Orsova ballista field trials to start.

[D B Campbell]

Contrary to the propoganda, there were plenty of medieval knights who wielded crossbows from horseback - both for hunting and on the field. Maximillian himself is depicted with one. I have no idea whether these crossbows had much in common with ancient variants, but there is abundant evidence to show that some types of crossbow were shot and reloaded from horseback.

Absolutely. I don't doubt it, Dan. A crossbow would work just fine. Here's a Roman one:

[Paullus Scipio]

Paulus makes a number of unwarranted assumptions in his post.

Your persistent insulting, scornful, antagonistic posts make it very difficult to engage in any meaningful debate with you, and I remind you once again, against the rules of RAT. I make no 'unwarranted' assumptions at all....

... two - slinging and hand-stones - must have been performed dismounted ...

Must, in your opinion, have been performed dismounted.

Clearly, you are not a rider or horseman. I suggest you sit atop a live horse and whirl a sling, either horizontally over its ears, or vertically beside its flank and head. You will quickly find out out why history records no account of 'mounted slingers' !! Not to mention the impossibility of discharging a slingstone from a moving horse with any accuracy at all. :lol: :lol: Not merely my opinion. Fact.

... and since a mounted man could not reload a 'machine' of any type ...

Again, a cavalryman could not, in your opinion, reload a machine of any type.
Again, you don't seem to be aware of what is possible for an ordinary man mounted on a moving horse ( or even a stationary one). How do you imagine a winch on a cheiroballistra is operated sat atop a horse? How do you reload a 'belly-cocker' ? :lol: :lol:

... boltshooters were deployed on the flanks of the cavalry, at the very tips of a crescent formation ( which would be a very risky place for a detachment of lonely legionaries in the face of Sarmatian light cavalry, especially if the cavalry being supported moved! )

Again, this is only a risky position in your opinion.
Not my opinion only - it is obvious to even the meanest intelligence what would happen to a handful of men on foot and a static machine were the cavalry they were supporting to move away in the face of a number of light horse archers.

I notice you persist in emphasizing that Arrian's catapults were deployed "on the flanks of the cavalry", when Arrian says no such thing. In fact, as expected, they are deployed amongst other missile troops; archers on one flank and javelinmen on the other. You have manufactured a completely spurious link with cavalry here.

Arrian: "Ektaxis kata Alanoon" (VII) ".. Artillery pieces must be deployed on each flank to fire at the enemies at maximum range, and also behind the main/whole battle formation.The entire cavalry arrayed together in eight alae and squadrons must stand next to the Infantry on both flanks..."

there is absolutely no evidence at all of any type that at this period, 'hand-held' machines were used on horseback. In fact I doubt if it is even physically possible.

Others have demonstrated that you are mistaken in this belief.
A nebulous assertion ! :lol: Who are these 'others' who have operated a torsion machine ( such as a cheiroballistra), and 'demonstrated' firing and loading it on horseback ? I would be most interested to see a report of this marvellous feat !

The cheiroballistra as described by Heron is much larger and way heavier than even a 'wall-crossbow' - one only has to look at reconstructions such as the 'hand-held' cheiroballistra held by Bernard Jacobs on pp124-125 of Graham Sumner's "Roman Army -Wars of the Empire".

I cannot comment on Bernard Jacobs' version, as I've never seen it. But I would have thought the logical course would have been to look at Heron's Cheiroballistra itself, rather than someone else's interpretation of it.
One can only gauge size and weight from a reconstruction, since the "Cheiroballistra" manuscript exists only in fragments, and in fact only eight parts are described, leaving out many necessary parts.(BTW, there are considerable doubts that Heron of Alexandria wrote it, since the style is very different from the "Belopoeica". It could well be a later author describing Heron's cheiroballistra, just as I might write an article on "Maxim's Machine Gun")

It is unfair to impugn Marsden here. In the 1960s, nobody imagined that the ancients had hand-held mechanical weapons.
I was assuredly not impugning Marsden at all, without whose work, the study of ancient artillery would not be where it is today.
"....in the 1960's nobody imagined that the ancients had hand-held mechanical weapons..."
Surely you cannot mean this ! Marsden ( in 1970, not the 60's) considered the hand-held 'gastraphetes' in detail (pp61-78 "Technical Treatises and pp1-13 "Historical Development" inter alia) and so was only too well aware that the ancients possessed "hand-held mechanical weapons". He also discussed whether or not the 'cheiroballistra' would have had a base, and concluded that for size and weight considerations, that it did.( P.228 "Technical Treatises" "...The stock is certainly larger and heavier than in a standard arrow-firer of similar size..Certainly there can be little ,if any, reduction in total weight." p.23 ibid " The total weight ( of a reconstruction) is quite considerable....we think it can hardly be any lighter than a standard catapult of similar size..." p231 ibid " ...In diagram 12 above, those parts of the cheiroballistra that Heron does not describe, but which can be reasonably conjectured, have been left unshaded. In diagram 12c, the machine is given an ordinary tripod base base; in Diagram 12b twin bases are supplied such as might have been used in mounting a machine of this type in a mobile carriage.."

Heron's text is incomplete, so a base and winch parts could have been included. Further, as Wilkins points out, the purpose of a torsion machine with its complex parts is to obtain more power than a compound bow can deliver, and the 'cheiroballistra' has a draw-pull ( in Wilkins reconstruction) of over 335 kg - impossible for a 'belly-cocker'! The cheiroballistra also has a 25% increase in the size of the cross-section of the case of a Vitruvian 'Scorpio', implying a more powerful, heavier type - and the 'scorpio' was certainly stand mounted.

You are clearly unaware of the wider debate on the Cheiroballistra, as you are simply describing the Marsden/Wilkins version. You should perhaps have a look at some other threads before digging yourself any deeper into the mire.

I am perfectly aware of 'debate' on the cheiroballistra and am not, as you sarcastically put it in your usual rude manner, 'digging myself any deeper into the mire'.
Given the sketchy nature the manuscript - incomplete, and just eight parts described, it is hardly surprising that people have come up with all sorts of 'reconstructions' ; but that Marsden was largely right was proven some 3-4 years later when Gudea and Baatz published the Gornea and Orsova finds. Having studied the subject, I prefer the interpretations/reconstructions of Marsden/Wilkins to other interpretations.

[Paullus Scipio]

Contrary to the propoganda, there were plenty of medieval knights who wielded crossbows from horseback - both for hunting and on the field. Maximillian himself is depicted with one. I have no idea whether these crossbows had much in common with ancient variants, but there is abundant evidence to show that some types of crossbow were shot and reloaded from horseback.

Absolutely. I don't doubt it, Dan. A crossbow would work just fine. Here's a Roman one:

The fact that an Emperor or knights could hunt from horseback with a crossbow ( probably with a servant on foot to reload it, or hand him another one) is irrelevant. So is the fact that certain types of crossbow could perhaps be reloaded on a stationary horse e.g. the levered type. This discussion began with Duncan's fantasy that the 'cheiroballistra' ( a torsion machine) could be hand-held and used by cavalry (whole mounted units? ), which is an obvious impossibility.

In 1986, when I stumbled upon the passage of Arrian describing one of the customary exercises of the cavalry as shooting missiles "not from a bow but from a machine" (Takt. 43.1), I immediately assumed that this was a hand-held arrow-shooter like the cheiroballistra.

Side-tracking the discussion into crossbows is a red herring, and an admission by default.

[D B Campbell]

This discussion began with Duncan's fantasy that the 'cheiroballistra' ( a torsion machine) could be hand-held and used by cavalry (whole mounted units? ), which is an obvious impossibility.

Again, in your opinion. (Just in case anyone gets the idea that you represent some sort of consensus.)