09-28-2008, 04:29 PM
Hi David,
I am confident that if the Assyrians had possessed any sort of effective catapult, we would see it clearly (not ambiguously) in their art. They liked showing off all their latest weapons! My university library doesn't have that book, so I can't see the image for myself. Rawlinson's description sounds like some kind of mobile platform for men throwing stones and darts. This makes sense, since the main Assyrian contribution to siegecraft was putting Bronze Age arms (battering ram, sapper, slinger, and archer) into mobile shelters.
The Biblical reference probably refers to an erection of poles and shields over the battlements, as we see in Assyrian art, according to an author whose name I can't recall who looked at the Hebrew.
The stones at Paphos and Paros are more interesting, but they could have been for throwing by hand, and stone-throwing engines seem to have been invented in late -IV. Otherwise, Persian cities would not have fallen so quickly to them, and our earliest sources wouldn't refer to bolt-throwers only. The fourth-century Greeks clearly borrowed so much from Middle Eastern military technology and organization that attacking the one thing which they probably invented themselves is superfluous.
I am confident that if the Assyrians had possessed any sort of effective catapult, we would see it clearly (not ambiguously) in their art. They liked showing off all their latest weapons! My university library doesn't have that book, so I can't see the image for myself. Rawlinson's description sounds like some kind of mobile platform for men throwing stones and darts. This makes sense, since the main Assyrian contribution to siegecraft was putting Bronze Age arms (battering ram, sapper, slinger, and archer) into mobile shelters.
The Biblical reference probably refers to an erection of poles and shields over the battlements, as we see in Assyrian art, according to an author whose name I can't recall who looked at the Hebrew.
The stones at Paphos and Paros are more interesting, but they could have been for throwing by hand, and stone-throwing engines seem to have been invented in late -IV. Otherwise, Persian cities would not have fallen so quickly to them, and our earliest sources wouldn't refer to bolt-throwers only. The fourth-century Greeks clearly borrowed so much from Middle Eastern military technology and organization that attacking the one thing which they probably invented themselves is superfluous.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
