Artillery range, 1st Century AD

[D B Campbell]

I was thinking specifically of Marsden's description of the curtain wall at Side (TT pages 122-3) and the accompanying diagram on p. 156.

I cannot lay my hands on accurate information about Side at the moment. (The relevant publication appears to be S.M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side, Berlin 1963.) Marsden's sketch is a little unclear, because he has included stippling and shadows!

The suggestion that the smaller slit to the right of the casemate might have accomadated an observer is very interesting.

This was the suggestion of Fred Winter (Phoenix 13, 1959, p. 191, with an even worse sketch of Side!), who has some interesting observations on Greek fortifications in general.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

I was thinking specifically of Marsden's description of the curtain wall at Side (TT pages 122-3) and the accompanying diagram on p. 156.

I cannot lay my hands on accurate information about Side at the moment. (The relevant publication appears to be S.M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side, Berlin 1963.) Marsden's sketch is a little unclear, because he has included stippling and shadows!

The suggestion that the smaller slit to the right of the casemate might have accomadated an observer is very interesting.

This was the suggestion of Fred Winter (Phoenix 13, 1959, p. 191, with an even worse sketch of Side!), who has some interesting observations on Greek fortifications in general.

If you can locate better images it would certainly help. Still, whatever the faults of the source material, I haven't heard anyone come up with an alternate explanation why arrow slits would need to be 3 feet or more tall unless they needed to accomodate significant elevation. I'd also like to hear an advoocate for the direct-fire-only camp spin-doctor the Philon quote.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

What other expalanation could there be? It's a no brainer I would think that to allow natural firing of a bow, make the slit appropriate to its use.

[D B Campbell]

I haven't heard anyone come up with an alternate explanation why arrow slits would need to be 3 feet or more tall unless they needed to accomodate significant elevation.

I think you may be reading too much into the size of these windows. There are other factors at work, such as providing light and air for the chamber, and enabling the defender to observe as well as deploy his weapon (whether it's a bow or, as you would prefer, a catapult).

As far as I can tell, the so-called catapult windows at Side (which, I acknowledge, are on a walkway, rather than a chamber) are 1.10m tall. I find it difficult to envisage a catapult set at 45 degrees shooting from these. (In fact, I find it difficult to justify such a scenario, but I haven't fully investigated the matter.)

[Sean Manning]

There is an interesting debate in medieval history over whether all the 'loopholes' in towers were really for shooting out, and just how to tell the difference between ones designed for longbows and ones designed for crossbows.

Any indication of a difference in height of the slits? I would anticipate that longbowmen would need taller apertures due to the height of the bow as opposed to crossbowmen who could kneel or crouch to fire at higher angles. In medieval context are there many 3, 4, or 5 feet tall?

The shape of the slits is often used to explain things (straight for longbows, cross-shaped for crossbows, circular for guns) but I'm not sure if that's still accepted. Medieval loopholes are normally wider on the inside and embedded in thick walls, but this creates some difficulties. For longbow loopholes, you have to deal with the archer's paradox: the arrow wobbles side to side for the first few meters because the body of the bow exerts a sideways force. So if you stand right by the loophole and shoot, you're likely to get an arrow bouncing around the embrasure with you. Bolt throwing engines (edit: like crossbows) are simpler because (as far as I know) their bolts don't wobble like this, but on the other hand they are wider which could reduce their field of fire unless they shot from a few meters back too. And its possible that windows for light and ventilation in a wall exposed to enemy fire would look a lot like purpose-built loopholes. I haven't studied this in detail (just seen some references to the issue) but it might be worth comparing.

[D B Campbell]

I'd also like to hear an advoocate for the direct-fire-only camp spin-doctor the Philon quote.

I am uncertain why you think the Philon quote supports the case for "plunging fire" as opposed to direct, line-of-sight shooting.

[Crispvs]

"Bolt throwing engines (edit: like crossbows) are simpler because (as far as I know) their bolts don't wobble like this"

I don't think I have ever seen a bolt in flight which didn't wobble. Admittedly we normally only shoot our machines at greatly reduced tension for public performances, but I have also observed the bolts wobbling when we have been testing at full tension, complete with all the disturbing and nerve-wracking straining and creaking sounds. I am not sure at what point the wobbling starts but I have always assumed that it begins at the point of release. It may be the shape of our bolts of course but when operated by an experienced crew they seem hit the target alright, so the wobbling doesn't seem to be much of an impediment to accuracy.
As to the aperture they could be shot through though, I would have thought that the general design of a scorpion would require an aperture at least as wide as the full head unit so as not to run the risk of obscuring the arms' arc of travel if the machine needed to be traversed (I am assuming here that the scorpion would need to be positioned close to the aperture rather than back from it).

Crispvs

[P. Clodius Secundus]

I'd also like to hear an advoocate for the direct-fire-only camp spin-doctor the Philon quote.

I am uncertain why you think the Philon quote supports the case for "plunging fire" as opposed to direct, line-of-sight shooting.

"Below (i.e. in front of) the curtain-walls and outworks, platforms are to be constructed for as many and as large engines as possible, some at surface level, others below ground level, so that there may be plenty of room for their operation, so that the detatchments may not be hit, so that they may inflict casualties while themselves out of sight, and so that, when the enemy draws near, the aimers may not be handicapped by being unable to depress their engines."

I'm not certain whether it was the "below ground level", or the "so that they may inflict casualties while themselves out of sight" part that I found more convincing.
Before anyone tries some-antics :wink: with the sentence structure I'd like to point out that subject of the sentence is platforms for artillery, not trenches for their crews. Crew protection is merely one of the suggested benefits of this tactic not the central theme. The pronouns they, their, and themselves refer to the engines while the crew is described by the such as detatchment or aimer. Thus, it is the engines "themselves" which are out of sight and yet still able to inflict casualties.

[D B Campbell]

Thus, it is the engines "themselves" which are out of sight and yet still able to inflict casualties.

Oh, I see what you've done! I have always imagined that the big stone-projectors were sunk below ground so that their torsion-frame is nearer the ground and their ("direct shooting") shots will hit targets that are lower than usual -- maybe ranks of men rather than the big machinery. I certainly don't take Philon to mean that the machines are sunk in pits out of sight. So I guess this passage is not as clear cut as you hoped.

This is Philon, Poliorketika 1.32, which I translate as follows:
"The catapult-emplacements (belostaseis) beneath the walls and the outworks (proteichismata) are prepared/equipped/furnished for the largest and most numerous weapons (belê -- [size=85:2151weer]Philon has an annoying tendency to write "missiles" when he means the machines that shoot missiles[/size]); some [are excavated]* at ground level [and dug out]*, but others (are) below ground, in order to have plenty of room and so that the crews (aphientas = "those who are shooting") will not be injured but, unseen, will injure the enemy (enantious = "those who are opposing"), and so that, if the enemy approach, the catapult crews (katapeltaphetas = "catapult shooters") will not be useless, being unable to depress (viz. their weapons; katastrephein = "incline downwards").

* Marsden follows Schöne in deleting these verbs, so that "the general sense becomes clear" (Hist. Dev. 1969, p. 117) -- rather a cavalier emendment for no particular reason!

Incidentally, it's definitely the crews who are out of sight, not the machines themselves.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Thus, it is the engines "themselves" which are out of sight and yet still able to inflict casualties.

Oh, I see what you've done! I have always imagined that the big stone-projectors were sunk below ground so that their torsion-frame is nearer the ground and their ("direct shooting") shots will hit targets that are lower than usual -- maybe ranks of men rather than the big machinery. I certainly don't take Philon to mean that the machines are sunk in pits out of sight. So I guess this passage is not as clear cut as you hoped.

This is Philon, Poliorketika 1.32, which I translate as follows:
"The catapult-emplacements (belostaseis) beneath the walls and the outworks (proteichismata) are prepared/equipped/furnished for the largest and most numerous weapons (belê -- [size=85:2t7y4is4]Philon has an annoying tendency to write "missiles" when he means the machines that shoot missiles[/size]); some [are excavated]* at ground level [and dug out]*, but others (are) below ground, in order to have plenty of room and so that the crews (aphientas = "those who are shooting") will not be injured but, unseen, will injure the enemy (enantious = "those who are opposing"), and so that, if the enemy approach, the catapult crews (katapeltaphetas = "catapult shooters") will not be useless, being unable to depress (viz. their weapons; katastrephein = "incline downwards").

* Marsden follows Schöne in deleting these verbs, so that "the general sense becomes clear" (Hist. Dev. 1969, p. 117) -- rather a cavalier emendment for no particular reason!

Incidentally, it's definitely the crews who are out of sight, not the machines themselves.

Excellent, a hopefully truer translation, but it raises more questions. Why would the ones at ground level be described as excavated and dug out when others are below the ground? Could it imply that just the bases of some of the machines are dug in and the crew is still exposed, while in other cases the entire platform is dug down so that the crew can work in greater safety? The passage first says that unseen they will injure the enemy and have plenty of room to work (I take this to mean during the main battle) then if the enemy manage get so close that the weapons on the battlements above cannot be depressed enough to engage them these weapons will still be able to shoot. Otherwise, during the main battle these crews, waiting for the enemy to approach, would be subject to rounds that fell short. Since they are at the end of their trajectory the enemy's bolts or stones would be descending at a steep angle, making the platform a very dangerous place to sit and wait just in case they get close enough for direct shots. If they are close enough to shoot at in that manner, their archers and slingers would probably be able to take you under indirect fire. I don't hear anyone arguing that slingers and archers only fired line-of-sight. Their missiles, though much lighter than those of torsion artillery, are still lethal out to their maximum range. With much greater mass and higher terminal velocities, artillery missiles would only be more dangerous. It makes much more sense to have all your weapons engage at the longest practical range, even if they sacrifice their pin-point accuracy, rather than to have them sit idle under fire. It is wise however to have some weapons sited so that they can continue to engage if the enemy manages to push up under the muzzles of your guns. It is called final protective fire and that is what these positions represent.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

In my opinion the digging in of artillery is not at all strange and has been done for centuries...









The good thing would be if archaologists would find a Roman or other ancient battle location where ground disturbance would have left traces of the artillery pits, well beyond the battle line... perhaps even at some frontier outposts or lines there could have been dug in ballistae...

M.VIB.M.

[D B Campbell]

Your picture number 3 resembles what I have always envisaged when reading this passage of Philon. (Replace the tank with a ballista.)



Philon seems to be talking about fairly large stone-projectors ("the largest and most numerous" perhaps means something like "the largest ones that you happen to have most of") which he usually recommends for use against enemy machinery. Their size means that the torsion-frame is normally quite high off the ground.

Here, I imagine they are sunk in, so that (with direct line-of-sight shooting) they can target groups of men and machines (e.g. tortoise sheds) as they approach, and can continue to target them, because they are not handicapped by being unable to depress the torsion-frames -- they are already at the correct level to hit men, even when they are almost swarming over the emplacement.

Also, they are in an exposed position, outside the town walls, so it is only sensible to protect the crews by "digging in". That's my take on it, anyway.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It makes sense. What about the seige /training camps in south western scotland? Are the artilary emplacements anyway 'dug-in'??

[Sean Manning]

"Bolt throwing engines (edit: like crossbows) are simpler because (as far as I know) their bolts don't wobble like this"

I don't think I have ever seen a bolt in flight which didn't wobble. Admittedly we normally only shoot our machines at greatly reduced tension for public performances, but I have also observed the bolts wobbling when we have been testing at full tension, complete with all the disturbing and nerve-wracking straining and creaking sounds. I am not sure at what point the wobbling starts but I have always assumed that it begins at the point of release. It may be the shape of our bolts of course but when operated by an experienced crew they seem hit the target alright, so the wobbling doesn't seem to be much of an impediment to accuracy.
As to the aperture they could be shot through though, I would have thought that the general design of a scorpion would require an aperture at least as wide as the full head unit so as not to run the risk of obscuring the arms' arc of travel if the machine needed to be traversed (I am assuming here that the scorpion would need to be positioned close to the aperture rather than back from it).

Crispvs

That's interesting. I'm not a very good archer, and have never seen an ancient catapult or medieval crossbow fired except on video, so I'll take your word. I suspect that catapult bolts wobble differently than arrows do though.

It would be harder to move a large catapult to shoot from different angles than to move a crossbowman. This talk by Philon about dug-in engines outside a wall is fascinating! I would have thought they would be too vulnerable.

[D B Campbell]

It makes sense. What about the seige /training camps in south western scotland? Are the artilary emplacements anyway 'dug-in'??

Burnswark? Ironically, the features ("The Three Brethren") that are supposed to be artillery emplacements -- I don't believe it, myself -- are piled up, rather than dug out! (I think they're just super tituli covering the camp gates.)
[attachment=0:10rmitr9]<!-- ia0 SCampLookingW.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:10rmitr9]