New group and Hatra Ballista

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Hello

I have found the web of a new danish group: LEGIO VI VICTRIX COHORS II CIMBRIA

[url:2gpyb4ez]http://romandanes.blogspot.com[/url]

It's a blogspot with some pics of equipment, including (Aitor alert :wink: ) a reconstruction of a ballista. Is based in the Hatra frame, but the arms are set outside.

[url:2gpyb4ez]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4676/1599/1600/Ballista.jpg[/url]

[John M McDermott]

I hope we hear from these guys.

[Susanne]

I saw Thomas' introduction post over at the RomanArmy discussion group at Yahoo.

[aitor iriarte]

I knew of that machine and I downloaded more pìcs of it several months ago.
It is typical to leave the half-round openings on the front-stanchions unused while they need to create spurious openings on the back stanchions just for the sake of placing tha arms in the 'correct' position! :twisted:
I think that the stays should abut to the upper back spar against the springs and not short of them, like on this machine. I'm afraid that. under full tension, that spar would suffer badly and, eventually, break... :?
Ah, this machine is a ballista but it is an arrow-shooter!

Aitor

[Peroni]

The centurio has a very impressive squamata though!

Regards,

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Very nice. I especially like the leather pouch around the
soldier's neck. Is that similar,I wonder,to the one in the
other thread( asking about the pouch size).

[Crispvs]

Aitor,

The arms may well be in the correct position, although I agree that the cut outs in the rear stanchions are probably spurious.

I have often visited your website and have looked at length at your reconstruction drawings and very informative text many times. As you rightly point out there and elsewhere, for the Hatra catapult to have been an in-swinging catapult the head unit holding the springs and arms would need to be mounted about halfway along the stock. Your own reconstructions also bear out this point.

However, Alan Wilkins points out that the position the Hatra catapult was lying in when found indicated that it must have been mounted at the front of the stock. This would argue strongly against it having been an in-swinging catapult. Alan notes also that the wooden stanchions had all rotted away and thus there are a number of different posibilities as to how they they could have been positioned which would nonetheless be effective. He notes also that the cut-outs in the front of the frame could have been there in order to allow the arms to be drawn back further than previous designs such as the Ampurias catapult would have allowed.

Crispvs

[Arne Joakim]

That is the onager my group used to play with.
It is aimed at a lake so we could fire both iceballs and burning shots.
I did not know Albert had come so far in starting a group.

[D B Campbell]

Alan Wilkins points out that the position the Hatra catapult was lying in when found indicated that it must have been mounted at the front of the stock. This would argue strongly against it having been an in-swinging catapult. Alan notes also that the wooden stanchions had all rotted away and thus there are a number of different posibilities as to how they they could have been positioned which would nonetheless be effective. He notes also that the cut-outs in the front of the frame could have been there in order to allow the arms to be drawn back further than previous designs such as the Ampurias catapult would have allowed.

Crispus, archaeologists don't really deal in "must have been"s. Only "might have been"s!

It is true that the major timbers had disappeared, but the metal cladding makes their configuration fairly obvious (as Alan shows on p.69 fig.54 of Roman Artillery.)

If the only argument against in-swinging arms is the fact that the stock projected from the front of the machine, then that's a pretty weak objection. I can well imagine that the stock would shatter if a heavy artillery piece fell on its face. As you noted, no substantial timbers survived, so we cannot say what happened to the stock.

It's worth noting that some people believe that Alan has the "Hatra" arms swinging back too far. His sketch in Roman Artillery p.70 fig.55 shows a 78 degree arc, but in practice this may be too much; the bow-string may be inclined to slip off the ends of the arms at this severe angle.
This is something that really needs to be tested before we can say for certain.

[aitor iriarte]

Sorry, Crispus I've been out of the Forum for a week! :oops:
I think that Duncan has synthetised very well the matter, Thanks, Duncan!

Aitor

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I find the theory of ice balls interesting!

any mention in classical literature about winter attacks in which the Romans used ice balls?


M.VIB.M.