries of about 20 machines each, which could concentrate their fire on any particular point in the enemy line. Even at only one shot per minute per machine, that's an aimed and accurate shot every 3 seconds, for that battery. Ouch.<br>
<br>
The stone-throwers would need more men, depending on the size, but were generally only used in sieges.<br>
<br>
I think there were officers (optiones?) in charge of maintaining the artillery, but don't know if that included supervising them in action. Anyone else got specifics about that?<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

In addition, since probably half the work on scorpions or any catapult types was relatively unskilled muscle work (moving it around and rewinding it) , it wouldn't surprise me if the Artillery wasn't also a convenient place to station lightly wounded or recovering soldiers -- ones who couldn't be placed in a combat cohort but could haul on a rope.<br>
<br>
Rich<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rkmvca>rkmvca</A> at: 7/18/04 5:00 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

One does wonder who was behind the artillery. Caesar, with his usual shortness, mentions the machine and its accuracy, rather than the marksman shooting.<br>
scorpione as latere dextro traiectus exanimatusque concidit. Hunc ex proximis unus iacentem transgressus eodem illo munere fungebatur; eadem ratione ictu scorpionis exanimato alteri successit tertius et tertio quartus. etc. Caesar B.G. Lib. VII. 25 sect.25<br>
<br>
Not bad shooting!<br>
<br>
Kevin <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

translation?<br>
<br>
<hangs head in shame; slinks to corner><br>
<br>
Rich <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Caesar mentions this occurence as something worthy of mention and not to be overlooked. The Gauls had burnt the tops of the Roman towers and hoped to win the day. A certain Gaul was throwing stuff in the fire when the passage begins when this poor Gaul<br>
<br>
"being pierced on the right side with a scorpion and killed he droped dead. Then another one from those near him having stepped over him lieing there, performed the same task (throwing stuff in the fire). The second having died in the same way from a blow (sting) of a scorpio a third follwed and a fourth after the third." This went on until the fire was out.<br>
<br>
Sorry for the rough translation. I generally try to be more faithful to the original than poetic.<br>
<br>
One can easily imagine the crew of the scorpion picking off the Gauls one after another. Caesar says that they kept it up. One wonders how many Gauls were actually killed by this scorpion in this incident. He only mentions four specifically, but implies more. I wonder if such a feat of markmanship would have been common. Caesar seems to find it interesting enough to report.<br>
<br>
Kevin <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Well there is the incident in Ammianus where a scorpion is used to try and kill Sapor II at the siege of Amida. They actually hit the man next to him - Grumbates IIRC.<br>
<br>
It appears they were very accurate and that targeting specific people was a realistic proposition. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Noow if the ancient authors would just give us exact details on the distances involved.<br>
<br>
Kevin <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the translation. As for ranges, I'd say that assuming "greater than bowshot" would be safe. Since many Roman auxiliary archers were from the East, with compound recurve bows, that would be at least, what, 200 yards+ ? With Scorpion range being sufficiently greater than that, that they could hit enemy soldiers who thought they were "safe" ? Almost pure speculation, but fun.<br>
<br>
Rich K. <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Scorpion range being sufficiently greater than that ...<hr><br>
did the Romans have telescopic sights? <p></p><i></i>

[L C Cinna]

How about the use of field artillary? Any accounts on ballistae and Scorpions in field battles (I only know of Tacitus mentioning artillary in a field battle in the civil war of 69 between Otho and Vitellius)?<br>
<br>
And is there any text about the "repeating ballista"? I guess it could be called half automatic but how did it work?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Field artillery? How about naval artillery used in a landing on a hostile beach? Caesar, B.G. IV. 25 mentions the use of some form of artillery to clear the beaches for his landing in Britiain. He is not too specific about the type. He mentions sling stones (fundis) arrows (sagittis) and missiles (tormentis).<br>
<br>
Kevin <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Another one from Caesar.<br>
Check out B.G. 2. 8, 3. Caesar describes his positioning of field artillery in preparation for a battle. But, the artillery does not seem to have been put to use.<br>
B.G. 8. 40 - 41 Caesar raises a tower and positions artillery on it to keep the enemy from their water supply.<br>
<br>
Kevin <p></p><i></i>