Did the ballista have practical use or was it just a morale killer?

In rome 2 they are pretty useless.

>>1552904
>>1552904
>tfw Rome had more advancing engineering than anything the Europeans could invent until the Renaissance
It's an actually good design. It must have cost a fortune during its days. Maybe some corrupt Roman senator just had a factory of ballistas (or ties with the owners of the factories) and sold them to the military to become richer, just like the military-industrial complex nowadays does.

File: 1452190281384s.jpg (2KB, 124x78px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 124x78px

>>1553116
>tfw your tax sestertii are being spent on expensive engines of war to be used in Mesopotamia

>>1552904
Most Ballistas and such weapons were used in battles that were in a fixed place as opposed to regular-ass field battles.

Like assaulting fortifications and whatnot.

Also I suppose its like archery: guestimation.

File: 1465023303517.png (315KB, 564x354px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 564x354px

>>1553138
>saving the thumbnail

>>1552904

>skewering entire formations of enemies beyond skirmisher range
>useless

most of the deaths in warfare have been from artillery rather than direct fire.

Ballistas were absolutely deadly, and they weren't even a Roman only thing. Greeks, eastern empires, even Gauls and Celts used them.

Romans had ballistas that fired boulders, onagers that fired BIGGER boulders, pots of scalding oil and diceased animals, they had smaller personal-sized ballistas, ballistas mounted on chariots, repeating ballistas, etc. They LOVED field artillery.

mainly sieges, but it could be used to coax an enemy out of a defensive position