Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Of Scorpions & Sliders
#16
Quote:- doncha hate that when it happens with the gastraphetes or belly bow - first crossbow, The draw on this critter was so extreme it used an unusual way to load string. A travelling wooden rail extended out in front of the machine and braced upon the ground, a stone or tree trunk and was pushed forward with the belly loading the string. The description makes it sound like you shoot it braced against your belly which musta knocked the snot outta ya....... In any event it does appear that the machines names changed over time, and surely this musta screwed with Marsdens head. There is a modern author TE Rihll a professor somewhere in UK wrote a book in which she apparently disputes Marsden on more than one occasion, and appparantly lays into a few others....
The description of the gastraphetes you quoted is a perfect example of an author knowing enough to sound like an expert while getting something fundamentaly wrong. Once reasonable sounding half-truths and myths get started they are hard to kill. It reminds me of the G.I.s who came across small Japanese mortars with arched base plates. Somehow they got called "knee mortars" as if they were fired braced against one's thigh. They don't give out purple hearts for being stupid. :roll: There is very little perceived recoil on catapults. Most folks assume that the onager is called a wild ass because it "kicks like a mule" according to our only source, Ammianus, that is false. He clearly indicates that it kicks up stones at it's persuers. It is a subtle but important distinction. Proponents of the Payne-Gallwey and Schramm type onagers are proud that their made-up buffer braces can arrest the arms forward motion so quickly. To those who favor De Reffye onagers, breaking arms and absorbing crushing blows by attempting to stop the arm so soon is evidence of piss-poor engineering. I too find myself at odds with some of Marsden's interpretations, but his books are still the best resource around. Rihll's book is useful too, but IMHO, she gets things wrong as well. They both ridcule Ammianus' text because they couldn't make sense of it. It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Reply
#17
Open call for assistance from forums.

Its very kind and generous of you to spend time educating me a little, and its good to know that I may not be alone in my confusions as there seem to be conflicting accounts from different sources. I have been visiting and enjoying romanarmytalk for many years as a lurker and it never surprises me the vast amount of knowledge and history detail you guys cover.

In that I joined up here to get help in classifying and naming my machine, perhaps I could describe the main features and let the forum decide what it is and perhaps coin a term for it if need be. You fellows here seem most informed in every aspect and detail, with historical accuracy seeming to be most paramount in discussion and debate...

My machine is first an inswinging design

The frame would therefore be considered wide

It can fire either darts (arrows or bolts) or other projectiles in a slingshot like pouch by simply removing the rail or tiller. For this exercise it though I will speak of it as crossbow like in that the main design is to shoot arrows or bolts.

It is torsion based, and is meant to be powered by metal springs, and can be adapted to utilize limbs as a powersource or even a combination of both.

It is extremely compact and meant to be used as a personal hunting or recreational device, hand held.

When used to power a "crossbow like device" of bow-like device, the string is under tension

When used to power a catapult (mechanically powered slingshot) the string in not under tension

It does not utilize a top brace or side stanchions. There are no devices to limit "limb" arc.

It is completly scalable, from hand held and up to any size desired

This model has two arms or limbs like recurve bows, crossbows but utilizes only the springs for power the limbs are not designed to impart stored energy (metal construction).

If I have left out any other criteria needed to define its classification, ask away!

Thank you for your input and consideration.

Warhammer.

PS - I imagine there might be an engineer or two belonging to the forum, and I have always wondered why the inswinging design is more effeciant in generating superior projectile velocities over that generated by outies. I realize the inswinging designs main features is that it allows a greater degree of limb arc and thus more capability, but limb arc aside, the design generates more velocity per inch of draw than an outie.

It is my theory that the design utilizes a cominination of acceleration techniques ie acceleration by centrifical force, applied lineor force, and in the case of limb arc beyond 90 degrees, that also parametric resonance is generated upon release. In comparision with the very wide limb spacing of recurves acceleration seems to come only from applied lineor force, therefore not holding as much potential?

I do not have a formal college education or anything, so please forgive my ignorance. My devices construction and performance capabilities are outcome driven - meaning I dont why it does what it does- only that it seems to be superior in generating higher velocities. There seem to be additional forces at play here. Thanx in advance.
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
Reply
#18
Randi I admire your thoughts Big Grin D ? ( D
Welcome to RAT Warhammer Big Grin D D thanks for your imput.
Regards Brennivs Big Grin
Woe Ye The Vanquished
                     Brennvs 390 BC
When you have all this why do you envy our mud huts
                     Caratacvs
Centvrio Princeps Brennivs COH I Dacorivm (Roma Antiqvia)
Reply
#19
Warhammer,
From the sound of it your weapon would be some sort of manuballista. Manu-because it's hand held and ballista- because it has wide-spaced springs. Please post some pics or drawings. we're always interested in seeing something new or different.
Brennivs,
Thanks for getting us back on topic. As I look further into what is known, or at least generally accepted, about each type of weapon I'm suprised to find how many things are based on assumptions. Granted, you have to start somewhere, but if your basic premise is faulty, what follows, even if it works as well or better is still defective. The further upstream the error occurs the harder it will be to correct. As an engineering type you might be familliar with the 5-whys method of root cause analysis. It's not enough to go back only one step. It may solve the immediate problem, but if you keep digging deeper you'll usually find that the real culprit is futher back. Here, the basic assumption was that because some weapons (gastraphetes, cheiroballistra, and early greek weapons) had dovetailed sliders, all weapons need them. This is flawed logic. This leads to the next assumption; If an author like Philon or Vitruvius fails to mention dovetails or sliders it is merely oversight, a gap in the manuscript, or a transcription/translation error. Compound this with another assumption that what works for a hand-held weapon automatically applies to larger weapons as well, and you've got quite a chain going. If iconographic evidence (Cupid Gem & Trajan's Column) contradicts your image of things why not just assume that the artist was wrong. If artifacts turn up that don't fit together like you think they should, cast or hammer out some bronze "assumptions" to make it work. It is perfectly acceptable to use hunches, best guesses, and assumptions. The trouble begins when these get handed down as facts with no disclaimer. It gets harder to peel back the layers, find the original problem and choose a different solution.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Reply
#20
On sliders. After some thought on the matter the argument seems to be divided into two sections one being were the sliders actually used or just an assumption and two, if the sliders were indeed used why?

After thinking about the power of these machines I am inclined to say that they were employed if the argument is that the block or claw and trigger assembly by itself might have sufficed. In re-creating (attempts)these machines I am not totally sure that the purpose of the machines construction may be correct.

In re-creations if the machine breaks down the loss is minimal and the machine is mostly for re-enactment purposes? There are no real consequences or loss of life involve in the breakdown unless its construction is faulty and some part explodes hurting someone.
Certainly if this is true its not readily evident in what I have seen for the machines quality on this site and others, and some truly a work of functional art.

But could they be manned all day and fired continuously with only minor adjustments necessary? Do they actually perform as historical accounts suggest they did?

In the video's I have seen of scorpions or manuballista's being fired (carried to the field on ones shoulder) for both range and accuracy at targets, I cannot really believe they were all that useful when considering the accuracy and range of long bows and powerful hand held crossbows, that when compared to re-creations performance seem lacking. I dont see the 300 yard to 1000 yard performance.

In competitive catapult or ballista building and operations, exploding machines or components are commonplace as a study of one the most popular punkin chuckin ballistas might suggest. Mista Ballista although winning events and after many years of fine tuning cannot seem to perform consistantly and breaks something (the arms mostly) on a consistant basis.

Breakage occurs when the machine is overloaded to the maximum capability (stessed to breaking point) and cannot be expected to be of much use if it requires constant maintainance between hurls.

While not sure of the exact forces created in these machines, it would be safe to say they are tremendous. When drawing back the slider, ratchets are often seen along the length of of the slider, so that as it is cocked by the hand winches it locks into place to prevent a "dry fire" but more importantly divides the tremendous stresses or pull over a large number of bronze metal teeth. One has to keep in mind that these battles might have lasted for days on end?? With a full crew compliment operating at maximum effeciancy how many times would this machine have to shoot each day?

From experience I know that for in order to it to do so day in and day out, the machine should not be operated past 80% of its max. performance capacity. In order to have the range the machines are reported to have had, they had to be considerably more stout than treatises would suggest in written formulas,ie, spring bundle size to bolt size or length.

Machines that follow these ancient formula's by the master builders or engineers have failed again and again to reproduce the historical performance reported? Because of machines with a ratcheting winch system would serve to eleminate the percieved need for the slider ratchet system brings my reasoning to a conclusion UNLESS it might have been thought prudent to incorporate a redundency system to lesson the strain on the winch system and strengthening the system as a whole...

While the reduncy system might not have been nec. on the smaller machines, the larger machines stresses and operating forces generated would demand it due to the strength or shearing capacities of the available materials the machines were constructed from. In this I might hesitate to gamble the outcome of operating a machine with questionable dependability.
Certainly the timbers used would be "green" and not have the strength seasoned wood would have unless it would be so with the smaller and more portable machinery...trusting the outcome to a single system of using the block or claw mech and trigger assembly to hold tons and tons of forces at bay without undue strain seems unlikely.

I would suggest that over time, the slider itself may have undergone change and as well to the claw and trigger assembly as the machines size increased. As one person said the weight and unwiedines of the slider sticking out the end of the machines would not have been possible without breakage or undue stress on the rest of the components.

What I have read suggest much of the "war machine" was constructed on site using the nearest wood supplies with few parts being brought to the battle, the exception being the mule powered carts carrying the "mid sized" machines which could be constructed before hand and carried into battle along with a compliment of suitable projectiles.

I apolagise for what must have been seen as a hijacking of thread, and only now realize I should have started my own. This thread seemed appropriate and fairly dormant - a lame excuse perhaps, so again apolagies. This post I hope was more on topic and is not in any way meant to dismiss the fine workmanship of the weaponry so lovingly recreated on this site by members and on any others. No disrespect intended but only a possible theory to posed questions or topic as I understood it.
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
Reply
#21
Inswingers and (perceived) sliders. Upon re-reading the entire argument again, I fear my previous post must have missed he mark.

With an inswinging design, it is entirely possible that the artist or sculpter assumed, as it is entirely possible that the one viewing the art, is in error that the portruding segment is indeed a slider.

Remember that as the returning troops and the cart mounted artillery would not have made the return trip home nor likely travelled through the streets with the arms and bundles under tension...

More likely the bundle tension was released while still remaining (almost) battle ready.In such a case the forward looking arms would not be looking forward at all but tucked into a travelling position but still inserted between bundles.

With inswingers the rail or portion the dart would travel would be fixed in place and extend forward of the wide spaced frame. In the case of the narrow frame, it would have to be an outswinger, while still the portruding mass might be assumed to be a slider when in reality it mightg not have been.

An an example I present the following link, and that ask upon first impression that the portruding section of these crossbows might be mistaken as a slider, when obviously they are not: http://www.thecrossbowmansden.com/World_Crossbows.html

Accounts of incredible accuracy of these powerful machines have been cited again and again, but one has to wonder how they were actually ranged and aimed properly. Surely they employed some other way than merely guesstimating by peering through the circular portion of the top brace which equates to an "open" sight without the benefit of range pins or end sight such as on a rifle.

I find it higly unlikely that accounts of picking off archers behind or on top of castle or fortress embattlements was possbible with just pointing the machine and hoping for the best. However to be complete, I must say that I have not given much thought to the matter until pondering the questions or dilemma described in the original post while re-reading a few minutes ago...
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
Reply
#22
Where to start? :?
Someone may be able to provide a source, but I don't recall a specific referrence to them building the weapons on site using just a few dedicated pieces and native wood. As you astutely pointed out, seasoned wood is superior to "green" wood. In some places such as Egypt or Judea (Masada) suitable wood might be pretty scarce. There are references to regional arsenals, but they seem to have been concerned with producing whole weapons. Likewise there is mention of carts, wagons, and troops assigned to moving, assembling, and shooting them, but none says anything about just parts of them.
As far as the troops marching "home" to Rome with their weapons on display, that seems unlikey unless the were Praetorians. For most Legions home was in some far-flung province. It is more likelythat the artistans carving the reliefs were working from sketches.
When it comes to the range and utility of torsion weapons compared to longbows it is comparing apples to apple seeds. The long bow wasn't in use yet. The longest range threat would probably have been staff-slingers, followed by slingers and archers. That said, I agree that few modern reconstructions live up to the Roman claims.
You're right in saying that linnear ratchets are seen along the cases of reproduction Roman weapons. But they are not in the historical record. Again this is another of those dangerous assumptions. There is only one artifact, specifically the Elginhaugh ratchet, that suggests the possibility, but given the size of the associated washers it probably didn't need a winch. The Cupid Gem shows only a round ratchet. Lots of folks use both for safety sake. That's the same reasoning my Uncle uses when he wears suspenders and a belt, :o lol: For the Punkin' Chunkers, the SCA crowd, and other ballistic hobbyists who are free to go where their imaginations and intuition lead them that is just fine. My point in starting this thread was to challenge those who seek historical fidelity to step back and entertain the notion that some of the basic precepts we hold may be based on nothing more than opinion.
P. Clodius Secundus (Randi Richert), Legio III Cyrenaica
"Caesar\'s Conquerors"
Reply
#23
"My point in starting this thread was to challenge those who seek historical fidelity to step back and entertain the notion that some of the basic precepts we hold may be based on nothing more than opinion."

Thank you for the clarification, and as such, renders my input as nothing more than off topic gobbley gook. All that you are asking is a simple yes or no answer, and as one who designs and builds these machines (historically inaccurate of course) I would have to agree 100% with you as I find many assumptions or reasoning flawed and somewhat humorous. Thus, I have dismissed many (most) authors and books as flawed, and prefer to totally dismiss their work as flawed, prefering not to work under erronous information or instruction.

Your argument or post seems only to back up my thinking that they really dont know what they are talking about (up to a point and in SOME cases - not all) and have no business making these assumptions and tryng to pass them off as fact or truth. What looks good on paper has no real revelance as the proof must be in the pudding - results and outcome based.

I offer the performance history of Mista Ballista as proof of the danger of following such flawed assumptions and engineering,as well as the video demonstating the dismal performance of such flawed engineering in the youtube video "building the impossible". However, it is a triumph in that the machine did not explode or break on the first shot instead of the second.

I offer as proof of my argument the successful performance of Chucky1 and Chucky2 whose builders obviously threw these so called experts assumptions(erronious parts anyway) out the window, and changing/improving design by original thought, and outcome driven results. However, I have found it is an exercise in futility trying to change the mindset of those who blindly accept the works and flawed assumptions of these so called "experts" as undeniable truth. In as much, these builders are doomed to experience failure in their attempts until they come to grips with the main thrust of your argument.

Mardens work and those of (some) other authors form an excellent basis on which to build on through practical experience and experimentation(catapult or ballista construction), and cannot and should not be dismissed in entirety, but be taken with a grain of salt and with the acceptance that some calculations or assumptions are indeed flawed. - An incomplete template of which the artist or builder can use as an excellent starting point in the construction of these ancient masterpieces of technological innovation design and craftsmanship...

"As far as the troops marching "home" to Rome with their weapons on display, that seems unlikey unless the were Praetorians. For most Legions home was in some far-flung province. It is more likelythat the artistans carving the reliefs were working from sketches."

I note that you did not choose to agree with MY assumption or main point that the machines would not have travelled under full bundle tension as indeed it would be detrimental to its future performance capabilities and dependability to perform as designed, or, the artist misinterpreted the devices construction and erroniously interpreted and illustrated.
I thank you for assistance in supporting my argument that my machine is a "manuballista" by historical definition, and not just my reasoning or wishes - the main reason of my joining this forum. I thank you for your patience and grace in accepting and responding to my hijacking of a historical fact based thread.
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
Reply
#24
Warhammer I might be able to answer this question;

"Accounts of incredible accuracy of these powerful machines have been cited again and again, but one has to wonder how they were actually ranged and aimed properly. Surely they employed some other way than merely guesstimating by peering through the circular portion of the top brace which equates to an "open" sight without the benefit of range pins or end sight such as on a rifle"

As we fire our machine it is the skill of the operater being one with his machine. These guys worked soley on there machine and new it inside out, As with archery you learn your bow and how a arrow will fly once loose. The same is with a machine, I have read almost all accounts of the fireing capabilitys of these machines and conclude that the accounts are accurate. I can imagine a competition between different artillary units within the army , which would hone there skill at hitting individual targets. You must remember these machines were for going up against a mass army and you would be hard to miss as we have found, we can place bolts in a box approx 10ft square again we do not train as regular as would have been so not bad. As for the range we have a range pole that can be adjusted on our machine very simple and if fireing into a mass of people "load, drop, point ,fire" it is also to do with the power of the weapon the more torsion you have. You can in cases fire it directly at a individual, without haveing to arc the bolt on target. It is hard to descibe without haveing the machine infront of you to show Sad D
Randi your point as to the use of the longbow do you mean it was not in use at this time or was never used against the Romans;

"When it comes to the range and utility of torsion weapons compared to longbows it is comparing apples to apple seeds. The long bow wasn't in use yet"

Regards Brennivs Big Grin
Woe Ye The Vanquished
                     Brennvs 390 BC
When you have all this why do you envy our mud huts
                     Caratacvs
Centvrio Princeps Brennivs COH I Dacorivm (Roma Antiqvia)
Reply
#25
This is a very nice conversation, guys, and very informative.

Just to be picky, the English Long Bow such as used at Agincourt, etc. had not been yet developed. Germans and others were using yew longbows in our period, the design being very ancient, and perhaps the first self bow design, but not nearly as powerful as the 1400s period bows that could perhaps achieve up to 200 pound draws. So, it is still apples and seeds Smile

The Romans, as far as we know, were using composite bows that had a very high weight, however. A sling probably outclassed a bow in distance, and could perhaps defeat armor more effectively than an arrow, but these machines trumped them both.

Carry on.
Dane Donato
Legio III Cyrenaica
Reply
#26
In as much as I would like to continue posting here on RAT - this or any other thread, I must gracefully bow out. This is a forum (and thread) dedicated to historical accuracy, and I offer as an argument that should one wish to engage in a gun battle, prudance dictates or suggests it would be most unwise to attend such an event armed only with a single dagger, and a blunt edged one to boot. I am no history buff but a weapons designer, and should I decide to follow an academic study than I being a Native person would most likely wish to study ancient cultures such as Mayan Civilizations who history and sciences predates that of which you study and discuss.

There is a great variety of voice and opinion here, and use of confilicting terms and language. There seems to be no general consensus or agreements made, and so each voices there own opinion and interpretation. Be it scorpion or onager, cheiroballistra or otherwise, there seems to exist a very liberal tolerance which over time has divided itself into separate discussion and a threads individual interpretation and acceptance by non-argument or opposing discourse. Each wants to defend their position and cares not to engage in "battle" with opposing views by argument.

Being a newb, it is nigh impossible to accept the arguments of one member over another, when one visits threads with contrary usage of language and terms. Nay, good neighbor, let each of you in your struggles and individual and divided threads, continue your discourse in harmonious bliss, each acting with good faith and conscience into perpetuality.
One may escape or choose to avoid my uneducated ramblings and offerings by citing and pointing out errors by citing historically accuratge passages and treatises, when in fact it is a distraction in order to avoid a conflict with ones set notions and beliefs, and at the least to grant me any credit for presented argument.

I have indeed at the onset informed all of my blissful ignorance :oops: and have clearly stated my reasoning for joining and offering up perhaps a poor apolagy in advance of future discourse, but yet despite this, I am assaulted with that which is not within my knowledge or expertise. In fair company this might be conscrued as poor manners, but it is in fact an undeniable and unescapable truth that this is a true and dedicated academic forum. In as much I again apolagise for having attempted to lay waste to any popular beliefs or opinions of the individual whose thread this is by right.

The host of this was gracious enough to grant me audience to my stated quest, and for that I am grateful. I shall continue to visit and lurk, and attempt to obtain that I need by mere observation and study. Should anyone wish to entertain argument with me I am available by invitation email or pm. :|
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Catapults, a Case Against Sliders (Heresy) P. Clodius Secundus 9 2,676 11-10-2012, 03:02 PM
Last Post: P. Clodius Secundus

Forum Jump: