07-12-2007, 07:54 AM
Paullus Scipio,
Don't duck on my account... I haven't even started building my catapult yet. As usual I have put the cart before the horse, and in this case the engine as well. I'm sure I'll hear it from all sides on this topic. :lol:
Seriously, I welcome lively debate, especially from those with experience or evidence I'm not aware of. My primary interest is in the carroballista as one of the first examples of a dual-purpose field artillery system (like the German 88mm). What puzzles me is why the first evidence appears after +100 and why the radical departure in design and construction. Is it coincidence? Trajan, or whoever "edited" the scenes on the column seems to have placed a great deal of emphasis on them. Of the seven catapults shown, three are in the mural defensive role. They are small images in the background of scenes. Ho-hum, nothing new about them. Of the rest, in "field" use, one is ground mounted in a much more exposed position, the other three are cart mounted. These are all in the foreground and much larger. Another coincidence, or intended? I started out accepting the opinion that Trajan's was only useful as general guide and that the artisans didn't know what a "real" catapult was supposed to look like. Sweating in the Maryland sunshine trying to chop down the "normal" height monopod I'd made to support George's ballista helped to change my mind. I could almost hear the stone cutters one hemisphere and two millennia away chuckling at me. "Why'd he make it that tall in the first place? Didn't he look at the column? Did he think we were stupid?" To me it shows that they knew something we didn't. That begs the question, what else did they know? :?
As far as the in-swinger/out-swinger question, a few quick observations.
1. Hatra. It would be a giant leap backwards as an out-swinger.
2. Sliders. They extend way beyond the frames. Unnecessary in a Vitruvian, but useful on an in-swinger where the string is still in contact with the bolt. If they are slid forward for cocking why aren't the arms visible in the at rest position.
3. Just speculating here, but weren't there metallic details (weapons and such) on the column originally. What if the arms and strings were rendered that way since the stuck out from the front of the weapons. The biggest one doesn't even have a slider at all. Where'd that go?
4. If we classify engines by how the arms move relative to the motion of the projectile ie. traction=in-swinger... counter-traction=out-swinger, the concept wasn't unknown to them. The onager is a traction engine. An in-swinger is essentially two onagrii set winch-to-winch and slung together.
Lets, hear more opinions folks. Especially those who've shot for distance with period technologies.
Regards,
Randi R.
Don't duck on my account... I haven't even started building my catapult yet. As usual I have put the cart before the horse, and in this case the engine as well. I'm sure I'll hear it from all sides on this topic. :lol:
Seriously, I welcome lively debate, especially from those with experience or evidence I'm not aware of. My primary interest is in the carroballista as one of the first examples of a dual-purpose field artillery system (like the German 88mm). What puzzles me is why the first evidence appears after +100 and why the radical departure in design and construction. Is it coincidence? Trajan, or whoever "edited" the scenes on the column seems to have placed a great deal of emphasis on them. Of the seven catapults shown, three are in the mural defensive role. They are small images in the background of scenes. Ho-hum, nothing new about them. Of the rest, in "field" use, one is ground mounted in a much more exposed position, the other three are cart mounted. These are all in the foreground and much larger. Another coincidence, or intended? I started out accepting the opinion that Trajan's was only useful as general guide and that the artisans didn't know what a "real" catapult was supposed to look like. Sweating in the Maryland sunshine trying to chop down the "normal" height monopod I'd made to support George's ballista helped to change my mind. I could almost hear the stone cutters one hemisphere and two millennia away chuckling at me. "Why'd he make it that tall in the first place? Didn't he look at the column? Did he think we were stupid?" To me it shows that they knew something we didn't. That begs the question, what else did they know? :?
As far as the in-swinger/out-swinger question, a few quick observations.
1. Hatra. It would be a giant leap backwards as an out-swinger.
2. Sliders. They extend way beyond the frames. Unnecessary in a Vitruvian, but useful on an in-swinger where the string is still in contact with the bolt. If they are slid forward for cocking why aren't the arms visible in the at rest position.
3. Just speculating here, but weren't there metallic details (weapons and such) on the column originally. What if the arms and strings were rendered that way since the stuck out from the front of the weapons. The biggest one doesn't even have a slider at all. Where'd that go?
4. If we classify engines by how the arms move relative to the motion of the projectile ie. traction=in-swinger... counter-traction=out-swinger, the concept wasn't unknown to them. The onager is a traction engine. An in-swinger is essentially two onagrii set winch-to-winch and slung together.
Lets, hear more opinions folks. Especially those who've shot for distance with period technologies.
Regards,
Randi R.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
