Lmfao

I just imagine a friend showing up one day going : "Tod! It's the Irish! They are invading!" And Tod just goes: "Hang on. I got just the thing."

Imagine the fortress he could build in a zombie apocalypse.

@@michimatsch5862 he'd probably have one laying around and be like: "Nah, it's nothing great, just something I once made for fun to test the principle. Didn't have time to make it fancy or anything."

This just proves that Tod is insane. No man could have that cool a piece of kit in the shed and not take it out to play every day. Euphemism only partly intended.

Theory: nobody on this channel every minded Tod rambling. Ever.

Thanks for the nice thoughts, but some strays who find themselves here don't get it

@@tods_workshop well.. we all pay more attention to the nay-sayers.. don’t we. Love you Tod. More please. ;)

@@tods_workshop If they don't like rambling, direct them over to watch some Lindey Beige videos 😁😁😁👍

@@euansmith3699 cmon man, that's psychological abuse🤣

Since armored regiments include things like tanks etc. catapulta is similar to the description/understanding of anti-tank (propelled grenade)

This naming thing is incredibly confusing, because at least for italian, every source I can find says that romans were the ones that started calling this a Balista, while the greek called it Catapulta. Why are english sources saying it medieval people did this change?

One problem here is the a Pelta is the crescent shield used by Greek skirmishers the Peltasts, not Hoplites who used the Hoplon.

@@adambielen8996 aspis. Hoplon was the term for whole equipment.

​@@VarenRoth Good point, so i went to doublecheck the sources straight from the Italian Wikipedia (I figured if any place had well linked sources, it'd be them). The Italian dictionary itself says that the italian term "Ballista" comes from the latin word that was itself inherited from ancient greek ( βαλλίστρα/ballistra), "A bowlike Greek and then Roman mounted warmachine". The earliest ballista project was in Syracusa around 350~B.C., as a mounted evolution of the Gastraphetes which ​ @Tod's Workshop should be familiar with. Later, Macedonian and Hellenistic period engineers further evolved the catapulta (which now throwed rocks, "lithobolos") into throwing bigger and bigger rocks but were all called balista or lithobolosi, while the Latins only adopted the first term. The distinction in the greek machines naming was still due to the projectile loaded, but apparently this was due to their design: katapeltas were NOT using a torsion engine, while ballista were, meaning catapultas were incapable of throwing moderately big rocks by design limitation, and not by intention/field designation. Apparently, early period Roman engineers built all 3 versions with a torsion engine and named them depending on the size; the scorpion was the smallest (single operator, bolts only), then the catapulta (the field/anti-infantry one that Tod built here, with bolts or javelins) and the ballista, the siege engine proper,capable of launching all types of munitions. Since all 3 had torsion engine designs, unlike the greek one, i suspect the confusion was born at this step and not in medieval times as i've stated before. This is all tracked in the Atlantic Codex from Leonardo da Vinci and, following the source, apparently is this: Atlantic Codex, f. 140b. r, f. 152 r, f. 149b r. This is the old book (2009) that references those pages, only found it in Italian, and was written by the same curator of that museum: www.worldcat.org/it/title/635378168 If tod could see this, then he could probably double check with his book, but i suspect a similar story to be found there.

Thanks and I suspect I will be back

The stones who were send over the city wall had a weight of 300 Kg. If those stones come like rain, the houses got a lot of damage too. More speed is nice but the weight brings the damages. Smaller stones came out a hot fire, making the house burn if it didn't lose it's heat quickly.

Tod said they scale, would love to see an Onager scale Catapulta

sir, i think you don't have a knee anymore.

I guess if I were to find the Room of Requirements in Hogwarts I would find myself standing in Tods cupboard...

A UK TV presenter called Ray Mears was wandering my workshop last week and loved it, particularly the smell

@@tods_workshop Is he still in there? Not that the BBC lose one of their employees in your cupboard.

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta Perhaps. Even though Tod probably knows where keeps his stuff, it's hard to find a wandering person from a place as labyrinthine as that. ;)

@@pRahvi0 Indeed! And maybe this "Ray" guy doesn't want to be found because he loves it there, as Tod has stated.

Thank you and more to come

I would think the accuracy and range gain alone might be worth it. I makes them far more useful. You could snipe enemy commanders. You could shoot at moving cavalry trying to flank you. You can lay suppressive fire at multiple enemy formations that may be having a bit too much success against your lines at any one moment. You can use them in siege warfare. They bring an element of pure chaos to the battle. Imagine being out there knowing that these things are randomly smashing into your lines possibly at head level and that if you drop your shield you're dead...........if you keep your shield up you may still be seriously injured but of course now you can't see.

You're investing metal, high grade wood, skilled artisans, and a team to run the bloody thing; The Romans understood accounting.

@@MrBottlecapBill They were barely used in open battles. They were primarily used in sieges (by both sides) where range is the most important thing. Also in naval battles in 3rd Century BC, but not so much after. When they were used in field battles it was almost always vis-a-vis a static defences of some kind: like forcing the enemy to keep away from the bank of a river to be crossed. For example: see Caesar using them in his amphibious landing in Britain. So while they are mentioned occasionally in the sources, it's never in completely open battles. So we can only conclude that they weren't used then. There's plenty of debate to be had on _why_ something so awesome wasn't more influential in battles, but the fact that it wasn't is settled by the sources. In all likelihood, they're just too slow, too cumbersome, too expensive, and (most of all) too few for them to be decisive in the vast majority of situations. This is even more true in the raiding/skirmishing/counter-raiding that that makes up 99% of ancient warfare.

based on how it punched through those plywood soldiers (and the bracings for them) I think it was much better

@@jonathanwessner3456 obviously but for the time and effort it takes to carry it, set it up, load it, aim it and fire it. you could throw 10-20 smaller handheld darts. would be interesting to see if it was worth it, outside of siege situations.

Good luck - that sounds like a 1 span machine or a bit smaller

Thanks Artur and good luck with everything

Keep in mind that humidity is going to change the actual force at any particular draw length. If a battle started in the morning and ran until afternoon, I could easily see the device being less powerful in the morning when the ropes were damper. So they might have had to do a running calibration. It would also be interesting to know of they would keep the ropes under tension all the time, or more likely (just like with stringed instruments) back off the tension between battles. If they do that, they need some way to reliably reset the tension.

@@lwilton Still, a scale along the side is a great idea. You could write "adjust three points in wet conditions" underneath it or whatever.

I would have to look at the book again to see how the stand should be.

There's virtually no primary source evidence for stands. The versions Alan and Len adopted were copied from an intaglio showing cupid shooting a cheirioballistra. Hope that helps.

Possible, but if this was a crew-served engine, I wager one of the operators would have the job of resetting the prop arm.

Dummy labs torso in body armour and shield would be amazing to see, as it's hard to visualise the power involved at this scale

@@ac1dflare937 ballistic gel is a poor simulator of human flesh for slow objects. It's not really a great simulator of flesh for high velocity objects, either, but it is consistent between batches. So if you have hard lab data based on live critter testing (IIRC Fackler used 160lb goats), you can use ammunition that was heavily tested _in vivo_ and then use a more consistent substitute to see what happens. As long as the relative performance between your worst performing and best performing in vivo matches your gel tests, it's going to be an acceptable yardstick.

Great idea! Maybe a bit or armour would be handy

@@tods_workshop Just be sure to place GoPro between you and machine - at least it will take the blow :D

I totally agree that the word catapult comes from the word cat and that the first projectiles they shot with them were cats. And when they ran out of cats, they started to should other things with claws. Like arrows and bolts. Today, very few people know that cats almost got extinct because of this practice back in the days.

Ballista shoots balls. Footballs, basketballs, baseballs, severed goats balls……

@@The_Judge300 Yes they nearly went extinct from being used as ammunition but always managed to land on their feet.

@@leeboy26 And that was what saved them and made it possible for the crazy cat ladies to thrive. Another endangered species.

Or he could have made the Jupiter's mouth _juuuust_ a wee bit larger so he can actually aim through it at short range. We know Romans used the "small" bolt-throwers as their version of high-powered sniper rifles, so they MUST have been able to make precise, direct fire. My money is on Todd's machine not being much able to do so being just a matter of the replica being off by a milimeter or two - just enough that you can't actually use the hole to aim through it.

yes, he said exactly that

Yes the original treatise says the cords are to be pulled tight and stretched and 'clipped' into place whilst the next wrap is made. Apparently it was preferable for the cords winders to be musical so they could hear the note of the cord prior to clipping so each pre-tension is the same.

@@tods_workshop Who was it that said "It's a lazy soldier who twist his skein tight", or something to that effect? I used 500LB rated webbing as winch line. I found the breaking strength of the webbing, then backed off a bit. I could tell by the note it rang out as fibers started to snap. lol Probably had more then 500LB per pull, so the engines were probably under more like 24,000LB of tension to start off with. Tuning is Very important. The engines must be balanced.

Ancient artillery pieces were not used in mass against massed infantry charges. That's what archers were for. Artillery was used to supress a besieged fortification's archers from larger rane than they could retaliate. Fortification's artillery was used to supress assaulting artillery. Both roles required actually quite good accuraccy. That a guy who just built a catapulta only manages top hit with half his bolts doesn't mean that a trained artillerist wouldn't have been able to consistently hit a man-sized target at long range (and as a matter of fact, period sources often mention that being the case). Also, man, _everyone_ had iron armor by the time catapultas were in use. (What they would NOT have is iron shields. These weren't used then. Too heavy. Closest thing were bronze-faced wooden shields, of which the _thin sheet_ bronze was just a more durable facing than felt or leather.) The end of the broze age had been a whole milenium before that! By that time, every army (including Germans) used chain mail (which is actually a Celtic invention, not a Greek nor Roman one), plate armor was actually out of fashion (Greeks stopped favoring full cuirasses around 500 years before this kind of artillery was developed, and moved to lynothorax; and the famed Roman banded armor, the lorica segmentata, was in common use for just over a century and a half), and the cutting edge of armor was scale armor. We actually have a LOT of information regarding all this stuff. I direct you to a good source in English, Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at war". Good book which drinks from many period sources, by the grand-daddy of historical reenactors.

Maybe Tod and Jörg Sprave can team up to make The Instant Giant Legolas?

I think either this month or early October

Yes, Tod. Are we close? There must be thousands awaiting this next arrow penetrating video. There, I have goosebumps just thinking of it.

HI Guys, I will give an update on the KS page as well. We shot 7 films over 3 days and they promise to be very interesting. In honesty I was utterly wiped out after, then both myself and the editor Mike were on holidays, but as of last week Mike is back and on it. We are aiming to have them out for mid October, but in honesty the sheer volume of work involved means that end October is more likely; but we are trying.

@@tods_workshop Thanks for the update! I'm really looking forward to it!

@@tods_workshop No need to rush; as long as we know it's coming we can wait. Thanks for the update!

I would not be surprised if rather than having such a device the Romans would have "pre-plotted" the range and aiming points for the various angles of the track both up/down and left/right plus how hard or far the projectile can hit for a given tensioning/clicks on the ratchet... They liked to be very technical about their engineering.

I suspect Ugly German has it

@@Ugly_German_Truths While the idea of a fancy brass instrument is a strong urge it was likely a simple collection of marks on the frame. The naked eye can only do so much.

I imagine that a crew would be drilled to perform specific tasks, similar to Victorian era artillerists, and each crew member would know how to do every part of the operation in case of casualties. I imagine he'd halve the time at least.

Later machines were in swingers and these were quite different and yes more powerful as they had a longer stroke. Not sure when the change happened, but I think around 200 or 250

The reload speed of a two man team would be incredible. They each put their handle 180 degrees off the other so each man is able to pull when the other's handle goes too far. Able to have simultaneous actions like one unwinding the windless while the other pulls the latch up to the bow. I imagine a well trained team could refire in less than 10 seconds.

It's used in sieges to clean enemy marksmen off the walls, essentially ancient covering fire. Also shields don't stand a chance, those things could probably make it through multiple hoplites before getting stuck in the Aspis of one lucky albeit definitely traumatised guy in the back rows.

I think shields will be coming

or the other way around, small enough to put on a palisade and outrange an archer.

@@konzetsu6068 archers brigade: throw volley of arrows from a fort The guys on the legio's carriages: guess what m8s *squeeky catapulta noises*

As someone mentioned in another comment, the name appears to come from the Greek for "shield-peircer". I expect there's your answer. :)

Luck and just never stopping making and never stopping learning and a natural understanding of engineering. From birth I have always made things and that was encouraged by my dad. Career to date; Business studies degree, Product design masters degree, Jim Hensons Creature workshop (accidental meeting), product designer (3 years), special effects in London (10 years), design tutor at University (2 years). Special effects lead to specialist engineering for TV shows like Scrapheap Challenge. Had kids, wanted to move out of London and was already making historical replica weapons so took that up full time. Been around cameras and media since the mid '90's so am comfortable with that side.

@@tods_workshop Do you utilize things like AutoCAD or 3D printing when you’re prototyping something? Or can you just look at historical sources and drawings and make the thing without needing to convert it into a modern technical drawing?

@@tods_workshop Now LIVING THE DREAM!!!-For all of us who can't.

Big red wolf. Not really, sometimes I get people who do that stuff to help in ways, but that is very rare - I just like making things and if it is tricky then I will learn more for next time; I like my hands

I did fumble at one point. To clarify, the size of all the components can go from 1/3 of this one up to this full size of 1/1 and the performance remains the same, but the bolt is now 9 times heavier so packs loads more punch

@@tods_workshop : 27 times heavier, if it's 3 times larger in all 3 dimensions, so even more of a load more punch than that. :) And, yes, that's fascinating indeed!

@@tods_workshop Could be a good time to mention that ancient artillery manuals even had convenient size tables for "if you want to throw a projectile of this mass, just build a machine of this scaling factor" so you knew which size you had to build your artillery piece! People tends to _grossly_ understimate how developed the technology was by the end of ancient times...

Thanks Aaron. Maybe I am being too pedantic, but the texts that these were made from were significantly earlier. However I am on thin ice here, but will stick to what I was taught it was called, but thanks again for the reference. I guess the word did change over time

Boring people?

They will be for sale soon

Thank you, that's very generous

Thank you

Specialist Legionaries I believe.

Never enough Tods!

Yes, but thin ply. Much more to come though

@@tods_workshop even still, that's pretty cool! Can't wait to see what's next, cheers from Oregon!

Nice

Mostly I love finding out details that I didn't know before