Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T07:01:04.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Finds of Ancient Artillery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Dietwulf Baatz
Dietwulf Baatz
Affiliation:
Saalburg-Kastell, D-638 Bad Homburg 1, West Germany
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our knowledge of ancient artillery derives primarily from several ancient technical texts. The most important among them are the works of Philon, Heron and Vitruvius. Taken in combination, these texts are sufficiently detailed to allow reconstruction of functioning artillerypieces, and the first reconstructions of catapults were made as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, long before any actual find was known. The second source for our knowledge of ancient artillery consists of representations of catapults found on Greek and Roman reliefs. In spite of their small number these reliefs are a significant complement to the written texts, not only because they show technical detail which might otherwise be controversial, but also because most of them can be dated within narrow bounds and in this way give some hints at the direction of development of ancient artillery. But the chances of finding new texts or new reliefs are very small. So actual finds of ancient catapults in archaeological excavations constitute a third source, which will gain increasing importance, because there are fair chances of finding remains of catapults at a number of sites.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 9 , November 1978, pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Dietwulf Baatz 1978. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The texts are collected (with English translation) in Marsden, E. W., Greek and Roman Artillery, Technical Treatises (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar A disadvantage of this edition is the omission of the ancient text-diagrams, which are quite important and must be looked for in other editions, for instance: C. Wescher, Poliorcétique des Grecs (1867).

2 The first reconstructions were built by Dufour and de Reffye in France by order of Napoleon III. Photos in Archaeologia Aeliana 2 xxiv (1902), 72–3Google Scholar, figs. 3-4.

3 E. Schramm, Die antiken Geschütze der Saalburg (1918), 30-9.

4 Cadafalch, J. Puig Y, Annu. Inst. d'Estudis Catalans 4 (1911-1912), 672, fig. 2.Google Scholar

5 Gimpera, P. Bosch, Annu. Inst. d'Estudis Catalans 5 (1913-1914), 841–6.Google Scholar

6 Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 40-41.

7 For instance the holes in the washer and in the counter-plate, through which retaining-pins could be pushed: Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 43-4; cf. Marsden, E. W., Greek and Roman Artillery, Historical Development (Oxford, 1969), 29, fig. 15.Google Scholar

8 The reconstruction is still preserved in the Saalburgmuseum, Bad Homburg, Germany. For a photo, see G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (1969), pl. 29.

9 Even in Marsden's books, op. cit. (notes 1 and 7) no photos and no drawings of the very important iron fittings of the Ampurias catapult-frame are given.

10 The find was first mentioned in Sumer 27 (1971), page g. I saw and measured the remains of the catapult in December 1975 in Mosul Museum (Iraq).

11 Andrae, W., Hatra II. Wiss. Veröffentl. d. Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 21 (1912), 30 ff.Google Scholar

12 I am indebted to Dr M. Hopf (Mainz) and to Dr D. Eckstein (Hamburg) for the identification of the species.

13 Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 44-5, figs. 16-17.

14 Heron, Belopoeica 91-92 (ed. Marsden, note 1); Vitruvius x 11,5.

15 Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 43-4; Marsden, op. cit. (note 7), 29-30.

16 Heron, Belopoeica 97 (ed. Marsden, note 1), Philon, Belopoeica 57 (ed. Marsden).

17 Heron, Belopoeica 84-85 (ed. Marsden, note 1).

18 Heron, Belopoeica 76 and 111 (ed. Marsden, note 1).

19 In later Latin (for instance in Ammianus and Vegetius) there was a change of terminology, the arrowshooters appearing now as ballistae and the stonethrowers as scorpiones or onagri. Behind the change of terminology there was also a change cf construction, cf. Marsden, op. cit. (note 7), 188 f.

20 See note 1.

21 In comparing the torsion-springs of two different catapults we assume the quality of the hair-rope was about the same.

22 Length 8.7 modules, diameter 1 module; the module being ½ Roman foot (which is 14-8 cm), this gives a length of 128.8 cm and a diameter of 14.8 cm.

23 Vitruvius x. 11,3.

24 The width of the lever is given only by Philon, Belopoeica 53 (ed. Marsden, note 1).

25 Cassius Dio 75,11.

26 Cassius Dio 74,11 and 75,11.

27 Fire-arrows (in Latin: malleoli) filled with bitumen are mentioned by Vegetius IV, 18; see also Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII, 4, 14. Both sources date to the fourth century.

28 Oates, D., Sumer 11 (1955), 39 ff.Google Scholar; Maricq, A., Syria 34 (1957), 288 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Baatz, , Bonner Jahrbücher 166 (1966), 194 ff.Google Scholar An example of an auxiliary cohort being equipped with artillery is the cohors I fida Vardullorum at High Rochester: RIB 1280-81.

30 Gudea, N., Saalburg-Jahrbuch 31 (1974), 50–59.Google Scholar The finds are preserved in the Institutul de Istorie şi Arheologie at Cluj Napoca (Roumania).

31 The first reconstruction-drawing of the find, in Saalburg-Jahrbuch 31 (1974), 56Google Scholar, fig. 8, showed the iron beams and loops standing radially to the ring. After further examination of the original the reconstruction-drawing given here (FIG. 8) seems to be moreprobable.

32 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 206-33.

33 Schneider, R., Römische Mitteilungen 21 (1906), 142–68.Google Scholar

34 Photos of the text-illustrations can be found in Schneider, op. cit. (note 33); see also the drawn copies in the edition of C. Wescher, op. cit. (note 1), 123-34. On the question of the ancient text-diagrams generally: Schneider, R., ‘Geschütze auf handschriftlichen Bildern’, Ergänzungsheft zutn Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 2 (1907).Google Scholar

35 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 222, No. 16.

36 For instance, C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssäule (1896-1900), pl. 47.

37 Philon, Belopoeica 57 (ed. Marsden, note 1) illustrates the difficulties caused by the use of timber frames.

37a Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 227 f.

38 See note 1.

39 Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 40.

40 Dimensions taken from the drawing in Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 44, fig. 16, and from Schramm's reconstruction (note 8).

41 The power may have been equal if the washers of the Orşova catapult were higher than the Ampurias washers. The same assumption is made as is expressed in note 21.

42 Marsden, op. cit. (note 7), 188-90.

43 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 209-10.

44 Schneider, op. cit. (note 33), 164-5. See also the review of Marsden's book (note 1) by Drachmann, A. G. in Technology and Culture 13 (1972), 492–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Vegetius, mil. 2,15; 4,22; Anonymous, de rebus bellicis (ed. Schneider, R., Berlin, 1908), p. 19Google Scholar; also manuballistarius: Vegetius, mil. 3,14; 4,21.

46 Schneider, op. cit. (note 33), 167-8.

47 Schramm, op. cit. (note 3), 16, fig. 3; 47-9; pl. 1); Marsden, op. cit. (note 7), 5-12.

48 N. Gudea, op. cit. (note 30); id., ‘Gornea’, Banatica, Studii şi Cercetàn Arheologice (1977), 82-3, Nos. 20-22; figs. 46a, 59. The finds are now preservedin the museum at Reşiţa (Roumania).

49 Heron, Cheiroballistra 128 (ed. Marsden, note 1). The conversion of dactyls into cm is based on the assumption that the dactyl of Heron's Cheiroballistra is derived from the Roman uncia: 1⅓ dactyls = I uncia, cf. Schneider, op. cit. (note 33), 165, n. 2; Marsden,op. cit. (note 1), 200, n. 21; 228. If one Roman foot equals 29.6 cm and 12 unciae go to the foot, one dactyl is equal to 1.85 cm.

50 Wescher, op. cit. (note 1), 128, n. 5; Schneider, op. cit. (note 33), 154, n. 2.

51 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 222 f., n. 17.

52 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 224, fig. 9; 232-3; pl. 6-8.

53 Heron, Cheiroballistra 124 (ed. Marsden, see note 1); Drachmann, A. G., Technology and Culture 13 (1972), 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Heron, Belopoeica 77-8 (ed. Marsden, note 1). See also note 47.

55 In reconstructing the cheiroballistra some points remain undecided. The text does not tell us how to assemble the components of the weapon. The two fieldframes differ in that one is the mirror-image of the other (FIG. 10,1). As we do not know which of the frames is to fit which side of the weapon, there are eight possibilities for mounting each field-frame on the forked ends of the transverse struts. Some of them may be ruled out, because the curves in the beams of the field-frames were certainly intended to accommodate the arms of the machine. Another difficulty is connected with the inner diameter of the washers. The text gives an extremely small figure ( 1⅓ dactyls, equal to 2.5 cm), which is disputed by Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 224 f., n. 20.

56 Vitruvius 1 praef. 2; RE ix A,I, 420-89; Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 3-4.

57 The hole in the washer of Vitruvius's ballista is not circular as in the older machines but oval, allowing more spring-cord to be placed in the torsionsprings. Furthermore the stone-thrower of Vitruvius may have been stronger than a stone-thrower of the same size built after Philon's instructions, cf. Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 197-200, n. 21. Marsden's proposal to read the dimensions of Vitruvius's ballista in unciae and not in digiti as given in the text is hard to accept,because this seriously interferes with the text.

58 Marsden, op. cit. (note 7), 185; 190, n. 2; pl. 1.

59 The date of Heron's Cheiroballistra is discussed above in the section on chronology (p. 14). Other late Murces also seem to refer to the type of artillery having an all-metal frame and especially the arched strut mentioned in Heron's Cheiroballistra, cf. Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 247, n. 2.