Login

06-26-2002, 11:43 PM

My question is this: did the Romans ever use artillery in the open battlefield i.e. not in a siege environment? I'm mainly concerned with the period from the Early Republic (Punic Wars) to the Early Empire up till the 2nd century AD. Most of the sources that I've read suggest that the ballista, scorpio and other similar catapults were only used in sieges, never in the open battlefield. In light of this, were the scenes in the film 'Gladiator' depicting the Romans employing artillery against the German horde inaccurate? Anyway, that period (3rd century AD?) is out of the timeframe which is my primary interest. 
 
Any information would be greatly appreciated, as I am in the process of constructing army lists for a miniature wargame and am attempting at accuracy. Thank you.

06-27-2002, 12:38 AM

Forget you ever saw Gladiator. Wipe it from your memory except as a butt of ridicule and contempt. 
 
But yes, the Romans used artillery in the field extensively and artillery pieces were organic components of the Legions. I have no idea what idiot filmmaker decided that they should fling napalm, however.

06-27-2002, 06:51 AM

Artillery does not appear to have been used in the field under the republic in the Punic wars. 
 
I think there is a reference in Plutarch to it being used by Sulla in one of his battles against the Pontic's - Chaironeia? 
 
Under the empire it appears to be more common. 
 
IIRC there is an example in Tacitus from the civil wars of 69AD of a large stone thrower being used, and Trajan's column shows light bolt shooters on carts being used in the Dacian campaign.

***Praefectusclassis*** · 06-27-2002, 06:56 AM

One of the few preserved remains of a roman piece of artillery, the front cover plate of a light bolt shooter belonging to Legio IV Macedonica, was found on the site of the Battle of Cremona (2nd, 25 October 69 AD). And that reference to soldiers using the enemy's shields Sander mentioned in another thread, weren't they on a mission to take out that stone thrower? Greets 
 
Jasper

06-27-2002, 07:57 AM

Salve, 
 
That's correct, Tacitus, Historiae 3.23 records artillery deployed in battle. 
 
Arrianus ( Ektaxis) also describes the use of artillery pieces ( mÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨chanai) in his plans to deploy for battle against the Alans. In his TechnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ taktikÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ he also describes the use of handheld devices by cavalry. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Goffredo · 06-27-2002, 08:49 AM

Didn't Germanicus use artillery against Arminius in the battle of Idistaviso? I have a vague recollection...

06-27-2002, 10:05 AM

Salve, 
 
It is in operations immediately after the battle at Idistaviso that Tacitus, Annales 2.20 (text and translation) records the use of tormenta in a battle that involved storming earthworks. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

**richsc** · 06-27-2002, 03:46 PM

"handheld devices by cavalry"?? What would those look like? Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/
ICQ 940236

06-27-2002, 06:37 PM

Salve, 
 
In Connolly's Greece and Rome at war, page 302 there is a reconstruction drawing of a handheld catapult based on the orsova pieces. A similar small type is illustrated in Sumner's Roman army. Wars of the empire on pages 124 and 125. 
 
Regarding the often encountered opinion that auxiliaries did not operate artillery see this publication. 
 
Campbell, D.B., 'Auxiliary artillery revisited' in: Bonner JahrbÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼cher 186 (1986), 117-132 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

06-27-2002, 11:30 PM

Thank you for your informative replies. I'm assuming that the Roman legions of the pre-Marian era did not use artillery extensively enough in the field to warrant its inclusion in an army list, and that field artillery was more commonplace in the early Empire? What about artillery use during the late Republican period i.e. post-Marian reforms up till Julius Caesar in the Gallic and Civil wars?

Goffredo · 06-28-2002, 06:38 AM

I read that the cross-bow had been invented in roman times. Is this true? If yes what was not yet ripe for the roman cross-bow to become as deadly as the medieval weapon? The quality of the steel?

06-28-2002, 07:37 AM

Salve, 
 
The catapult developed from a crossbow type of weapon. Though most artillery seems to have consisted of torsion guns, bow powered weapons more closely resembling medieval crossbows also existed. The use of bows in the early types of gastraphetes (bellybow) and catapult were improved upon in Antiquity by the provision of torsion springs whereas in the middle ages steel bows were developed to achieve greater power. The same effect was thus achieved by different means. 
 
A bow powered crossbow type of weapon seems to have been used for hunting in Roman times, though military applications appear to have preferred the increased power provided by torsion engines. The manuballista and arcuballista may have been similar to crossbows, even though these may have had springs rather than a bow (as always use of a technical vocabulary to classify weaponry is a tricky affair), and the units of ballistarii recorded in Ammianus, Vegetius and the Notitia Dignitatum may have been operating such handheld weapons rather than field artillery pieces. 
 
For Roman catapults see the site of D. Baatz with bibliography on the subject. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Goffredo · 06-28-2002, 07:56 AM

Do you know if anyone has tried building one of these hand-held pieces including the hunting cross-bow? 
I wonder how much less powerful they must have been compared to the medieval ones. They must have been considered significantly less useful in battle as otherwise I would expect a greater use. 
 
Cross-bows were effective battle weapons: anyone could learn to use one in a very short time (measured in hours if not minutes), less tiring than tending a bow, great precision and great penetrating power due to weight of the bolt. So effective that various attempts were made to out-law then in battle.

06-28-2002, 08:57 AM

Salve, 
 
Both torsion - and bow powered crossbow type of weapons have been reconstructed. One of the members of the Ermine Street Guard has a small handheld torsion gun, while I have seen a picture of the reconstruction of the hunting crossbow from a group reenacting Pictish warriors. I do not know of any published data from testing of these devices. 
 
Penetrating power, ease of use and accuracy are not the sole factors influencing the use of particular missile weapons. Volume of fire can also be a consideration, with bows in general having a higher rate of fire than crossbows. In addition one can think of factors like costs and trouble of manufacturing such complex weapons and maintaining them (if it has moving parts, it can break down). Irrational elements such as cultural traditions can also play a part. Though crossbows were in widespread use during the high middle ages, they never did fully replace convential bows. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst 
 
Found the picture, available here. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 6/28/02 12:29:25 pm

06-29-2002, 06:57 PM

Salve, 
 
The use of artillery in battles is not often attested for Caesar's times, but is did occur occasionally. De bello Gallico 2.8 (text and translation) describes the use of artillery in fortifications to support troops in battle. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Torsion Artillery Compared to Tension Artillery	Eleatic Guest	6	4,463	05-10-2015, 07:42 PM Last Post: Eleatic Guest
	How effective was Roman artillery in Field battle?	Mrbsct	7	4,243	05-13-2013, 10:57 PM Last Post: Valerian Pertinax
	Field Artillery	P. Clodius Secundus	57	11,984	11-23-2007, 04:17 PM Last Post: P. Clodius Secundus