Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan said:-

In any event, you've made my case for me! You admit that the basic meaning of the word petrobolos is a man throwing a stone

..yes, I never said that the original'stone thrower' was not a man ! But if I have made your case for you ( nice of me, eh? )...then you have returned the favour...

You also mention Polybius and Diodorus. Both interesting examples. Early on, Polybius uses the phrase petrobolika organa (literally "stone-throwing engine": 5.99.7), as if to make sure that his readers will know what he means by "stone-throwing". Diodorus does something similar at 24.1.2 (petrobolon organon). LSJ stick their necks out with Polyb. 5.4.6, where the meaning is only clear from the context. Polyb. 8.7.2 is another interesting one, where the reference to petroboloi kai katapeltai (literally "stone-throwers and catapults") again makes it clear that he means artillery.

...so clearly, following the invention of mechanical stone throwers the term increasingly comes to mean 'stone throwing machines', to the point where the term is even used as such in technical treatises e.g. Athenaeus Mechanicus and others. So by the 2nd century B.C. authors use the term for machines.....what then of Polyaenus writing in the late second century A.D.? (roughly 400 years later)

Not shooting fish in a barrel, Paul. Not shooting anything, in fact.

...I used that as a well known metaphor for "an easy kill", because we are apparently talking about a large number of Corinthian Hoplites trapped in a field surrounded by a deep ditch...probably having thrown away their shields in flight. 'Stoned to death' doesn't have to be by hand...why would a slinger put away his lethal sling in order to throw stones by hand? And I don't see the greek term for 'stoned to death' being used in "life of Brian" either! :lol: :lol: :lol:

They can stand and take it, or they can reverse!

..not in this instance...they are trapped, so it's like shooting fish in a barrel! :lol:
But anyway, this a red herring (pun intended) :lol: and irrelevant to the subject in hand, which is Onomarchos.

You certainly spin an entertaining yarn, Paul.

.....tskk, tskk! You should know by now I never do that! hock: I always have sources to back me up....

(1) How do we know that Philip's army immediately mutinied? It's not in Polyaenus. And we don't know the date of the encounter with Onomarchus. So where does this mutiny figure? (I have not memorised Diodorus ... yet.)
(2) How do we know that Philip's immediate reaction was to take an interest in artillery? It's not in Polyaenus. And we don't know .. etc. etc.

Stefanos wrote:-

So whatever happened must have been bad indeed but I doubt if there was mutiny.

Gentlemen, I must chide you gently for your lazy scholarship in not looking at the sources! Now I am not going to set out the History of Philip here, so I will have to be selective. The main sources are Diodorus ( who draws on sources sympathetic to Philip, for the most part) Book XVI and Justin ( who draws largely on sources hostile to Philip)
Onomarchus defeats Philip twice in either 355 ,354, or even 353 B.C. ( there is some question/doubt of the chronology here). Polyaenus' anecdote is most likely the second one(a major defeat, and Philip's anecdote about the ram, withdrawing in order to butt again).... At this time, immediately following the second defeat, Diodorus tells us, "As for Philip he was reduced to the uttermost perils and his soldiers were so despondent that they had deserted him, but by arousing the courage of the majority( he harangues them and reminds them it is a Holy War, and God(Apollo) is on their side) he got them with great difficulty to obey his orders (D.S. XVI.35.2)...now 'mutiny', 'desertion' etc, I won't quibble, the point is they refused to obey orders, and were eventually coaxed'with great difficulty'. Philip's other comeback is to settle Thessalian squabbles, and thus get them all on his side. Next campaigning season he has the largest number of cavalry (3000) Greece will ever see internally ( to Onomarchus 500). Both have around 20,000 Foot. Unsurprisingly, Onomarchus lose the final battle (Crocus fields) and is killed(354/353/352 B.C. ) Philip had decorated his men with laurel leaves (sacred to Apollo) to inspire their religious zeal. Onomarchus was not given the opportunity to draw Philip onto a pre-prepared battle-field, with catapults emplaced.( see e.g. CAH vol VI chapviii.5 for further detail, D.S. XVI.35.5 and Justin VIII.32)
Turning now to Philip's acquisition and interest in Artillery. In his early sieges, it is clear Philip had no artillery, Amphipolis, Pydna etc are long sieges, many concluded by treachery -and as late as 355/354/353 the siege of Methone takes him a year ( it is here he loses an eye)...but after his encounter with Onomarchus and the Phocians, Philip employs a famous catapult engineer, Polyeidos, whom many think invented torsion artillery while working for Philip sometime in the period 353-341. By 345 at the latest(and probably well before) the Athenians joked about Philip and his well-known interest in artillery ( see 'Fragments of Attic Comedy-J.M. Edwards frg7of Mnesimachos"Philip"). His formidable artillery quickly overcomes Perinthus,in 343/342/341(D.S.XVI74.3 "The King for his part rained destruction with numerous and varied catapults upon the men fighting steadfastly along the battlements, while the Perintheans, although their losses were heavy, received reinforcements of men missiles and artillery from Byzantium"...and "D.S. XVI.75.2 " his catapults cleared the battlements") despite them being aided by Byzantium ( which he also besieges) and being helped and supplied by Persia itself.
So no 'yarn' then, Duncan, rather reasoned logic based on fact and the sources! 8)
Unlike a certain 'yarn' based purely on the fact that the term , some 540 years before Polyaenus, before the invention of catapults, meant 'stonethrower' in the human sense! D lol:
P.S. For Wolfgang, the non-torsion stone-throwers in question were no longer than 1.25-1.5 metres long, with a bow-span of a little over 2.5.m, mounted on a small stand.....so not so big, but still static, not mobile.....