Siege Engine mercenaries

[eadingas]

I was wondering if it's possible to add siege engines as mercenary units for regions famed for their siege equipment production - Syracuse, Rome, Greece, etc? They would have to be very expensive and very rare, but still available for anyone.
What this would reflect, in my mind, is the ability to hire siege engineers from more advanced nations by anyone with a full pocket. Iventors and engineers were pretty much mercenaries themselves, and I'm sure if history had it that Gauls or Germans had conquered Rome, they would eventually hire these engineers to work for their armies.
Or are we planning to do something else with siege engines and 'barbarians'?

[Ranika]

I don't know if I agree or disagree with this, but I do think, firstly some of the siege engines (onagers) should be removed. They were a later invention. With those removed, factions without such engines won't be at such a huge disadvantage when it comes to siegecraft. The removal of the anachronistic onager would once again open up some unit space, as there are many versions of it to remove, which means a lot of space to free up.

[The_Emperor]

So was the Ornager an Imperial period invention? I didn't know how extensive their use was during this republican period.

I know the Romans never used the Ornager in their conquest of Britain, and that the Scorpion and ballista was widely used. (in one site a sekelton was found with a Ballista head embedded in its spine)

[Ranika]

Actually... I've heard recently that the onager was invented around 50 BC. But, other things I've seen say it was in the early 1st Century AD.

[The_Emperor]

So the Romans conquered most of their empire without the use of such major Artillery pieces?

Thats very interesting.

[Ranika]

Not saying that, necessarily, but, based on what I've found, yes, but I'm not a Roman historian. I'm more focused on the Celts, particularly the Gauls, Britons, and early Gaels in this period, and the vast majority of my study is on Dark Ages Ireland and Celtic Britain. My ascertations about Roman siegecraft are based on what sources I can find online, but I've seen a number of conflicting dates on the subject. I'm hoping some one here might be able to clarify the actual date of the onagers invention. Based on the dates I've found, it'd be between 50 BC to the early 1st Century AD.

[Oleander Ardens]

Sorry that I have only such a limited time to write, having an incredible volume of work to do, but:

Syrakus and other greek citys were truly renowned for their siege engineers, as the Syrians some time before;

I propose:
a) A repeating ballista merc. unit in the Asia Minor, as Dionysos devoloped it there in the 4th century BC
The Romans should not have the Scorpion and the rep. ballista
b) A Gastrophates unit with a very slow reloading speed, making it only really good for sieges in the same area and Greece. Such units were only common in sieges, so it shouldn't rule the battlefield
c) Same goes for a brachytonoi unit in Silicy, but it should be the overall better unit as it used a more efficient method (twisted sinews)
d) The arcuballista is nothing else but a Roman crossbow, and we have evidence from the first century AD. Usually only used in sieges too

Note that b), c) and d) are simple missile units with a handheld weapons; To model their limited use and ad-hoc status they should be understrenght and have very little discipline and morale. They should only be buildable in high-develloped citys. It absolutly has to be avoided to turn RTW into a "crossbow missle war". They shouldn't replace archers and slingers, but adding something special, which made sense...

Cheers
OA

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

a) A repeating ballista merc. unit in the Asia Minor, as Dionysos devoloped it there in the 4th century BC
The Romans should not have the Scorpion and the rep. ballista
Why? Could you give us Historical evidence?

[eadingas]

Does anyone have any info on 'Bricoli' ? I've read it was a very simple siege 'engine' used by anyone up to early medieval times - it could be the 'barbarian' siege engine... Bricoli was made of a tree stump with a hole in which you put a bolt, and a springing wooden board that shoots it. Simplest design ever. I can post a scan later...it's possible it's better known under some other name.

Also, does anyone have a proper translation of Ammianus Marcellinus, book XXIII, where he describes late roman siege engines? Not that his period is relevant to our case, but maybe there is some interesting info we're missing... I could only find latin original...

[Oleander Ardens]

In a nutcase:

1) A Scorpion shoot very small darts, I'll dig up the exact quote later. It could be a simple ballista or a larger "cheiroballistra", as it is depicted in the game.
As the larger cheiroballistra with it's typcial metalframe only was invented around 100 AD it would be identical to the Ballista...

2) There is no evidence at all of a Roman repeating ballista.

3) eadingas: sounds like a "lockbow" priciple: Could you tell us more?

Cheers
OA

[Ranika]

Bricoli sounds a lot like the Chwythstúag, a British 'siege' engine, though it was actually used more for anti-infantry work. An early British legend states Damux, the first Gallic-blooded king of Ynys Manaw had many of them made, and placed into two lines, hidden in two thickets alongside the battlefield, facing diagonally toward the enemy position, before engaging in battle with Cynlan, the current king of Mann. When Cynlan's forces came between the engines, they opened fire, and killed so many men, so rapidly, that initially Cynlan had thought it was some type of magic that had killed them. Damux's force, which was horrendously outnumbered, proceeded to advance after a second volley, which completely disintegrated Cynlan's front lines, and cause much of his second line to begin to flee in terror. Damux's force didn't actually fight much, they ran down the routers, and engaged in brief skirmishs with Cynlan's men, but before long, Cynlan had been captured, and his army utterly annihilated.

The story doesn't seem toooo unlikely to me, except Chwythstúag don't seem like they'd have too much penetrative power, at least in this case, as the missiles had to be made on the spot, supposedly (this may just mean they had metal or stone heads, with shafts seperated, and needed to assemble them, or they had to improvise missiles). However, Damux may have just been very, very lucky. The story also says most of the wounds were at the necks of the dead. While it'd be an anomaly, it'd not be an impossiiblity, just very unlikely.

Also to note, this story is entirely apocryphal, no proof of the occurence ever manifested, it was just passed in oral traditions, and eventually written down. While I imagine the story is likely not true, the Chwythstúag does seem rather firmly based in reality, and the account is likely based on another battle, or an amalgam of other battles, where such a weapon was utilized.

[PROMETHEUS]

Onager
There is little evidence for the use of these before the C4 AD, but they are more simple in design and construction than most of what had gone before. It is suggested that the onager comes to the fore when the knowledge and skills required to make the sophisticated catapults of earlier centuries is lost. We are heading into the Dark Age by this time.Roman advances in the design, mobility, and firepower of artillery produced the largest, longest-ranged, and most rapid-firing artillery pieces of the ancient world. Roman catapults were much larger than the old Greek models and were powered by torsion devices and springs made of sinew kept supple when stored in special canisters of oil. As Josephus recorded in his account of the siege of Jerusalem, the largest of these artillery pieces, the onager, (called the "wild ass" because of its kick), could hurl a 100 pound stone over 400 yards. Vegetius noted that each legion had 10 onagri, one per cohort, organic to its organization. Smaller versions of these machines, such as the scorpion and ballista, were compact enough to be transported by horse or mule. These machines could fire a 7-10 pound stone over 300 yards. Caesar required that each legion carry 30 of these small machines, giving the legion a mobile, organic artillery capability. Smaller machines fired iron-tipped bolts. Designed much like the later crossbow but mounted on small platforms or legs, these machines, which required a two man crew, could be used as rapid-fire field guns against enemy formations. They fired a 26-inch bolt over a range of almost 300 yards. Larger versions mounted on a wheeled frame were called carroballistae and required a 10-man crew. These machines could fire perhaps three to four bolts a minute and they were used to lay down a barrage of fire against enemy troop concentrations. They were the world's first rapid-fire field artillery guns.

[chemchok]

Schematics for a Greek repeating catapult, the Dionysius Repeating Catapult (Polybolo), from the Fourth C. BC : LINK (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/RepCatapult.htm)

But, this seems to be an exception to the rule, the feat of a single engineering genius, not a widely adopted piece of military equipment (too bad we can't link units to ancillary characters and include a Dionysius of Alexandria, ~;) )

From the same site on ancient Greek artillery: LINK (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/CatapultTypes.htm)

Another page from the site, a reproduction of a Scientific American article from 1979 on ancient catapults: LINK (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults.htm)

If this is all a load of bunk, speak up. ~:)

EDIT: sorry Oleander, I didn't even see your post up there. A merc unit would work well, use Rhodes as the province of origin.

[eadingas]

Here's the scan of 'Bricoli':
http://img113.exs.cx/img113/1617/bricoli.th.jpg (http://img113.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img113&image=bricoli.jpg)

Note: this is a late medieval, advanced model. The ancient ones were much simpler, consisting simply of a tree stump, a wooden board and a single missile. It was often used, like on this picture, with flaming bolts. You couldn't really target with it, and the bolts didn't have stabilizers, so it wasn't too good against moving targets... The book I have it from says it's been in use 'since ancient times', which can mean anything, but the design is simple enough for it to be indeed very ancient. I also have another name for it, protoslavonic 'rutta', if that helps.

[sharrukin]

Here's the scan of 'Bricoli':
http://img113.exs.cx/img113/1617/bricoli.th.jpg (http://img113.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img113&image=bricoli.jpg)

Note: this is a late medieval, advanced model. The ancient ones were much simpler, consisting simply of a tree stump, a wooden board and a single missile. It was often used, like on this picture, with flaming bolts. You couldn't really target with it, and the bolts didn't have stabilizers, so it wasn't too good against moving targets... The book I have it from says it's been in use 'since ancient times', which can mean anything, but the design is simple enough for it to be indeed very ancient. I also have another name for it, protoslavonic 'rutta', if that helps.

IIRC it is also later known as Springal or Infernal Machine.

[eadingas]

Well then, can you confirm it's been used in ancient times?

[sharrukin]

Well then, can you confirm it's been used in ancient times?

Not as yet, though given how simple it is I suspect it was. The term springal and espringal was used as well for a large frame mounted cossbow weapon. I have also seen it referred to as a Ballista. The medieval engineers often used Greek and Roman terminology in a rather sloppy manner.

[sharrukin]

All I could find on the internet. This device doesn't seem to have a name of its own. The first quote is from Scientific American but I have a copy and the wording is different which may be due to several factors or it may be a misquote.

As the technical understanding of catapults decreased in the early Middle Ages after the collapse of the Roman Empire in Europe (5), siege artillery technology stagnated. Though in-depth technical information about catapult construction during this period is sparse, it appears that the older more sophisticated catapult designs gave way to redesigned engines, such as variation of the non-torsion arrow throwing catapult and to newly designed non-torsion weapons like the springald used to project arrows.

5. Werner Soedel and Vernard Foley, "Ancient Catapults." Scientific American, March 1979. 160.

A ballista is arranged like a giant crossbow, and combines the function of throwing arm and spring in just the same manner. Again it is ratcheted back with a lever & gear to load. A variation on this theme is the springal, which holds dozens of spears at a time, which are fired with tension from a green plank which isratcheted back
for tension.

A variant of the ballista was a tension-driven device called the springald, which closely resembled a crossbow in function. Used to fire javelins or large bolts, it had a vertical springboard fixed at its lower end to a timber framework. Soldiers manually retracted the board, which moved like a lever. When released, the springboard smacked the end of the projectile, propelling it toward its target. Springalds also made excellent defensive weapons. At Chepstow Castle in Wales, Roger Bigod mounted four springalds on the corners of the great keep to hold the enemy at bay. Although the springalds no longer survive, the platforms on which they stood during the late thirteenth century are still visible.

One of the more puzzling machines is the springald. There are lots of references to springalds, which were commonly used within castles, by the defenders. It seems that the motive power derived from a single huge bow, which was set vertically in a socket in the base of the machine. This could then be pulled back and cocked by ropes and a windlass. For projectiles, it used bolts or shafts. These were placed in a holder, which could be elevated and aimed. When the bow was released, it struck the bolt. To give an example of the type of defensive armament: at Southampton in 1353 there were 12 crossbows with one foot, and 300 quarrels for them. There were 12 bows with 300 arrows. There were 12 springalds, with 300 bolts (attiliis), two great engines called ‘magnels’ and a small engine called a Tripoget.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

In a nutcase:

1) A Scorpion shoot very small darts, I'll dig up the exact quote later. It could be a simple ballista or a larger "cheiroballistra", as it is depicted in the game.
As the larger cheiroballistra with it's typcial metalframe only was invented around 100 AD it would be identical to the Ballista...

2) There is no evidence at all of a Roman repeating ballista.
OK. Fair enough.

[Urnamma]

We could shrink the onager down to make it a viable ancient catapult. Give the ballista to every civilized faction. Give the repeating ballista to the Greek factions. Then we'd eliminate the need for any other siege engines. And we'd get rid of the ahistorical heavy onager. Maybe add one siege engine and we haven't added a single unit (in order to save space), and we've fixed the siege problem.

[eadingas]

Add the bricoli! Add the bricoli! :DD

[Ranika]

I agree with eadingas, I think the bricoli should be added. While the account of the Chwythstúag on the Isle of Man is exaggerated or simply untrue, it seems highly unlogical that the device was simply imagined. However, it was described as firing only one bolt, and was operated by two men. But the rest of it seems to be the same (a log, with a hole hollowed through it, a bolt inserted, and a board that would spring up, slam into the end of it, and fire it). Is the bricoli from this period a multi-bolt launching system, or only a single bolt, maybe like the scorpion (which is what the Chwythstúag seems to be)?

[eadingas]

The multi-bolt one on the picture is definitely a medieval invention. The ancient ones only had single bolts.

[Ranika]

Excellent, then it should make a good, all-around piece of siege/anti-infantry equipment for barbarian factions. However, which barbarian factions should have them?

[sharrukin]

My guess is that the Bricoli was used by ancient peoples at the time. It would more likely have been used by non-Graeco-Roman cultures as the Greeks and Romans at this time had access to advanced Gastrophetes, Ballista's, Scorpion's and other devices. The more backward barbarians would have used something like the Bricoli in place of these. This is a WAG. The barbarians didn't write the books!

The Onager looks wrong! It should be replaced by a scaled up Ballista or Scorpion.

Some information on ancient siegcraft;
Catapult/Ballista;
It is interesting to note that the largest stone-thrower on record, a three-talent (78 kilogram) machine, was built by Archimedes.
This light torsion catapult was the most common type of artillery during the Hellenistic period. With only slight modifications the weapon was employed still in the Early Roman Imperial period, up to ca. AD 100, when the Romans redesigned their artillery. The word catapult derives from the Greek katapeltês and means ‘against shield’; it is an antipersonnel weapon initially and most catapults remained that; they were not often fired at walls with the intention of knocking the wall down; they were fired at the top of walls to keep the defenders heads' down while a ram attacked the wall below. Stone-throwers were built from mid fourth century BC onward, but only after serveral stages of development the mature standard type of the palintonon appeared in the third century BC. The reconstruction sketch drawn after the text of Philon, Belopoeica shows a heavy palintonon for throwing 1/2 talent (ca. 13 kg) stone balls. The total weight of this weapon was about 3 metric tons, the weight of the elastic ropes of the two torsion springs alone ca. 330 kg. In contrast to the euthytonon the palintonon could easily be dismantled into the main components: the two torsion springs with their wooden frames, the long stock (table, ladder and slider) together with winch and pulley, also the carriage. Because of the heavy weight and the sheer size of the palintonon dismantling was indispensable, otherweise the machine could not have been transported over the often poor and narrow roads of Antiquity. The stone balls were fired generally in a flat trajectory, not in a high one as often mistakenly assumed in modern literature.

The two-armed torsion stone thrower was still employed in the early Roman Imperial period. The Roman author Vitruvius provides a description of the palintonon under the latin name ballista (X.11: De ballistarum rationibus et proportionibus

Field artillery;
The first reference to and possibly use of artillery in the field (rather than around a city in a siege) is in 354: Onomarkhos the Phokian deployed them against Philip II, Polyainos 2.38.2. These are ‘stone-throwers’; probably non-torsion like that designed by Charon (dates unknown) as described in Biton (C3? BC).

http://www.swan.ac.uk/classics/staff/ter/grst/What's%20what%20Things/artillery.htm

http://www.newton.mec.edu/Brown/TE/CATAPULTS/Catapult_animations.htmlnot very good but perhaps useful for animations graphics if we decide to use these.

http://antique.mrugala.net/Rome/Balliste%20romaine/Legion%20XXIV%20-%20roman%20ballista%20siege%20catapult.html

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

We could shrink the onager down to make it a viable ancient catapult. Give the ballista to every civilized faction. Give the repeating ballista to the Greek factions. Then we'd eliminate the need for any other siege engines. And we'd get rid of the ahistorical heavy onager. Maybe add one siege engine and we haven't added a single unit (in order to save space), and we've fixed the siege problem.
That is an interesting plan. In fact, analysing the files I've just reached an interesting conclusion. In the unit files, Siege Engines (Onagers, Heavy Onagers, Ballistas, Repeating Ballistas, etc...) have been made separate. This means there is one unit of each for Roman factions, another of each for Greek factions, etc...

This was surelly made because each of these similar devices had to use a different 3d model for the soldier (Roman, Greek, "Barbarian" engineer, etc...). But there is one advantage. We can have multiple 3d meshes and multiple textures for each unit, separated by faction. Therefore we can have a single general siege engine (ballista, onager, etc...) unit that will have in-game different soldiers according to each specific faction.

This means that, if we have a list of devices that are commonly available to the factions that had them historically, we can actually save about a lot of unit spaces. In fact, I've made a bit of research:

-1 unit for Scorpio - Roman factions (one 3d soldier model and 4 different soldier textures)
-1 unit for Ballistas - Greek, Roman, etc... factions (the number of 3d soldier models equal to number of cultures and the number of different soldier textures equal to factions)
-1 unit for Repeating Ballistas - Greek factions (one 3d soldier model and the number of different soldier textures equal to factions)
-1 unit for Onager (tonned down to early catapults level) - Greek, Roman, etc... factions (the number of 3d soldier models equal to number of cultures and the number of different soldier textures equal to factions)
-1 new unit for Bricoli - "Barbarian" factions (one 3d soldier model and the number of different soldier textures equal to factions)

5 units instead of the 17 currently present in the files. We can save 12 unit slots!!!

What do you think? :smile:

[Ranika]

That sounds like a good plan to me. If we really want diverse factions, we need every bit of space we can get, and the engineers don't need to be ultra-diverse, as they aren't going to be representing the main forces involved.

However, I ask again, which factions will get the bricoli? All barbarian factions?

[Oleander Ardens]

Finally I have some freetime:

Good plan Aymar, although I'm a bit sceptical on use of the "bricoli" back than. Maybe I missed something, but I never read about their use back than in RTW period.

A good idea would be allow "barbarians" to built the Ballista. Yes, it sounds stupid, but when we allow them to be buildable on city-level four and five only, they can do so only in the conquered big cities and Metropols of the Greek, Carth. and Romans, where historically they got their siege-engineers from. No need to tweak the unit texture as you can use greek ones with the faction colors. A simple solution to a complex problem.


But what about the "crossbow" units, the Gastrophates, the brachytonoi and the Arcuballista? Maybe we could use two of this units, merging the handheld Gastrophates and the Arcuballista statwise, although the a diffferent names would require two slots. As I had only very few times the chances to study RTW recently I would like to hear your opinions on how difficult it would be to model such "crossbow" units in...

Cheers
OA

[Urnamma]

Wait a minute... We can have the same unit with different textures? Awesome!!!! I have to revamp my Hellenic Unit list...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Good plan Aymar, although I'm a bit sceptical on use of the "bricoli" back than. Maybe I missed something, but I never read about their use back than in RTW period.
Hey! I'm not the expert in siege engines here. I was just saying it was possible.


A good idea would be allow "barbarians" to built the Ballista. Yes, it sounds stupid, but when we allow them to be buildable on city-level four and five only, they can do so only in the conquered big cities and Metropols of the Greek, Carth. and Romans, where historically they got their siege-engineers from. No need to tweak the unit texture as you can use greek ones with the faction colors. A simple solution to a complex problem.
Well, that is indeed a good plan. If we take into consideration that Oppida will be level 3 for the "barbarians", that will sound pretty historic to me:

"They will only be able to get ballistas throught the capture of a lvl 4-5 Roman-Greek-etc city..."

Yeap. Sounds good to me. :smile:


But what about the "crossbow" units, the Gastrophates, the brachytonoi and the Arcuballista? Maybe we could use two of this units, merging the handheld Gastrophates and the Arcuballista statwise, although the a diffferent names would require two slots. As I had only very few times the chances to study RTW recently I would like to hear your opinions on how difficult it would be to model such "crossbow" units in...
Well, we could enter a world of pain on this one. More than for the Bricoli. I think it will be very hard due to the animation. For the Bricoli we could use an existing model, edit it and save it with another name for the 3d model and texture. For this one we would have to model it from scratch and since we can't modify or introduce animations... ...well, you get the picture... :sad:

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Wait a minute... We can have the same unit with different textures? Awesome!!!! I have to revamp my Hellenic Unit list...
Yes. And different 3d models also. :yes:

[sharrukin]

I read earlier that there was a plan to scale up an Onager to represent another siege engine. This will NOT work. The Onager looks wrong, period!
The Ballista or the Scorpion is what we should be looking at to scale up.

[eadingas]

"They will only be able to get ballistas throught the capture of a lvl 4-5 Roman-Greek-etc city..."

Yeap. Sounds good to me. :smile:


But... if you're able to conquer 4-5-level cities without ballistas, what's the point of getting them later? ~;)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

But... if you're able to conquer 4-5-level cities without ballistas, what's the point of getting them later? ~;)
Maybe... ...because instead of waiting 8-10 turns for other cities to fall, you'll be able to launch an attack sooner? :rolleyes: