WELCOME TO WEAPONS.CO.UK

Ancient roman artillery describing various types of weapons and evidence supporting this

The Roman Empire was very advanced for its time, especially in the area of artillery. No other group of people had the technology that they had. At first, the weapons were small and not very powerful. As time progressed, they became more advanced. The Romans started to develop different ways to propel their ammunition. The smaller weapons could be operated by one person, but as they got bigger more people were needed to help fire them. As a result of this technology, the Romans could conquer most of their enemies.

Evidence of these ancient weapons comes from three primary sources: written text, artistic depictions, and artifacts. The texts come in the form of technical treaties. The authors of four of these treaties are Philon, Heron, Biton, and Vitruviues. Ancient treaties help us understand the technical and mechanical aspects of the Roman artillery. Although the treaties are very descriptive, some basic matters are left out. For example, the raw materials used to construct these weapons are not discussed. The depictions of weapons come in the form of reliefs from different parts of the Roman Empire. The Trojan’s column, which was constructed around A.D. 110, is a valuable source of evidence. The column contains 5 different depictions of various artillery, including the pictures of the siege engines. Other depictions are the relief at Pergamum, from the third century B.C., the tombstone of Vedennius, and the Cupid Gem. The depictions on the tombstone of Vedennius and the Cu pid Gem can be dated to the middle of the fourth century B.C. by the type of washers used in the frames of the weapons. The depictions of the engines correspond closely with the writings of the ancient authors. Here is an image of the depiction on the Tombstone of Vedennius.

Most of the ancient pieces from the weapons found are metal pieces of the frame. Also, metal and organic remains of bolts were found. Many actual projectiles that were made of stone were found as well. Other pieces of ancient materials found are believed to be parts of the engines that are described in the treaties written by the four ancient authors. From the artifacts, the size of the engines and size of the projectiles can be determined. Artifacts found can help accurately describe the technical aspects of the construction and uses of some of the engines.

The first pieces of artillery were non-torsion bolt throwers. A non-torsion engine derives its power from bending a stave made of wood or bone. The engines were called gastraphetes by the ancient authors. The gastraphetes were loaded by being braced across the midsection. Mostly, the engines are just bows mounted on a wooden frame (May). The ancient author Heron wrote about this engine. The bow used in the construction of the gastraphetes was too strong for a single man to throw by hand. The man using this bow had to brace the engine against him and draw the string into successive groves all the way back. The bolt was then inserted into a semi-circular channel between the rows of grooves. Then a trigger mechanism was used to release the force of the bow. Later on, advancements were made on this engine. The goal for the Romans was to shoot a larger projectile with even more force. To do this, the arms of the bow were made larger. As the size of the bow increased, so did the size of the engines. Eventually the engines had to be mounted on the bases when they became too large to be handled by one person. The pull back mechanism had to also be upgraded. As the pull back became more powerful, manual drawing of it became impossible. A winch like system was used. The bow was attached to a slider, which was attached to a cord. The cord was attached to a revolving axle at the rear of the engine. This powerful winch system was still not strong enough. A pulley system was later introduced, but this made the pullback even slower (Mehta-Jones).

After some time, torsion engines were introduced. The torsion engines were powered by two sinew springs. The strong sinew springs were made from an unknown source of animal tendons. Experts believe that the springs were a combination of animal sinew and human hair. It is thought that the hair held the sinews together through a weaving process.

Both of the wooden arms were connected by a sinew and placed into a single sinew spring. The middle of the bow was connected to the trigger mechanism. A winch system, much like that of the non-torsion engines, was used to pull back the string. The farther the string was pulled back the more tension was put on the springs, which created more power to shot the projectile.

Technical advances were made to improve the frame that housed the springs. In the Mark I frame, the springs were kept separate, and were wrapped vertically around the frame. The downside of this was that it limited the movement of the arms. This design was later improved by building frames with holes in the top and bottom that allowed the springs to be drawn. The improvement allowed more movement which led to more power.

In the future, more advancements were made to the frame to increase the amount of power derived from the weapon. This new engine consisted of winding each spring around a lever, and the levers were mounted onto washers. The springs used on these engines lasted much longer than on the other engines. On the other engines, when springs became too stretched they had to be replaced. On this new engine, a spring that was loose just had to be wound up a few more times. This new engine was named Scorpion, by Vitruvius (Crystal).

Some improvements were soon made on the Scorpion. Instead of arched arms, Vitruvius recommends the use of curved, tapered arms, set at an angle (May). However, the recommendation by Vitruvius has not been proven to be more efficient, but they must have been because of the popularity of the Scorpion after it was introduced. Also, the recurved design of the bow is much stronger than the curved design. The logical assumption would be that the curved and tapered arms of the Vitruvian engine increased the power derived from the bending of the arms (UNC).

“Over time, various small modifications were made to the arms, springs, washers, and frames of Roman engines to maximize their power and increase their spring life. However, the frame of the engine remained largely the same in style. But, over time, more and more metal plating and parts were being incorporated. Bronze was used primarily for plating the frames, such as corner plates, while iron was used in the various working components. The use of metal in the frame of artillery was a necessary step. As the power of these engines grew, so did the stress put on the engine frame during drawing and shooting. Metal is more suited to handle the shock of firing. Also, metal is not subject to heat and humidity, which would destroy and distort a wooden frame. Naturally, the parts of the engine under the most stress were the first to be enforced by metal. The culmination of the use of metal to frame engines is represented by Heron's cheiroballistra (Nardo).”

Back in the age of the ancient Romans, no other culture was as advanced as they were. The technology of their weapons could not be matched. More and more improvements were made to their already advanced designs. Thus helped Rome become feared by all.

Replica Weapons
Works Cited

Crystal, Ellie. “Crystalinks.” Rome Military. 1995. 11 Oct. 2005. http://www.crystalinks.com/romemilitary.html

May, Elmer C., Gerald P. Stadler, and John F. Votaw. Ancient and Medieval Warfare. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publishing Group, 1984.

Mehta-Jones, Shilpa. “Soldiers.” Life in Ancient Rome. 2005. pg.12. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCOhost. Shaler Area High School Library. 9 Oct. 2005. http://search.epnet.com Nardo, Don. Ancient Rome. Detroit: Thomson/Gale, 2003 Roman Artillery. 1997. University of North Carolina. 12 Oct. 2005 .