Roman Crossbows?

[barca]

The Roman Ballista, and the smaller Scorpion were essentially larger versions of the medieval Crossbow. The Romans certainly used the scorpion as a field artillery piece, since it was more mobile than the larger ballista.

http://roman-empire.net/army/scorpion-pics.html

The Byzantines appeared to be unfamiliar with the crossbow when it was brought over to the east by the Crusaders.

Why did the Byzantines lag behind the West in this important technology?

Edited December 10, 2009 by barca

[sylla]

The Byzantines appeared to be unfamiliar with the crossbow when it was brought over to the east by the Crusaders.

Why did the Byzantines lag behind the West in this important technology?

Can you quote your sources?

[Kosmo]

Why did the Byzantines lag behind the West in this important technology?

 

Probably because they had many competent archers (most on horseback) and archers are superior to crossbowman. The crossbow was a bit like the arquebus would be later: powerful and easier to master by less trained recruits but with a slower rate of fire.

[sylla]

Why did the Byzantines lag behind the West in this important technology?

 

Probably because they had many competent archers (most on horseback) and archers are superior to crossbowman. The crossbow was a bit like the arquebus would be later: powerful and easier to master by less trained recruits but with a slower rate of fire.

Again, can you quote your sources? What is the evidence that the late Romans "lag behind" in this issue?

 

And for what period? Just the Crusades? After all, "Byzantine" encompasses more than a thousand years.

[barca]

The Byzantines appeared to be unfamiliar with the crossbow when it was brought over to the east by the Crusaders.

Why did the Byzantines lag behind the West in this important technology?

Can you quote your sources?

Book X of The Alexiad

by Anna Comnena

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/annac...-alexiad10.html

 

"The warriors at once flocked to that spot, as they saw he was strongly armed for battle. But Marianus, speaking in their language, advised the Latins to have no fear, and not to fight against fellow-Christians. But one of the Latins hit his helmet with his crossbow. This cross-bow is a bow of the barbarians quite unknown to the Greeks; and it is not stretched by the right hand pulling the string whilst the left pulls the bow in a contrary direction, but he who stretches this warlike and very far-shooting weapon must lie, one might say, almost on his back and apply both feet strongly against the semi-circle of the bow and with his two hands pull the string with all his might in the contrary direction. In the middle of the string is a socket, a cylindrical kind of cup fitted to the string itself, and about as long as an arrow of considerable size which reaches from the string to the very middle of the bow; and through this arrows of many sorts are shot out. [256] The arrows used with this bow are very short in length, but very thick, fitted in front with a very heavy iron tip. And in discharging them the string shoots them out with enormous violence and force, and whatever these darts chance to hit, they do not fall back, but they pierce through a shield, then cut through a heavy iron corselet and wing their way through and out at the other side. So violent and ineluctable is the discharge of arrows of this kind. Such an arrow has been known to pierce a bronze statue, and if it hits the wall of a very large town, the point of the arrow either protrudes on the inner side or it buries itself in the middle of the wall and is lost. Such then is this monster of a crossbow, and verily a devilish invention. And the wretched man who is struck by it, dies without feeling anything, not even feeling the blow, however strong it be."

Edited December 11, 2009 by barca

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Crossbows were known for military use by the Roman if we believe those who, like Goldsworthy, think that the "balistarii" fighting for Julian II the apostate were in fact using crossbows. We also have texts saying that crossbows were in use for hunting. Thus if anything it was a loss of the technology in the eastern part of the roman empire, but had it gone there in the first place ? Because, as far as I know, all the mentions of this weapon in the roman period came from the west.

[barca]

Probably because they had many competent archers (most on horseback) and archers are superior to crossbowman. The crossbow was a bit like the arquebus would be later: powerful and easier to master by less trained recruits but with a slower rate of fire.

 

I don't think that the bows of the horse archers were as powerfull as the crossbow. I also don't know if their infantry archers had anything equivalent to the English Longbow.

 

At Jaxartes Alexander used the Ballista (giant crossbow) as field artillery because it had a much greater range than the bows of the Scythian horse archers.

[Kosmo]

I don't think that the bows of the horse archers were as powerfull as the crossbow. I also don't know if their infantry archers had anything equivalent to the English Longbow.

 

Any bow could be made very powerful by making it thick and less elastic so the small composed bow of a horse archer could have the same power as a longbow. The limiting factor was the strength of the bowman. Crossbows could be made more powerful then bows by using for drawing not only the muscle of the hands like it is done for bows but also the feet or mechanical pulleys.

If we compare longbow vs. composed bow we see that the longbow was much cheaper and more resistant, the composed bow was made from several pieces glued and tied together so it would brake up more easily especially when wet. The composed bow was small enough to be used from the horseback while the longbow was to cumbersome for that.

It is no surprise that the longbow was preferred by the infantry in the regions near the Atlantic Ocean where it rains all the time and there was less room for cavalry while the composed bow was preferred in the steppes of the Eastern Europe or the arid areas of the Middle East where the vast open spaces were dominated by cavalry.

[barca]

Crossbows were known for military use by the Roman if we believe those who, like Goldsworthy, think that the "balistarii" fighting for Julian II the apostate were in fact using crossbows. We also have texts saying that crossbows were in use for hunting. Thus if anything it was a loss of the technology in the eastern part of the roman empire, but had it gone there in the first place ? Because, as far as I know, all the mentions of this weapon in the roman period came from the west.

 

Julian the Apostate campaigned against the Persians in the East.

[sylla]

Probably because they had many competent archers (most on horseback) and archers are superior to crossbowman. The crossbow was a bit like the arquebus would be later: powerful and easier to master by less trained recruits but with a slower rate of fire.

 

I don't think that the bows of the horse archers were as powerfull as the crossbow. I also don't know if their infantry archers had anything equivalent to the English Longbow.

 

At Jaxartes Alexander used the Ballista (giant crossbow) as field artillery because it had a much greater range than the bows of the Scythian horse archers.

Either for Alexander or for any other Classical tactician, heavy artillery and portable missile weapons were always complementary, never interchangeable; that Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[barca]

Either for Alexander or for any other Classical tactician, heavy artillery and portable missile weapons were always complementary, never interchangeable; that

Edited December 12, 2009 by barca

[sylla]

As I recall, Crassus attempted to use his archers and slingers to keep the Parthians away without success.

You may be thinking about Ventidius, who seemingly was the first Roman that (quite successfully) applied such tactics against the Parthian army; Crassus' army was defeated exactly for not doing that. The "triumvir" simply tried to profit from a surprise factor that he actually lacked. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[barca]

As I recall, Crassus attempted to use his archers and slingers to keep the Parthians away without success.

You may be thinking about Ventidius, who seemingly was the first Roman that (quite successfully) applied such tactics against the Parthian army; Crassus' army was defeated exactly for not doing that. The "triumvir" simply tried to profit from a surprise factor that he actually lacked.

 

 

From Plutarch:

 

" And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft. "

 

I am assuming that these light-armed troops were archers and slingers

 

And later he specifically mentions archers:

 

"Accordingly, the young man took thirteen hundred horsemen, of whom a thousand had come from Caesar, five hundred archers, and eight cohorts of the men-at‑arms who were nearest him, and led them all to the charge."

[caldrail]

The Roman Ballista, and the smaller Scorpion were essentially larger versions of the medieval Crossbow. The Romans certainly used the scorpion as a field artillery piece, since it was more mobile than the larger ballista.

http://roman-empire.net/army/scorpion-pics.html

The Byzantines appeared to be unfamiliar with the crossbow when it was brought over to the east by the Crusaders.

Why did the Byzantines lag behind the West in this important technology?

 

That doesn't sound right to me. The medieval crossbow evolved as a means of coping with better protected troops, and having an advantage of easier aiming, found some favour, though the weapon was not universally popular and the larger ones hopelessly slow and laborious to load.

 

They also worked on a different method. The Roman ballistas used the torsion of ropes or sinews to prvide the power, the crossbow uses a wooden spring.

 

The Byzantines weren't unfamiliar with the crossbow at all. Such weapons had appeared at the end of the Roman period and some of the eastern empires tropps used them, I believe, though I don't have a source on that. It wasn't a question of lagging behind technology. It had more to do with military tactics and fashion. If you don't need a weapon, troops generally discard them whatever their commanders say. On the other hand, necessity is the mother of all invention.

 

The technology of handheld and siege weapons wasn't a smooth progression from Rome to Renaissance - it had lots of rises and falls due to relative organising ability and requirements of the day.