Printable View
most artillery will be smaller than onagers. most will fire bolts, maybe one or two stone-chuckers but thats it (probably) so most artillery will be movable. else you could make artillery useless by positioning your men far away enough and they'll never get close enough
The heavy stone throwers of the era in question should actually be more effective than the later Onagers presented in the Vanilla RTW .Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal
The actual peices were scaled up balistas which were a far more sophisticated weapon , and were built to very exacting standards using the best mathematics of the day {Archemidies designed some particularly potent monsters for counter battery fire in defense of Syracuse} .
The science was largly lost in late Empire and the less sophisticated {and less efficient} Onager was invented to fill the void . The earlier stone throwing Balistas were the more potent weapons .
From what I've read , Rhodes should be a leading producer of artillery , as should the Ptolemies {they loaned out -for income I imagine- many peices to other nations and still had plenty of units remaining in country to worry Caesar so they likely produced a lot of artillery} .
Most of the legions artillery where bolt throwers.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I think Vegetius wrote that there was approx. one scorpion/bolt thrower per centuria and one stone thrower per cohort. But I don`t know about what period he is talking.
During the siege of Jotapata Vespasians 3 legion (+auxilia) army has had a total 160 artillery pieces. (Josephus Flavius, De Bello Judaico Book 3/7/9)
Ok thanks. What I meant with ballistae where bolt throwers. I never seem to remember if it was ballista = bolt, catapult = stone or if it was ballista = stone, catapult = bolt that is the correct one. Usually half the sources claim the first alternative and the other half claims it's the other way around...Quote:
Originally Posted by cunctator
Anyway, the book I read was about the Dacian wars and it was quite old but it said the around 100 AD legion had 60 ballistae. As far as I know, it was a quite new discovery that ballista and catapult meant opposite to what people thought before, and it seems more realistic that 60 bolts and not 60 stone throwers were used by a legion so I assume that means that catapult really means bolt weapon and ballista means stone thrower ~:confused: :help: ?
ballista is about the same as a scorpion.
ballista=scropion=BOLTS
onagers=catapult=STONES
however there were ancients stonethrowers with an ballista-like design. so they are named after the idea of firing and not after ammo.
ballista=sinews
onager=catapult like
i think
2 types essentialy. One with 2 arms and one with just one arm. Both types use sinews.
One arm version is an onager.
There are 2 types of 2 arm siege weapons. The catapult is a bolt thrower and the balista is a stone thrower.
"The catapult is a bolt thrower and the balista is a stone thrower."
Err.. , mmh. I thought it was the other way around. Could it be that a slight mix up occured?
In time the terms switched meanings to become what you understand as ballista and catapult today. But they were originally refered to as I said.
Thank 's for the explanation. I highly suspect that this will not be the last time that this will have to be explained. ~:)
this is really confusing...i'll just look at the pretty picture to see wich is wich...
In our timeframe archery was very different from region to region and folk to folk and time to time. EB is trying hard to take this into account, even CA put hefty restrains on it.
Cheers
OA
ok, thnx