Pompeii's battle scars linked to an ancient 'machine gun'
65 points by pseudolus 4 days ago | 16 comments
  • zeusdclxvi 6 hours ago |
    The polybolos was an advanced ancient Greek repeating ballista, often described as a "machine gun of antiquity," invented in the 3rd century BC by Dionysius of Alexandria. It used a unique chain-drive and gravity-fed system to fire bolts in rapid succession
    • mkl 4 hours ago |
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybolos

      Apparently it was on MythBusters, but I don't remember that one.

    • zadikian 4 hours ago |
      I've heard of this, but what's the advantage? They still need to recharge the torsion the same way, which must've taken longer than someone manually feeding the next bolt.
      • bfivyvysj 4 hours ago |
        You can't imagine why a quick succession of bolt fire might be more advantageous than a slow reload?
        • zadikian 3 hours ago |
          I mean how is it actually faster if the rate limiting step is the same. People are claiming it was 2-3X as fast.
          • eucyclos 3 hours ago |
            Maybe it's harder to deal with ten projectiles in a minute followed by a nine minute reload than one a minute for ten minutes?
            • ithkuil 3 hours ago |
              Even a short surprise can be crucial in an ancient battle, where breaking formation can be fatal
            • zadikian 3 hours ago |
              I'm not even considering the magazine reload time, just the time between shots assuming a full mag. That's 10 recharges either way, as shown in the videos. It's not like a machine gun where the energy is in the powder.
            • goodpoint 21 minutes ago |
              Very likely.
          • Someone 2 hours ago |
            Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybolos, at least some of these used a windlass to rearm. That may explain part of the speed difference over one using a separate lever or one that’s rearmed purely by hand.

            These weapons also may have given up on some firing power for firing frequency.

      • normie3000 3 hours ago |
        Maybe one less operator required? Less chance of losing a hand?
        • zadikian 3 hours ago |
          Yeah I figured it's more convenient, but they're claiming it's also twice as fast.

          With the chu ko nu I get it, you only have two hands, so the auto reload was faster.

      • adzm 2 hours ago |
        The psychological advantage can't be discounted either
      • lelanthran 24 minutes ago |
        > I've heard of this, but what's the advantage? They still need to recharge the torsion the same way, which must've taken longer than someone manually feeding the next bolt.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Epis...

        > They set up 5 targets at 90 yards (82 m) and brought in professional archer Brady Ellison to provide a benchmark for comparison. He hit the targets in 2 minutes, using 11 arrows. After further breakdowns and repair work, Adam and Jamie accomplished the feat with 15 arrows in 1 minute and 50 seconds.

        Certainly sounds like a win to me, if it was faster and just as accurate as the worlds number one ranked recurve archer :-/

        You can train a man to turn the windlass in about an hour. It takes years to get an archer to the same accuracy and speed.

        So, a definite advantage.