Aitor Iriarte's Webage

RECONSTRUCTING THE CHEIROBALLISTRA

BEFORE WE START…

On the section devoted to ‘The sources’, it has already been discussed that, more than probably, the text which we know today as ‘The Cheiroballistra is only the central surviving part of a once longer treatise. Actually, the fragment preserves no more than relatively accurate descriptions and dimensions of the components belonging to an artillery machine. In my opinion, our treatise at least is lacking a foreword with the original title and a final section with global assembly instructions.

Unfortunately for us, PH’s declaration of intentions -if it did exist- has gone missing with the foreword, so we are not told what kind of weapon the cheiroballistra was or what it was intended for. We are also devoid of the slightest hint on the way the components should be put together. Moreover, the instructions for making the components are far from being clear, in spite of the accompanying diagrams and the fortunate survival of equivalent components belonging to similar, but bigger, machines. In this context, I think that it is rather risky to state any beforehand conclusion on the little catapult’s finality or power output.

I believe that the most honest approach to the problem should be 'Let’s follow the surviving instructions to see what results from them’, instead of wantonly changing words and figures to make them fit into a pre-conceived idea, no matter how witty it may be.

It will be no surprise if the successive attempts of reconstruction of the Cheiroballistra by different persons, from mid-nineteenth century to the present, either working ones or theoretical ones on paper, have ended in quite dissimilar outcomes. Machine designs from Alexandre Vincent and Victor Prou in the nineteenth century, Eric Marsden one century later, or the more or less present-day ones by Dietwulf Baatz, Alan Wilkins & Len Morgan, Michael Lewis, Digby Stevenson, Jeremy Barker, Bernard Jacobs, Ildar Kayumov or myself vary significantly. This is not the place to discuss them all and, on the following paragraphs I shall limit to explain briefly my own proposal. In case you are interested on delving more deeply into the subject, you can click HERE to receive my paper ‘Pseudo-Heron’s Cheiroballistra, a(nother) reconstruction. I.- Theoretics’ in Adobe .pdf format. It has been published in Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 , pp. 47-75.

1.Reconstruction by Prou

2.Reconstruction by Marsden

3.Reconstruction by Wilkins&Morgan

4.Reconstruction by Jacobs

SHOOTING THE CHEIROBALLISTRA

Click on any of these pictures for a larger view.

Oskar, the manuballistarius of Cohors Prima Gallica, carrying the cheiroballistra on his shoulder. The machine weighs nine kilograms, but it can easily be balanced in this position. For long marches, it would undoubtedly be necessary to wear it on his back, suspended from a strap, like medieval heavy crossbows were.

The first step in the loading process is to push the slider forwards, after disengaging it from its lock, until the claw jumps over the bowstring.

The cheiroballistra is cocked just like the much older Greek gastrophetes was. Here, the manuballistarius has set the machine in front of him diagonally, with the forward end of the slider against the ground and the curved piece located at the rear end of the case against his belly. He is exerting pressure forward to retract the slider and thus drawing the bowstring rearward.

The slider has been fully retracted and the manuballistarius is now locking it in position. He achieves this by engaging the swiveling handle located at the back end of the slider to a nail that is fixed at the rear end of the case.

The cheiroballistra is now cocked. The manuballistarius will now take one of the short bolts from the 'cartridge belt' around his head and place it in position on the slider's channel, with its tail in contact with the bowstring.

A close-up shot of the bolt on the slider. The cheiroballistra is now ready to be shot!

The last stage. The manuballistarius is about to release the trigger with his right hand. The weight of the machine is mainly supported by his left arm, the hand grasping the handle under the case. The left 'horn' of the curved piece is safely tucked under Oskar's right armpit. When released, the bowstring will thrust the bolt toward its target.

I have taken the idea of the 'cartridge belt' for the bolts from Constantine's Arch in Rome. In the frieze depicting the battle on the Milvian Bridge, two men are wearing short bolts (their barbed heads can clearly be seen on the one on the right) meshed in some kind of belt around their heads. Their weapons have disappeared, but it can still clearly be inferred from the position of the fingers belonging to the man on the left that they were just hand bows. If so, why should the bolt carrying system be linked to manuballistae? Well, the fact is that it would have been almost impossible to carry actual hand bow arrows in the manner that is depicted and we are clearly confronted with one sculptor's blunder. The question is, what would have attracted more of the sculptor's attention, two soldiers shooting bows, or two soldiers carrying missiles around their heads? I think that the second choice is the more plausible one. How the 'cartridge belt' was really constructed is anyone's guess. I have designed the belt to fit either the 'pilleus pannonicus' cap or a helmet.

As his medieval counterpart, the Roman manuballistarius needed to be under cover in the open field while loading and shooting his weapon. You can see here our Cohors I Gallica manuballistarius shooting while covered by two of his companion's shields, with the front end of the cheiroballistra protruding from the gap between two of the shields.

Main Page
Siege Engines	Armour
Medieval Crossbows	3-D Computer Modeling

BEFORE WE START… On the section devoted to ‘The sources’, it has already been discussed that, more than probably, the text which we know today as ‘The Cheiroballistra is only the central surviving part of a once longer treatise. Actually, the fragment preserves no more than relatively accurate descriptions and dimensions of the components belonging to an artillery machine. In my opinion, our treatise at least is lacking a foreword with the original title and a final section with global assembly instructions. Unfortunately for us, PH’s declaration of intentions -if it did exist- has gone missing with the foreword, so we are not told what kind of weapon the cheiroballistra was or what it was intended for. We are also devoid of the slightest hint on the way the components should be put together. Moreover, the instructions for making the components are far from being clear, in spite of the accompanying diagrams and the fortunate survival of equivalent components belonging to similar, but bigger, machines. In this context, I think that it is rather risky to state any beforehand conclusion on the little catapult’s finality or power output. I believe that the most honest approach to the problem should be 'Let’s follow the surviving instructions to see what results from them’, instead of wantonly changing words and figures to make them fit into a pre-conceived idea, no matter how witty it may be. It will be no surprise if the successive attempts of reconstruction of the Cheiroballistra by different persons, from mid-nineteenth century to the present, either working ones or theoretical ones on paper, have ended in quite dissimilar outcomes. Machine designs from Alexandre Vincent and Victor Prou in the nineteenth century, Eric Marsden one century later, or the more or less present-day ones by Dietwulf Baatz, Alan Wilkins & Len Morgan, Michael Lewis, Digby Stevenson, Jeremy Barker, Bernard Jacobs, Ildar Kayumov or myself vary significantly. This is not the place to discuss them all and, on the following paragraphs I shall limit to explain briefly my own proposal. In case you are interested on delving more deeply into the subject, you can click HERE to receive my paper ‘Pseudo-Heron’s Cheiroballistra, a(nother) reconstruction. I.- Theoretics’ in Adobe .pdf format. It has been published in Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 , pp. 47-75.
1.Reconstruction by Prou	2.Reconstruction by Marsden
3.Reconstruction by Wilkins&Morgan	4.Reconstruction by Jacobs
SHOOTING THE CHEIROBALLISTRA
Click on any of these pictures for a larger view.
	Oskar, the manuballistarius of Cohors Prima Gallica, carrying the cheiroballistra on his shoulder. The machine weighs nine kilograms, but it can easily be balanced in this position. For long marches, it would undoubtedly be necessary to wear it on his back, suspended from a strap, like medieval heavy crossbows were.

The first step in the loading process is to push the slider forwards, after disengaging it from its lock, until the claw jumps over the bowstring.

	The cheiroballistra is cocked just like the much older Greek gastrophetes was. Here, the manuballistarius has set the machine in front of him diagonally, with the forward end of the slider against the ground and the curved piece located at the rear end of the case against his belly. He is exerting pressure forward to retract the slider and thus drawing the bowstring rearward.

The slider has been fully retracted and the manuballistarius is now locking it in position. He achieves this by engaging the swiveling handle located at the back end of the slider to a nail that is fixed at the rear end of the case.

	The cheiroballistra is now cocked. The manuballistarius will now take one of the short bolts from the 'cartridge belt' around his head and place it in position on the slider's channel, with its tail in contact with the bowstring.

A close-up shot of the bolt on the slider. The cheiroballistra is now ready to be shot!

	The last stage. The manuballistarius is about to release the trigger with his right hand. The weight of the machine is mainly supported by his left arm, the hand grasping the handle under the case. The left 'horn' of the curved piece is safely tucked under Oskar's right armpit. When released, the bowstring will thrust the bolt toward its target.

I have taken the idea of the 'cartridge belt' for the bolts from Constantine's Arch in Rome. In the frieze depicting the battle on the Milvian Bridge, two men are wearing short bolts (their barbed heads can clearly be seen on the one on the right) meshed in some kind of belt around their heads. Their weapons have disappeared, but it can still clearly be inferred from the position of the fingers belonging to the man on the left that they were just hand bows. If so, why should the bolt carrying system be linked to manuballistae? Well, the fact is that it would have been almost impossible to carry actual hand bow arrows in the manner that is depicted and we are clearly confronted with one sculptor's blunder. The question is, what would have attracted more of the sculptor's attention, two soldiers shooting bows, or two soldiers carrying missiles around their heads? I think that the second choice is the more plausible one. How the 'cartridge belt' was really constructed is anyone's guess. I have designed the belt to fit either the 'pilleus pannonicus' cap or a helmet.

	As his medieval counterpart, the Roman manuballistarius needed to be under cover in the open field while loading and shooting his weapon. You can see here our Cohors I Gallica manuballistarius shooting while covered by two of his companion's shields, with the front end of the cheiroballistra protruding from the gap between two of the shields.