Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

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

....I hope I can speak for Duncan when I say I think you'll find we already have...Duncan's "Round 15 (ding, ding)" wittily and succinctly makes that point -15 is the last round of a boxing match - so I summarised my position, not intending to post further....

I think I'll call it a day at this point, having summarised my views somewhat

.....'call it a day' is vernacular in English for cease/end. D

You also mention discussion without end, and we have recognised that too...

We'd better finish before all the thread's readers ( if there are any left apart from you and me! ) die of terminal boredom....

:oops:

Shake hands and move on?

.....I think you'll find we've done that too....

Paullus Scipio wrote:
Quote:
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!
Who was it?.....why you, of course! (on Nov 1)

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

.....I have ended on a note of respect, which Duncan has duly noted, wryly and humourously.
I expect he may summarise his own position and address new matters raised in my summary, and then that will be that. That is 'discussing properly', is it not? :wink: :wink:

[D B Campbell]

Robert is probably not the only one who would like to see this thread fade away gracefully. And I welcome the respectful tone of your final message, Paul. But I feel that there is one last point to deal with.

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

You have called into question the authenticity of the painting which I posted above. I feel I ought to defend the excellent Brian Delf, who carefully followed my diagrams and instructions to come up with (what I still think is) a serious attempt at reconstructing Zopyrus' arrow-shooting bow-machines.

As for your interpretation picture, if it is intended to be scale, something is very wrong, I'm afraid. (

Like all reconstruction paintings, it is intended to be a "scale" depiction. First, some background: as you know, the only evidence for the machines in the picture is the work of Biton. He does not give a detailed description, but simply notes the dimensions of different components with a vague indication of how they go together. Some of the words that he uses are not found elsewhere, so that commentators have always had to make intelligent guesses.

The machine which you criticize is in the foreground. Biton calls it the oreinobatês gastraphetês ("mountain gastraphetes"), but doesn't say why. Zopyrus evidently built it at Cumae, near Naples, which is not at all mountainous (but it could've been intended for use elsewhere -- we don't know).

'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.)

I recognise your source for this, Paul: it's Marsden. Schramm (the other ancient artillery guru, and a practising artillery officer, himself) thought that the machine ought to be lightweight if it was intended for mountain use. I'm inclined to agree with him, but that's just my opinion.

It should be noted that Biton gives no indication of how the machine could be dismantled into convenient sections. But he describes the main parts as follows:

Base: consisting of a 5ft (1.5m) timber and a 3½ft (1m) timber, both with a "height" (i.e. width/breadth) of 1ft (0.3m).
(I have followed Schramm in interpreting these as a T-shaped arrangement. So did Marsden.)
Trestles "above the base": consisting of a 5ft (1.5m) timber and a 3ft (0.9m) timber.
(Both Schramm and Marsden were suspicious of the "5ft", which would make the machine impossibly high. I have followed Schramm's suggestion, to shave 1ft off, arguing that the trestle was supposed to elevate the machine by 5ft and it was already on a 1ft base, so a 4ft timber would suffice. I note that Marsden also shaves 1ft off, without mentioning why.)
Beam "next on top" (this must be the "stock" (or, as Marsden calls it, the "case") of the weapon, sitting "on top" of the trestles, which are "above" the base): consisting of a 5ft (1.5m) timber with a "height" (i.e. width/breadth) of 1ft (0.3m) ... and a breadth (?) of 3ft (0.9m).
Bow: 7ft (2.1m) long.

Judging by the figures, the base timbers are roughly 18" square (or more)...about double the correct size. A base of that size, made of Oak or similar would alone weigh 1800-2000 kg (2 metric tonnes or so! ).... and that's without the catapult itself! ... :o shock: A bit 'over-engineered' or what? :wink: :wink: Your mountain Gastraphetes is 'clumsy'and 'cumbersome', the original was not, I think ! D

Paul is pretty close when he estimates that my base timbers are 18" square. In fact, I specified 0.3m to the artist, Brian Delf, and I'm happy with the result. Far from being "about double the correct size", I have attempted to follow Biton's dimensions (above). And as we know, Biton's dimensions are the only evidence for what "the original" looked like.

I had conservatively estimated a machine weighing about 1 tonne -- Paul estimates 2 tonnes! --, which is why I agreed with Wolfgang's analysis of the mountain gastraphetes as a "clumsy machine". It must certainly have been "cumbersome" (which was the word that I originally used), and it's difficult to imagine it perched on a hillside.

Having defended what I still regard as an excellent reconstruction painting, I shall leave it to speak for itself.

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan said:-

I recognise your source for this, Paul: it's Marsden

...oddly enough, not on this occasion, Duncan! I had in mind a few things:-
1. Billy the mule's description of how the mountain 'screw' gun battery went about it's business in Kipling's "Her Majesty's servants"
2. C.S. Forester's "The Gun" about how to move heavy objects in the pre-industrial age....
3. How the Australian army solved the problem of getting 25 pounders up the Kokoda trail in New Guinea in WW2 ( a perilously steep mountainous jungle track barely wide enough for a man in parts) and its post-war adoption of the Italian 105mm 'Pack Howitzer' as a result.
4. The Naval Field Gun race at the Royal Tournament ( My father took part in these when I was young) where 3 ton guns plus their limbers/caissons are broken down and carried across wide'streams', literally in seconds.... an awesome sight if you've never seen it....
5. Lastly, my own military experiences with 3" and 4.2" Mortars in mountains...

I see you followed Marsden's/Schramm's interpretation of dimensions, some of which they arbitrarily changed, (from the figures given by Biton) as you noted, because they were patently impossible...but I think they should have scaled down all proportions, not just one, because there is clearly something wrong with the numbers (copyists errors, erroneous interpretation of greek dimensions..etc ) which lead to a base suitable for a huge one talent machine -especially if you restore the arbitrarily reduced height. The other alternative (to make the machine mobile) is hollow beams...but this is unlikely given that when beams are hollow, Zopyrus/Biton tells us so...
BTW, the 2 tonnes estimate for the base comes from the cubic metrage of the base, and the known density of oak ( which if anything, will be on the light side, because the figure used was for kiln-dried oak, and the ancient timber was almost certainly 'naturally' dried.......)

See you on another thread, Duncan ! :wink: 8) 8)

[Magnus]

My eyes are bleeding.

[Ronald]

Hello, I am a neophyte at this site, and I have just finished reading about four pages of really good discourse and reparte'!

I hope I am not opening another can of worms for any of you but (unless I missed it) it seems that one element of Phocean, Phokian, Phocian (Focian?) defense measures was not really mentioned or discussed. And, it seems that "rock throwers" was a part of it although one source might well have translated "rock" as missle?

[url:2ivdvcbk]http://www.livius.org/th/thermopylae/thermopylae4.html%20Ca.%20470%20BCE[/url]

"The early fifth century history of Central Greece is poorly understood, but it is certain that the Thessalians and Phocians were at war "a few years before the Persian invasion" (Herodotus, Histories, 8.27). During this war, the "Phocian Wall" was built at Thermopylae: about 150 meters long, parallel along the road, and offering the Phocians a safe place from which to throw missiles at the invaders."

I hope you noticed that the "Phocian Wall", was not (it seems) built to serve as a block to the road, but as a protected place whereby they could assail the enemy from behind protection, and was, it seems only located on one side of the road! The road itself remained free of obstructions! It seems to me that a defensive work of this type which was (it seems) only 150 metres long could only contain about 300 defenders, or in this case offensive personnel, since it was designed to only "throw missiles at the invaders!" This would mean two missile throwers per metre! I would also ask, just what were the "missiles" that were thrown?

Did the 300 throw rocks?, or did they sling stones?, or did they throw darts (if darts, just what were darts?), etc. It seems that it would be fairly easy to defeat such a defense if they only had rocks, darts, stones, spears, etc. to throw at the attackers who would be in a very narrow defile! The invaders would only have to place protection upon one side of their column and would thus be able to repel attacks of this kind! Mere wooden panels, held alongside of wagons and men and animals would thus receive a lot of protection from such an attack! Is my logic flawed at this point? And just how many missiles were available to be thrown? It seems a determined attacker with enough troops could quickly deplete the missile stores what ever they were if they were only stones, darts, rocks, and spears, etc.!
Just what kind of "missile" could have been used to prevent entry via the road?

The article continues;

"However, the Malians (allies of the Thessalians), discovered the Anopaea path and Thermopylae fell for the first time (Herodotus, Histories, 7.215). The invaders, however, were defeated at Hyampolis and the Phocians were able to free themselves."

The above account is informative in that it mentions that the Phocians reportedly defeated the Malian invaders in a later battle at Hyampolis and recovered their independence. This seems strangely similar to the events after the Spartan Greek stand at Thermopylae?

More about the above can be found here;

[url:2ivdvcbk]http://www.lightfigures.com/numismat/larissa/show.php?page=13[/url]

Oh, as mention of certain historical personages being killed by rocks (millstones?) or tiles, etc., I contend that history is rife with such mentions, certainly one Biblical reference can be remembered, but a good Google Search will uncover many more possibilites!
My regards,

Ron

[Ghostmojo]

I'd like to see this thread returned to the original question and discourse that followed. I was with you up until Pyrrhos attacking Sparta and then we got into elephants and catapults and I nodded off ...

Makhanidas (like Nabis) isn't an attractive character, nor a particularly successful one - acting as a self-imposed/mercenary-backed regent as he did. I don't think anybody is quite certain how he first arrived, but he was clearly a leader of sorts of Tarentine mercenaries. He met his match at 4th Mantineia and I doubt many Spartans were really very sorry to see him fall at the hand of Philopoimen.

Sixty years previously, Areos and Acrotatos are far more interesting characters, as indeed is the attack on Sparta by Pyrrhos of Epeiros. I've just finished reading Jeff Champion's book which I will review elsewhere sometime.

[Ildar]

By accident, I bumped into this old thread and decided to offer a clarification. Duncan, Tracey Rihll, and perhaps some others believe that Marsden here (Polyaenus, Strat., II, 38, 2) made a mistake. Admittedly, Marsden made many mistakes, but not in this instance. Rather, he chose not to supply the details—as a matter of fact, πετροβολους μηχανας, instead of just πετροβολους, is found in Excerpta Polyaeni, 36, 3, 3.