I have always wondered why historians of technology so neatly divide between classical and medieval war machines. I think there is still a lot of potential for multidisciplinary work and cross-fertilization. When researchers get stuck with specific problems, why not risk a look over to medieval material? At a very minimum medieval craftsmen were confronted with the same technical difficulties, so there is reason to assume they found similar solutions. Furthermore, we cannot rule out that medieval torsion catapults were not a reinvention, but a direct continuation of the ancient artilley. Isn't it strange that torsion artillery was invented twice in the Occident, whereas it remained unknown everywhere else? This could point at some technological undercurrent which survived the Dark Ages.
Torsionsschleuder, aus dem ältesten illustrierten Büchsenmeisterbuch um 1400 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München, Cgm 600 fol.15r)
[attachment=8355]UtaLindgren-EuropischeTeckimMittelalter.800bis1400281.jpg[/attachment]
There may be more such illustrations in this database, although I have not checked it.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Quote:Furthermore, we cannot rule out that medieval torsion catapults were not a reinvention, but a direct continuation of the ancient artillery. Isn't it strange that torsion artillery was invented twice in the Occident, whereas it remained unknown everywhere else?
I have always assumed (though, as a Roman researcher, I prefer to take Ammianus Marcellinus as my end point) that the one-armed onager continued in use into medieval times, rather than having been reinvented. (However, medieval two-armed catapults -- the so-called springals or springalds -- seem to have been a poor reflection of the Roman machines, and may reflect a loss of technical knowledge.)
Except the Cheiroballistra was a handheld torsion catapult, and not an actual crossbow. It would be more comparable to the Arcuballista of the 3rd-6th centurires.
The espringal was a Roman ballista in reverse. It had a large square frame with the skeins on the ouside with two bow arms projecting inwards towards the bed of the machine and the bolt channel. An 11th century Byzantine diagram of this machine is in existence.
Well, we also know that some Roman Scorpions had an inswinger design too. Look at the Firefly, can fire across the Danube like Ammianus records, and its an inswinger.
I think there was also evidence of an iron-frame inswinger at one of the Danube forts.
There is a strong belief about bolt projecting torsion artillery survived into middle ages however in case of stone projecting artillery it is highly suspicious. I think there is a base for this, since much cheap, robust and easy to use petrary dominated medieval siege fields. Thus there were no need to keep torsion stone throwing onager.
Still, there are some debate around the word mangonel which counted as a torsion weapon by some scholars and yet some others thinks that it was another word for perrier. Also, there is some kind of weapons pictured by futuristic chroniclers thus causing even more confusion. (right side) OP's torsion catapult is strikingly similar to a book introduced to Edward III of England in 1326. (in the middle) Maybe this is another standard artillery piece of middle ages?
Quote:Also, there is some kind of weapons pictured by futuristic chroniclers thus causing even more confusion. (right side) OP's torsion catapult is strikingly similar to a book introduced to Edward III of England in 1326. (in the middle)
From which manuscript are these drawings? I think it is wise to take a look first at the original.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Quote:I have always wondered why historians of technology so neatly divide between classical and medieval war machines.
The problem is that between Amianus and the late 12th century we have only literary sources for artillery in Latin Christendom, and the authors of those sources tried hard to imitate ancient descriptions of artillery. The sources from the neighbouring cultures are not much better. Filling this gap is very difficult. See See DeVries' Medieval Military Technology or W.S. Tarver “The Traction Trebuchet” Technology and Culture 36.1 (1995) for an introduction with references.
This is definitely an area where people who understand different cultures, periods, and languages can work together, but it is very hard..
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.
@Elastic Guest, Those images are from Walter De Milemete’s De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis, et Prudentiis Regum(Christ Church Library, MS 92) prepared a gift for child King Edward III in 1326.
In practical point, the catapult in the De Nobilitatibus is designed poorly since there is nothing to stop shrinking effect of torsion coil over horizontal beams. So the machine will collapse under pressure of torsion spring. While the machine in your post is better designed with a rod between horizontal beams and it is likely operate.
@Magister Militum Flavius Aetius, according to widely accepted view, the word mangonel is derived from Greek word, manganon, literally means engine of war. This word transformed to manjaniq in Arabic.
In case of connection with Sassanids, I have never met any certain information. On the other hand, there is another view about mangonel that it was a kind of traction catapult and some researchers argued that Avars brought those to west from far east. Thus, it is probable that during Avar-Sasanian wars technological exchange could be happened.
For supporting that view, in Islamic literature during siege of Taif in 630, Muslims used a manjaniq build by Selman-i Farisi, meaning, Selman from Persia. The Sassanian role in case of mangonel is mere a distributor rather than inventor, it seems.
