Roc
A Fixture
Thanks Anders, I appreciate the encouragement.
Cheers
Roc.
Cheers
Roc.
Marius's mule
- Thread starter Roc
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Joe Hudson
A Fixture
Hey Roc,
He looks like he is about ready to head off to work! Man. you have done a really nice job on the tools. I like the wood but the metal looks like it has been used and been around awhile.
Joe
He looks like he is about ready to head off to work! Man. you have done a really nice job on the tools. I like the wood but the metal looks like it has been used and been around awhile.
Joe
Roc
A Fixture
Hi Joe, thanks,I appreciate it.
Cheers
Roc.
Cheers
Roc.
Roc
A Fixture
Marius reorganizes the Army
For a primarily agricultural society such as Rome to be a perpetual war machine is to attempt to combine two incompatibles.
What Tiberius Gracchus had tried to halt when he was tribune in 133 BC was a trend which had begun centuries earlier and which, by the very success with which Rome had conducted military operations, had become a vicious circle.
Ancient armies were armed by peasant farmers. A society constantly at war required a constant flow of conscripts. Smallholdings fell into disuse because there was no one to tend to them. As Roman conquests spread through the Mediterranean lands, even more men were required, and wealth and cheap corn poured back into Rome, much of it into the hands of entrepreneurs, who carved out vast areas for vegetables, vines, olives and sheep farming, all managed by slave labour. The dispossessed rural poor, became the urban poor - so becoming ineligible for military service as no longer being nominal property holders.
Not only was there therefore a shortage of recruits, but the soldiers had nothing to return to between campaigns or at the end of their service. A working solution to this problem was finally devised by Gaius Marius, once consul in 108 BC. He introduced the Roman army as it came to be known and feared all across the Europe and the Mediterranean.
Rather than conscripting from Roman landowners he recruited volunteers from the urban poor. Once the idea of a professional army of mercenaries was introduced, it never remained until the very end of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Marius introduced the idea of granting soldiers allotments of farmland after they hand served their term.
For a primarily agricultural society such as Rome to be a perpetual war machine is to attempt to combine two incompatibles.
What Tiberius Gracchus had tried to halt when he was tribune in 133 BC was a trend which had begun centuries earlier and which, by the very success with which Rome had conducted military operations, had become a vicious circle.
Ancient armies were armed by peasant farmers. A society constantly at war required a constant flow of conscripts. Smallholdings fell into disuse because there was no one to tend to them. As Roman conquests spread through the Mediterranean lands, even more men were required, and wealth and cheap corn poured back into Rome, much of it into the hands of entrepreneurs, who carved out vast areas for vegetables, vines, olives and sheep farming, all managed by slave labour. The dispossessed rural poor, became the urban poor - so becoming ineligible for military service as no longer being nominal property holders.
Not only was there therefore a shortage of recruits, but the soldiers had nothing to return to between campaigns or at the end of their service. A working solution to this problem was finally devised by Gaius Marius, once consul in 108 BC. He introduced the Roman army as it came to be known and feared all across the Europe and the Mediterranean.
Rather than conscripting from Roman landowners he recruited volunteers from the urban poor. Once the idea of a professional army of mercenaries was introduced, it never remained until the very end of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Marius introduced the idea of granting soldiers allotments of farmland after they hand served their term.
Roc
A Fixture
THE TESTUDO
The tortoise formation was one of the prime examples of Roman ingenuity at warfare. When deployed in such a way, the legionaries became virtually invulnerable to arrows or objects dropped from defensive walls.
THE WEDGE
The wedge was an aggressive formation used to 'crack open' enemy lines. Relatively small groups of legionaries could form such a triangle and then drive their way into the enemy ranks. As more Roman soldiers reinforced the wedge from behind, the enemy line could be forced apart. As breaking the enemy's formation was very often the key to winning a battle, the wedge formation was vitally important battlefield tactic of the Roman army.
REPEL CAVALRY
The order to repel cavalry by Roman army officers brought about a defensive formation, in which the front rank formed a tight wall of shields with their pila protruding to form a line of spearheads ahead of the wall. Undoubtedly it would be very hard to bring a horse to break into that formation. The most likely occurrence would be that it would come to a halt of its own will ahead of the spearheads. It was at that moment that horse and rider would be at their most vulnerable against the ranks behind the first line of infantry which would then hurl their spears at them. Given the short distance and the training legionaries received, it is likely such halted cavalry, frantically trying to turn their horses around to retreat, whilst colliding with horses following in the charge, would prove very easy targets.
If one further considers the likely possibility of archers being present, as is the case on the photo above, the effect of this formation could indeed be devastating
SKIRMISHING
The skirmishing formation is essentially the opposite to the closely packed line of battle used by legionaries. It is a widely spaced line. Every second man of the line has stepped forward a few paces, effectively doubling the amount of ranks. However, the gaps created by this formation are always overlapped by the next line to follow.
The roots of this formation are more than likely to be found with the velites, the lightly armed skirmishers who operated ahead of the main force in the early Roman army.
The wide spaces allow each soldier great mobility. Its possible uses were manyfold.
It would make an advance over difficult terrain much easier. It could allow for swift attacks with subsequent quick withdrawals. It would allow for any friendly units falling back to pass through the formation.
It also could be used by a victorious army sweeping over the battle field, killing all that was left in its way.
THE ORB
The orb was a defensive formation in the shape of a complete circle which could be taken by a unit which had either become detached from the army's main body and had become encircled by the enemy, or a formation which might be taken by any number of units if the greater army had fallen into disorder during a battle.
It can hence be seen as a formation representing a desperate 'last stand' by units of a collapsing army. But also it can be seen as a disciplined holding position by a unit which has been divided from the army's main body in battle and which is waiting for the main force to rejoin them.
In either case, it is not a formation one would like to find oneself in, as it obviously indicates that they are surrounded by the enemy.
Naturally any officers or archers would be positioned in the centre of the orb, as can be seen in the example above.
Cheers
Roc
The tortoise formation was one of the prime examples of Roman ingenuity at warfare. When deployed in such a way, the legionaries became virtually invulnerable to arrows or objects dropped from defensive walls.
THE WEDGE
The wedge was an aggressive formation used to 'crack open' enemy lines. Relatively small groups of legionaries could form such a triangle and then drive their way into the enemy ranks. As more Roman soldiers reinforced the wedge from behind, the enemy line could be forced apart. As breaking the enemy's formation was very often the key to winning a battle, the wedge formation was vitally important battlefield tactic of the Roman army.
REPEL CAVALRY
The order to repel cavalry by Roman army officers brought about a defensive formation, in which the front rank formed a tight wall of shields with their pila protruding to form a line of spearheads ahead of the wall. Undoubtedly it would be very hard to bring a horse to break into that formation. The most likely occurrence would be that it would come to a halt of its own will ahead of the spearheads. It was at that moment that horse and rider would be at their most vulnerable against the ranks behind the first line of infantry which would then hurl their spears at them. Given the short distance and the training legionaries received, it is likely such halted cavalry, frantically trying to turn their horses around to retreat, whilst colliding with horses following in the charge, would prove very easy targets.
If one further considers the likely possibility of archers being present, as is the case on the photo above, the effect of this formation could indeed be devastating
SKIRMISHING
The skirmishing formation is essentially the opposite to the closely packed line of battle used by legionaries. It is a widely spaced line. Every second man of the line has stepped forward a few paces, effectively doubling the amount of ranks. However, the gaps created by this formation are always overlapped by the next line to follow.
The roots of this formation are more than likely to be found with the velites, the lightly armed skirmishers who operated ahead of the main force in the early Roman army.
The wide spaces allow each soldier great mobility. Its possible uses were manyfold.
It would make an advance over difficult terrain much easier. It could allow for swift attacks with subsequent quick withdrawals. It would allow for any friendly units falling back to pass through the formation.
It also could be used by a victorious army sweeping over the battle field, killing all that was left in its way.
THE ORB
The orb was a defensive formation in the shape of a complete circle which could be taken by a unit which had either become detached from the army's main body and had become encircled by the enemy, or a formation which might be taken by any number of units if the greater army had fallen into disorder during a battle.
It can hence be seen as a formation representing a desperate 'last stand' by units of a collapsing army. But also it can be seen as a disciplined holding position by a unit which has been divided from the army's main body in battle and which is waiting for the main force to rejoin them.
In either case, it is not a formation one would like to find oneself in, as it obviously indicates that they are surrounded by the enemy.
Naturally any officers or archers would be positioned in the centre of the orb, as can be seen in the example above.
Cheers
Roc
Guy
A Fixture
Very interesting Roc........many thanks for posting these pics
Roc
A Fixture
Guy, you are very welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed the pics.
Cheers,
Roc.
Cheers,
Roc.
Roc
A Fixture
Hi Keith, I just think that a little back ground information makes painting the figure a lot more pleasurable, after all ,we paint these figures out of love for history.
Cheers,
Roc.
Cheers,
Roc.
Roc
A Fixture
Just painted some more equipment.
Cheers,
Roc.
Cheers,
Roc.
Roc
A Fixture
Siege Warfare
Siege Tactics
In conducting sieges the Romans showed their practical genius combined with ruthless thoroughness. If a place could not be overcome by the initial assaults or the inhabitants persuaded to surrender, it was practice of the Roman army to surround the whole area with a defensive wall and ditch and spread their units around these fortifications. This assured no supplies and reinforcements got to the besieged as well as guarding against any sorties of an attempt o breaking out.
There are several examples of efforts being made to cut off the water supply. Caesar was able to take Uxellodunum by concentrating on this target. First he stationed archers who maintained a steady fire on the water carriers who went to draw from the river which ran round the foot of the hill on which the citadel stood. the besieged then had to rely entirely on a spring at the foot of their wall. But Caesar's engineers were able to undermine the spring and to draw the water off at a lower level, thus forcing the town to surrender.
Siege Engines
Siege weapons were varied and ingenious inventions, their main object being to effect an entrance through the gates or walls. Gateways were usually the most heavily defended positions, so that it was often better to select a point along the walls. First, however, the ditches had to be filled with hard packed material to allow the heavy machinery to approach the foot of the wall. But the soldiers manning the wall would try to prevent this by firing their missiles at the working party. to counteract this the attackers were provided with protective screens (musculi) which were lined with iron plates or hides. The musculi provided some protection but not hardly enough. So constant fire had to be directed against the men on the wall to harass them. This was managed by bringing up stout timber towers, higher than the wall, so that men on their tops could pick off the defenders.
The Siege Tower
The ram was a heavy iron head in the shape of a ram's head fixed to a massive beam which was constantly slung against a wall or gate until it was breached. There was also a beam with an iron hook which was inserted into a hole in the wall made by the ram and with which stones would be dragged out. Further there was a smaller iron point (terebus) used for dislodging individual stones. The beam and frame from which it was swung were enclosed in a very strong shed covered with hides or iron plates, mounted on wheels. This was called a tortoise (testudo arietaria), since it resembled this creature with its heavy shell and head that moved in and out.
Under the protection of the towers , most likely in protective sheds, gangs of men worked at the foot of the wall, making holes through it, or digging down to get underneath it. Excavating galleries under the defences was common practice. the purpose was to weaken walls or towers at the foundations so that they collapsed. this was of course much more difficult to do without the enemy becoming aware of it.
At the siege of Marseille the defenders countered attempts to tunnel under their walls by digging a large basin inside the walls which they filled with water. When the mines approached the basin, the water flowed out, flooding them and causing them to collapse.
The only defence against the Roman's massive siege engines was to destroy them either by fire missiles, or by sorties made by a small, desperate body of men who'd try to set fire to them or turn them over.
Catapults
The Roman army used several types of powerful siege weapons for discharging missiles, the largest was the onager (the wild ass, because of the way it kicked out when it fired). Or so it was called from the late third century AD onwards.
When being moved with a legion it would be on a waggon in it's dismantled state, pulled by oxen.
The Onager
Apparently there was an earlier version of this catapult, known as the scorpion (scorpio), although this was a considerably smaller less powerful machine.
Onagri were used in sieges to batter down walls, as well as by defenders to smash siege towers and siege works. This explains their use as defensive batteries in cities and fortesses of the late empire.
The stones they hurled naturally were also effective when used against the densely packed lines of enemy infantry.
Another infamous catapult of the Roman army was the ballista. In essence it was a large crossbow, which could fire either arrows or stone balls. Various shapes and sizes of the ballista were around.
Firstly, there was the large basic ballista, most likely used as a siege engine to fire stones, before the introduction of the onager-type catapults. It woudl have a practical range of about 300 metres and would be operated by about 10 men.
The Ballista
There were more nimble, smaller sizes, including one dubbed the scorpion (scorpio), which would fire large arrow bolts. Also there was the carro-ballista which essentially was a scorpion-sized ballista mounted on wheels or a cart, which could therefore rapidly be moved from one place to another, - no doubt ideal for a battle field.
The most likely use for the bolt-firing scorpio and carro-ballista would be on the flanks of the infantry. Used in much the same way as modern machine guns, they could fire across the heads of their own troops into the enemy.
The large bolts varied in length and size and were equipped with various types of iron head, from simple sharp tips to crested blades.
When on the march these mid-range catapults would be loaded on waggons and then drawn along by mules.
The Scorpio-Ballista
Other, more strange versions of the ballista existed.
The manu-ballista, a small crossbow based on the same principle of the ballista, could be held by one man. No doubt it could be seen as the forerunner of the hand-held medieval crossbow.
Further there has also been some research done into the existence of the self-loading, serial-fire ballista. Legionaries either side would continuously keep turning cranks which turned a chain, which operated the various mechanisms to load and fire the catapult. All that was needed was for another soldier to keep feeding in more arrows.
The estimates regarding the numbers of these machines which a legion would have to draw on are wide-ranging.
One one hand it is said that, each legion had ten onagri, one for each cohort. Apart from this each century was also allocated a ballista (most likely of the scorpion or carro-ballista variety).
However, other estimates suggest that these engines were anything but widespread and that Rome relied for more on the ability of its soldiery to decide matters. And when used by legions on campaign, the catapults had simply been borrowed from forts and city defences. Hence there would be no regular spread of such machines across the troops.
It is hence hard to establish how widespread the use of these machines truly was.
One term causing confusion with these catapults is the 'scorpion' catapult (scorpio). This derives from the fact that the name had two different uses.
Essentially the catapults used by the Romans were largely Greek inventions. And one of the Greek ballista type catapults at first appeared to be called 'scorpion'.
However, also the smaller version of the 'onager' was given that name, most likely as the throwing arm, reminded of the stinging tail of a scorpion. Naturally, this causes some degree of confusion.
Siege Tactics
In conducting sieges the Romans showed their practical genius combined with ruthless thoroughness. If a place could not be overcome by the initial assaults or the inhabitants persuaded to surrender, it was practice of the Roman army to surround the whole area with a defensive wall and ditch and spread their units around these fortifications. This assured no supplies and reinforcements got to the besieged as well as guarding against any sorties of an attempt o breaking out.
There are several examples of efforts being made to cut off the water supply. Caesar was able to take Uxellodunum by concentrating on this target. First he stationed archers who maintained a steady fire on the water carriers who went to draw from the river which ran round the foot of the hill on which the citadel stood. the besieged then had to rely entirely on a spring at the foot of their wall. But Caesar's engineers were able to undermine the spring and to draw the water off at a lower level, thus forcing the town to surrender.
Siege Engines
Siege weapons were varied and ingenious inventions, their main object being to effect an entrance through the gates or walls. Gateways were usually the most heavily defended positions, so that it was often better to select a point along the walls. First, however, the ditches had to be filled with hard packed material to allow the heavy machinery to approach the foot of the wall. But the soldiers manning the wall would try to prevent this by firing their missiles at the working party. to counteract this the attackers were provided with protective screens (musculi) which were lined with iron plates or hides. The musculi provided some protection but not hardly enough. So constant fire had to be directed against the men on the wall to harass them. This was managed by bringing up stout timber towers, higher than the wall, so that men on their tops could pick off the defenders.
The Siege Tower
The ram was a heavy iron head in the shape of a ram's head fixed to a massive beam which was constantly slung against a wall or gate until it was breached. There was also a beam with an iron hook which was inserted into a hole in the wall made by the ram and with which stones would be dragged out. Further there was a smaller iron point (terebus) used for dislodging individual stones. The beam and frame from which it was swung were enclosed in a very strong shed covered with hides or iron plates, mounted on wheels. This was called a tortoise (testudo arietaria), since it resembled this creature with its heavy shell and head that moved in and out.
Under the protection of the towers , most likely in protective sheds, gangs of men worked at the foot of the wall, making holes through it, or digging down to get underneath it. Excavating galleries under the defences was common practice. the purpose was to weaken walls or towers at the foundations so that they collapsed. this was of course much more difficult to do without the enemy becoming aware of it.
At the siege of Marseille the defenders countered attempts to tunnel under their walls by digging a large basin inside the walls which they filled with water. When the mines approached the basin, the water flowed out, flooding them and causing them to collapse.
The only defence against the Roman's massive siege engines was to destroy them either by fire missiles, or by sorties made by a small, desperate body of men who'd try to set fire to them or turn them over.
Catapults
The Roman army used several types of powerful siege weapons for discharging missiles, the largest was the onager (the wild ass, because of the way it kicked out when it fired). Or so it was called from the late third century AD onwards.
When being moved with a legion it would be on a waggon in it's dismantled state, pulled by oxen.
The Onager
Apparently there was an earlier version of this catapult, known as the scorpion (scorpio), although this was a considerably smaller less powerful machine.
Onagri were used in sieges to batter down walls, as well as by defenders to smash siege towers and siege works. This explains their use as defensive batteries in cities and fortesses of the late empire.
The stones they hurled naturally were also effective when used against the densely packed lines of enemy infantry.
Another infamous catapult of the Roman army was the ballista. In essence it was a large crossbow, which could fire either arrows or stone balls. Various shapes and sizes of the ballista were around.
Firstly, there was the large basic ballista, most likely used as a siege engine to fire stones, before the introduction of the onager-type catapults. It woudl have a practical range of about 300 metres and would be operated by about 10 men.
The Ballista
There were more nimble, smaller sizes, including one dubbed the scorpion (scorpio), which would fire large arrow bolts. Also there was the carro-ballista which essentially was a scorpion-sized ballista mounted on wheels or a cart, which could therefore rapidly be moved from one place to another, - no doubt ideal for a battle field.
The most likely use for the bolt-firing scorpio and carro-ballista would be on the flanks of the infantry. Used in much the same way as modern machine guns, they could fire across the heads of their own troops into the enemy.
The large bolts varied in length and size and were equipped with various types of iron head, from simple sharp tips to crested blades.
When on the march these mid-range catapults would be loaded on waggons and then drawn along by mules.
The Scorpio-Ballista
Other, more strange versions of the ballista existed.
The manu-ballista, a small crossbow based on the same principle of the ballista, could be held by one man. No doubt it could be seen as the forerunner of the hand-held medieval crossbow.
Further there has also been some research done into the existence of the self-loading, serial-fire ballista. Legionaries either side would continuously keep turning cranks which turned a chain, which operated the various mechanisms to load and fire the catapult. All that was needed was for another soldier to keep feeding in more arrows.
The estimates regarding the numbers of these machines which a legion would have to draw on are wide-ranging.
One one hand it is said that, each legion had ten onagri, one for each cohort. Apart from this each century was also allocated a ballista (most likely of the scorpion or carro-ballista variety).
However, other estimates suggest that these engines were anything but widespread and that Rome relied for more on the ability of its soldiery to decide matters. And when used by legions on campaign, the catapults had simply been borrowed from forts and city defences. Hence there would be no regular spread of such machines across the troops.
It is hence hard to establish how widespread the use of these machines truly was.
One term causing confusion with these catapults is the 'scorpion' catapult (scorpio). This derives from the fact that the name had two different uses.
Essentially the catapults used by the Romans were largely Greek inventions. And one of the Greek ballista type catapults at first appeared to be called 'scorpion'.
However, also the smaller version of the 'onager' was given that name, most likely as the throwing arm, reminded of the stinging tail of a scorpion. Naturally, this causes some degree of confusion.
Jason W.
A Fixture
Roc,
Excellent job on the research. It's great to see someone have such passion and do so much research for a given subject. I've learned alot from this thread. Well done my friend.
Excellent job on the research. It's great to see someone have such passion and do so much research for a given subject. I've learned alot from this thread. Well done my friend.
Roc
A Fixture
Jason, my friend, thank you, your comments are always appreciated.
Research seems to fuel my passion for painting figures.
Cheers,
Roc.
Research seems to fuel my passion for painting figures.
Cheers,
Roc.
Roc
A Fixture
Hey guys, I finally finished the ground work on the figure and added some finishing touches, time permitting, I hope to be able to post some pictures by the end of the week.
Cheers,
Roc.
Cheers,
Roc.
olly_usafsoc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 124
Good! looking forward to seeing the latest pictures! :lol:
Roc
A Fixture
Hi Olly, I'll try to post the pictures as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Roc.
Cheers,
Roc.
