onagers on walls

[stomp bash chop]

i have seen a few complaints about not being able to put them on walls but would they have been put up on walls in reality in the past.

the recoil would have ben huge from a machine like that and having them up on the wall would have exposed them to counter fire to a far greater degree

also they would have been difficult to get into a city in reality in the past under the pressure of a battle as the gate would generally be too low surely.

[Pro patria populoque]

One bonus however, of having them on the wall would be the ability of the 'gunners,' to use direct fire. Instead of having to rely on relayed messages from soldiers on the wall that their fire was falling short etc.
Plus range would be increased and the effect of plunging fire would be increased.

However it was not only getting the weapon up to the walls but also the ammuntion that would have been an immense engineering challenge.

[Selifator]

As I've said before, you can build them on walls. You don't necessarily have to pull them up, they could have yanked the parts up the walls and build them there.
The recoil might have been a problem, but smaller onagers could provide a solution. All in all, I think it might have been possible.

[Lord Thesaurian]

in my opinion putting artillery on walls would have been more dangerous than theyre worth

[ben331]

Recoil from onagers is forwards due to the action of the throwing arm, so they would simply hit the wall in front of them. The Romans were clever enough to invent the lorica segmenta, armour made from springy metal, so surely they would have thought to use this type of metal as a shock absorber to put between the onager and the wall to lessen the impact and decrease the chance of the onager smashing itself on the wall.
As for ammunition, they would just use a manually operated crane, maybe even a simple pulley system.

Ballistae have always befuddled me though; the bow and string move violently forwards, so that puts the momentum to the front, but the spear/bolt is thrown forwards and pushes back on the string...I believe that ballistae have a forward recoil though I have never fired one, only a bow and arrow which is probably a little different...then again probably not.

[SonOfAlexander]

Like selifator says you need to do what they do on Minas Tirith on any other fortress really - build the onagers on the towers. And by the way, they will move a little and they do have a lot of force, but because they don't work the same way as guns, they don't have recoil - they just rock forwards a bit. That's why archers have the bows at arm's length, not with a butt.

Onagers would be hard to have on the walls but a tower with a mini catapult (or (secure footing) later on a trebuchet) andammunition on a tower does have all the benefits you described. If I see another good post like this i reckon youre worth a rep+

[stomp bash chop]

the effect of an onager on the wall would hardly be sufficient to justify the massive amount of work that would have to go in to building the wall to take it and building the anager on the wall when you can simply wheel the thing up behind the wall and fire away over it.
the moment the wall is captured your men are trapped and become useless whereas on the ground you have the possibility of withdrawing to the centre when the enemy appear to be about to break through.

they are not accurate anyway.

[Cheme]

First of all we should all probably refrain from saying anything along the lines of "surely people in ancient times would have...." since we dont actually know that.

Secondly, if the game goes so far as to allow building the gigantic walls they do that a catapult or ballista would definetly fit on one. Why not allow them to be placed on the walls? Something like an onager has a large footprint and the swing of the arm requires even more space so mounting one on a wall would probably be unrealistic but I am sure that at least a ballista could fit on a wall and something like a catapult would fit on a tower.

My guess is that it is impossible to do so because it would have ruined the "balance" of a siege battle. With lone archers with extreme firing rates and the ease of defending the city square it is one sided enough already. Artillery on the walls would likely swing the balance even worse.

They way I feel it should have been done is to :

allow smaller art on the walls
due away with the lone super archer in the towers
Make it possible for units to man the towers and use it in the defense just as attacking units can use rams, towers and ladders.

[ben331]

Medieval art depicts onagers/catapults and trebuchets on walls of some crusader castles, if they managed it I'm sure the Roman's were able to.