11-26-2007, 11:10 PM
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.
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).
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.
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.
Quote:I'm sorry to say your interpretation of the 'mountain gastraphetes' is inaccurate in a number of waysYou 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.
Quote: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).
Quote:'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.
Quote: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 !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.D
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.
