Purpose of the Roman ballista

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1446552953865.jpg (276.15 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, Ballista.jpg)

Purpose of the Roman ballista Anonymous 11/03/15 (Tue) 12:15:53 497685 No.31989

So, from my understanding, the Roman ballista was different from earlier Greek models in that it was used against enemy soldiers rather than fortifications (i.e., used bolts instead of rocks of firebombs, and also was much smaller to accommodate its new rule as field artillery rather than a siege weapon.

Yet this makes me wonder - wouldn't such a heavy weapon be overkill against individual soldiers? I'm by no means an expert in antique artillery weapons, but even if you assume that ballista were mainly used from fixed hardpoints (i.e. from watchtowers, siege towers, or ships), I'd assume they would suffer from an agonizingly slow rate of fire that would make them impractical to use against larger enemy formations. Wouldn't it make more sense to rely on more traditional ranged weapons like pilums or the bows of auxilliary troops?

Anonymous 11/03/15 (Tue) 12:29:49 ed2872 No.31990

Well one only has to look at the Battle of Alesia to understand how the romans used their ballista against their opponents. It was always used in conjunction with other traditional weapons like the bow and the javelin. For starters it had a surprising high rate of fire (it fired small bolts, not heavy stone balls), long range, and high piercing ability, being able to shoot through shields with ease.

Anonymous 11/03/15 (Tue) 12:30:07 ed2872 No.31991

>>31990

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia

Forgot the link

Anonymous 11/03/15 (Tue) 13:18:47 497685 No.31995

>>31990

>>31991

So the ballista was some sort of stationary "sniper gun", so to speak, in that it could take down heavily armored targets due to its pentration power and long range?

Anonymous 11/03/15 (Tue) 14:18:12 f325e4 No.31998

>I'd assume they would suffer from an agonizingly slow rate of fire that would make them impractical to use against larger enemy formations.

You guys play too much Total War and get the impression that battles only lasted a few minutes.

>So the ballista was some sort of stationary "sniper gun", so to speak, in that it could take down heavily armored targets due to its pentration power and long range?

At long range it would have a highly curved trajectory, which would make hitting an individual almost impossible.

But taking out enemy soldiers through their shields and armor- duh. An arrow or javelin couldn't do that.

Anonymous 11/03/15 (Tue) 17:22:31 5f7d97 No.32007

>>31998

>Javelins couldn't do that

apologize to the Pila right now

Anonymous 11/04/15 (Wed) 05:12:51 123d92 No.32054

File: 1446613972227.jpg (83.06 KB, 736x528, 46:33, 016dc9895b7fd934b5ebc06a10….jpg)

>>31989

The Greeks and Romans had different shapes and sizes for different functions

>small ballistae as "machine guns" and "fixed guns"

Some of these were self loading (Polybolos) and had a fairly high rate of fire. Others (like the Scorpio) needed to be manually loaded and fired more slowly. These would have been used against infantry and would have fired bolts

>manuballista/Cheiroballistra as "battle rifles"

A handheld variant which would be shouldered like a medieval crossbow. They were comparable in power to the scorpio and polybolos

>Carroballista as "humvees"

A small ballista mounted on a cart for mobility. Were likely of cheiroballistra class

>Lithobolos as "howizters" and "field guns"

Then theres the big guns or Lithobolos. These would have launched either stones or fire pots. Some were man sized and were either light siege weapons or field artillery. Others were house sized and would have been used for long siege battles

Anonymous 11/04/15 (Wed) 21:49:09 fd4bbf No.32089

Would they perhaps be more disruptive to enemy formations than arrows and javelins?

Take out the guy you hit directly and knockback many men around him due to the high velocity projectile?

Anonymous 11/05/15 (Thu) 10:23:59 026742 No.32116

>>32089

Dunno. From what I've seen in videos, the (relatively small) roman ballista did not fire projectiles at much higher velocity than a bow. Then again, it could probably fire heavier, more massive projectiles.

Anonymous 11/05/15 (Thu) 17:58:42 5f7d97 No.32124

>>32089

well in the Punic wars Artillery was used to a massive scale, the Ballistie that fired giant lead slugs at Carthagin formations were used

Anonymous 11/07/15 (Sat) 17:22:51 633b63 No.32198

>>32124

Huh, I always thought the Romans only used smaller models that fired bolts rather than stones or pieces of metal like the Greek variants.

Anonymous 11/22/15 (Sun) 03:52:33 5f7d97 No.32766

Not gonna make a new thread but does anyone have the pic of the Crossbow gun hybrid that was presented to the King of spain?

I had it on my old computer but it broke and I need it for research purposes, tried google and it's just hogwash.

Anonymous 01/30/16 (Sat) 12:47:31 000000 No.34842

>>31998

>But taking out enemy soldiers through their shields and armor- duh. An arrow or javelin couldn't do that.

Javelin could, just at a spitting range.

A stone could too. It's not as convenient to cut for lithobolos, and a catapult is not as easy to aim, thus of less use against moving targets.

And again, matter of range.

There's not only infantry, but cavalry - and chariots, too. It's a good idea to start hitting them as soon as possible, preferably with something that got better range than their bows.

Anonymous 03/15/16 (Tue) 12:56:35 1b12e7 No.36071

File: 1458046595916-0.webm (2.78 MB, 720x480, 3:2, firefly shooting.webm)

File: 1458046595932-1.webm (2.97 MB, 640x480, 4:3, firefly sniping.webm)

Check out this fearsome engine, based on the remains found at the Roman fort of Orsova.

There's a lot of guesswork involved, obviously, also energy is stored by bundles of nylon string, instead of sinew, and its frame uses steel instead of iron, but it's still impressive.

It has a range of more than 800 meters apparently, and it shoots 0.5 kg bolts with remarkable accuracy. And it's nothing that couldn't fit on a wagon (or a pickup truck), though the original was stationary.

Anonymous 03/15/16 (Tue) 15:20:16 dcccce No.36072

>>36071

I wonder how many antique bricks were shat by soldiers who realized that the enemy was pointing one of those crossbows-on-steroids on them.

Anonymous 03/15/16 (Tue) 17:49:16 6d50d4 No.36074

>>36072

A surviving soldier isn't a good soldier, a surviving soldier is one that has seen his buddies to the left and right of him impaled by giant metal bolts.