Roman Artillery?

[CiceroD]

Where were carroballistae and other Artillery pieces placed in battle order? (usually)

 

Difficult to say, and we should remember that these artillery pieces were intended as siege weapons primarily. On the battlefield, they were usually immobile, which suggests a defensive battle is the best form of deployment and then on higher ground with infantry cover and support. The battlefield is a dynamic place so the utility of these weapons is limited, and the cases where we know they were used is almost invariably against an enemy position. In fact, I can't think of any case where roman artillery was used openly on the battlefield.

 

Wikipedia states that Carroballistae were mounted on carriages for the ease of moving with a battle

 

so same question or is wikipedia full of it?

[Pertinax]

Wilkins , from whom I quote above defines the Caroballista as "cart mounted" , but I note that the tech information does not suggest anything bigger than a standard size 2/3 man unit.

[CiceroD]

but I note that the tech information does not suggest anything bigger than a standard size 2/3 man unit.

 

But that doesn't preclude their use on the battlefield as an "Area denial ordinance system"

 

After all cannon were used on battlefiels and they had to have weighed as much as Carroballistae

[caldrail]

but I note that the tech information does not suggest anything bigger than a standard size 2/3 man unit.

 

But that doesn't preclude their use on the battlefield as an "Area denial ordinance system"

 

After all cannon were used on battlefiels and they had to have weighed as much as Carroballistae

They had wheels. Ballistae did not - they were carried in seperated loads and reassembled in situ.

[CiceroD]

but I note that the tech information does not suggest anything bigger than a standard size 2/3 man unit.

 

But that doesn't preclude their use on the battlefield as an "Area denial ordinance system"

 

After all cannon were used on battlefiels and they had to have weighed as much as Carroballistae

They had wheels. Ballistae did not - they were carried in seperated loads and reassembled in situ.

 

That Caldrail is a non sequitur

 

I am asking in that quote how if a carroballista was a standard 2/3 man unit that would preclude their use on a battlefield.

I am not asking what the difference between a ballista and a carroballista is.

[caldrail]

I am not asking what the difference between a ballista and a carroballista is.

And I'm not telling you - I'm merely pointing out that roman ballistae of all types were not wheeled and therefore not intended as mobile artillery. The romans did not develop the concept of tactical fire support as we understand it. As I mentioned before, the primary use of such weapons was to assault a fixed enemy position (or perhaps defend their own). I agree that it was possible to move such weapons around a battlefield, but then you should realise that the same weapons are useless during the transport process and vulnerable to enemy action. This is why we don't read too much of roman artillery in reports of roman battles. In any case, the romans were steadfastly in favour of infantry action although this began to change toward a predominance of cavalry toward the late empire in response to changing strategic conditions.

 

Sorry, I've just realised - Does 'carro' suggest wheels? I'm none to hot on latin. Doesn't change my arguement incidentially, but it raises my eyebrows nonetheless.

Edited September 20, 2007 by caldrail

[CiceroD]

I am not asking what the difference between a ballista and a carroballista is.

And I'm not telling you - I'm merely pointing out that roman ballistae of all types were not wheeled and therefore not intended as mobile artillery. The romans did not develop the concept of tactical fire support as we understand it. As I mentioned before, the primary use of such weapons was to assault a fixed enemy position (or perhaps defend their own). I agree that it was possible to move such weapons around a battlefield, but then you should realise that the same weapons are useless during the transport process and vulnerable to enemy action. This is why we don't read too much of roman artillery in reports of roman battles. In any case, the romans were steadfastly in favour of infantry action although this began to change toward a predominance of cavalry toward the late empire in response to changing strategic conditions.

 

Sorry, I've just realised - Does 'carro' suggest wheels? I'm none to hot on latin. Doesn't change my arguement incidentially, but it raises my eyebrows nonetheless.

 

What I'm really interested in Caldrail is how you reconcile this with Pertinax's assertion that they were used in the battlefield. as area denial ordinance delivery system which only makes sense on an open battlefield (Pertinax correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Now I like most people realize that the movie 'Gladiator' was mostly fictitious. However, in the opening battle scene I find it interesting that they used the catapults for infantry assault. Was this part accurate at all?

The late John Davis of LEG II AVG (Architectus to that Legion, hence "head of artillery") was at pains to debunk the scorpions as portrayed in the film, he stressed the role of the weapon as an "area denial ordnance delivery system" , ie: tactical re-shaping of the battlefield rather than direct assault.Here is the great man (in raffish auxilliary gear) with his charges.These things are seriously accurate, delivering shot after shot into a designated target area, with archer backup a foe can be squeezed away from or toward a propitious location.As portrayed in the film they are a bit of a waste of ordnance , though the idea of technological superiority is certainly rammed home when the two Marcommani get skewered.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...=si&img=962

 

Ballista front , scorpion rear .

 

As I understand it the Carroballista was mounted on wheels. Wikipedia says specifically that this was for ease of moving on the battlefield. I don't know if this is true or not (after all its wikipedia). but Pertinax's source on the other hand seems pretty convincing.

[caldrail]

the wheels are small diameter and not well suited to rough ground, nor was the carriage steerable. Therefore rapid relocation is extremely unlikely, although I agree it makes it easier to move a very heavy wooden construction if need be. The romans had pila, archers, and slingers. The demand for battlefield artillery wasn't there, particularly since moving siege engines around was a slow difficult business. Such engines might be accurate but only at a stationary target. As I mentioned, the battlefield is a dynamic place and unless the battle is involving a fixed position, the catapults have limited utility. Effective once they got your range I imagine - you'd go down like ninepins - but then, wouldn't a formation move or do something if targeted in this way?

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

While you lot are talking about artillery, I'll add a few related questions in if you don't mind.

What did an army do with ballista bolts on the move? Could they be created easily with local wood or made on the move?

 

Without fletchings wouldn't the bolt go completely off course or was there spiralling grooves?

 

Did a legion practice the range of artillery weapons? If so where?

 

Were scorpions and ballistae primarily seiging or field weapons?

 

Thanks in advance.

vtc

[caldrail]

While you lot are talking about artillery, I'll add a few related questions in if you don't mind.

No harm in questions whatsoever.

 

What did an army do with ballista bolts on the move? Could they be created easily with local wood or made on the move?

Well... I'm not sure. Given they were halfway between arrows and spears i would hazard a guess that making bolts wasn't something for the odd five minutes you had spare, and that the legion carried supplies of these for use. I doubt they made them on the move, but if the right craftsmen were available, then a few more might have been readied.

 

Without fletchings wouldn't the bolt go completely off course or was there spiralling grooves?

The bolts had fletchings. They were literally big bulky arrows in effect.

 

Did a legion practice the range of artillery weapons? If so where?

A bulls skull found at Vindolanda shows the legions practised regularly with bolt throwers in camp. The larger engines were usually built on an ad hoc basis at the site of the siege, and therefore practice with them was on the day as it were. Smaller catapults of that kind were on the legion strength (In Hadrians time siege engines were allocated to each legion) so I would hazard a guess they practised with those too. Training was very much a feature of legionary life and the men were cross-trained for flexibility, so most soldiers eventually got to play with artillery.

 

Were scorpions and ballistae primarily seiging or field weapons?

Primarily weapons for fighting at a fixed position. That doesn't necessarily mean a siege, but I guess it usually was. Employing such weapons on a battlefield was awkward given the size and weight of weapon and munitions, and with the ready availability of missile firing troops, the need for battlefield artillery wasn't there. We know that bolt throwers were used in the attack on Maiden Castle, England. They were also using automatic bolt throwers that fired repeatedly but the commander was very critical of those, regarding them as a waste of ammunition. Since they fired faster than they could be retargeted, inevitably a man was killed by five bolts instead of one. Thats the only instance I know of of these auto-ballistae, so perhaps they weren't regarded as a success?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Without fletchings wouldn't the bolt go completely off course or was there spiralling grooves?

 

The ballista operated on a crossbow principle, with a pair of vertical coil chambers at the front, the bow was drawn back by a windlass and held in position by a rack and pinion. When the bow was released the bolt shot along a groove and out through an opening in the front in a flat trajectory.

 

These stationary catapults could fire iron bolts up to 275m with some accuracy. In AD363 during the Persian campaign, an officer stood next to Julian was killed by a bolt aimed at the emperor.

 

Were scorpions and ballistae primarily seiging or field weapons?

 

I'm sure they were used in both siege warfare and on the field of battle due to them being a very effective and destructive weapon but I would say primarily they were a field weapon first. For siege warfare the Romans would bring out the big guns such as the onager which was a tension type of catapult based on the principles of a sling rather than a crossbow. These were much a heavier piece of machinery which made them too immobile to be used to be on the battlefield.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[caldrail]

In sieges bolt throwers were useful for keeping the heads of defenders down - and given the continued use of such weapons for that end - I'd have to say it worked. At Masada the earth ramp was defended by ballistae in this way for instance, and the romans sometimes built wooden towers to mount ballistae for better targeting. On the battlefield they don't seem to have made much impression, because we don't read of the general use. No, bolt-throwers were primarily weapons for use in or against fixed positions.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

Cheers guys

 

So were there ballistae on the Aurelian and Servian walls?

 

I know they were frequently on ships but were they in ports or watchtowers?

 

vtc

[caldrail]

They might mount some in times of trouble, but not as a permanent feature. These machines needed maintenance and being made of rope and wood, are not able to withstand the enviroment forever. Watchtowers were observation platforms, not defensive works.

[Pertinax]

They might mount some in times of trouble, but not as a permanent feature. These machines needed maintenance and being made of rope and wood, are not able to withstand the enviroment forever. Watchtowers were observation platforms, not defensive works.

Yes indeed they are best considered a sort of "bespoke machine" , the Legions technicians could re-build, replace and make good damage in the field from local materials, but for that they needed time of course. All the smaller units could be attended to by the creation of (most but not all) parts unlike say a modern GPMG , where no-one in the field could do much to save major parts of a damaged unit without available transplants which could not be made in the field at all.