On crossbow armed Romans as scouts/escorts or buccelarii

[Black Francis]

Ok once and for all,

It is often thought that crossbowmen were used in the late Roman army and performed some kind of escort/scouting/bodyguard duties. This is also one of the sources for the myth of bucelarii being armed with crossbows.

This all comes from Ammianus, book XVI (16) para 2 which mentions Julian while in the west being escorted in wooded terrain by Cataphractarii/Clibinarii and Balistarii.

People assume that because Julian is being escorted by "Balistarii" they must be some sort of light balista = a crossbow and not artillery. This is wishful thinking.

The point that Ammianus is trying to make is NOT that Cataphracts and "Balista" armed men were being used as escorts, he is trying to get accross the idea that Julian was being accompanied by a very inappropriate escort! I mean, think about it: Cataphracts and Artillery, IN A WOOD!

Bear in mind also that there was only ONE unit of Ballistarii (artillery) in the entire of the Western Roman Empire listed in the Notitia Dignitatum so it is highly unlikely that Ammianus meant a unit other than the onE unit of Balistarii (an actual artillery unit) in that half of the empire.

"....a short cut but was dangerous because it lay through dark woods.... To avoid delay he took with him only cuirassiers (Cataphracts) and artillerymen (Ballista), an inadequate escort for a commander, and reached Auxerre by Silvanus' route." Ammianus Marcellinus XVI, II, Penguin edition, translated by Walter Hamilton 1986.

I am further backed up by the online Notitia Dignitatum:

"It should be noted that Ammianus for instance describes Julian in the mid-4th century marching through wooded terrain accompanied by only catafractarii and balistarii, and that they were unsuitable as a bodyguard in such terrain. This implies that at this time the balistarii were separate from his (other) legionary units as they are in the Notitia, and also that they were artillery: if they were crossbow-armed light infantry, they would appear to have been an especially suitable escort in the circumstances!"

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Balistarii.html

My point?

Well, I find it interesting... but what does this mean for IBFD?

Please, get rid of the crossbow armed Romans (Bucellarii) as there is no basis for units of this sort in the Roman army, at least on the scale they are represented in game, especially in the West.

I mean, at the moment it seems they are in every city!!!!

Also, if they remain in game, (which I believe they could, but in a smaller capacity) they should be called Manuballista/Manuballistarii (hand ballista) and have their description changed accordingly.

I have no idea where the idea of crossbow armed bucellarii came from (vanilla?), but this is not how they (bucellarii) fought. Bucellarii could refer to personal troops of any variety and as such I don't think they should be represented by a single unit or troop type as they could be any!

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I must agree with Black Francis.

The crossbow was mentioned by Alexia Comninos in one book.
I believe it referred to the Genoese actually!

THAT time period is outside the historical scope of IBFD.

hellas1 P.S. Nice work on the units though!

[Pompeius Magnus]

Hi Francis,
you are absolutely right. 100%. I explained that in the "historical army-thread, that bucelarii came from all over the world (goths, huns, isaurians, of course romans and so on.)

And I agree with you that the name of this unit should be changed.
On the other side nearly every rich roman had at least a small house-holder-troop. Used to protect the lords house or to collect taxes and so on.
I think you will agree this issue.

In the game IBFD, if I go to battle with such a unit, you know that these men have only swords in the hand. Only when I click on "fire-at-will" this unit use the crossbow (or better said: hand-ballista.) as additional weapon
AND NOT AS PRIMARY WEAPON
So, for me it absolutely OK if such a unit exist with a secondary weapon like the hand-ballista.

And I think it is absolutely OK if some (few) governours have such a unit for protection, conscription, tax collection and so on.
I use this unit very rare to go into a battle. Only in the case of emergency.
I use some units of them to simulate something like a "police-force". Police doesn't exist, but I think you now what I mean.
But I agree 100% with you that this unit should be renamed. I made this suggestion to Ramon with the unit pedites bucelarii, too.

By the way:
Some years ago a tension-crossbow was found in the german city of xanten. The cities destrict name is xanten-wardt.
Here you can see this early cross bow from the time of Jesus birth (round about year 0).
Other models of this weapon were found in spain and iraq.
You can see this old weapon in the museum of Xanten, I saw it with my own eyes. So, In the time frame of the late antique this kind of weapon was, esp. for the romans, well known. (not only for chinese). But was used very very rare and not for big military operations.

[Mylae]

let's take a closer look on the matter.

first of all, i'm tempted of reducing to normality the typing dimension of Black Francis, but i've passed over.

he say "get rid of the crossbow armed Romans (Bucellarii)".

and this because "It is often thought that crossbowmen were used in the late Roman army and performed some kind of escort/scouting/bodyguard duties. This is also one of the sources for the myth of bucelarii being armed with crossbows.

This all comes from Ammianus, book XVI (16) para 2 which mentions Julian while in the west being escorted in wooded terrain by Cataphractarii/Clibinarii and Balistarii"

now i will like that you read carefully. are we talking of ballistari or bucellari?

ballistari were a - supposed, since we cannot know for certain - unit of artillery.


bucellarii are not part of the roman army. as the name says for those who know latin, they are simply "biscuit-eaters". i see no link to artillery. hard to explain in few words, because i should give a picture of the late roman society; but rich landowners, in this time, start worrying about their safety and that of their lands, and hire groups of "mercenaries", ex soldiers, veterans or even deserters, to protect the land. but time to time, as levy was compulsory, landowners could retain their workers in exchange of an equal number of soldiers for the army, and sometime bucellarii were used for this aim too.
the fact, however, that they were better payed allow them to avoid the bribed official army equipment and get a very good one.
recognizing this situation belisarius was the first to give them a regularization in the army, and to massively employ them.

is true that, as black francis point out, bucellarii are not a unit type, but could be each; but we face the reality of the rtw engine, were they must be a troop type.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Nobody knows that 100%.
But I think a unit equipt with the crossbow should be integrated in the Mod.
As I said several times (and Mylae said that also) the units of bucelarii were more and more important in the roman world. I think it is very possible that some soldiers of the bucelarii were equipt with the crossbow (or a similiar model). So the unit should stay in the Mod.

But a discussion about the units name seems reasonable.

[Black Francis]

For all:

It was very late here and I was quite tired when I made that post... ...but rather than edit it I will just clarify and expand here:

I had three points.

I) The first was that people use that passage in Ammianus as an example of crossbow armed scouts accompanying a general, when this was not what Amminaus had in mind. They think "Balistarii, accompanying a general! Why, these must small balistas, crossbows in fact!" when in fact they just miss the point of the passage = that Julian somehow ended up with totally inappropriate escorts for a dark wood.

II) My second point was in regard to IBFD: That at the moment we have crossbows all over the damn place. Start up a WRE game and see. They are in almost every city. The really are! They number of these men should be reduced in the West IMO. They should also be renamed as Manuballista/Manuballistarii rather than buccellarii..... which is kind of point three...

III) Now as for buccellarii, the point was a little different. Basically, buccellarii is a term used to describe the bodyguard and later personal army of a general. Now these could be any troop variety and could well be manuballista armed men, but instead of having an actual unit, just put any unit with the general and BINGO, we have buccellarii. You want a general with manuballista armed buccellarii, fine put a unit of manuballista with him. No need for an actual buccellarii troop type though.

I think we are generally in agreement though.

About manuballista being used as a secondary weapon... I don't think you could use this weapon as a secondary weapon... I mean look at it! If you were carrying that I don't see you being able to do much else.

[Mylae]

ok black francis, glad that we are roughly on the same line
excuse me for before, but i dislike "all-caps" post, bold letters and different dimension in posts. they are a very good way to catch the attention, however, looks like you are screaming for attention - and several people will dislike the screaming in sè.

well, let's come to the point.
I- probably there are too many crossbow unit in the wre, you are right.
i've the intention of redoing something, i will decrease their number.
II- the bucellarii are not - not yet - general's unit.
first mentioned in 395, if i remember well, there was imperial decrees even in 460s that were intended to forbid such gang of well-payed mercenaries, or landowners to hire them.
---- i know it sound silly, because modding brings you a different view of the game, and there are different internal development with a lot of changes - but as i remember, bucellarii are a mercenary unit recruitable a bit here and ther in the roman empire. they were not recruitable in cities.
since the recruitment is not my zone of modding, what is the situation ?

[Black Francis]

---- i know it sound silly, because modding brings you a different view of the game, and there are different internal development with a lot of changes - but as i remember, bucellarii are a mercenary unit recruitable a bit here and ther in the roman empire. they were not recruitable in cities.
since the recruitment is not my zone of modding, what is the situation ?

But there shouldn't be any buccellarii in the game because the term does not signify a unit as such! Buccellarii is just a term used to signify a personal retinue/army.

If I wanted to create buccellarii in IBFD all I would do is put some units with my general and say "these are my buccellarii". We don't need a unit called buccellarii as any unit could be buccellarii.

All that needs to be done to IBFD is:

I) To rename the buccellarii unit as Manuballista/Manuballistarii and give them an appropriate description.
II) Take away some of the many Manuballista units the WRE start with.

[Mylae]

well, i think you said before: buccellarii are not a regular unit - but as long as 410 they are employed by latifundists and so, not (not yet) by generals.
they should be mercenaries, if they are not yet. and yep there are too many of them.
maybe we could even give away their manuballista, and give it to a proper unit of manuballistari - however, it will be better to have a new model, if not even a new animation, and ramon should be asked for it.

[Black Francis]

well, i think you said before: buccellarii are not a regular unit - but as long as 410 they are employed by latifundists and so, not (not yet) by generals.
they should be mercenaries, if they are not yet.

No because buccellarii could be any unit in the game. There is no need to implement them as, well, any unit in the game could be used as buccelarii.

and yep there are too many of them.

Yes, there are too many Manuballista armed troops. There are not too many buccellarii in the game, there simply shouldn't be a unit called "buccellarii" in the game, as they could be any unit in the game!

maybe we could even give away their manuballista, and give it to a proper unit of manuballistari - however, it will be better to have a new model, if not even a new animation, and ramon should be asked for it.

We don't need to give away their manuballista, we just need to rename the buccellarii unit as manuballista and all is well!

Once more, buccellarii just means a group of soldiers directly supported by an individual. It does not refer to a particular kind of unit and so they do not need a particular kind of unit.

[hellas1]

Hello all,

I never new that an actual hand held crossbow was used by the romans!

I knew about the Gastrophetes or "belly bow" of the Greeks, but not the romans. Probably a Roman copy of a Greek original. That's mostly what they did, copy. Except for their government, which might have borrowed elements from their comquered neighbors, ie. Etruscans, Umbri, Samniti, etc.

Thanks for enlightening me on this in game topic and historical topic!

hellas1

[Mylae]

hi hellas1
the manuballista was a perfectioned copy of the greek gastraphete; it is based on a different engine, but has the same idea.

[Gäiten]

I may recommend you that the Manuballistae can only be recruited from Siege_Engineer level buildings.
That device is very complicated (a miniature cheiroballista) and needs a lot of maintenance. Without much Know-How and a high developed infrastructure you can neither produce nor support such weapons.

[Ramon Gonzales y Garcia]

I may recommend you that the Manuballistae can only be recruited from Siege_Engineer level buildings.
That device is very complicated (a miniature cheiroballista) and needs a lot of maintenance. Without much Know-How and a high developed infrastructure you can neither produce nor support such weapons.

posted an assent to this suggestion in the IBFD7 discussion thread

[Black Francis]

Great suggestion Gaiten!

The manuballista was not developed from the Greek gastraphete. All sources point to it being developed "in the field" as a refinement and improvement upon the existing Roman scorpio sometime at the very beginning of the second century AD.

Regardless of what Wikipedia tells you it was not invented by Heron of Alexandria in 100 AD as the text we have describing this weapon, though in Greek, does not match up with the vocabulary or writing style of Heron. Also, by the time of Heron, it was already in service on the other side of the Empire, whereas it usually takes some time between something being invented and it coming into service, especially in the ancient world.

[Victor1234]

Personally, I like/use the infantry and calvary variants of the buccellarii and would prefer to keep them, whether they are supposed to be a distinct unit or any unit. I'm not particularily attached to the crossbow variant however and I typically disband all of these at the start of the game anyways. Just another opinion

[Razor]

I agree, with the Bucellarii issue. I had the same issues when I was figuring out the Roman unit list. It's best to make them regular mercs available to any character/familymember. And IF it should have been portrayed as a unit I'd make it a cavalry unit

About the balistarii: I think it's just a unit related to ballistae, not any kind of hand-held torsion weapon.
Isn't it possible that the manuballista wasn't a hand-held weapon but just a differently named scorpio? Because I wonder what the sources are then...

[Black Francis]

Razor, the manuballista was a scorpio in a way, just a smaller improved one. I think the word "manu-hand" gives it away. It was certainly hand portable at the very least. The sources are quite various (which surprised me); archaeological finds, sculpture (arch of Constantine) and a number of historical texts. If you look at the IBFD discussion thread I have linked to a couple of sites that have the relevant info.

[Razor]

Hey, thanks for that Black Francis!
That image of the Arch of Constantine really makes me think that it IS in fact a handheld torsion weapon afterall and no scorpio standing on a tripod.
Thanks again

[Black Francis]

Hey, thanks for that Black Francis!
That image of the Arch of Constantine really makes me think that it IS in fact a handheld torsion weapon afterall and no scorpio standing on a tripod.
Thanks again

No problem, like I said, I was surprised. I thought it was a load of re-enactment wishful thinking, but it turned out I was wrong. I almost suggested that they (manuballistarii) should be totally removed from the game. Instead I just ended up refining and correcting and getting the unit represented correctly. The images from the Arch of Constantine are what really convinced me also. I love the way the operators keep the ammo in their hats!