Alus Claudius Maximus:<br>
Thank you for the information. It seems that your modioli are far thicker than I thought.<br>
<br>
Aitor:<br>
Thank you. But, please tell us more about your experience using horse hair and sinew.<br>
<br>
Kevin <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 3,078
Threads: 50
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
19
Just a small note here. I've used Len Morgan and Alan Wilkins' reconstruction of the keirobalistra/manubalista many times and can confirm that it is definitely man portable and efficient to use, and as it can easily be carried some distance by some members of my group I have no doubt that genuine Roman soldiers (who were a lot tougher than any of us) would have found it no trouble to use and move quickly in the field. We have done range tests on it and achieved a distance of 232 metres and have measured the draw weight at 732bl at full draw. Alan (who really does know his stuff when it comes to ancient artillery) points out that to get an effective range a machine must be of a certain size and while Aitor's reconstructed machine is definitely easily portable I would be very interested to know whether it can achieve the same power. As far as I am concerned this is one of the most important tests of the various theories. I am quite satisfied that Iriate, Wilkins, Baatz et al have all studied the surviving manuscripts in great detail and I really don't think any one of them is in a position to snub the scholarship of the others. Let us test the performance and see which seem best to do what an artillery piece is intended to do.<br>
Alus, could you point out to me the "various areas" of Alan's work that are wrong?<br>
BTW Lucius, Len Morgan is quite happy to ship parts to anywhere in the world you care to mention.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Crispus,<br>
There is a potentially dangerous background in your statement.<br>
'The better it works, the better it is' can only be used for modern engineering.<br>
The motto for archaeological reconstruction must be: 'The closer to the ancient artifact, the better'<br>
Most Ancient Technology is, for contemporary standards, really crappy and can be easily 'improved', even if only using materials available to the ancients!<br>
I started my 'cheiroballistra' experiment accepting Marsden's, Baatz's and Alan's thick springs (magister dixit...) and I still have a pair of unused kambestria to attest that. At a point, I stopped and realized that I (they, we,...) was changing (rather wantonly) important data from my only source, with the only view of getting more power. I decided then that I'd start again from the beginning and follow the data at the text as close as possible, construct the machine and see then what it was capable of doing. If little or much, that was the final result of the experiment but never a starting point to it.<br>
If the unknown designer had written instructions for a toy or a training weapon, then I risked to have that as an output but that was a risk I was ready to engage, rather than to have a machine 'based on the Cheiroballistra' or 'inspired by the Cheiroballistra'<br>
<br>
It is a fact that my machine will never be so powerful as Alan's is. Alan's machine's springs trebble the volume of mine's ones. Nevertheless, I was reaching ranges of around 90 meters using very light missiles, inswinging arms and horsehair rope springs. I had to stop when one of the reinforcing iron bars in one of the arms bent. Alan is right, you need carbon steel bars and I've ordered a pair. The next step will be to see if the oaken cones can follow the pace of the steel or if I have to use metal cones, like Alan has done. When (if) the ballista is again operative, I'll try heavier missiles too (BTW, if you see Alan, tell him that he MUST read Simon James' book chapter on the Dura bolt shafts, it is just delightful to see so many shafts, belonging to several different calibers! )<br>
<br>
About sinew, I have only enough length of sinew string as to make a new bowstring for my cheiroballistra, maybe next winter. What I've learned from the materials is that vegetal fiber rope stretchs when the springs are twisted and it takes too long for it to recover (if it does ever!) Horsehair rope stretches too, but it is more elastic and it recovers completely after a time (a few days).Sinew string is really elastic (not like rubber) and it seems to recover rather quickly, in a matter of seconds, but I have just made some preliminary tests with it...<br>
<br>
Alan's and Len's machine is an efficient, well constructed ballista, but...<br>
Is it the very 'Cheiroballistra'? Can it even be termed a manuballista? I'd really like to have the answers, but I'm not a god, not even a lesser one!<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 8/13/04 9:36 am<br></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 74
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
Len Morgan and Alan Wilkins' reconstruction has a shoulder stock on it because they couldn't decide what to do with the curved bit do wood mentioned in the manuscript. Shoulder stocks were developed only after the introduction of firearms to cope with recoil. Crossbows have no recoil so do not need a shoulder stock. Medieval crossbows just have a tapered wooden shaft. The curved bit of wood is there because the manuballista is a belly bow and you cannot pull back a 2.5" belly bow by hand which is why I made my one a 1" spring as per the manuscript.<br>
I have got a range of 150 yards with a 9â€ÂÂ
Bernard Jacobs
Any opinion stated is genally not the opinion of My group or Centurian
see the Gemina's cheiro............<br>
<br>
www.gemina.nl/images/pics...llista.JPG<br>
<br>
(copy paste it)<br>
<br>
we took the copper tubes off since they were impractical........<br>
<br>
www.gemina.nl/images/artillerie01.jpg<br>
<br>
courtesy of www.gemina.nl <br>
<br>
regds.....<br>
<br>
M.VIB.M. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Marcus,<br>
While we could be discussing for long if your machine should be termed a 'cheiroballistra' or just a 'ballistra' (To keep inside Greek! ), I positively advice you to forget about what magister Baatz dixit and to re-position both field-frames correctly, with the curved bars facing front and the bulges facing outwards...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 74
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
0
I think the Gemina's machine is a great machine, but then again I built it.<br>
The Bronze cylinders round the rope bundles took me ages but are susceptible to damage if the arms move out of position.<br>
The frames are in the correct position in my opinion as the curved section allows the arms to be pulled back until they parallel to the stock giving you more power.<br>
If you build the piece as a inward swinger then the curved section would be in the wrong place.<br>
The gemina machine is not a cheroballista as it is not hand held but sits on a stand. The field frames are based on finds. I cannot remember the name of the find But it is the one with a hexagonal top and bottom plate rather than round or rhomboid. It is of the type I call Ferroballista.<br>
Aulus cladius Maximus <p></p><i></i>
Bernard Jacobs
Any opinion stated is genally not the opinion of My group or Centurian
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Aulus,<br>
I wasn't questioning the ballista's workmanship!<br>
You're meaning the 2nd century Lyon kambestrion, that with the iron modioli. Be careful with it, as the drawings in Baatz& Feugére depicts the bars as if they were radially set (i.e. placed at the ends of the same 'diameter') but the photos show clearly that they are off-set placed!<br>
Turning to the positioning of the kambestria, I think that the way you've put them on Gemina's ballista may work well (so does Wilkin's system) but it goes against the scanty evidence we have: The Hatra frame and a pair of depictions on Trajan's Column<br>
<img src="http://www.stormthewalls.dhs.org/Siege/Aitor/SMALL/Fig.%205%20copiaSML.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
showing the 'bulges' in the kambestria clearly on the front and pointing outwards.<br>
<br>
Aitor<br>
<p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 416
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
Ave,<br>
I too have always thought that the bulges in the frame face toward the front, as Aitor states. While I realize some machines may work well in different configurations, the bottom line is; was it actually designed like that? <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Lucius,<br>
Yes, our main goal is not to make the machine work but to make it work like the Romans did!<br>
BTW, what do you mean when you say that the bulges faced towards the front? Do you mean like on the three palintone frames to the right or like on the two euthytone frames to the left?<br>
<br>
<br>
<img src="http://198.144.2.125/Siege/Aitor/SMALL/Fig.%202%20copia%20SML.jpg" style="border:0;"/>Aitor <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 8/25/04 7:05 am<br></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 416
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
Hi Aitor,<br>
I meant like the drawings on the bottom in your picture, the carroballista frame, or no.s 4 and 5. <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
OK, Lucius,<br>
Then the cut-outs to give more room for the movement of the arms (at the end of their travel) are at the front and pointing inwards, instead of being at the sides and pointing backwards, like on the euthytone arrow-shooters and on the 'orthodox' reconstruction of the palintones...<br>
By that way your logical conclusion is inswinging arms, if you're ready for them!<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 416
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
Do you think the carroballistras were in-swinging engines, Aitor? I have seen your reconstruction of the cheiroballistra as such, but what do you think of the carroballistra mounted on a stand? <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=luciusaureliusmetellus@romanarmytalk>Lucius Aurelius Metellus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photobucket.com/albums/v384/Lucius68/?action=view¤t=EarlyImperial.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/25/04 4:42 pm<br></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
My theory is that ALL palintones, i.e. the Greek and Roman wooden-framed stone-throwers and the Roman metal-framed arrow-shooters were inswingers. You can read an abstract with the diagrams on my webpage.<br>
All those machines share a common basic design and that implies that all of them were either inswingers or outswingers. You cannot pick one kind or size of palintone and say: 'This one is an inswinger' and then another one and say: 'This is an outswinger'<br>
It is totally scientific to be wrong (provided that one is ready to acknowledge it) but not to be unconsistent!<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 416
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
That's true, Aitor. But how does one explain the scultures on the Roman columns showing these engines as out-swingers? I am not doubting your theory, however, as I know that you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I merely ask out of curiosity, and a true desire to understand these engines more completely. <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
|
