Artillery range, 1st Century AD

[John1]

Beginners question I'm sure....what is the best source for a credible range for 1st century (AD) artillery Scorpio, ballista etc. ?

[Jona Lendering]

I seem to remember 400 meters, without any accuracy, and 150 meters with considerable accuracy. I may be completely wrong.

[jvrjenivs]

I seem to remember 400 meters, without any accuracy, and 150 meters with considerable accuracy. I may be completely wrong.

I think this are good figures, but depending on the machine I think some can reach over 500 meters for sure. Also I don't believe most machines were used in the 45 degrees distance shooting like many re-enactment displays shows. I think they are really build for straight and accurate shooting. A ballista stone will only damage a wall when shoot straight agains it, not under an angle. Then I think about 150 to 200 meters are the max.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

It depends of the size of the ballistae, onagri and scorpiones. I know Josephus mentiones a pregnant woman hit by a ballista ball shooting out her foetus 90 meters against a wall.. however this man was sometimes not all there...

He does mention however the decapitation of Jesus the Woe crying prophet on the walls of i think it was Jerusalem itself by a ballista ball.. that i do believe..

Tests have shown Scorpiones to perform around 450 meter and accurate too.

The onagri and ballistae were not always used to destroy walls, also they were used to lob off shots killing defenders, and as also described by Josephus, when people in a besieged town gathered around the wells to collect water.

They also painted the balls black, so the defenders had a more difficult time seeing them come...

M.VIB.M.

[John1]

Thanks for the input, I'd have read 150m direct fire and 400m high trajectory fire for a Scorpio, but that was lifted from the internet. I could do with tying the numbers down to a published paper. Is there any evidence of multiple camps being set out with interocking fields of artillery fire?

[P. Clodius Secundus]

I don't believe most machines were used in the 45 degrees distance shooting like many re-enactment displays shows. I think they are really build for straight and accurate shooting. A ballista stone will only damage a wall when shoot straight agains it, not under an angle. Then I think about 150 to 200 meters are the max.

Jurgen, after spending a bit of time looking through the texts it appears to me that the authors were far more concerned with range than with straight line accuracy. Evidence the following.....
Philon, "The object of artillery-construction is to dispatch the missile at long range, to strike with powerful impact."
Vegetius "If it is tuned in accordance with mechanical principles and if it is aimed by experts, who have previously collected data about its range, it pierces whatever it hits."
Perhaps the most informative is Philon's criticism of the repeating catapult. "The missiles will not have a spread, since the aperture has been laid on a single target and produces a trajectory more or less along one segment of a circle; nor will they have a very elongated dropping zone"
Repeated references to such things as range, data, trajectory, and dropping zone seem to favor more indirect fire. I'll try to compile a more comprehensive list to add to this discussion.
Regards,
Randi/Clodius

[jvrjenivs]

Jurgen, after spending a bit of time looking through the texts it appears to me that the authors were far more concerned with range than with straight line accuracy. Evidence the following.....

Interesting. Thanks for putting in some sources. This can become an interesting discussion.

Philon, "The object of artillery-construction is to dispatch the missile at long range, to strike with powerful impact."

Okay, I see, but it also can be used to support my view. Okay, I don't know the context of this line, but I still think the impact of a bolt or stone with a 'straight' line is powerful. Then the shooting range for making this impact 'powerful' is bigger compared to a lot of other weaponry. Of course I see your point, but I don't would say this line is totally in favour of using the machine under 45 degrees.

The same goes for your second quote:

Vegetius "If it is tuned in accordance with mechanical principles and if it is aimed by experts, who have previously collected data about its range, it pierces whatever it hits."

Here, these 'mechanical principles' clearly give a sign in the direction of using a 45 degrees shot. BUT that isn't the whole story. Even when using a 'straight' line shot you've to take all conditions into account, including some physics. You certainly need some knowledge/experience to have a good shot over a 'longer' range. Again, to pierce whatever it hits, I would prefer a more direct shot, instead of a 45 degrees shot with parabolic trajectory.

Perhaps the most informative is Philon's criticism of the repeating catapult. "The missiles will not have a spread, since the aperture has been laid on a single target and produces a trajectory more or less along one segment of a circle; nor will they have a very elongated dropping zone"

This quote is interesting. It indeed mention a kind of parabolic trajectory 'along one segment of a circle'. But he also mention a single target. This would suggest that accuracy was more favoured, when they constructed this machine, instead of what Philon would prefer.

Repeated references to such things as range, data, trajectory, and dropping zone seem to favor more indirect fire. I'll try to compile a more comprehensive list to add to this discussion.

Please do. I hope you can also see some of my points. Even with these sources I'm not yet convinced. Secondly I think the repeating machine should not be compared with purely siege weapons like the others are, as it has to funcion a bit different. (as far as I know it is mentioned in naval context, so standing on a more or less instable platform and moving targets.)

[D B Campbell]

Is there any evidence of multiple camps being set out with interocking fields of artillery fire?

Nope.

I could do with tying the numbers down to a published paper.

D. Baatz, "Waffenwirkung antiker Katapulte", in: D. Baatz, Bauten und Katapulte des römischen Heeres (Mavors Roman Army Researches vol 11, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994), pp. 136-145.

I am convinced by Baatz's emphasis on accuracy, rather than the extreme range which has obsessed other scholars. Catapults must hit something in order to do any damage, and must hit it hard. His graph on p. 141 (Abb. 3. Berechnete Wurfbahnen eines Steinwerfer von 30 Minen) , which I reproduced in my Greek and Roman Artillery (Oxford: Osprey, 2003), p. 21, demonstrates this. By Baatz's (mathematical) reckoning, a 30-mina (13kg) stone-projector set at an angle of 43.5 degrees will carry the stone shot over 400m, but the missile will have been airborne for almost 10 seconds and will have lost almost a third of its energy to air resistance. If it is a windy day, all the worse. And -- gods forbid -- if the target happens to step aside during the missile's 10-second approach, the missile will have failed in its primary objective, i.e. to hit something. :wink:

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Heron/Ctesibius "Originally the construction of these engines developed from hand-bows. As men were compelled to project by their means a somewhat larger missile and at greater range, they increased the size of the bows themselves."

Ammianus: "When its extreme tip come opposite the outer edge of the sinews, the arrow flies away out of sight, driven by internal thrust, glinting the while with tremendous brilliance; and it quite often happens that, before the missile is seen, pain indicates a mortal wound."

Procopius; "... but the missile bursts out with such power that it travels not less than two bow-shots, and if it hits tree or stone cleaves them easily.

Anonymous; "A missile projected from this engine, comprised of so many important and clever devices, travels so much further that it even has the momentum to fly across the width of the Danube, a river noted for its size..."

Have I forgotten to include any of the cotemporary experts?

These are after all artillery pieces not sniper rifles (excepting perhaps the gastraphetes/cheirobaalistra). Granted high velocity does mean a flatter trajectory and consequently much greater accuracy in direct line-of-sight shooting, so they would be more effective against single "point" targets at closer ranges. The drawback is that unlike gunpowder artillery pieces, whose ability to discharge grapeshot, canister, or fragmenting rounds allows them to defeat massed opposition, these weapons can only kill at most a couple of people per round. With less mobility and a much slower rate of fire than slingers or archers they would easily be supressed by lighter missile troops who could mass, volley, and retreat with very little risk to any one individual.
In modern terms, their real value would be in adding depth to the battle-space by using their superior range at higher angle "plunging" fire to strike whenever the enemy attempted to mass up or to harass and engage his command nodes and drive them further from the action.
To answer those who say that long range arrows lack killing power, I invite them to catch a few bolts from my little half-scale wood-framer. They are only 13.5" long, and without my winch and trigger complete I am just drawing them by hand, but it will bury a bodkin point 5-6" in the earth.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Well i think these weapons were after all, siege weapons, and also weapons which stood on city towers and walls, as Josephus also writes.

The smaller hand held scorpiones might have been used in the field, but there is no clear evidence in the contemporary battle reports...

M.VIB.M.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Well i think these weapons were after all, siege weapons, and also weapons which stood on city towers and walls, as Josephus also writes.

The smaller hand held scorpiones might have been used in the field, but there is no clear evidence in the contemporary battle reports...

M.VIB.M.

Vegetius and Trajan's Column both indicate that iron-framed weapons were used as field artillery. As for battle reports and wooden-framers check out Tacitus' account of the Vitellians use of artillery at Cremona. The battle took place some four miles outside the city and they moved the artillery up onto a raised roadbed to get a clear field of fire.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

The Trajan's column Carroballistae might have been used, but i am convinced they were behind the ranks and not amidst the ranks. Also skirmishing with the smaller manuballistae is cumbersome to say the least.

As for the Tacitus reference, the fact that the artillery remained well clear of the pitched battle gives another indication they were probably not used in close proximity to the actual running battle.

M.VIB.M.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

M.VIB.M.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more with both statements! Putting them in amongst the front lines where the could directly engage individual emeny with direct fire like an anti-tank gun would be suicidally stupid given their low rate of fire and single projectile. It would be far smarter to deploy them well to the rear and flanks where they can use their superior range to rain missiles on the massed ranks of the enemy. By shooting at a higher trajectory like a modern howtizer they can remain well beyond the reach of archers, slingers, and even counter-battery fire from opposing artillery, which would have to remain back as well.
As far as earlier comments about dodging incoming missiles I have personal experience that may address the question. First, while a single individual may think they could just dive out of the way, when standing in massed ranks it would be practically impossible. Particularly since every other soldier in the area would swear on his Gods that the same round was heading directly at him. The resulting "goat-screw" would almost guarantee that somebody got hit and magnify the disruptive effect of the weapon. Second, I have personally scratched a shallow hole in the dirt and watched incoming rounds from much closer to the point of impact than origin. Once 155 mm, 8 inch and MLRS missles rounds reach apogee they seemed to stop going forward and hang like the Sword of Damocles. At the last moment they streak overhead. That is unless they fall short and kill you.

[MD]

Indirect, i.e. in 45° or similar angle, seem to be very common method. As mentioned above artillery in field battles was positioned behind the first line or in some distance to the fighting, not directly in front of the enemy. In Arrians Array against the Alans all missile troops are place behind the heavy infantry and just fire in the direction of the enemy instead of targeting individuals.

Artillery pieces must be deployed on each flank to fire at the advancing enemies at maximum range, and behind the whole battle formation.

Once thus arrayed there should be silence until the enemies come within missile range; when in range the loudest and most intimidating war cry must be raised by the whole lot, and bolts and stones must be fired from the artillery pieces and arrows from the bows, and javelins by both light armed and shield bearing javelin men. Stones must also be thrown at the enemies by the allied force on the overwatch position, and the whole missile rain must be coming from all sides to make it concentrated enough to panick the horses and destroy the enemies.

Same is true for the Roman archers at Idistaviso (Tac. Ann. 2.17). When the enemy had to disperse or take cover they already fulfilled their purpose, disrupting their attack. Thus accuracy wasn't that important, especially when the target was an enemy city. Also Josephus (for example BJ III 28) or Tacitus (Ann. 2.81) describe the use of incendiary shots, most effective against structures behind the walls.

Josephus emphasizes the great range of this engines several times and in Tac Ann 15.9 Corbulo uses it to his advantage when attacking the Parthians across the Euphrates. A composite bow has an effective range of around 175 m.

That he (Corbulo) might have no hindrance in throwing a bridge over it from the enemy's cavalry, which was already scouring the adjoining plains with a formidable display, he launched on the river some vessels of remarkable size, linked together by beams, with towers rising from their decks, and with catapults and balistas he drove off the barbarians. The stones and spears penetrated their host at a range beyond the reach of the opposing volleys of arrows. The bridge was then completed, and the hills facing us were occupied by our auxiliary infantry...

[P. Clodius Secundus]

I recall somewhere that the actual longest range for sharps is something closer to 40 degrees. The angles of the backstay on the Cupid Gem would seem to reinforce this. The reason why it's not 45 deg. has something to do with air resistance terminal velocity etc...I'll keep looking for the reference. To answer the original question "what is the best source?" I would suggest that Marsden's "Historical Developments" volume is still one of the best. Summing up what I've been able to locate from a quick survey, the effective range range of most catapultae was at leat 2 stades/400 M. The range of archers was about half that. The Greeks heavily favored their use from defensive works. The Romans, pehaps due to improvements in range (curved arms et al), of maybe more in keeping with their agressive style might mave experimented more with their use as field pieces.