Roman Steel Bow Ballista?

[Koyuncu]

In the book, The Medieval City Under Siege by Ivy A. Corfis, Michael Wolfe, there is a paper written by Paul E. Chevedden with a name Artillery in Late Antiquity Prelude to the Middle Ages.

In his paper Chevedden claims that a steel bow used to power Ballista Fulminalis(Thunderbolt ballista). He provides a translation from De Rebus Bellicis and provides his reasoning as follows;

If the Romans could produce high grade steel for swords and cutting tools, they possessed the technological expertise to manufacture high quality steel for the tension-bows for catapults. The fact that many surviving metal objects of Roman origin have thin steel layers or thin steel sheets welded on to them does not indicate that objects made entirely of steel were not produced, merely that steel was very expensive to make. Steel bows may never appear in the archeological record because (a) they represent a transient technology and were not produced in large quantity, and because (b) any surviving steel object would have been reused, made into objects having thin steel layers or thin steel sheets welded on to them.112 Steel bows would have been expensive and heavy, but perfect for use on fixed defenses where space was limited, just as it is recommended for use here.

He also notes that Marsden has rejected this idea because he believed that the ancients could not manufacture resilient steel in sufficient quantity to produce steel tension-bows for catapults.

Here the definition of ballista from De Rebus Bellicis;

De rebus bellicis, ch. 18
Expositio ballistae fulminalis103

(1) Huiusmodi ballistae genus murali defensioni necessarium supra ceteras impetu et viribus praevalere usu compertum est; arcu etenim ferreo supra canalem, quo sagitta exprimitur, erecto, validus nervi funis ferreo unco tractus eandem sagittam magnis viribus in hostem dimissus impellit. (2) Hunc tamen funem non manibus necque viribus militum trahi fabricae ipsius magnitudo permittit, sed retro duabus rotis viri singuli radiorum nisibus adnitentes funem retrorsum tendunt, pro difficultate rei viribus machinis adquisitis. (3) Ballistam tamen ipsam ad dirigenda seu altius seu humilius tela cochleae machina, prout vocet utilitas, nunc erigit nunc deponit. (4) Hoc tamen mirae virtutis argumentum, tot rerum diversitate connexum, unius tantum otiosi, ut ita dicam, hominis ad offerendam tantummodo impulsioni sagittam opera gubernat; videlicet ne si hominum turba huius ministerio inserviret, minueretur artis inventio. (5) Ex hac igitur ballista, tot et tantis ingenii artibus communita, expressum telum in tantum longius vadit, ut etiam Danubii, famosi pro magnitudine fluminis, latitudinem valeat penetrare; fulminalis etiam nuncupata appellatione sua virium testatur effectum.

Now the translation;

Description of the "Thunderbolt" Ballista

(1) This type of ballista, essential for the defence of walls, has been found by experience to be superior to all others in range and power. When a steel bow has been placed in position above the groove from which the bolt is discharged,104 a strong sinew-rope [i.e., the bowstring] is pulled back by an iron drawing-claw, and, when released, it shoots the bolt with great force at the enemy.105 (2) The size of the machine does not allow this bowstring to be drawn back by the manual efforts of soldiers [alone]; instead, two men pull the bowstring back by pressing backwards on the handspikes of the two wheels [of the winch], mechanized force having been acquired by the machine commensurate with the difficulty of the operation. (3) A universal-joint alternately raises and lowers the ballista itself, so that it may discharge its missiles higher or lower, as needed.106 (4) Proof of its amazing capability is evidenced by the fact that, although it is constructed of so many component parts, it is operatedso far as the shooting of the bolt is concernedby one man, at his leisure, so to speak. For the ingenuity of the invention would be diminished if a throng of men were to operate it. A missile shot from this ballista, which has so many extraordinary features, can travel so much farther [than that shot from any other machine] that it can even fly across the width of the Danube, a river famous for its size. Called the "Thunderbolt" ballista, it is so designated for the effectiveness of its power.

So do you think was it possible for Romans to use steel bows for ballistas roughly a thousand year before first usege of steel bow crossbows in middle ages?

[D B Campbell]

Chevedden claims that a steel bow used to power Ballista Fulminalis(Thunderbolt ballista).

The artillery scholar Rudolf Schneider already suggested that it was a steel bow, but reasoned that it was a late interpolation, as he believed that steel bows could not be manufactured in antiquity. However, the accompanying picture demonstrates that we are not talking about a bow here, but an arcus ferreus, "iron arch", which could be the kamarion of a torsion arrow-shooter.
[attachment=8415]DRB_BallistaFulminalis.jpg[/attachment]
The identification is controversial. Mark Hassall has suggested that the machine was not a torsion catapult, but was powered by elastic rope. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that the arcus is a bow.

[Koyuncu]

In contrary, Chevedden is pretty sure that was a steel bow. He argues;

The tension-power of a steel bow provides the propulsive force for the "Thunderbolt" ballista, as the text clearly indicates.

About, the manuscript of Ballista Fulminalis;

Virtually all attempts to reconstruct these two catapults have relied to a greater or lesser extent on the manuscript illustrations of the machines, the earliest of which date from the fifteenth century. These illustrations cannot be used as evidence for reconstructing these machines because they are mechanically preposterous and are not corroborated by any other descriptions of catapults or extant artistic representations of ancient artillery .

Also about Marsden's kamarion interpretation, he argues that it was not a vital part of machine and he adds;

This interpretation of "steel bow'' is suspect. This non-technical description of a bolt-projector employs the term "bow" in the context of describing the drawing of the bowstring and the shooting of the bolt. Heron's "little arch" has nothing to do with these actions. Although the catapults on Trajan's Column prominently depict the kamarion, showing it larger than it actually is, this does not indicate that the kamarion is a preeminent component of the catapulti merely that is important feature of iconography of catapult. The kamarion is not one of the most conspicuous or important components of a catapult. The most significant parts of a torsion weapon are its stock and sinew-bundles, while the stock and bow are the most important parts of a tension powered machine. Hence, in descriptions of catapults, particularly non-technical descriptions of catapults which concentrate on major components of the machine, on one would not expect the kamarion to receive much attention, and certainly not major attention, as it would if the arcus ferreus is interpreted here as the kamarion.

[Eleatic Guest]

In contrary, Chevedden is pretty sure that was a steel bow. He argues;

[color=#0000bb]This interpretation of "steel bow'' is suspect. This non-technical description of a bolt-projector employs the term "bow" in the context of describing the drawing of the bowstring and the shooting of the bolt.

As for philology, it should be noted that Chevedden is an Arabist, not a classicist. He may not even have a command of Latin, in his co-authored article The Traction Trebuchet. Triumph of Four Civilizations, for example, another professor actually provided the Latin translations.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I should also note that the reconstruction Firefly used wooden arms and can shoot almost a Kilometer.

[Koyuncu]

I should also note that the reconstruction Firefly used wooden arms and can shoot almost a Kilometer.

Aforementioned catapult according to Chevedden has no arms whatsoever since it is not a torsion weapon instead a steel bow, just like late medieval arbalest is used to propel missiles.

It seems that this topic is still highly debatable and need much more backing to be decided correctly.

[D B Campbell]

It seems that this topic is still highly debatable and need much more backing to be decided correctly.

I disagree. I think that Chevedden has misinterpreted the Anonymous. The arcus ferreus was, in fact, the most recognizable component of late Roman arrow-shooters. The ones on Trajan's Column are not "oversized" -- these things were big! So this is not a cogent argument for the arcus ferreus being a steel bow. It's true that the Anonymous may be confused -- he would not be the first observer to misinterpret how an artillery-piece worked (cf. Ammianus!). However, steel bow or torsion springs are not the only two options. Does Chevedden consider Mark Hassall's ingenious suggestion?

[Koyuncu]

Interestingly, No. There is no mention of Mark Hassall and his ideas. I would love to hear about his solution if possible.