Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE

[hoplite14gr]

Philip's troops must have been shocked that day.
In the later battle of Pagassae trying to boost morale he orderd laurels to be worn on helmets. Something that was reserved only for Pythionikoi athlets at that time. He wanted his army to appear as a champion of Apollo.
So whatever happened must have been bad indeed but I doubt if there was mutiny.

Kind regards

[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.....

[D B Campbell]

Gentlemen, I must chide you gently for your lazy scholarship in not looking at the sources!

Well, we've been citing our sources all along. It's about time you returned the favour!

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

Well, we've been citing our sources all along. It's about time you returned the favour!

...excuse me ? I have been citing the appropriate sources since before you entered this debate , Duncan!
Not to put too fine a point on it, in the English vernacular, what a load of Bollocks ! - just read the thread ! :lol: :lol: :lol:
...as is your theory that the Phocians threw stones by hand! :wink: :wink: P

[D B Campbell]

... what a load of Bollocks ! ...as is your theory that the Phocians threw stones by hand! :wink: :wink: P

Tut, tut, Paul. Do we need to remind you of the forum rules? Ad hominem insults are not welcome.
If you think a theory is "bollocks", you must prove it, rather than just wearing us down with circumstantial evidence.

[D B Campbell]

Polyaenus' anecdote is most likely the second one(a major defeat)

"Most likely" in who's opinion, Paul?
All Diodorus says is that "Onomarchus defeated him [viz. Philip] in two battles and destroyed many Macedonians" (35.2).
Why couldn't the cul-de-sac incident be the first of these? Oh, I remember ...

immediately after this encounter, the Army's reaction was to refuse to take the field

You've postulated that the Macedonians were so shaken by their first experience of catapults that they immediately mutinied. So it would be rather inconvenient to your theory if this were actually the first of the two encounters, rather than the second and final one.

So no 'yarn' then, Duncan, rather reasoned logic based on fact and the sources! 8)

Actually it's your interpretation of the sources, Paul.

Unsurprisingly, Onomarchus lose the final battle (Crocus fields) and is killed(354/353/352 B.C. ) ... Onomarchus was not given the opportunity to draw Philip onto a pre-prepared battle-field, with catapults emplaced.

Because that would've been the natural thing to do? "If only I'd had my catapults", groaned Onomarchus, as he fled the battlefield. I don't think so!
None of this supports a case for Onomarchus having artillery, which is what you'd like us to believe.

Philip's reaction was to take an immediate interest in Artillery ... ... 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.

Strike two!
No ancient authority calls Polyidos "a famous catapult engineer". Marsden suggested that Polyidos was probably linked with the development of the torsion catapult, but it's a theory. (I presume that, by "many", you mean those authors who accept Marsden's suggestion. Hammond and Griffith spring to mind; but they're not "many".)

You are maybe hoping to persuade people of a causal link between Philip's defeat in the cul-de-sac and his hiring of Polyidos. Hence the "immediate interest in artillery". So you suggest that Polyidos could've been hired in 353. But Marsden (and it's pretty clear that he's your source for all of this) suggested 340 at the earliest. (And of course, there's no guarantee that Polyidos had anything to do with catapults. Only a theory.)

His formidable artillery quickly overcomes Perinthus,in 343/342/341

Perinthus won that one -- Philip went off with his tail between his legs! :lol:
What happened to "fact and the sources"!?

(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.

Now this really is irrelevant.
You're trying to prove that Onomarchus had stone-projecting catapults in "355 ,354, or 353 B.C." by pointing out that Philip had arrow-shooters in 340 BC. Where's the "reasoned logic"?!

... 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.....

That's your opinion. Let's separate out "fact and the sources".
Polyaenus mentions "stone-throwers" which I think are men and you think are machines. That sounds like "opinion" to me.
Sources? Well -- again, you haven't cited any, so we don't know why you think that Onomarchus had machines "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".
(Why do you think that?)

It is a bit difficult for me to imagine lots of clumsy machines in a roadless hillside, used as early mountain artillery.

That's a very good point, Wolfgang.

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote-

Tut, tut, Paul. Do we need to remind you of the forum rules? Ad hominem insults are not welcome.

...the terminology was meant in a humorous way, but if you have taken offence, then I unreservedly apologise. OTOH, the suggestion that I do not quote sources (me, of all people!) is one I find very offensive and repugnant.

"Most likely" in who's opinion, Paul?

.....well I'll let readers figure it out. An army either doesn't recover from a major defeat, or it takes time, so the incident is 'most likely' to have been the second one. Look at any sequence of battles - there is often a preliminary clash, followed by a major battle. In any event it doesn't matter which way round it occurred, Diodorus tells us that the Macedonian army immediately went into crisis afterward.

Actually it's your interpretation of the sources, Paul.

..not just mine - every scholar's except yours - and it is still;
"reasoned logic based on the facts and the sources"...unlike your fairytale based on nothing but a barely possible interpretation of a word used by a late (as in 500years later!) author who used it at a time when it was synonymous with 'stone-throwing machine', and when the context and circumstances make it plain that 'machines' are being referred to.Your argument is about as logical as some future historian arguing that horses were still in general use in 21st century London because commuters 'rode' to work! :roll: :lol: :lol:

Because that would've been the natural thing to do? "If only I'd had my catapults", groaned Onomarchus, as he fled the battlefield. I don't think so!

..You are awful long on sarcasm, and awful short on facts and logic.... and you don't read the sources,( or for that matter the very post you quote! ) even after I give you the references, or you'd know that Onomarchus didn't make it off the battlefield.

No ancient authority calls Polyidos "a famous catapult engineer".

Well, I think we can safely assume that Philip didn't hire a poet to design his catapults and other siege machiney... :wink: :wink: And again this is by-the-by, the point being that before the incident with Onomarchus, Philip has no catapults, and a few short years afterward, he is the foremost artillerist in Greece! (whether designed by Polyeidos or not) :o )

Perinthus won that one

Hardly !You must not be reading the sources properly,again! Although Perinthus stood at the end of an Isthmus atop some cliffs, and could only be approached on a 200 yard front, Philip smashed his way in,using his siege train, in a matter of weeks, killing most of the defenders in the process. The survivors pulled back, and carried out a series of desperate defences from row after row of terraced houses, which the Perinthians used as interior walls. Philip had accomplished his purpose, and chose not to winkle out the survivors at great cost and no gain, so he left enough troops to maintain a blockade/siege and took his army off against Byzantium.
I wouldn't call that a win, and I bet the Perinthian survivors didn't either ! hock:

You're trying to prove that Onomarchus had stone-projecting catapults in "355 ,354, or 353 B.C." by pointing out that Philip had arrow-shooters in 340 BC. Where's the "reasoned logic"?!

No, I'm not! It seems that in desperation, you are taking quotations out of context. :evil: ......or else your reading of my posts is careless. What I wrote was;
"Turning now to Philip's acquisition and interest in Artillery." Perinthus and the speed with which Philip takes such a strong defence using his siege train and catapults is relevant to his 'acquisition and interest' in artillery, post-Onomarchus. Obvious relevance, really!

That's your opinion.

..and many others - you've mentioned a few eminent names yourself :wink:

which I think are men and you think are machines

...me and everyone else except you...I mentioned this earlier, but who else (scholars, I mean) holds to your 'opinion'?

Sources?

..I've already given the source earlier in the thread, when discussing the likely machines in question, and didn't see the need to repeat...Charon's non-torsion stonethrower.But of course, you must have known that, mustn't you ? :wink:

That's a very good point, Wolfgang.

...or rather, it would have been, had we been talking about "clumsy machines", but we are not.
If further proof were needed, a very similar sized machine, 2.3mx2.3 m, designed by Zopyrus, is called, and described as, a"Mountain Gastraphetes" demonstrating that machines of this size could, and doubtless were, used in mountains/hills( by Onomarchus, for example!) D lol:

(Why do you think that?)

...What a good question ! I have set out clearly why Onomarchus used machines, but aside from the antique meaning of the word, 500 years before Polyaenus, you've given NO reasons for why you, and apparently you alone, think the stone-throwers were human. Go ahead, make a case, if you can. Then it will be my turn to pour scorn and sarcasm...... D lol: :lol:

[D B Campbell]

your fairytale based on nothing but a barely possible interpretation of a word used by a late (as in 500years later!) author

I wouldn't be so insulting as to call your version a "fairytale", Paul.
The fact is: I'm attempting to interpret a confusing passage with reasoned argument, while you're bombasting us with opinion masquerading as "fact".

you don't read the sources,( or for that matter the very post you quote! ) even after I give you the references, or you'd know that Onomarchus didn't make it off the battlefield.

This is the kind of bombast I'm talking about.
It would've been sufficient for you to explain why you think that Onomarchus died in battle, and I would've replied with Diodorus 16.35.5, where he clearly refers to "the fugitives, amongst whom was Onomarchus himself, cast off their armour and attempted to reach the [Athenian] triremes".

before the incident with Onomarchus, Philip has no catapults, and a few short years afterward, he is the foremost artillerist in Greece!

Many long years, actually (if we go along with your friend, Eric Marsden).
But never with stone-projecting catapults. So I am still unclear why this is relevant to the Onomarchus episode.

but who else (scholars, I mean) holds to your 'opinion'?

Do we judge a case by weight of numbers?! Novel approach!

Charon's non-torsion stonethrower.But of course, you must have known that, mustn't you ? :wink:

Again, I'm unclear what relevance Charon's bow-machine has to the Onomarchus episode.

a very similar sized machine, 2.3mx2.3 m, designed by Zopyrus, is called, and described as, a"Mountain Gastraphetes" demonstrating that machines of this size could, and doubtless were, used in mountains/hills( by Onomarchus, for example!) D lol:

Zopyrus designed arrow-shooters. So, yet again, I'm unclear what relevance this has to the Onomarchus episode.

Then it will be my turn to pour scorn and sarcasm...... D lol: :lol:

I think we've had quite enough of your scorn and sarcasm, thanks. :roll:

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

I wouldn't be so insulting as to call your version a "fairytale", Paul.

1. It's not "my" version, it's everyone's except yours.....
2.If you think it is not a 'fairytale', then post your evidence and reasoning, as I have suggested.( and I don't mean just the potential ambiguity....)
3. If you are offended by 'fairytale' then I gladly apologise...but I'm still waiting for an apology from you regarding your insulting jibe about not posting sources....especially as you needed me to point to them for you.

The fact is: I'm attempting to interpret a confusing passage with reasoned argument, while you're bombasting us with opinion masquerading as "fact".

What reasoned argument? Where is it? All you've done is suggest that the meaning of 'petroboloi' could mean human stone throwers...you haven't examined the context, or the circumstances, or anything else other than to heap scorn on any opinion bar your own, in an offensive manner, which you now compound by phrases such as "bombasting us with opinion"...when in fact I cite sources for all to see, and not selectively as you have done.

It would've been sufficient for you to explain why you think that Onomarchus died in battle, and I would've replied with Diodorus 16.35.5, where he clearly refers to "the fugitives, amongst whom was Onomarchus himself, cast off their armour and attempted to reach the [Athenian] triremes".

More distortion!( and I feel the temptation to use that english vernacular "B*******" word again! :wink: :wink: ) I didn't say he died in battle, I said he "didn't make it off the battlefield" because while all the sources agree he didn't survive the battle, there are several versions of how he died - drowned, killed by his own men, captured and executed.Your selective quote is misleading, because Diodorus goes on to say"Finally more than six thousand of the Phocians and mercenaries were slain, and among them the general himself".
Naughty Duncan, trying to mislead ! ...or did you simply not read it properly again? :roll:

Many long years, actually

...it was seven years (352-345) at the absolute maximum...I'd call it something like 3-5 years ( allowing some time to acquire an engineer, and recognising that his artillery train would have been complete long before it came to be the butt of Athenian jokes - a 'short time' rather than 'many long years'...but whatever, it is pretty good and swift going, starting from scratch... :wink: Philip learnt his lesson quickly, and was impressed enough to put remedies in hand immediately, or pretty close to it.

But never with stone-projecting catapults.

Whatever makes you think that? The fact that they are not specifically mentioned, presumably! But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and you don't kill men behind battlements with arrow-shooters ( see quotes ante)

Do we judge a case by weight of numbers?! Novel approach!

... No, we judge by 'inherent military probability' and by 'balance of probabilities' and on both those counts, everyone except, apparently, you, thinks the 'stonethrowers' in question were machines! :lol: :lol:

Again, I'm unclear what relevance Charon's bow-machine has to the Onomarchus episode.

...you are being disingenuous again ! :roll: You know perfectly well, or should do, that Charon's stonethrower, while undated, is highly likely to be contemporaneous, on evolutionary grounds alone.

Zopyrus designed arrow-shooters. So, yet again, I'm unclear what relevance this has to the Onomarchus episode

...you are being disingenuous yet again, Duncan. :? ( )

I think we've had quite enough of your scorn and sarcasm, thanks

...to paraphrase John Paul Jones," I have not yet begun to be scornful or sarcastic"....I'm reserving that for when/if you lay out a case for 'hand-thrown' beyond the ancient (in Polyaenus' day) original meaning of the word.
And I must say, I take it ill that you deprecate Marsden so much, to whom all students of ancient artillery owe a debt, particularly you. :evil:

[D B Campbell]

Round 15 (ding, ding).

1. It's not "my" version, it's everyone's except yours.....

1. It's your version, as far as this thread's concerned, Paul. When you joined on 16 November, you announced that "what Polyaenus actually says is"petrobolous mechanas" - stone throwing machines!" (no source cited).
And as far as it being "everyone's [version] except mine", it would be more accurate to say that it's Eric Marsden's version. It's natural for subsequent (post-1969) authors, touching upon the specialised area of artillery, to trust what Marsden wrote, because most of the time he presents a sensible, balanced view of the development of artillery.
But they have all presumably made the same mistake that you made -- to assume that Marsden accurately quoted Polyaenus. Unfortunately, he didn't.

2.If you think it is not a 'fairytale', then post your evidence and reasoning, as I have suggested.( and I don't mean just the potential ambiguity....)

2. I'm sure anyone who has managed to stick with this thread will realise that the crux is, in fact, Polyaenus' ambiguity.
When I joined this thread on 31 October, I made the perfectly reasonable observation that "it is possible (some of us would say probable) that Polyaenus' "stone-throwers" were humans rather than machines".
I pointed out that, "in the Onomarchus passage, he [Polyaenus] doesn't specifically mention catapults". Elsewhere (namely Strat. 7.9), he assists us by using the word katapeltai, but not here. (That's interesting in itself. Why use the word at 7.9 but not at 2.38? Just one more Polyaenian puzzle.)
Now, you and I both know that Polyaenus is no Diodorus. As I said then, "anything he [Polyaenus] says must be weighed up carefully".
In particular, without knowing where Polyaenus took his information, we cannot be sure whether he means "men expert in throwing stones, furnished with huge stones and pieces of ragged rocks for the purpose" (Shepherd's version), or mechanical stone-projectors (which is what Marsden assumed).

3. If you are offended by 'fairytale' then I gladly apologise...

I'm not offended by your use of terms like "fairytale" and "bollocks", or your unsubstantiated accusations of distortion. I just don't think they're very helpful in trying to hold a reasoned discussion.
I'm reminded of the maxim that "insults are often an indicator of flawed reasoning".

So let's look at your reasoning.
When you finally acknowledged that Polyaenus didn't write "stone-throwing machines", you appealed to "the separate 'evolutionary' evidence in Biton's technical treatise".
(I sympathise with you in your choice of witnesses: because if you had to choose two of the most problematic sources in the entire canon of ancient Greek history, you couldn't do better than Polyaenus and Biton!)

All you've done is suggest that the meaning of 'petroboloi' could mean human stone throwers...you haven't examined the context, or the circumstances, or anything else other than to heap scorn on any opinion bar your own, in an offensive manner, which you now compound by phrases such as "bombasting us with opinion"...when in fact I cite sources for all to see, and not selectively as you have done.

It's the assembled body of ancient Greek literature that proves (not "suggests") that the meaning of petroboloi (and its cognate lithoboloi) can be "men throwing rocks".

1. "Context"? I didn't think it was necessary to reiterate that the arrow-shooting gastraphetes was heralded in 399 BC as a new development. Our source, Diodorus Siculus, seems particularly keen to report on siege machinery whenever it is used. So it's interesting that he never mentions catapults again until the latter years of Philip II's reign. That led Marsden to propose that Philip had been instrumental in developing catapults, while noting that he only ever used arrow-shooters. We first hear of stone-projectors during the reign of Alexander.
The importance of this historical context is, of course, that anyone suggesting that stone-projecting catapults existed prior to this date really must come up with some good evidence.

2. "Circumstances"? I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose that, as I said above, anyone who wishes to suggest that Onomarchus had stone-projecting catapults really must come up with some good evidence.

3. "Heaping scorn on any opinion bar my own, in an offensive manner?" Now that's surprising! Only one of us has used disparaging language, and it wasn't me. If I have insulted you at any point, it was entirely unintended and probably due, as a Scotsman, to my poor command of English.

4. "Selective citation of sources"? The only sources of relevance to this discussion are Polyaenus himself (and I even posted a graphic of Polyaenus' original text!!), Diodorus for background material (e.g. 16.35.5, on Onomarchus fleeing the battlefield), and possibly Biton (whom you have introduced). Are there others that you feel are relevant?

5. "Distortion"? This one seems to be based on my throwaway remark that Onomarchus fled the final battlefield. You replied (in rather triumphalist tone, I think) that I really ought to have known that "Onomarchus didn't make it off the battlefield" (no source cited). I generally trust Diodorus Siculus for this period -- I was quoting him --, but Pausanias also says that "Philip won the action and Onomarchus fled" (10.2.3). You accuse me of "trying to mislead" (although the thread is actually about a completely different battle!), because "there are several versions of how he died" -- maybe you'd be good enough to share your sources, if you feel they are relevant?

You know perfectly well, or should do, that Charon's stonethrower, while undated, is highly likely to be contemporaneous, on evolutionary grounds alone.

You mentioned this evolutionary business before, as if it is self-evident:-

To say that stone- throwers didn't exist then is tantamount to saying non-torsion stone throwers came after torsion ones, a logical absurdity ( like saying australo-pithecus came after cro-magnon man!)

I think it would be more accurate, given the imperfect state of our knowledge, to draw an analogy with Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons -- two similar, but essentially different, beasts. It is not at all "logically absurd" to say that bow-machines developed separately from the torsion catapult.

Fact 1: we only know about two stone-throwing bow-machines.
Fact 2: we don't have any idea when Charon built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that it must've been after 399 BC (when Dionysius says the gastraphetes appeared at Syracuse), and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise (because he is the source).
Fact 3: we don't have any idea when Isidorus built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that (as above) it must've been after 399 BC, and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise.
Fact 4: we don't know when Biton wrote his treatise, except that it must've been some time between 241 BC and 133 BC (because he dedicated it to "King Attalus").
Conclusion: we don't have a chronology for stone-throwing bow-machines, so we don't know their relationship with the torsion catapult.

machines this size were specifically designed for 'mountain use'...and as you are well aware(presumably), a change of string and slider turned an arrow shooter into a stone-thrower anyway

Agreed. Provided you realise that the stone must be roughly the same weight as the arrow.

It is a bit difficult for me to imagine lots of clumsy machines in a roadless hillside, used as early mountain artillery.

I entirely agree with you, Wolfgang, and I take this opportunity to note that Schramm already made the same point about Zopyrus' so-called "mountain" gastraphetes -- it does seem a fairly cumbersome machine. (See below for one interpretation.)

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

Round 15 (ding, ding).

D lol: :lol: ...yes, it is getting a bit like that, isn't it? We'd better finish before all the thread's readers ( if there are any left apart from you and me! ) die of terminal boredom.....So I won't go step-by-step into a refutation. (cheers all round!)

because "there are several versions of how he died" -- maybe you'd be good enough to share your sources, if you feel they are relevant?

...I wouldn't want to deprive you of the pleasure of looking them up for yourself, Duncan, if you are interested in what became of Onomarchus, and his death. You have all the necessary clues. :wink: :wink: :wink:

I think it would be more accurate, given the imperfect state of our knowledge, to draw an analogy with Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons -- two similar, but essentially different, beasts. It is not at all "logically absurd" to say that bow-machines developed separately from the torsion catapult.

...as Marsden (and others) have noted, the likely and logical reason for inventing torsion machines is because the power limit of bows had been reached with machines like Isidorus' stone-thrower..and the difficulties of making a bow that was 'balanced' at this sort of size and scale have been pointed out by the likes of Marsden and Schramm too. (ask a bowyer about it).This is the more so as torsion machines seem to carry on in size from where non-torsion bows leave off, although with the proliferation in sizes and the paucity of sources this is not entirely certain. Of course that doesn't mean that non-torsion machines disappeared...far from it. Athens had non-torsion catapults by 370B.C. and Athens had both types in store in the Piraeus in 330/329 B.C. (when Alexander was off in Asia) as recorded on a fragmentary inscription -IG ii.1469.B.
I would happily accept that 'proof', as such, given the lack of sources is out of the question. However, that the above is so, is surely the most likely.

Fact 1: we only know about two stone-throwing bow-machines. True!..and only 5 treatises survive in all, just three of which deal with early Greek/Hellenistic artillery...but much can be deduced...
Fact 2: we don't have any idea when Charon built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that it must've been after 399 BC (when Dionysius says the gastraphetes appeared at Syracuse), and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise (because he is the source). Marsden ( and others, including me), would not agree - it's approximate position in the evolution of artillery can be roughly calculated...Charon probably designed it at Rhodes sometime prior to 332 B.C., which provides a 'latest' date (when Alexander took over.) See also posts ante
Fact 3: we don't have any idea when Isidorus built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that (as above) it must've been after 399 BC, and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise. see above...
Fact 4: we don't know when Biton wrote his treatise, except that it must've been some time between 241 BC and 133 BC (because he dedicated it to "King Attalus"). Drachman,a Dane thought it could be Attalus II, or even Attalus III, but Schramm and Marsden convincingly argue Attalus I, so the date of Biton can be narrowed to 241- 200 B.C......which hardly matters since he is clearly writing about earlier artificers, e.g. Zopyrus of Tarentum, floreat prior to 350 B.C.Conclusion: we don't have a chronology for stone-throwing bow-machines, so we don't know their relationship with the torsion catapult.
Slightly disingenuous..... a chronology can be deduced and has been, by the likes of Schramm and Marsden....but again I would concede we don't "know" - just based on probabilities!

I'm sorry to say your interpretation of the 'mountain gastraphetes' is inaccurate in a number of ways......

Schramm already made the same point about Zopyrus' so-called "mountain" gastraphetes -- it does seem a fairly cumbersome machine. (See below for one interpretation.)

.....and as Marsden pointed out, Schramm erred. 'Mountain artillery' is defined by its ability to break down into manageable loads, not its overall size (witness modern 'mountain artillery' breaking down into mule loads.)

As for your interpretation picture, if it is intended to be scale, something is very wrong, I'm afraid. ( o shock: A bit 'over-engineered' or what? :wink: :wink: Your mountain Gastraphetes is 'clumsy'and 'cumbersome', the original was not, I think ! D

Turning back to linguistics and 'petroboloi' again, I note that Diodorus himself uses this word for 'stone-throwing machine' ( and it is possible Polyaenus was following him) e.g at 18.51 "catapults, both arrow-shooters and stone-throwers" ( katapeltes oxybeles te kai petroboloi). We can also see the changes in meaning to other words as well, from 'hand' to 'mechanical' e.g. "belos" = missile/projectile. In Homer it is used of javelins, the rock thrown by the Cyclops and both a footstool and a haunch of Ox thrown at Odysseus! hock: Yet by the Ist century A.D. Heron can define 'Belos' as "Missile(belos) is the name given to everything projected by engines, or any (mechanical) force such as a bow or sling..." There are other examples of transformation of meaning, and it is pertinent to 'petroboloi' that of 16 usages recorded in the LSJ lexicon, only one(Xenophon) uses it to mean 'by hand' and all the others (after the invention of catapults) refer to mechanical stone-throwers.......so on linguistic grounds alone your interpretation is unlikely in the extreme. And when you add in the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Army's and Philip's reactions, and Polyaenus (in the 2nd century A.D., very late, be it remembered) can hardly mean anything other than machines..if only because the anecdote simply doesn't stand up if he means 'by hand'.... the weight of evidence and probability is surely against you?
I think I'll call it a day at this point, having summarised my views somewhat ( and those of all bar you, Duncan, even if I am the sole standard bearer on this thread! ) D lol:
Lastly,

In the absence of reliable evidence, it's a matter of weighing up probability

...well I'd certainly have to agree with the writer of those wise words! D
Who was it?.....why you, of course! (on Nov 1) :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

[D B Campbell]

In the absence of reliable evidence, it's a matter of weighing up probability

...well I'd certainly have to agree with the writer of those wise words! D
Who was it?.....why you, of course! (on Nov 1) :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

At last -- a fully-cited source. And I'm glad to see that you agree with me.

[hoplite14gr]

Hmmm....arrow is velos and projectil is blima.
When we talk of veli we mean clearly arrows
When we talk of vlimata we mean projectils.
Projectil-vlima is used as a genarlisation.

Kind regards

[Sean Manning]

I'll just pop up to loose off a comment here and duck back behind the merlon before the return barrage of sarcasm, rhetoric, and scholarship reaches me.

The fact that they are not specifically mentioned, presumably! But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and you don't kill men behind battlements with arrow-shooters ( see [Diodorus] quotes ante)

You clear battlements with bolt-throwers the same way archers clear battlements: by firing enough missiles that the defenders are either killed or driven to cover. If the battlements were mud brick, as was common in antiquity, heavy bolt-throwers might even have pierced them.

I'd be surprised to see numerous effective stone throwers in the 350s, but I'll keep out of this debate otherwise.

[Robert Vermaat]

Gentlemen, a word of caution.

One. Lay off the sarcasm and innuendo.

Two. Discuss properly. This is a forum where sources are to be mentioned. It's not done to discuss sources by laying into each other that 'the other guy' is the one not mentioning sources, or by claiming you have all the sources but you decline mentioning them. If you must discuss this, mention your sources and stick to that.

Three.

I would happily accept that 'proof', as such, given the lack of sources is out of the question.

Wise words. I do not presume to know anything of value about a) artillery or b) the Macedonian period, but I'm of the impression that this is not a discusssion about facts, but about experts disagreeing with each other about the interpretation of ancient sources. That's all good and well, but it's apparently not facts. And it's also the reason that this is a discussion without end, because it's all about interpretation.

I mean, stones or missiles, mountain artillery or not, artillery experts hired or not, a siege broken off - vicotry or defeat? Even that guy who died on the battlefield - the fact that there are many versions of his death is a tell-tale sign that even his contemporaries did not have a clue about the facts surrounding his demise!

Why don't you just agree to disagree and be done with it?

I've been in your position (on this forum, to my undying shame), so I know where this leads.

Shake hands and move on?
If not, discuss only while mentioning your sources, primary or secundary. :evil: