Siege Engine mercenaries

[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?