04-02-2011, 11:07 PM
Tension artillery holds several advantages over torsion artillery. It was easier to construct and maintain, and composite bows could be better protected against dampness as springs. Nonetheless, it were torsion engines which came to provide the mainstay of ancient artillery arsenals throughout most of antiquity, whereas tension bow machines practically disappeared from the records (and archaeological evidence) after the 3rd-2nd century BC.
According to the standard view, this was due to torsion machines being much more powerful than tension crossbows. Marsden, going into some detail about the respective qualities of the two systems, ascribes to tension bow machine "a relatively modest performance" (Marsden I, p. 63). This opinion is also corrobated by the ancient engineer Heron himself: "... [Greek engineers] wished to increase both the size of the missile and the force of projection. They sought to make the arms of the bow more powerful, but they could not realize their intention by the use of composite bows." (Marsden I, p. 16) So, looking for better ways elsewhere, the Greeks came to realize that torsion shooters were more powerful and relied on them thereafter, so the accepted wisdom goes.
However, to the best of my knowledge, the view of torsion machines holding much more power has never been subjected to close scrutiny or been proven by experiments or calculations. Modern experts universally assume a superior performance but fail just as regularly to provide evidence for it. So, could it be merely a myth which tries to rationalize the rise of torsion engines in retrospect? Where is the evidence?
According to the standard view, this was due to torsion machines being much more powerful than tension crossbows. Marsden, going into some detail about the respective qualities of the two systems, ascribes to tension bow machine "a relatively modest performance" (Marsden I, p. 63). This opinion is also corrobated by the ancient engineer Heron himself: "... [Greek engineers] wished to increase both the size of the missile and the force of projection. They sought to make the arms of the bow more powerful, but they could not realize their intention by the use of composite bows." (Marsden I, p. 16) So, looking for better ways elsewhere, the Greeks came to realize that torsion shooters were more powerful and relied on them thereafter, so the accepted wisdom goes.
However, to the best of my knowledge, the view of torsion machines holding much more power has never been subjected to close scrutiny or been proven by experiments or calculations. Modern experts universally assume a superior performance but fail just as regularly to provide evidence for it. So, could it be merely a myth which tries to rationalize the rise of torsion engines in retrospect? Where is the evidence?
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
