[Kevin S.]

1. Did the Romans utilized Onagers/ Catapults for open field battles?

2. Did the Romans utilized Polybolos/repeating ballistas for open field battles?

3. Did the Romans utilized Scorpios for open field battles?

4. I have heard that there is standardized amount of 61 Scorpios per Roman Legion. Is this true?

I am always confused about these things and have heard multiple contradictory opinions.

Thank you

[M. Curk]

I'm not 100% sure but I think that in De Bello Gallico Caesar writes about use of onagers and scorpions in open field battles against Gauls. If so i think that it is a quite a trustworthy source since Ceasar was a part of these fights. Not sure about other kinds of katapults but i don't think that there were actually 61 catapults per legion. As far as I know katapults and other siege equipment were rather built when the siege began but they might have transported some most accurate ones in the baggage train.

[Matthew Amt]

[William P]

now i know strategy games can be wildl y innacurate in their historical details but in rome total war barbarian invasion (focuses around the fall of western rome, the huns sarmations and sassanids etc

but essentially one roman unit was a scorion mounted on a chariot like carriage,
ii also think i remember one doco showing somethig from trajans column that looks like a scorpion mounted on a cart.

is there any evidence at all for such a practice maybe these carriages wernt small and mobile chariots but maybe larger wagons, but any evidence of ballistas being employed on battlefields to provide mobile artillery?

it sounds fanciful even to me but stranger things have happened...

[Matthew Amt]

The "carroballista" is what you're thinking of, a scorpion or catapult mounted on a 2-wheeled cart. A bit more convenient and mobile than just carrying a free-standing machine by cart, though it may have been more trouble to stick one quickly on the rampart of a marching camp if needed. Don't know!

There's no evidence that I've ever heard of any larger stone-throwers being mounted on wagons for actual use. "Field artillery" would be arrow-shooters, as a rule.

Matthew

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Alexander the Great reputedly used his field artillery to provide a covering barrage for a river crossing during his Scythian campaign. I don't remember the source, though, so I'll have to check first about whether it's from Arrian or whoever (I hope it's not just Frontinus, but even that's better than some unsourced modern guesswork as this might still prove to be).

[Lafayette C Curtis]

It's in Arrian!

[William P]

[Matthew Amt]

I would assume they'd be heavier bolts. Arrows would likely snap under the stress of such a heavy bow. And careful--375 BC is hardly "pre-Roman"! Though of course it is pre-Imperial Roman.

Matthew

[Leo Todeschini]

I have often wondered about the repeating bows.

I saw a possible recreation of one years ago in a TV Doc, but I can't get over the following intrinsic principle.

If you take say 30 seconds to span a bow using a winch or whatever you are putting putting 30 seconds worth of energy into the system. If you have a repeater and say take a shot every 3 seconds then you only have time to put 3 seconds of energy into the system and so 1/10th of the energy (not allowing for losses)

Net result the repeater would shoot like a wet tea bag.

Correct? It just seems like a non starter to me.


Tod

[Matthew Amt]

[Leo Todeschini]

Matthew Amt wrote

[Matthew Amt]

Hmm, if you say so. I'm not a physics person by any means! But I *think* what matters is how quickly and how far the arms move when the weapon is fired. Winding it more quickly or more slowly shouldn't affect the stored energy.

These machines all used winches of various sorts, with ratchets and pawls. In some cases there was a hub or wheel with sockets for a removable lever, so the lever would be moved to a different hole for each pull. On others, it's possible that the wheel had a number of spokes or fixed levers, allowing a much faster winding with no loss of leverage. I believe some used a system of two levers which were moved back and forth alternately (like a Nordic Track!), also a pretty fast and efficient method. It should be safe to assume that all of these systems allowed one or two men to utilise the mechanical advantage to cock the machine--why should it matter how quickly they did it?

Also, on the regular single-shot weapons, the arrow sat in a groove on a movable wooden slider. It remained in place when the arrow was shot, then was slid forward manually to engage the cord, and winched back to cock the machine. This meant disengaging the pawl, pushing the slider forward, and making sure the cord was secured by the trigger mechanism for every shot. Time-consuming!

On the repeater, this was all dispensed with, by means of a chain-driven mechanism which was simply continuously cranked in order to shoot, wind, load, shoot, wind, load, shoot, etc. Nothing had to be touched except the crank. But that mechanism exerted the same mechanical advantage of the single-shot cranking systems, so there did not have to be any loss of power.

Does that help? Vale,

Matthew

[Leo Todeschini]

Matthew Amt wrote

[Brandon Gray]

[Kevin S.]

Hey Mr. Todeschini, I believe that Mr. Amt is right in this this regard. If it is the same type of machine with the same draw length and the same projectile, then the time to draw them would not matter. To test this, try using a BB Gun with a spring coil. Load slowly and shoot. How load more quickly and shoot. With the same angle of elevation, the projectile should shoot to the same range.

[William P]

also , i realise archery isnt a caltapault design, but what reduces the power of an arrow but increases firing speed is shooting in a rushed fashion, either not reaching full draw, relaxing slightly and lowing the draw slightly or just releasing improperly

if the repeating ballista has the same 'draw length' and some powndage bow, in theory it shouldnt matter how quickly the bolt is released the difference between a rregular and repeating ballista is that the time taken tograb and re winch back the loading block and load the bolt is reduced which increases shooting speed, it doesnt matter if the bolt is sitting there fully loaded for 2 seconds or or 2 minutes its still the same energy

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Matthew Amt]

[Leo Todeschini]

I don't think I have expressed myself clearly enough, so I will try again.

I understand that for a given draw weight it does not matter how quickly it is drawn back, if it is drawn back it will will shoot with the same power whether it is drawn fast or slow.

The point I am making is as follows. The bundles are energy reserviors, no more and no less. They must be charged with energy provided by the work of the loaders; this is their only source of energy. If the power is not put in, it cannot be given up on shooting. that is a given.

If the 2 operators/loaders have to work for 30 seconds at their maximum exertion of approx 300W then 2 x 300 x 30 = 18,000 Watt/seconds (yes I invented a new unit).

If we assume that the loaders can shoot every 3 seconds (as per the TV doc I saw) then then two loaders can input 2 x 3 x 300 = 1800 Watt/seconds.

As the loaders are the only source of power it stands to reason that the bundles have to get their power from this source, If the bundles can only get charged with 1800W/s then it will shoot with far less power than one that has been charged with 18,000W/s

Following this logic the power that can be provided to be stored is far less in a repeater than in a single shot, so in fact the bow strength for a bow that takes 3 seconds to load has to be 10% of one that takes 30 seconds to load, given that the operators are working at maximum exertion. If it is more than 10%, then the operators are having to work harder than they are physically able to do.

Like I said before, I see this logic as solid, so cannot understand the nature of a repeater that is comparable to a single shot weapon - it seems to me to defy physics. That said the Romans spoke of it, so there must be something in it. That something is the basis of my question - what is going on?

The point made earlier that it does not neccessarily speed up the drawing of the device but speeds up the ancialliary actions of loading makes sense as the power would remain the same, but some precious seconds would be saved during loading, albeit at the expense of complexity.

I hope that helps.

Tod [/code]