Sambuca # 6

This view of the Sambuca is over the rock counterweight and up the soldier's passage
from their entry point.  Below, you can see the winch and handles which turns the
hoisting screw and lifts the Sambuca up to its attack height.

Sambuca # 5

This view is from the front of the Sambuca, looking into the inside and down the length of the shielded soldier's passageway.

Sambuca # 4 - Top View

Sambuca #3

This view shows the Sambuca lowered to its lowest height.  The front ladder is touching the ground.

Sambuca #2

Sambuca #2, which shows the Sambuca at it's height ready to assail a city wall.
This view shows the soldier's passage enclosed by planking.  On top of the planking
would be a thick layer of wicker-work topped by wetted or fresh animal hides.
A man's height would be approx. six rungs of the fron t ladder.

Sambuca

The most famous examples of the sambuca (or sambyke) were mounted 

aboard ships, where they resembled giant laddered drawbridges for thetransfer of marines onto seawalls  of coastal towns.  However, the sambuca that Biton, a writer-engineer writing at sometime between 231 and 133 BC attributes to Damios, an otherwise unknown engineer from Kolophon in present-day Turkey, is quite different.  First, it was designed for use on land, and second, it utilized an innovative vertical screw to alter the elevation of the ladder.  Biton says that the sambuca itself , a 60 ft (18 m) ladder with an assault platform at one end, and a counterweight at the other, sat on a 'trestle' (killibas); the trestle was fixed to a 27 ft. (8m) undercarriage.  Biton's ladder clearly has sidewalls, 'so that men climbing up will make the ascent confidently', and a widened jumping off area at the top.  Biton's description of the Dammios sambuca is extremely concise.  For the undercarriage he simply gives the beam dimensions of 3 ft. x 2ft. x27 ft. (0.9m x 0.6m x 8m) and notes that the wheels were 3 ft. (0.9m) high; here a rectangular under carriage with six wheels is assumed.  The main component , a 60 ft. (18m) ladder was hinged to the rear of the tresle, which supported a centrally located vertical screw; the screw's function was to raise and lower he main ladder.  It is reasonable to suppose that as much of the machine as possible was boarded in, in order to protect the crew.  Biton specifies that the trestle was 14 ft. (4.2m) high, whereas the screw was 15 ft. (4.5m) long:, consequently, when fully turned , it would project 1 ft. (0.3m) above the trestle.  Assuming a forward projection of around 12m for the ladder, with the screw fully turned, the assault platform rose almost 9m above ground level.

Maintaining the machine's stability would have been a delicate task.  Withe the main ladder in it's horizontal position, the vertical ladder at the front was perhaps to support the machine while the assault team took up position on the forward platform.  Their presence there would have severely unbalanced the machine, so the counterweight at the rear must have been intended to restore its equilibrium.  Only then would the main ladder have been elevated  and the machine rolled forward.

Reference: Duncan B. Campbell, Brian Delf (illus.), "Greek and Roman Siege Machinery, 399  BC --- AD 363," New Vanguard-78, (Osprey Pub., 2003), Pges 24 and 44. (ISBN 1-84176-605-4)      

Corvus Demolitor #3 (Top View)

Corus Demolitor #2

Corvus Demolitor #1 ("Iron Hand -- demolition raven" )

The ancient sources mention defenders using grapnels  or iron hands for ensnaring men

 and siege machinery.  Diades (a pupil of Phillip's engineer Polyidus) is credited with
the invention of one of these, the corvus demolitor or "demolition raven."
The image in the reference was imaginatively reconstructed by de Folard (authors
collection).  This device was used by attackers to pull stones off a curtain wall.   The
height of a man is about one/fifth of the length of the gripping pole (red head).  As
shown in the book's picture, it seemed to work best when there was no-one on the
defensive wall.  The movement needed to swing the "iron hand" into a solid gripping
situation and then to pull the stone off the wall seems to be more than the defensive
mantlets can screen!  Vetruvius describes the above machine built for
Alexander the Great.

Reference: Duncan B. Campbell, Brian Delf (illus.), "Greek and Roman Siege
Machinery 399 BC -- AD 363," New Vanguard-78, (Osprey Pub., 2003), Page 16
 and 34.  (ISBN 1-84176-605-4)

Ditch-Filling Roman "Tortoise." #5

This large opening allows you to see the interior from the side, and
also shows the extension for use over a ditch.

Ditch-Filling Roman "Tortoise" #4

The two openings in the planking allow you to see the interior of the "Totroise."

Ditch-Filling Roman "Tortoise" #3

The slanted side actually covers the ditch, and allows the men to fill
in the ditch while protected from materials being thrown at them from the wall.

Ditch Filling Roman Tortoise #2

The dark square is the door through which the men entered carrying
 the fill material.  The cut-away sections allow you to view
the interior of the machine.

Ditch-Filling Roman "Tortoise" Siege Machine

This instrument was designed and built to fill in ditches around a fortress or 

fortified city.  The men entered from the rear (to the right) with their baskets or 

sacks of ditch fill (sod, fachines, rock, or dirt).   The machines top and sides 

would first be planked solidly and then covered with wet and raw hides against 

any attempts to use fire against the machine.

According to Athenaeus, the ditch-filling tortoise could be rolled sideways, as 

well as backwards and forwards, probably by briefly raising each corner in turn,

and changing the orientation of the axle (see page 16 illus.).  Without 

experimentation, it is unclear how this was accomplished, but the large frame

would have allowed a dozen or more men to congregate around each wheel 

assembly  and jointly take its weight.  With the machine in position, there 

would have been ample space in the interior for men to work unhindered, 

evening out depressions in the ground.  The gap between the rafters and the 

ground would have been sufficient to allow baskets of earth and rubble to be 

brought in at the rear, from which they could be dragged forward for the task 

of ditch-filling.

The scene (Plate A) is based on the siege  of Halicarnassus in 334 BC, when 

Alexander  was obliged to fill the newly cut 13. 5m wide, 7m deep defensive 

ditch, in order to bring up heavy machinery.  The remains of the fortifications 

suggest that the curtain was a single-line, single-story affair, but not enough 

survives for an accurate picture.  Here, the reconstruction is based on the defences

of Paestum (Italy), generally thought to have been built around 330 BC.   

The approximately 9m high wall is crowned by a closed battlement with 

shuttered windows, as a defense against escalade.

Reference:  Duncan B. Campbell, Brian Delf (illus.), "Greek and Roman Siege 

Machinery, 399 BC -- AD 363," New Vanguard-78, (Osprey Pub., 2003), 

Page 44.  (ISBN 1-84176-605-4) 

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" #7

This view of the machine shows it right side up.  Note the two iron plates on the prow to deflect any flaming debris or logs.  In the vee of the photo, one can see the hinge assembly for the support brace timber. 

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" #6

This view of the Tortoise shows the machine upside down, showing the wheels, axles, and crossbrace.

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" #5

This view of the tortoise right side up, showing the wheels on the ground and the anchor timber in place.  The height of the two wings from the ground was about seven feet.

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" #4

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" #3

This view of the tortoise, lying on one side, and showing the iron plate protecting the
prow of the machine.

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" #2

This view of the machine is laying on one side showing the four transfer wheels , two axles and the center timber with held the tortoise in place against heavy materials (boulders, logs, etc.) rolled down the hill  toward the instrument.

"Ship's Prow Tortoise" (Roman Siege Machine) #1

This machine was used on slopes leading up to the walls of the city or
fortress under siege.  It's purpose was to protect those men working on
the slope area digging trenches and erecting various siege field
fortifications and other siege machines.  The extreme prow of the
machine was sheathed in iron in order to shunt aside any flammable
engines used by the defenders such as barrels of oil and round packages
of straw rolled down the hill in an effort to discourage the attackers.
This picture view of the tortoise shows it upside down.  The
Scene (Plate E) shows the 'Ship's Prow Tortoise' with associated
earthworks.  Appolodorus opens his 'Poliorketika' with the above scene
of an assault on a hill town, in which he emphasises that the
besiegers must guard against heavy objects being rolled downhill.
He lists in particular, tree trunks, round boulders, heavily laden wagons,
and barrels filled with gravel or earth.  First, he recommends the digging
of a 5 ft. (1.5m) deep ditches, running obliquely downhill; the spoil
from the ditches forms a rampart, to break the momentum of the objects,
and the ditches are intended to channel them away from the main
besieging force, waiting further downhill.  Next, he explains that
the men digging the ditches should be protected by a slanting palisade
line, boarded over and interwoven with branches to form an 'outwork'
(proteichisma).
Finally, the key element in the scheme is the 'tortoise shaped like a
ship's prow'.  Appolodorus' brief description suggests a vertical-sided,
open-topped shelter with a triangular ground plan, arranged so
that the apex, facing uphill, would deflect rolling objects to either
side.  Here it is assumed that the walls would be sufficiently high to
conceal the soldiers crowded inside.

This scene (Plate E) is based on the siege of a hilltop stronghold that
 appears on Trajan's Column and is perhaps intended to represent
the Dacian capitol, Sarmizegethusa.  It has been assumed that the
polygonal masonry of the murus  Dacicus was surrmounted by a
timber breastwork, sections of which could be easily removed to
allow heavy objects to be rolled down against Apollodorus'
ship's prow tortoises.

Reference: Duncan B. Cambell, Brian Delf (illus.), "Greek and
Roman Siege Machinery, 399 BC -- AD 393," New Vanguard-
78, (Osprey Pub., 2003), pages 45-46. (ISBN 1-84176-605-4)   

Testudo, End view, (note the side boards on right side)

Testudo, Top View, (Note the hides / skins on roof)

Roman Testudo

VINEA, mantlet: The sides were covered with skins or wisker work when required.

The TESTUDO was similar to the VINEA, but squarer and more stoutly built, with
 a sloping roof and/or a shutter on the side next to the enemy's walls: it
was covered over with hides or other non-inflammable substances.

The MUSCULUS was longer, lower, and narrower than the VINEA, forming  a
covered gallery, pushed up at right angles to the enemy's walls.

Reference:

Caesar, G. P, Goold (ed.), H. J. Edwards (trans.), "The Gallic War," (Loeb Classical Library, LCL 72), p. 631