Jefferson wrote: >Andrew Janssen wrote: > > >>Hm, good point. I might make the change. However, which one would be >>quicker to set up? The Cedonians would definitely prefer whichever >>weapon takes less time to set up in the field, because even though the >>onager is considered a siege engine, it was also used as an >>anti-personnel weapon. Also, as far as I can tell from my source >>material, the Roman onagers used rope rather than sinew to provide the >>onager's torsion coil. >> >> > >I many have been thinking of a different engine for the animal sinew (I know >the Romans used both but thought sinew was standard), but a trebuchet would >still be quicker to set up. An onager is more complicated, and you don't have >to worry about "pre-stressing" the torsion coils. (I seem to remember it took >a couple of days just to wind the coils, but I don't know what size machine >that was.) You also don't have to worry about the torsion coils breaking >during set up with a trebuchet. > > > Trebuchets are fine for sieges, but after doing some research online, I think I understand why onagers have their place. It's not a clear-cut situation. Trebuchets generally fire at a fixed range. You can tweak the range somewhat by adjusting the counterweight or the sling length, but that takes too much time in battle, and there is always going to be a large dead zone. With an onager, if you swap the sling for a spoon, you have a reasonably effective anti-personnel weapon. Even with the sling, an onager is more effective at close ranges. Trebuchets are extremely precise weapons, well-suited to delivering its payload to the exact same spot, over and over, even at night. A typical trebuchet has a crew of up to 50 men, depending on size, and fires at a rate of two shots per hour. There exists a man-powered(rather than gravity-powered) variant of the trebuchet called the bricole; it had a very high rate of fire, and were used to attack the crews of enemy engines. Onagers are more effective at shorter ranges than the trebuchet is capable of, and the manpower requirement is less. They can change their point of aim more readily. I suspect that the rate of fire might be higher for the onager, but can't be sure. Cedonian legions probably use onagers for their ability to function both as field and siege artillery, but they have the hardware and beam-arms needed to construct heavy trebuchets at their base fort. If a legion does find itself in a situation that requires a trebuchet, they can bring the trebuchet parts forward. When a campaign is being conducted solely against a field army, or against an opponent who does not have stone fortifications, the trebuchet parts are generally left at the base. >>Cedonians would definitely use line ballistas, then. From their point of >>view, they want range and reliability in a field engine. Specifically, >>they use what the Romans called the Chieroballista, which has a spring >>frame made of steel, and bronze cylinders encasing the torsion coils. >> >> > >Sling ballistae might still be used in raised fixed fortifications where >thrown stones can get a "gravity assist" for increased damage. > > Possibly, but unlikely. Given the differences in technology, the Cedonians are probably in the process of replacing their ballistae with arbeleste du tours--essentially a greatly enlarged crew-served crossbow that uses tension rather than torsion as its propulsive force. Andrew >Jefferson (Exquaestio) >http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/Exq_Main.html > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
