Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

Now you're just having a laugh, Paul.

...well, I trust we are having a light-hearted debate.

I must have missed the bit where you're supposed to retract your adamant statement that Polyaenus wrote "stone-throwing machines".

...evidently! My whole first paragraph acknowledges that Marsden can be wrong, and I even give another example, so I conceded your correction at once. BTW, it is not my"adamant statement", but rather Marsden's ! Then there's this , where I acknowledge for a second time that Marsden is wrong to add the word 'machines'
Paullus wrote:-

even if he did add the word 'machines' to the anecdote in error

Duncan wrote:-

uncluttered by Marsden's unfortunate blunder

..."unfortunate blunder" seems too strong and emotive a term for Marsden turning what is ambiguous and implied into a positive assertion...the idea that it is machines that are in question is just as reasonable, if not more so, as the assertion that 'hand-thrown is meant, and in fact on balance of probability, more likely...at least you don't have to invent cliffs to have stones dropped off, or have the Macedonians obligingly stand under them while the Phocians did so - they would only have to withdraw a very small distance to be perfectly safe from 'dropped' rocks .....

As the Phocian troops withdraw up the hillside, the rock-hurlers begin their work.

Hold on, you were arguing 'cliff' and 'dropped' earlier ! :? wink: :lol:

But why would you want to ignore this anecdote, Paul?

......I don't, particularly, but clearly there is an ambiguity here we can't resolve, other than by implication..so I thought to demonstrate that leaving Polyaenus aside for a moment, there is till other evidence for stone-throwing machines at this time....

Here's another one: don't add details to an ancient source that were never there in the first place.

.....I never do ! That translation is not mine, it is someone else's...I quoted it to show that it is not just Marsden who thinks 'petroboloi'/stone throwers or launchers are machines, but many others too......you are the only person I'm aware of whose opinion is otherwise....

We have no idea how big the bow would need to be to shoot a certain size of missile.

The size of the bow is not entirely certain, it is true - but you need to read Marsden again...he calculated/estimated the size of projectile from the (known) dimensions of other parts, such as the slider. In any event, the actual 'calibre' doesn't matter, the fact that stone throwing non-torsion machines existed in Philip's day is what is important.

Let's remember the fundamental point that I'm making: Polyaenus never mentioned stone-projecting catapults! You said something earlier about special pleading ... Ironic, eh?

.....of course, your emphasised point is simply not true, is it? What we have is an ambiguity...I could equally say there is no mention of 'by hand' either.Let us take the translation I quoted earlier, with the original ambiguities restored, and including your translation of 'heights'...

"Polyaenus (2. 38. 2) writes: "Onomarchus, drawing up his
men in battle order against the Macedonians, occupied a crescent shaped
mountain/hill in his rear. After he had concealed stones
and stone-throwers (petroboloi)on the ridges/heights(still no mention of 'cliffs, then') on both sides, he
led his forces into the underlying plain. When the Macedonians,
coming against them, hurled their javelins , the Phocians pretended to flee into the midst of the mountain.
The Macedonians in spirited and quick pursuit pressed against
them, but the Phocians by discharging(greek word? - not 'dropping' then?) stones from the ridges/heights ( where are the cliffs? :roll: )
shattered the Macedonian phalanx. ( Hand thrown stones are not going to travel from ridges to plain!...and hand thrown stones are hardly likely to outrange javelins either, or to 'shatter' the Macedonian Phalanx. Furthermore, hand thrown stones would hardly reach more than the fringes/extreme flanks of the Macedonian army, and hardly to the middle, and so would be unlikely to panic the whole Macedonian army! In fact, after this, they were so panicked that they mutinied, refusing to campaign against Onomarchus at first, until Philip harangued them and reminded them it was a Sacred war, so the Gods were on their side....Does this sound like the effect hand-thrown stones would have on a battle-hardened army?...on the other hand, if they had met stone-throwing artllery for the first time...QED! )Then Onomarchus signaled
the Phocians to turn around and close with the enemy. The
Macedonians, with their adversaries attacking them from the
rear and throwing stones at them from above, were put to
flight and retreated with much suffering."

It's equally likely that the bow-machines followed their own developmental sequence, divorced from whatever was happening with torsion. We simply don't know

...so you reject evolution then! :wink: Some rather bizarre consequences, just so you can have 'dropped' stones from a (non-existent) cliff.....

(1) Polyaenus doesn't mention stone-throwing catapults, so his anecdote is inadmissable in this debate. ..and he doesn't mention 'hand thrown or dropped either...one must deduce the meaning from the context and the events surrounding the event, with 'stone-throwers' more likely to be machines for the reasons set out...
(2) We don't have a clear picture of the evolution of catapult artillery, so we don't really know what kinds of catapults were around in the 350s BC, besides the arrow-shooting gastraphetes. ...so we must ignore the logic of evolution...we know that Philip's engineer is the likely inventor of torsion artillery. It is a certainty that stonethrowers like Charon's and bigger existed prior to this, so there is absolutely no reason the Phocians couldn't have had them
(3) There is ample evidence, literary and sculptural, to show that the ancients did not share your disdain of rock-throwing. Unfair! I have no disdain for stone-throwing by hand, and never said so...but then as now, hand thrown stones are not exactly a lethal weapon that would panic an army, still less an armoured one carrying shields!...and to the point that, for the one and only time, next season it refused to take the field...It was an effective and inexpensive method of assault, particularly by troops positioned on high ground. ....hardly !! ....and where's your evidence for ANY army in antiquity being routed by having stones thrown/dropped at them ?
(4) And did I mention, Polyaenus doesn't mention stone-throwing catapults ........well, I wasn't going to descend to this level of debate, but...and did I mention, Polyaenus doesn't mention'hand thrown' or 'dropped' or 'cliffs'?

D lol: :lol: