Roman Siege Weapons — Timeline & Key Events
Across eight centuries, Rome learned to break cities as methodically as it marched.
Central Question
How did Rome turn ad hoc tunneling and rams into a standardized, mobile artillery system—and why did that system simplify into onagers by late antiquity?
The Story
Before Thunder, They Dug
Before Rome learned to throw thunder, it learned to vanish beneath your feet. In 396 BCE, Marcus Furius Camillus, dictator and problem-solver, took Veii not with ladders but with a tunnel—earth smeared on faces, the grit of tufa on tongues, torch smoke biting eyes. Livy says earlier engines were smashed; the mine made the city fall [6].
This was Rome’s first lesson: when walls defeat wood and iron, cut under them. Early siegecraft meant rams and sheds if you could, sapping if you had to. It was improvisation, not doctrine. Skill and stubbornness compensated for fragile machines.
Speed Becomes a Weapon
Because digging worked, Rome asked a harder question: what if you could make a wall useless in two days? In 52 BCE, Julius Caesar—general, author, and ruthless scheduler—wrapped Vellaunodunum in a circumvallation completed in exactly two days. He repeats the trick at Alesia, drawing not one but double lines: inward to starve the besieged, outward to choke relief [5][20].
The crack of axes and the thud of stakes beat like drumrolls along fresh timber. Speed forced choices: fight outside your walls or die inside them. Investment works were now weapons—predictable, repeatable. That predictability, Caesar knew, begged for machines that could be made the same way, every time, under pressure.
Vitruvius Writes the Math of Force
After Caesar weaponized time, an Augustan engineer wrote the recipe for power. Vitruvius Pollio—architect, artilleryman—codified torsion machines so a crew could build to rule, not guess. His canon is blunt: compute every part from the intended bolt; the spring-hole’s diameter equals one-ninth of that bolt’s length. Peritreti, capitals, sideposts—each part sized by proportion [1].
You could feel that logic in the taut skeins: equal tension in twin bundles, equal limbs, equal shots. Standardization meant scale. A legion arriving at a hill town did not invent a ballista; it assembled one it already knew. The noise changed—from the improviser’s clatter to the carpenter’s measured saw.
Jerusalem Hears the Stone Coming
Because the math escaped the page, Rome could now stage industrial pressure. In 70 CE at Jerusalem, Roman batteries hurled white stones in such volume that watchmen learned to spot their pale arc and shout over the walls, “The stone cometh.” Josephus, an eyewitness, heard the warnings and the impacts [2].
Archaeology has mapped those impacts: dense clusters of ballista stones near the Third Wall match likely gun positions. The line of fire is almost visible—powdery limestone chalking air, the thump of cords releasing, the crack of stone on masonry. Batteries concentrated on weak sectors, not by accident but by survey and plan [12]. The siege engine had become a system.
Artillery Takes the Road
After Jerusalem proved what batteries could do, the high empire put them on wheels. In Trajan’s Dacian campaigns (101–106 CE), reliefs on his Column show carts bearing bolt-shooters—carroballistae—hauled by mules toward prepared emplacements. The gear is specific: axles, yokes, crews, and a clear firing position waiting at the ridge [9][11][19].
Mobility changed tempo. You could redeploy a ballista mid-campaign, the iron socket of a bolt flashing as a contubernium manhandled the frame, mule bells clinking. Firepower now marched in the column’s order of march. The images are not decoration; they are logistics captured in stone.
A Legion’s Artillery on Paper
Because the Column’s scenes show integration, late imperial manuals make it explicit. Vegetius—bureaucrat of war and collector of best practice—records an establishment hard to ignore: 55 carroballistae per legion, one for each century, and 10 onagers, one per cohort, all cart-borne. He places the engines behind the heavy infantry line, ready to rake or breach as ordered [4][15][17].
He also lists what artifices could build: testudines for cover, rams for impact, ambulatoriae turres—walking towers—for height [4]. You can hear the camp before you see it: hammer on iron, creak of rawhide skeins, the low grunt of oxen as an onager lurches into place. Organization had absorbed invention.
The Wild Ass Kicks
But embedding engines into the legion created a new problem: delicate torsion machines demand care, and empires age. By the later 4th century, Ammianus Marcellinus—soldier-historian—describes a simpler, brutal tool: the one-armed stone-thrower that “modern times” now call the onager, the wild ass, for its violent kickback. He notes cushions to tame the recoil, eight winders plus a gunner to serve it, and the shattering of walls by repeated blows [3].
The shift made sense. Fewer skilled parts, more shock. Reference works agree: from two-armed torsion ballistae to single-armed projectors as administrative and technical capacities shifted [16]. Even proposals in the De rebus bellicis imagine wheeled artillery that assumed carts and roads but sought simpler service [8]. The noise changed again—from the snap of twin arms to one savage crack.
What Rome Left Besiegers
Because Rome treated siege as engineering, not miracle, it left a toolkit others could copy. Standardized iron bolt-heads from Hod Hill—a measured socket, a shaped head you could stack in a chest—show how legions fed their machines in Britain in the 1st century CE [13]. Dozens from Londinium, octagonal and square sections with riveted sockets, span 43–410 CE [14]. That is supply, not improvisation.
By 410, the empire still trained crews, parked engines behind the line, and carted onagers with cohorts [4][17]. The mine at Veii had started a habit: treat walls as solvable problems. Medieval trebuchets would take the onager’s logic further; early gunpowder would inherit the idea that mobility and standard shot matter. The white arc over Jerusalem, the mule-dragged cart on the Column, and the late wild ass’s kick—those echoes still ring.
Story Character
Engineering an empire’s battering edge
Key Story Elements
What defined this period?
Across eight centuries, Rome learned to break cities as methodically as it marched. It began in the dark—picks on tufa and torch smoke—when Marcus Furius Camillus took Veii by tunneling in 396 BCE after engines failed. By Julius Caesar’s day, speed in earthworks became a weapon, investment lines forcing surrender as surely as arrows. Then Vitruvius wrote the math of killing machines, fixing dimensions so crews could build the same ballista twice. Under the emperors, artillery rolled on carts, hurled white stones that watchmen could spot and shout, and took its place behind the legions’ heavy line. Late antiquity kept the guns but simplified them: fewer delicate torsion springs, more single-armed onagers with a savage kick. The result was not just conquest—it was an imperial system that turned walls into problems with known answers.
Story Character
Engineering an empire’s battering edge
Thematic Threads
Codified Proportions to Scalable Power
Vitruvius turned artisanal guesswork into rules—spring-hole as 1/9 of bolt length, components sized by proportion. Crews could reproduce identical ballistae under pressure, making artillery a scalable capability rather than a one-off contraption. Standard math created standard machines, enabling predictable range, accuracy, and logistics [1].
Speed and Fieldworks as Weapon
Caesar’s two-day circumvallations and the double lines at Alesia show time harnessed as a weapon. Rapid entrenchment forced defenders into bad choices—starvation or sally—while engines punished either option. Investment and artillery worked together: earth fixed the enemy; torsion power inflicted the decision [5][20].
Mobility Integrated into Campaigns
Cart-mounted carroballistae and cohort onagers folded firepower into marching columns and camp routines. Trajan’s Column depicts mule traction toward prepared sites; Vegetius assigns engines per century and cohort. Logistics, not heroics, made shots possible where and when commanders needed them [9][11][4].
Late Antique Simplification
As the empire’s administrative and technical edge dulled, artillery simplified. Ammianus’ onager—single arm, violent recoil—reduced delicate maintenance while delivering heavy stones. Manuals still integrated engines, but the balance shifted from precision bolt-fire to shock stone-throw, matching changing capacity and defensive realities [3][16].
Evidence on Stone and Iron
Reliefs and artifacts anchor the narrative: Trajan’s Column shows carts and crews; mapped ballista stones at Jerusalem plot batteries; standardized bolt-heads from Hod Hill and Londinium reveal supply norms. These physical traces corroborate texts and expose the system—design, deployment, and munitions—behind Roman siege power [9][12][13][14].
Quick Facts
The 11.1% Rule
Vitruvius set the torsion spring-hole diameter at exactly one‑ninth (11.1%) of the intended bolt length, anchoring all other dimensions by proportion.
Two-Day Ring
Caesar boasts he could draw a circumvallation around Vellaunodunum in just two days, turning speed into a siege weapon.
Double Geometry
At Alesia, Caesar built inward- and outward-facing lines to starve the besieged and block relief simultaneously—one city, two sieges at once.
55 Engines Per Legion
Vegetius assigns 55 carroballistae—one per century—baking artillery into the legion’s basic building blocks.
Ten Cohort Onagers
Vegetius also lists 10 onagers per legion—one per cohort—cart-borne for camp defense and siege support.
Crew Of Nine
Ammianus notes an onager team of eight winders plus a gunner, with cushions to tame the machine’s violent recoil.
“The Stone Cometh”
During the 70 CE siege of Jerusalem, defenders shouted warnings as white Roman projectiles arced visibly toward impact.
Batteries Mapped In Stone
Archaeologists plotted dense clusters of ballista stones near Jerusalem’s Third Wall, effectively mapping Roman firing positions.
Standard Bolts In Britain
An iron ballista bolt from Hod Hill, with a standardized socket and head form, evidences legionary bolt‑throwers in 1st‑century Britain.
Londinium’s Socketed Iron
Roman bolt-heads from London show square and octagonal sections with riveted sockets, reflecting standardized munitions over centuries.
Artillery On Wheels
Trajan’s Column shows cart‑mounted ballistae hauled by mules toward prepared emplacements—mobile firepower in stone relief.
Translate The Terms
Onager (‘wild ass’) = single‑armed torsion stone‑thrower; testudo (siege) = roofed assault shed, not the infantry shield formation.
Timeline Overview
Detailed Timeline
Showing 20 of 20 events
Filter Events
Toggle categories to show or hide
Capture of Veii via Mining
In 396 BCE, Marcus Furius Camillus broke Veii not with ladders but with a tunnel. Livy says earlier Roman engines were smashed; the mine became the blade that slipped beneath the city’s tufa walls. In the smoke and grit under Etruria, Rome learned that earth itself could be a weapon [6].
Read MoreCaesar’s Rapid Circumvallation at Vellaunodunum
In 52 BCE, Julius Caesar wrapped Vellaunodunum in a ring of earth and timber in two days. He boasts, “draw a line of circumvallation around it in two days,” turning speed itself into a weapon [20]. The quick investment forced surrender and previewed the larger geometry he would impose at Alesia [5].
Read MoreDouble Lines at Alesia
In 52 BCE, Caesar encircled Alesia with two belts of works—one facing the trapped Gauls, one facing relief forces. The double geometry locked food in and allies out [5]. The steady thud of stakes and the creak of wagons hauling timber became the sound of a city’s options dying [20].
Read MoreVitruvius Codifies Torsion Artillery Proportions
In the late first century BCE, Vitruvius wrote the math that turned catapults into repeatable machines. He fixed the spring-hole at one-ninth the bolt length and sized peritreti, capitals, and sideposts by proportion [1]. The result was a handbook that let a legion build the same ballista twice under pressure.
Read MoreLivy’s Account of Veii Highlights Early Roman Sapping
Writing under Augustus, Livy retold how Camillus captured Veii by tunneling in 396 BCE. He emphasizes that earlier Roman engines were destroyed, then credits the mine with turning the city from within [6]. His narrative preserves an early Roman solution: when wood splinters, dig.
Read MoreHod Hill Ballista Bolt Head Demonstrates Standard Ammunition
By the mid–1st century CE, an iron ballista bolt head from Hod Hill in Dorset shows Roman artillery fed by standardized munitions. The socketed form, a Manning Type I, matches other legionary finds [13]. In Britain’s damp light, uniform iron made the empire’s math fly.
Read MoreFrontinus Compiles Strategemata on Siege Methods
Around 95 CE, Sextus Julius Frontinus gathered siege stratagems that made deception and engineering partners. Organized by problems—water, supplies, morale—his Strategemata shows artillery as one tool among many [7]. The creak of a hidden siphon mattered as much as the snap of a scorpion.
Read MoreRoman Artillery Bombards Jerusalem
In 70 CE, Titus’ army hammered Jerusalem with engines. Josephus heard watchmen shout, “the stone cometh,” as white missiles arced over the walls [2]. Archaeology has mapped clusters of ballista stones near the Third Wall, tracing Roman batteries in chalk and impact [12].
Read MoreMobile Carroballistae in the Dacian Wars
Between 101 and 106 CE, Trajan’s army hauled cart-mounted ballistae—carroballistae—into Dacia. Trajan’s Column shows mule teams, axles, and crews steering engines toward emplacements on ridgelines [9][11]. Firepower no longer waited at walls; it marched with the column to the Danube and beyond.
Read MoreTrajan’s Column Dedicated with Artillery Scenes
In 113 CE, Rome dedicated Trajan’s Column, its spiral frieze showing carts rolling ballistae into Dacia. Scholars identify scenes of mule traction, axles, and crews at emplacements [9][11][19]. The Column is a stone ledger of the empire’s mobile firepower.
Read MoreLondinium Bolt Heads Evidence Artillery in Britain
By the 2nd century CE, Roman bolt heads from Londinium—square and octagonal sections with riveted sockets—show a garrison fed by standardized munitions [14]. From the Thames foreshore to Southwark, iron in drawers matches iron in the field.
Read MoreVegetius Records Legionary Artillery Establishment
In the late 4th century, Vegetius wrote that a legion kept 55 carroballistae—one per century—and 10 onagers—one per cohort—cart-borne and placed behind the heavy infantry [4]. His paper legion turns Trajan’s reliefs and Vitruvius’ ratios into tables the bureaucracy could count [15][17].
Read MoreLegion Artifices Fabricate Siege Apparatus
Vegetius says legionary artificers built testudines, rams, and walking towers alongside engines [4]. The camp sounded like a workshop: hammers on iron, saws on timber, rawhide skeins creaking as they took tension. Siege power was not a shipment; it was a craft.
Read MoreArtillery Deployed Behind Heavy Infantry Line
Vegetius places engines “post aciem gravis armaturae”—behind the heavy infantry line [4]. That doctrinal sentence turns siege weapons into field assets, ready to rake charges or batter strongpoints while the line holds. Carts creak up; windlasses snap; then the cohorts advance.
Read MoreOnagers Cart-Borne at Cohort Level
Vegetius assigns one onager per cohort, transported on carts for camp defense and siege support [4]. The late empire favored these single-armed stone-throwers—brutal, simple, and movable—over delicate torsion frames. The wild ass kicked, but it also rolled.
Read MoreAmmianus Describes the Onager
Ammianus Marcellinus contrasts two-armed ballistae with the single-armed stone-thrower that “modern times” call onager—the wild ass—for its violent kick [3]. He notes cushions, eight winders, and a gunner. It’s the late empire’s sound: one savage crack, one flying stone.
Read MoreAmmianus on Ram Effects
Ammianus also describes rams—the aries—that crack buildings until “the structure of their walls is destroyed” [3]. The cadence of the blow and the dust that follows show mechanical breaching paired with artillery cover. Sound becomes method: thud, thud, crumble.
Read MoreDe rebus bellicis Proposes Artillery Innovations
The anonymous De rebus bellicis, from the late 4th century, proposes military devices including a four-wheeled ballista [8]. It reads like a wish list for an empire under strain: more wheels, simpler service, firepower that moves when administration stumbles.
Read MoreLate Imperial Preference for Onagers
By the early 5th century, Roman sources favor robust, single-armed onagers over delicate twin-skein ballistae. Ammianus names the onager for its recoil; Vegetius counts them one per cohort; reference syntheses trace the evolution from two-armed torsion to single-armed stone throw [3][4][16].
Read MoreContinuity of Sapping and Countermining
From 396 BCE to 410 CE, Romans kept digging under walls—even as artillery rose. Veii fell by mine after engines failed; Caesar’s lines forced surrender; artifices built sheds and rams; Frontinus taught deception [6][5][4][7]. The sound of a pick under stone never left the arsenal.
Read MoreKey Highlights
These pivotal moments showcase the most dramatic turns in Roman Siege Weapons, revealing the forces that pushed the era forward.
Veii Falls By Tunnel
Under Camillus, Romans captured Veii by tunneling beneath its defenses after earlier engines were destroyed. Livy preserves the episode as an early triumph of sapping over shattered machines.
Alesia’s Double Encirclement
Caesar built inward- and outward-facing lines at Alesia, starving the besieged while blocking relief. It was siege geometry weaponized for certainty.
Vitruvius Writes Artillery Math
Vitruvius codified torsion artillery design in De Architectura X, fixing proportions from a single input—the projectile.
Jerusalem Under Massed Fire
During Titus’s siege, Roman batteries hurled white stones in such volume that defenders cried warnings before impact. Archaeology has mapped dense stone clusters near the Third Wall.
Carroballistae Roll Into Dacia
Trajan’s Column shows mule-hauled, cart-mounted ballistae moving toward prepared emplacements during the Dacian campaigns.
Column As Logistics Manual
The dedication of Trajan’s Column fixed artillery logistics in stone: carts, crews, and emplacements recur across the frieze.
Vegetius’ Artillery Tables
Vegetius records 55 carroballistae and 10 onagers per legion, positioned behind the heavy infantry line and carried on carts.
The Onager Ascendant
By the early 5th century, simpler single‑armed stone‑throwers gained prominence. Ammianus explains the onager’s violent recoil; Vegetius allots them per cohort; modern references chart the evolution.
Key Figures
Learn about the influential people who played pivotal roles in Roman Siege Weapons.
Interpretation & Significance
Understanding the broader historical context and lasting impact of Roman Siege Weapons
Thematic weight
STANDARDIZATION AS STRATEGY
How ratios, parts, and ammo turned into power
Vitruvius’ artillery chapter reads like an operations manual disguised as architecture: compute every dimension from the bolt, make the spring-hole exactly one‑ninth of its length, and size peritreti and posts accordingly [1]. This proportional regime made crews interchangeable and outcomes predictable. In conjunction, the material culture—socketed iron bolt‑heads at Hod Hill and Londinium—reveals the supply side of the same system: calibrated ammunition feeding calibrated machines [13][14]. Standardization wasn’t aesthetic; it was how Rome exported firepower across provinces.
The strategic payoff was repeatability under stress. Trajan’s Column captures the next step—ballistae on carts with mule traction, moving machines that crews already knew how to assemble and serve [9][11]. Vegetius’ tables institutionalize this logic: one carroballista per century, one onager per cohort, artillery behind the heavy line [4]. Combined, these sources show a military that turned design rules into doctrine and logistics. In an empire of distances, predictable parts and performance were force multipliers.
SIEGE AS SYSTEM
Earthworks, deception, and engines in concert
Caesar’s two-day circumvallations and the double lines at Alesia reframed sieges as engineering-led coercion: earthworks trapped defenders in a timetable Rome controlled [20][5]. Frontinus’ Strategemata extends this logic, cataloging water diversions, supply denial, and deception as problem-solving modules that complemented firepower [7]. In this framework, engines punished attempts to break the ring, but it was the ring—the system—that broke cities.
Jerusalem makes the system visible. Josephus’ “the stone cometh” captures volume and psychological effect, but archaeology maps the batteries themselves, clustering ballista stones near the Third Wall in ways consistent with surveyed fire [2][12]. Early foundations at Veii show the other pillar: sapping when engines fail [6]. Doctrinally and operationally, Rome fused fieldworks, stratagem, and artillery into a predictable machine of siege that made capitulation a matter of process.
FIREPOWER ON WHEELS
Mobility as a tactical doctrine
Trajan’s Column doesn’t just celebrate conquest; it diagrams cart artillery: mule teams, axles, and crews guiding bolt‑shooters to ridge‑line emplacements [9][11][19]. This imagery reveals a campaign practice where surveyors pre‑selected positions and engineer detachments prepared platforms for quick deployment. Mobility allowed artillery to support crossings, deny heights, and answer enemy concentrations without halting the march.
Vegetius turns this visual into tabled doctrine: 55 carroballistae per legion and 10 onagers, all cart‑borne and parked behind the heavy infantry [4]. The placement implies battle support as well as siege duty, a dual-use posture made possible only by mobility. The result is a different rhythm of campaigning—guns that arrive with the column, not weeks later when timber and skeins can be found.
THE WILD ASS TURN
Late antiquity’s shift to simpler shock
Ammianus’ onager—the “wild ass” that kicks—signals a technological and organizational pivot: fewer delicate torsion bundles, more single‑arm stone‑throwers with cushions to absorb recoil and crews of eight winders plus a gunner [3]. This simplified power matched an era when maintaining fine-tuned twin-skein machines grew harder. Vegetius’ cohort-level onagers show institutional acceptance of that trade-off [4].
Reference syntheses align with this reading: the long arc runs from two‑armed torsion ballistae toward single‑armed projectors in late antiquity [16]. De rebus bellicis’ wheeled ballista proposals echo the same priorities—mobility and serviceability—even if some designs were aspirational [8]. The mechanism of change was administrative and technical: when skill and supply eroded, Rome preserved effects—shock stones, camp defense—by simplifying the means.
TEXT MEETS STONE
Triangulating literary claims with artifacts
Ancient texts often mix prescription with ideal. Vitruvius’ ratios describe how to build a perfect engine; they don’t tell us how many were fielded or how carefully they were kept [1]. Vegetius’ artillery establishment may reflect an administrative ideal more than a universal reality [4][15][17]. That is why non-textual evidence matters.
At Jerusalem, Josephus’ dramatic warnings gain credibility when ballista stones are plotted along the Third Wall, aligning arcs and batteries with a precision no narrative alone can provide [2][12]. Trajan’s Column, read alongside technical manuals, shows carts, crews, and emplacements as recurring motifs rather than isolated flourishes [9][11][19]. The synthesis is stronger than any single source: texts explain mechanisms; stone and iron show where and how they were used.
Perspectives
How we know what we know—and what people at the time noticed
INTERPRETATIONS
Artillery as Coercive Policy
Caesar’s rapid circumvallations turned time and earth into political instruments, leveraging engineering to force surrender paths without costly assaults [5][20]. Vegetius echoes this institutionalization by placing engines behind the heavy line and allocating them per century and cohort, signaling deterrent and shaping roles as much as breaching [4]. In practice, the spectacle and accuracy at Jerusalem—white stones visible and feared—magnified that coercive pressure on populations as well as garrisons [2].
DEBATES
Vegetius’ Numbers: Paper Or Practice?
The late‑imperial establishment of 55 carroballistae and 10 onagers per legion is often read as idealized [4]. Modern summaries caution against literalism while noting corroboration in art and logistics scenes on Trajan’s Column [15][17][9][11]. The debate hinges on whether late 4th‑century administrative reality could sustain those totals consistently, or whether the table preserved a norm that many field legions only approximated.
CONFLICT
Delicate Torsion, Dirty Campaigns
Torsion skeins demanded careful construction and upkeep—Vitruvius’ proportional rules presuppose skilled artificers and reliable materials [1]. Ammianus’ praise of the onager’s brutal simplicity suggests this delicacy clashed with late‑imperial campaigning realities, where crews and spares were harder to maintain [3]. Vegetius’ cart‑borne onagers at cohort level look like a pragmatic compromise: keep firepower in the order of march, but reduce the maintenance burden [4].
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Reading Trajan’s Column Technically
Trajan’s Column is narrative art, but scholars mine it for technical detail: wheels, yokes, crew positions, and emplacement sequences imply mobile artillery doctrine [9][11]. While the frieze idealizes the campaigns, the recurring cart‑ballista motif across multiple scenes argues for a real logistical pattern, not a one‑off flourish [19]. Cross‑checking the reliefs with Vegetius’ allocations strengthens the case for standardized mobility.
WITH HINDSIGHT
Standardization Before Gunpowder
Vitruvius’ one‑ninth rule and proportional builds anticipated the logistics culture of later artillery: interchangeable parts and predictable ballistics [1]. Museum bolt‑heads from Hod Hill and Londinium show standardized sockets and head forms across decades and provinces, materializing that systematization in iron [13][14]. In retrospect, Rome’s torsion era taught later besiegers that reproducibility—not raw size alone—wins sieges and manages supply.
SOURCES AND BIAS
Josephus And Siege Spectacle
Josephus dramatizes the artillery at Jerusalem—watchmen shouting warnings as white stones arc overhead [2]. While vivid, the account is partly rhetorical. Archaeological clusters of ballista stones near the Third Wall provide an independent map of fire that checks his narrative against ground truth [12]. Taken together, they reveal both the propaganda value and the operational reality of Roman engines.
Sources & References
The following sources were consulted in researching Roman Siege Weapons. Click any reference to visit the source.
Ask Questions
Have questions about Roman Siege Weapons? Ask our AI-powered history tutor for insights based on the timeline content.