As I was rereading a book entitled 'The Roman War Machine' the other day (and prompted again by an excellent series on BBC 2 called 'What the Romans Did For Us) it occurred to me that it used to be a matter of faith, or at least taken for granted, that Europe did not see a crossbow until the early Middle Ages, with it frequently being attributed to Arab transmission.
Now having looked at a demonstration of a ballista, and the holes left from ballista bolts and an arrowhead lodged in skeletal remains of Celts found at Maiden (Mai Dun) Castle in Dorset, I wondered why people would assume that the ever practical Romans hadn't used a smaller version of a ballista?
After all, these were the people who changed the way their armour was formed when confronted with the Dacian sword/pick which inflicted such horrendous wounds when the Romans first besieged Dacian strongholds, and whose army was run on the fox, rather than hedgehog, approach to tactics.
Any of the 'Poly Roman enthusiasts shed some light on this?
Now having looked at a demonstration of a ballista, and the holes left from ballista bolts and an arrowhead lodged in skeletal remains of Celts found at Maiden (Mai Dun) Castle in Dorset, I wondered why people would assume that the ever practical Romans hadn't used a smaller version of a ballista?
After all, these were the people who changed the way their armour was formed when confronted with the Dacian sword/pick which inflicted such horrendous wounds when the Romans first besieged Dacian strongholds, and whose army was run on the fox, rather than hedgehog, approach to tactics.
Any of the 'Poly Roman enthusiasts shed some light on this?
Comment