Trebuchet and Romans

[Koyuncu]

Hi all,

While reading Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States, I found out an interesting idea that Romans may independently invent traction trebuchet. What is your opinion about it?

Here the related part;

Beyond what may be dubbed the current consensus of an introduction around 580, there also seems to be hard evidence of the existence of the trebuchet even before this. Joshua the Stylite described a huge engine used by the Amidenes (*Amida 502f) to lob vast stones, crushing the protective padding the Persians had placed over their siege mound and in the process killing the engineers working on it. It was, fittingly enough, named “the Crusher.” The practice of naming large individual trebuchets became common later; many great trebuchets received poetic names due to their immense power. The custom can be dated to *Theodosiopolis in 421/2, where Theodoret describes a huge stone-thrower, named after the apostle Thomas, used against the Persians. Too little is recorded of its effects and use to be certain, but taken with the evidence from Epiphanius, this may be the first recorded instance of such a weapon.

There appear to be no clear descriptions of trebuchets in either Procopius or Agathias, while Menander, of course, is very fragmentary. Procopius, who participated at *Rome (537f), provides the standard description of artillery which is still familiar from the ancient arsenal.40 However, a rocky outcrop that caused concern for the defenders at *Antioch in 540 had not been noticed by the original builders, nor dealt with during later repairs. This was a strange oversight in light of the great Persian threat, who could apparently threaten the walls from this point. It has been suggested that some sort of new machinery was causing this concern.41 Indeed, Procopius does refer to an interesting incident where the Persian defenders of *Petra (550) built an additional wooden tower onto one of the bastions, whence they threw large stones at approaching rams. This “wooden tower” might actually have been the frame of a trestle trebuchet, protecting pulling crews from enemy fire. Procopius was by then finished with his military career, and seems not to have been aware of the trebuchet or its mechanics, so he would simply have misunderstood what was actually going on. In fact, the Strategikon advises that when siege towers approached the walls, counter-towers should be built on the facing walls without roofs, so that the defenders had enough room to operate their mangana. Here the lever mechanism is not attached to the trestle frame or tower, presumably so that both can be manipulated and moved separately according to need.42 This seems to fit the description of Procopius. Agathias as well had difficulties with certain technical innovations, but he knew his Procopius well. It is therefore very interesting that he described the Roman besiegers as setting up τὰ τῶν μεγάλων λίθων ἀκοντιστήρια καὶ ἄλλα ἄττα τοιάδε ὄργανα, “the hurlers of the great stones and certain other such machines” at *Onoguris (555).43 Now Procopius knew first hand the traditional arsenal of ballistrai and onagers, which he had seen in use at Rome, and for which he would have been responsible for procuring supplies, at least on some occasions. Although he did not describe them too well, they were familiar and regular components in most sixth-century sieges, as we have seen (chapter 5.2.2). Agathias would also have known as much. However, it is clear that Agathias was here facing something unfamiliar for which there was no word, since ἀκοντιστήριον is a hapax that only occurs here (and in a dictionary entry in the Suda, which only quotes Agathias). Thus, rather than finding a classicizing Ersatz term for it, like Theophylact did, he tried to be creative (although recall that he also referred to a helepolis at the *Chersonese 559, cf. 8.2.1 above). The name unfortunately does not give us much to go by; it simply means a “thrower” or “hurler,” derived from the verb to throw (ἀκοντίζω), which was mostly used about javelins (sg. ἀκόντιον). However, since it was used for “great stones” it is clear that we are not dealing with a giant ballista, and the expression “other such machines” hints at artillery of varying types and sizes. Furthermore, we have an instance at *Thessalonica (615) with petroboloi “hurling stones” (ἀκοντίζοντες λίθους), i.e. a quite similar context and meaning.44 Finally, Agathias provides some evidence from Narses’ invasion of Italy in 552-53 that indicates a more aggressive mode of siege warfare with more widespread use of artillery to capture cities, such as *Cumae and *Lucca.

Thus, on the basis of fairly hard evidence of unknown machinery in Joshua the Stylite and Agathias, as well as good indications of its construction in Procopius (especially when read against Strategikon), it is likely that the traction trebuchet had become known in the eastern Mediterranean area at the latest by around 500. The philological and (admittedly circumstantial) historical evidence may even support a date around 400. If the theory of diffusion from China is to be upheld, there are two possible routes via Central Asia. One is that the Huns or another nomadic group brought it with them well before the Avars, although this is problematic for reasons of logistics, organization, and lack of evidence. The other route is through the Persian Empire, which certainly did have the necessary infrastructure under the Sassanids, and engaged in warfare with sedentary Central Asian polities that were also in contact with China. However, there is no trace of this engine in any of the research conducted thus far on the wars of the 4th-early 6th centuries. Therefore we cannot rule out independent innovation. The basic mechanical principle of lever force was long known to the Greeks and Romans and apparently applied to military engines in the 1st century and used directly for military purposes in the late 4th. The early instances may have been experimental innovations spurred by particular threats, so had not become widespread by the time Justinian’s war of reconquest began in the 530s, but intense border warfare in the East from 540 and the regular involvement of civilian craftsmen and engineers in local defense provide a very plausible context for rapid diffusion.