Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: trebuchet.jpg (34KB, 450x338px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 450x338px
Just how common was the use of field artillery prior to the invention of cannons? In this context, I'm asking about the use of artillery weapons outside of sieges. Films like to portray 'gun lines' of catapults (think the opening battle in gladiator), but it seems like artillery would have been difficult to use unless you were on the defensive or conducting a siege.
Would medieval or ancient armies actually have utilised artillery in open field battles much? I know the Romans had some small artillery pieces they apparently used, but I'm curious if larger catapults/trebuchets were ever used in this manner.
>>
>>3224058
Siege weapons where not used in field battles only very rarely. Battle of Mohac is an example where it was used in a field role.
>>
They're rather difficult to aim as I understand it. Not so much of an issue when you're aiming at a castle or city and you have plenty of time to aim and adjust, but becomes a problem when you're aiming at 5786876667 screaming barbarians who are rapidly getting closer.
That said, an anonymous poem describing the battle of Bosworth claims there were springalds there. Wetherby he meant man sized crossbows or actually siege engines is unclear.
>>
>>3224058
>Hey guys, how did they use artillery before they had artillery
>protip, they din't
>>
>>3224076
You know what I meant - besides, aren't Roman scorpions generally referred to as 'artillery'?
>>
Mongols did use siege equipment against King Bela
>>
Alexander the Great used a lot of easily transported field artillery in his campaigns into Persia. Most decisively I think when he used it to cover his river crossing at the Jaxartes.
>>
>>3224058
Trebuchets would be fucking useless against soldiers. You'd never be able to aim quickly, or precisely enough. Great for knocking down large, stationary targets though.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2