Roman drawings and pictures

[P. Clodius Secundus]

To be fair, IIRC the modern engineers had a big hand in the problems that plagued that project. It's very difficult to make old technology work with calculators. I'd like to have seen it done as an oversized Hatra. An inswinger of course :lol: My friend Eric is doing some good work on a modern inswinger Hatra he uses at the Punkin' Chunkin' event in Delaware. He's not restricted to using ancient techniques and materials but he has extensive experience with torsion machines and he sees lots of potential in the inswinger configuration. IMHO if someone can build a sucessful machine using an exact repilca (even in smaller scale) of the Hatra artifacts and the only thing they have to rationalize is the direction of the arms, then they have as much claim to being right as someone who builds an outswinger. Especially if the outswinger crew has to resort to reach to find excuses for not using the rear stanchion horn covers. If the inswinger ends up getting better performance, then that tips the scale in their favor, since that could justify the radical change in design. The field-of-view theory suggested by Dr. Baatz hardly applies to a stone thrower which operates as an indirect firing weapon. Moving the springs apart doesn't help aim at high angles so why do it? To make the bowstring longer? That only makes the case longer and requires that the base be taller and the whole machine heavier. On an inswinger the height of the required column is reduced.

[D B Campbell]

... if you take away the evidence of the Hatra catapult, which, as it is missing its stansions, can be interpreted in a number of ways ..., you are left with zero evidence for the existence of 'inswingers', despite the fact the some people in recent years have demonstrated that such an idea is potentially workable.

Well, you're right, inasmuch as the Hatra find is the key to the inswinging theory. If we only had the evidence of the iron kambestria (Gornea etc.), the theory probably would never have arisen. (I think I illustrated this in my [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363[/amazon], where I've shown the iron-framed ballista as a traditional "outswinger" but the Hatra ballista as an inswinger.)

But, interestingly, in the section of Heron's Belopoeica, where he describes the palintone, there is the slight possibility that he is describing an inswinger, as earlier scholars had realised. I well remember leafing through an early compendium of Greek and Roman engineering and seeing the theory set out as fact. (Marsden doesn't even mention this, but you can read about it in Aitor Iriarte's defence of the inswinging theory in the Gladius journal -- don't have the ref to hand.)

Maybe if Wilkens and company decides to investigate inswingers, you'll be good to go? Catapult research doesnt begin and end with ESG as well, after all. I can only hope he does a better job than he did with that giant ballista that was aired on BBC.

To be fair to Alan Wilkins, the engineers disregarded his instructions in (at least) two key areas, so it's not surprising that the BBC ballista failed. But Alan and Len Morgan are in total control of their latest ballista, which should work a lot better.

The field-of-view theory suggested by Dr. Baatz hardly applies to a stone thrower which operates as an indirect firing weapon.

To be fair to Dietwulf Baatz, he was the first guy to realise that the Hatra find was a catapult at all. The Iraqi archaeologists thought that it was a battering-ram! :roll: I can well understand his reluctance to launch a completely new theory on the basis of one find. After all, we've had 30 years to think about it. But I've always been intrigued by the reconstruction drawing he published in Britannia 1978 -- if you look carefully, the arms appear to be inswinging, although Dietwulf has always denied that was his intention.

Also -- you have to understand that Dietwulf believes that all ancient catapults were used for reasonably short-range direct targetting -- and I agree with him. People tend to envisage a ballista working like a mortar, but the reason for a mortar's effectiveness is the fact that it's firing an explosive. It doesn't really matter if you're 6 feet short of your target when the projectile is designed to explode, creating a 6-foot crater. But if you're 6 feet short with a boulder, then you've missed! (You can see this style of stone-projector in my reconstruction of the stone-throwing ballista in [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363[/amazon], where it has a low stand and a flat shooting angle.)

Interesting thread, chaps!

[P. Clodius Secundus]

If we only had the evidence of the iron kambestria (Gornea etc.), the theory probably would never have arisen. (I think I illustrated this in my [amazon]Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363[/amazon], where I've shown the iron-framed ballista as a traditional "outswinger" but the Hatra ballista as an inswinger.)

In the iron-framer illustration you mention, the rear stanchions are conspicuously absent. :? That's where the out-swinger camp runs into trouble. They can't simply lock the forked ends of the arch into the pittaria brackets as you've shown them. To obtain any performance they need to rotate the entire field frame. To do this they gin up a set of bronze washers and angle the ends of the ladder. They also have to interpret the forked ends of the Orsova arch as being uneven in length. Even if you see it this way, the long ends are diagonally opposed not symetrical front and rear.

The field-of-view theory suggested by Dr. Baatz hardly applies to a stone thrower which operates as an indirect firing weapon.

To be fair to Dietwulf Baatz,.... But I've always been intrigued by the reconstruction drawing he published in Britannia 1978 -- if you look carefully, the arms appear to be inswinging, although Dietwulf has always denied that was his intention.

You're absolutely correct. Looking carefully I also see that it is being used in an indirect fire (high angle) role.

Also -- you have to understand that Dietwulf believes that all ancient catapults were used for reasonably short-range direct targetting -- and I agree with him. People tend to envisage a ballista working like a mortar, but the reason for a mortar's effectiveness is the fact that it's firing an explosive. It doesn't really matter if you're 6 feet short of your target when the projectile is designed to explode, creating a 6-foot crater. But if you're 6 feet short with a boulder, then you've missed!

I feel that far too much emphasis is placed on the direct fire role. A ballista could be used like a mortar, but its far more likely that it was used like a howitzer. There is a significant difference. You make use of artillery's superior range and lob the projectiles out to keep the enemy's siege works and weapons at bay. If you don't hit, keep firing until you do. The main reason for placing one's artillery in towers is to gain the additional range and observation that an elelvated platform provides. If you wait for the enemy to close the distance to where a weapon can be used direct LOS (line of sight) you will be in danger of being inundated by lighter weapons such as slings and arrows which have a much higher rate of fire.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

Has anyone seen the article by Lewis in Current World Archaeology that the illustration which started this discussion is suppsed to have come from?

Graham.

[D B Campbell]

... the article by Lewis in Current World Archaeology ...

I'm sure it was on-line somewhere, Graham. Sorry I can't be more helpful. (Michael Lewis is an inswinging devotee, of course.)

[Arturus Uriconium]

Hi - came across this while doing research on Dorchester- some good stuff, especially of the Roman buildings.

Thanks for posting, some good stuff there. I've just posted a series of CGI images of Viriconium c160 and Heronbridge c180 that you might be interested in too.

[Scythian]

I feel that far too much emphasis is placed on the direct fire role. A ballista could be used like a mortar, but its far more likely that it was used like a howitzer. There is a significant difference. You make use of artillery's superior range and lob the projectiles out to keep the enemy's siege works and weapons at bay. If you don't hit, keep firing until you do. The main reason for placing one's artillery in towers is to gain the additional range and observation that an elelvated platform provides. If you wait for the enemy to close the distance to where a weapon can be used direct LOS (line of sight) you will be in danger of being inundated by lighter weapons such as slings and arrows which have a much higher rate of fire.

Artillery in towers were intended for antipersonnel use. The elevation gives better line of sight. If you look over your sources you'll find they are often described as being with archers and slingers. They had better range than bows (as is pretty clear from the Macedonian use of catapults to support a river crossing against Scythians) allowing defending archers to be picked off from out of range. They also allowed defenders hiding behind shields and wooden screens to be picked off. This was the case when they were first used and continued to be the case throughout antiquity. (admittedly i have only studied up until the late republican period).

Heavier catapults for attacking walls were built seperately. After a few unsucessful attempts by Demetrius Poliorcetes to try mounting heavy artillery in towers nobody else followed his example. Large artillery used by attackers was always seperate from the siege towers. The defenders may have placed them in towers to improve range and protection but that says nothing about how they were fired. Single arm machines, like the onager and whatever the one armed catapults metioned offhand by Philon in his poliorketika was, were used as indirect firing weapons but the balista was almost certainly a direct firing weapon.

[Caballo]

I've just posted a series of CGI images of Viriconium c160 and Heronbridge c180 that you might be interested in too.

Thanks- where would I find these?

Cheers

Caballo

[jvrjenivs]

I've just posted a series of CGI images of Viriconium c160 and Heronbridge c180 that you might be interested in too.

Thanks- where would I find these?

They were in this topic (and some others in the same subforum):
link from old RAT
but it seems the update from the board software has made them inaccessible/deleted them.