05-06-2006, 08:37 PM
D B Campbell
True, but would the Rhodians really have told Philo(n) every detail of their device (they could be a bit touchy about the docks and arsenal). I can think of one area were the device might have served Rhodes well – aboard her fleets. The motion of the ship would deal with the fixed fire problem (and spent missiles are not a problem either) and a high volume of fire for a sort time would be very useful if a ‘4’ was trying to ram and disengage from a larger polyreme (which would normally ‘out-gun’ the smaller vessel if you will). In some ways the polybolos is a perfect example for economic theory (even if it did not work): Rhodes had lots of capital but limited manpower and was thus very likely to try to substitute automation for labor; Rome had no real reason too since it had lots of labor. Of course argument from silence is not really very strong, But Philo(n)’s criteria for successful artillery might not be the same as the those of the Rhodians.
"it was not applied to any use worthy of notice"
Good point but it seems worth considering that for Thucydides the effects of the plague on the Athenian fleet, her most important military force was also not worthy of notice. Perhaps Philo(n) was just not that interested in good concept that was not his own, or one he though was not generally useful.
Quote: As Aitor said, the source for this machine is Philon, a Byzantine Greek writing (probably) around 225 BC, so the relevance for the Roman army seems questionable.
After noting that the "polybolos katapaltês" was invented by a certain Dionysius of Alexandria, Philon gives a very detailed description. So detailed that (as others have already noted) Alan Wilkins was able to reconstruct it, presumably following Marsden's interpretation of the Greek text. I haven't seen a detailed report by Alan, but I have no doubt that the machine performed more or less as Dionysius expected it to.
Philon himself appreciated the ingenuity of the device, but states that "it was not applied to any use worthy of notice" (76.22). I take this to mean that no one ever used it in warfare.
True, but would the Rhodians really have told Philo(n) every detail of their device (they could be a bit touchy about the docks and arsenal). I can think of one area were the device might have served Rhodes well – aboard her fleets. The motion of the ship would deal with the fixed fire problem (and spent missiles are not a problem either) and a high volume of fire for a sort time would be very useful if a ‘4’ was trying to ram and disengage from a larger polyreme (which would normally ‘out-gun’ the smaller vessel if you will). In some ways the polybolos is a perfect example for economic theory (even if it did not work): Rhodes had lots of capital but limited manpower and was thus very likely to try to substitute automation for labor; Rome had no real reason too since it had lots of labor. Of course argument from silence is not really very strong, But Philo(n)’s criteria for successful artillery might not be the same as the those of the Rhodians.
"it was not applied to any use worthy of notice"
Good point but it seems worth considering that for Thucydides the effects of the plague on the Athenian fleet, her most important military force was also not worthy of notice. Perhaps Philo(n) was just not that interested in good concept that was not his own, or one he though was not generally useful.
Paul Klos
\'One day when I fly with my hands -
up down the sky,
like a bird\'
\'One day when I fly with my hands -
up down the sky,
like a bird\'
