Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE

[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: