Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Foa]

Pfft, a repeating crossbow, delicate ( No Hammering ), weak fire, relies on wussy poison.

A true dwarf would use a crossbow that is used as a hammer, or as a long range, large munition launcher.
Like the Crossbow Guns from Monster Hunter.

[Duke 2.0]

I have read a few places that the romans had repeating ballistas at the height of their empire that could rapid fire spear sized bolts but I havent been able to find any footage.

I dont think they had camcorders back then, but I could be wrong.

 I believe modern-say recreators do have camcorders, but I could be wrong.

 Then there was the Scorpio, which I think was compared to an ancient sniper weapon. Then again, for a siege weapon it was very accurate.

[Foa]

I have read a few places that the romans had repeating ballistas at the height of their empire that could rapid fire spear sized bolts but I havent been able to find any footage.

I dont think they had camcorders back then, but I could be wrong.

 I believe modern-say recreators do have camcorders, but I could be wrong.

 Then there was the Scorpio, which I think was compared to an ancient sniper weapon. Then again, for a siege weapon it was very accurate.

Hmm, their ballistae, as I recalled shot cannonball shaped rocks, and metal balls, but what about their Scorpios, they were Roman times' classification of a Snipers, but Romans, are usually stronger than Modern Day True Olypian Atheletes... like Dwarves.

Then there were the Catapult munition of many barbs, like one fling was a shitstorm of hell, even targets full of metal armor, and shields.

tl;dr:

Romans ballistae shoot huge ass balls, Roman are stronger than Olympian Muscle Men, like Dwarves.

Scorpios are moderately small ballistae, and shoot like Sniper Rifles, they shoot spears.

Some Catapults shot shitstorms of bolts, accurately and painfully,  and humorously.

[sonerohi]

You guys just love making up stuff Some of you.

Cept that pretty much all the information here is true.


Foa, that would be scary as shit. Someone shooting a bundle of little barbs at you? Holy urist that would be cool to see though.

[Marlowe]

Yah, I saw some documents about the repeating ballista while I did research on this. Just think of an defense force of 5 or so repeating ballista, a group of 10 guys with woomers or atlatls and a large supply of darts, and a force of 20 repeating-crossbow users. They would fall under the sheer amount of bolts and darts that would be sent out. Armor could only hold up for so long.

You guys are very defensively oriented. Very few pre-industrial battles have ever been decided by siege engines. Why? Because everything here is static and defensive. It takes too long to set up, and as soon as it has to move to project some force somewhere, it falls apart and dies to a bunch of skimishers.

 And "armour could only hold up so long", how do you think armour works? Real life isn't battletech. You don't lose 2 Armour points when hit by a dust particle and 100 by a shuriken, until you wind up on 0 points and abruptly keel over. Armour either works or it doesn't. It blocks the the blow or you're dead. A shot either penetrates or it doesn't. Things don't hit in precisely the same spot enough for an ablative principle to come into effect.

Or, to put it plainly, throwing a whole lot of light missiles at someone with a big shield isn't doing to make him die before he kills you. That's assuming he's going to do you the favour of attacking you where you've spent days dragging up your positions and  stockpiling ammunition reserves instead of say, investigating what he can loot from behind you.

 

[Ampersand]

Armor can only hold up so long in that the person inside it wears out from having to hold a heavy shield over his head while it rains pointy sticks. And no armor is really impenetrable. There are always points of weakness where, by chance, a spear or dart could slip and injure an armored person.

This of course completely disregards the psychological effect of seeing a cloud of wood and steel fly up and fall at you.

[Footkerchief]

Yah, I saw some documents about the repeating ballista while I did research on this. Just think of an defense force of 5 or so repeating ballista, a group of 10 guys with woomers or atlatls and a large supply of darts, and a force of 20 repeating-crossbow users. They would fall under the sheer amount of bolts and darts that would be sent out. Armor could only hold up for so long.

You guys are very defensively oriented. Very few pre-industrial battles have ever been decided by siege engines. Why? Because everything here is static and defensive. It takes too long to set up, and as soon as it has to move to project some force somewhere, it falls apart and dies to a bunch of skimishers.

 And "armour could only hold up so long", how do you think armour works? Real life isn't battletech. You don't lose 2 Armour points when hit by a dust particle and 100 by a shuriken, until you wind up on 0 points and abruptly keel over. Armour either works or it doesn't. It blocks the the blow or you're dead. A shot either penetrates or it doesn't. Things don't hit in precisely the same spot enough for an ablative principle to come into effect.

Or, to put it plainly, throwing a whole lot of light missiles at someone with a big shield isn't doing to make him die before he kills you. That's assuming he's going to do you the favour of attacking you where you've spent days dragging up your positions and  stockpiling ammunition reserves instead of say, investigating what he can loot from behind you.

You seem to be going out of your way to find the worst interpretation of what he said.  He could have easily meant "a large volume of fire will tend to find gaps in the armor."

[jester]

  Battles may not have been decided by seige style weapons back in the day but they are a real morale killer, nobody likes watching the 3 blokes next to them squewered on a giant arrow, its a bit of a downer.  The idea of roman field weapons was usually to make the enemy charge the romans.  Not many armies are willing to stand on a hill all day while the enemy chucks giant rocks and their mates assorted bodyparts at them from beyond bowrange.
  Also marlowe, real life isnt battletech, armour doesnt stop things or let them through, you still get hit and those small wounds add up when trying to some bastard is trying to cave your skull in.  A nice big shield with 3 javelins in it is also more of a hinderence than a help when said bastard turns up. 
  Trying to take out the heavy stuff with skirmisers is fine but you have to do something about the 500 mean looking buggers in tin hats standing just next to them first.  Most of this stuff had wheels and could be set up fairly quickly, the romans even had special man portable ballistae for mountain fighting.

[SHAD0Wdump]

I still would like to see my sawblade crossbow in real life.

Ridiculous but f-in' awesome.

[Stromko]

  but Romans, are usually stronger than Modern Day True Olypian Atheletes... like Dwarves.

No, except 'relative to the times in which they lived'. They did have an awareness of physical fitness, including bodybuilding, fitness regimens for their legions, and also had relatively good nutrition. Compared to the shrunken wretches they were up against, they were mountains of muscle, but compared to modern people lucky enough to be vaccinated against wasting diseases and grow up without going hungry, the Romans were puny. Their legions were fit and certainly quite lean and mean, but big and strong, no, not compared to the modern militaries that have adapted and improved upon their conditioning and training techniques.

Back to the topic: I know I've seen a documentary where they showed a reconstruction of a multifiring crossbow of purportedly Roman design. It looked /exactly/ like what the kid is putting together in the video. If that's also the exact same design as the Cho-Ko-Nu crossbow, it's either a not-improbable coincidence, sign of trade/espionage along the Silk Road, or that design belongs to one or the other but some historians and/or internet people are just confused on that point.

[winner]

well china's name for the roman empire was "the china in the west" they got along very well and had very much trade.

[JoshuaFH]

well china's name for the roman empire was "the china in the west" they got along very well and had very much trade.

If I remember correctly, the chinese character for "China" is a box with a line going vertically through the middle. If the above statement is true, what would the chinese character for Rome be?

[Foa]

  but Romans, are usually stronger than Modern Day True Olypian Atheletes... like Dwarves.

No, except 'relative to the times in which they lived'. They did have an awareness of physical fitness, including bodybuilding, fitness regimens for their legions, and also had relatively good nutrition. Compared to the shrunken wretches they were up against, they were mountains of muscle, but compared to modern people lucky enough to be vaccinated against wasting diseases and grow up without going hungry, the Romans were puny. Their legions were fit and certainly quite lean and mean, but big and strong, no, not compared to the modern militaries that have adapted and improved upon their conditioning and training techniques.

Back to the topic: I know I've seen a documentary where they showed a reconstruction of a multifiring crossbow of purportedly Roman design. It looked /exactly/ like what the kid is putting together in the video. If that's also the exact same design as the Cho-Ko-Nu crossbow, it's either a not-improbable coincidence, sign of trade/espionage along the Silk Road, or that design belongs to one or the other but some historians and/or internet people are just confused on that point.

Okay, I see all of the technical points of romans, just like Dwaves, but not bearded, drunk, or stout, but there definately is too much male-to-male sodomy.

And yes, the plans for the weapons of the older times are foggy as ████, I want a clear diagrams.
Yes, the fog of the Modern Day laymen would say '████ ████ ████!!!' , and then probably try to build their own, then add to the ████ loads of unhappy people.

[DJ]

  but Romans, are usually stronger than Modern Day True Olypian Atheletes... like Dwarves.

No, except 'relative to the times in which they lived'. They did have an awareness of physical fitness, including bodybuilding, fitness regimens for their legions, and also had relatively good nutrition. Compared to the shrunken wretches they were up against, they were mountains of muscle, but compared to modern people lucky enough to be vaccinated against wasting diseases and grow up without going hungry, the Romans were puny. Their legions were fit and certainly quite lean and mean, but big and strong, no, not compared to the modern militaries that have adapted and improved upon their conditioning and training techniques.

Back to the topic: I know I've seen a documentary where they showed a reconstruction of a multifiring crossbow of purportedly Roman design. It looked /exactly/ like what the kid is putting together in the video. If that's also the exact same design as the Cho-Ko-Nu crossbow, it's either a not-improbable coincidence, sign of trade/espionage along the Silk Road, or that design belongs to one or the other but some historians and/or internet people are just confused on that point.

No, I'm pretty sure Gauls had a more imposing physique. Why? Well, the average Roman ate little meat and almost no dairy products (they didn't drink milk at all), and you need your protein and calcium to grow big and strong.

[Marlowe]

  Battles may not have been decided by seige style weapons back in the day but they are a real morale killer, nobody likes watching the 3 blokes next to them squewered on a giant arrow, its a bit of a downer.  The idea of roman field weapons was usually to make the enemy charge the romans.  Not many armies are willing to stand on a hill all day while the enemy chucks giant rocks and their mates assorted bodyparts at them from beyond bowrange.
  Also marlowe, real life isnt battletech, armour doesnt stop things or let them through, you still get hit and those small wounds add up when trying to some bastard is trying to cave your skull in.  A nice big shield with 3 javelins in it is also more of a hinderence than a help when said bastard turns up. 
  Trying to take out the heavy stuff with skirmisers is fine but you have to do something about the 500 mean looking buggers in tin hats standing just next to them first.  Most of this stuff had wheels and could be set up fairly quickly, the romans even had special man portable ballistae for mountain fighting.

All of which is pretty much right, however you've basically pointed out that the real point of these things is not to win battles by themselves, but to deny the enemy the option of being static in turn, and that it's the 500 mean looking guys in tin hats that will decide things. Ultimately, people are not going there and all conveniently get shot, they're going to do something to stop it, and you need to have a plan A.

As for being "reasonably mobile", they're still the slowest thing on the battlefield, their ammunition is bulky and needs to be carried as well, setting them up close enough to be effect is STILL going to be pretty hairy, and you're probably going to want to entrench them as well, since they're not going to stop a Sarmatian or Sassanid or Palmyran charge by themselves.

Interesting you mentioned mountain fighting. As it happens the latter war against the Dacians in the Carpathian mountains IS the major appearance of things things in history. I don't believe they saw much use in other times, if they even existed in any other time.