Medieval Torsion Catapults

[Flavivs Aetivs]

They defeated the Sarmatians, not the Goths. It's Constantine Porphyrogenitos "On the History of the City of Cherson." I can email you the paper if you'd like.

[ValentinianVictrix]

They defeated the Sarmatians, not the Goths. It's Constantine Porphyrogenitos "On the History of the City of Cherson." I can email you the paper if you'd like.

Already got it Evan and on rereading it I have discovered that if you read 53 some more you will discover that Constantine ordered the new Bosporan rulers to deal with a 'Scythian' incursion, Scythian was a term used by the Late Romans when talking about the Goths.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Ah, well I have a translation that says "Sauromatian"

[ValentinianVictrix]

I'm not convinced the Sarmatians would have been that far east from Diocletian onwards. The Alans and Grethungi Goths pushed the Sarmatians westwards, hence Constantius II, and later Valentinian I, fought them north of the Danube.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Alans were Sauromatians, were they not? It could mean Alan.

[Thomas V.]

Ziyâr appears to have meant 'tourniquet' rather than net, it is used in an Arab-derived Portuguese form as aziar (az-ziyâr). This would seem to imply the twisting of strands, or torsion.

"Tourniquet" is a derivative of the French verb "tourner". "Tourner" means "to turn" and also "to rotate". Maybe the (az-)ziyâr got its name from the windlass:?. This interpretation interferes neither with a counterweight trebuchet nor with bending composite bow limbs.


EDIT

The Arabic term for windlass seems to be laulab (cf. [hide]http://www.ibttm.org/ENG/museum/collection/5-3.pdf[/hide], p.94).

Qaus bi-l-laulab was the term for the windlas crossbow, whereas the large (multi-bow) crossbow was called qaus az-ziyâr (cf. [hide]http://www.ibttm.org/ENG/museum/collection/5-3.pdf[/hide], p. 94f.).

So my theory, that (az-)ziyâr stems from the windlass, apparently is wrong.

[Koyuncu]

There is also some other terms for large crossbows as charkh and zamburak, both Persian I think but there is no clear definition about them.

In the translation(here) of Tarsusi's book by Cahen, Ziyâr is translated as "net". Now, I think is actually something different. Apparently, the trebuchet qarabughra is a specific type of trebuchet as it is pointed out in both Hindi's and Sezgin's studies that shoots other missiles yet after some modification it becomes ziyâr, that shoots huge bolts. Also, great crossbows are called ziyâr too. So ziyâr could be specific name for bolt, arrow shooting machines of all sorts.

In the book, The Medieval Siege by Jim Bradbury, points out other side of Mediterranean and speculates about King James of Aragon's artillery;

Jacques de Vitry in 1143 described a variety of throwing-engines as bein cum cornu, with horns, which is certainly suggestive of the double arms required for torsion machines. It is possible that the 'fonevols' used by James I of Aragon, were torsion engines. I have not been able to discover the derivation of this unusual word, but the two main possibilities are either from the Latin funis, meaning sinew or cord, which certainly brings to mind the idea of torsion; or from the word funda meaning sling. Either, or indeed both are possible the word like many others may have come to simply mean an engine. However, the survival of a charter of Count Raymond of Toulouse of 1190 mentioning a frondevola probably tips the balance in favour of a derivation from funda, French fronde

I also found and article by Peter Purton, The myth of the mangonel: torsion artillery in the Middle Ages, but I can't access it.

[Koyuncu]

Sorry for bumping this but I recently found some information about Ziyar, could anyone translate or sum it up what really means?

Code:

Description du conduit (majrât)

Prends un conduit caché proportionné à l'arc et dont la longueur soit de deux fois celle de la flèche :
qu'il soit à l'endroit où arrive la corde (watar) lorsqu'est fermé (?) le verrou dans lequel elle est placée :  
verrou travaillé en fer et en cuivre et qui doit être proportionné à la plus ou moins grande raille de l'arc ;

il est percé au millieu de sa largeur d'un trou où est introduit un clou fixé aux deux côtés de la fente faite
dans le conduit ; enfin que le crochet puisse jouer dans l'espace du conduit en montant et en descendant :
lorsqu'on la retire, le verrou est laissé descendre, et la corde (Watar) est relâchée, la fléche envoyée, et elle
sort en proportion de la tension de le corde.

Qu'on mette au verrou sa clé, qui doit être dressée [et it est dit dans (mot incompris)?] qu'elle doit avoir une
longueur de cinq coudées ou plus :  tout ce qui l'allonge facilite son retrait [du verrou?] car il revient comme
la bascule, et it devient plus aisé de donner la traction qui le retire du crochet et s'il tarde à côte, un miqât(7)
avec lequel on tire en cas de besoin pour relâcher la fléche.  Que ve verrou soit percé dans le sens de la largeur,
et qu'on y place un poinçon de fer fixé dans le conduit.

La fléche doit être proportionnée à l'arc et à sa grosseur. Il en est qui sont longues d'une coundée ,
avec l'épaisseur d'une lance, et dont le fer pèse jusqu'à un ratl d'Egypte,  on plus, ou moins selon l'arc.
La fléche est placée dans le conduit en un lieu ménagé pour elle en face dela corde (watar). Voici le dessin de
cet arc : (fig. 1)

Et si tu désires placer sur la traverse médiane trois arcs de la méme manière, ménage en face de chacun d'eux une
ouverture pour la sortie de la fléche, selon ce modéle : (fig. 2)

La corde (watar) de l'arc es tendue avec un tour, maneuvré par un seul homme, tour dont voici le description.

I think text is about stock of Ziyar but any further information about lock and stock would be greatly appreciated.

[D B Campbell]

Sorry for bumping this but I recently found some information about Ziyar, could anyone translate or sum it up what really means?

This is from Claude Cahen's 1948 article, which I referred to previously.

Cahen notes (p. 151 n.9) that the description is difficult to interpret in detail, but claims that the machine is clearly a stand-mounted crossbow. The text appears to refer to illustrations in the Bodleian manuscript: MS Hunt 264, if anyone happens to have access?

[Timus]

The text sounds really odd in French, it's translated from something (Arabic I guess ?) and there are quite a few typos, spelling mistakes, words out of context, etc. But I'm gonna give it a try. Bottom line it seems to describe a canon-like engine that uses tension instead of gunpowder (and dart instead of cannonballs). It gives quite some details about the "trigger mechanism" = the verrou(lock) and the clef (key).

Code:

Description du conduit (majrât)

Description of the cylinder

Code:

Prends un conduit caché proportionné à l'arc et dont la longueur soit de deux fois celle de la flèche :
qu'il soit à l'endroit où arrive la corde (watar) lorsqu'est fermé (?) le verrou dans lequel elle est placée :  
verrou travaillé en fer et en cuivre et qui doit être proportionné à la plus ou moins grande raille de l'arc ;

Take a (hollow ?) cylinder, proportionate to the size of the arc, and twice the length of the arrow.
When the cord is locked all the way back, there should be a lock there to catch the cord. That lock should be made of iron and copper, and should be proportionate to the size of the arc.

Code:

il est percé au millieu de sa largeur d'un trou où est introduit un clou fixé aux deux côtés de la fente faite
dans le conduit ; enfin que le crochet puisse jouer dans l'espace du conduit en montant et en descendant :
lorsqu'on la retire, le verrou est laissé descendre, et la corde (Watar) est relâchée, la fléche envoyée, et elle
sort en proportion de la tension de le corde.

It (I can't tell if it's the lock or cylinder) should be pierced halfway crosswise, and a nail should be introduced through that hole, That nail should be attached on both side of the slit made into the cylinder. The hook should be able to go up or down through the cylinder. When it (not sure what) is taken away, the cord is released and that sends the arrow downrange in proportion to the tension of the cord.

Code:

Qu'on mette au verrou sa clé, qui doit être dressée [et it est dit dans (mot incompris)?] qu'elle doit avoir une
longueur de cinq coudées ou plus :  tout ce qui l'allonge facilite son retrait [du verrou?] car il revient comme
la bascule, et it devient plus aisé de donner la traction qui le retire du crochet et s'il tarde à côte, un miqât(7)
avec lequel on tire en cas de besoin pour relâcher la fléche.  Que ve verrou soit percé dans le sens de la largeur,
et qu'on y place un poinçon de fer fixé dans le conduit.

The lock should have its key, it should be vertical(= dressée ?), it should be five "coudées" long. The longer, the easier it is to withdraw the lock from the hook. You should keep a "miqât"(not a french word) close by, so that in case of a malfunction, you can still pull with it to release the arrow.
The lock should be pierced halfway crosswise, and there should be a nail (poinçon) place through it into the cylinder.

Code:

La fléche doit être proportionnée à l'arc et à sa grosseur. Il en est qui sont longues d'une coundée ,
avec l'épaisseur d'une lance, et dont le fer pèse jusqu'à un ratl d'Egypte,  on plus, ou moins selon l'arc.
La fléche est placée dans le conduit en un lieu ménagé pour elle en face dela corde (watar). Voici le dessin de
cet arc : (fig. 1)

The arrow should be proportionate to the arc and its size. There are some that are one "coudée" long, with the thickness of a spear, and whose iron part weighs as much as one "ratl of Egypt", more or less depending on the arc. The arrow is placed into the cylinder in front of the cord.

Code:

Et si tu désires placer sur la traverse médiane trois arcs de la méme manière, ménage en face de chacun d'eux une
ouverture pour la sortie de la fléche, selon ce modéle : (fig. 2)

If you desire to place on the median transverse (=traverse médiane ?) three arcs in the same fashion, you should allow for an opening for each to let the arrow go through (duh Cpt. Obvious)

Code:

La corde (watar) de l'arc es tendue avec un tour, maneuvré par un seul homme, tour dont voici le description.

The cord is tightened with "something circular" (tour seems out of context, but it seems like some sort of a wheel), operated by a single man.


That's the best I can do. It sure is hard for me to describe those kind of things in English. If you could get your hands on a better french version, it might be possible to improve the translation.

Have a good one.

[D B Campbell]

The text sounds really odd in French, it's translated from something (Arabic I guess ?)

Thanks for your efforts, Tim. As I said above, it's Claude Cahen's 1948 translation of the twelfth-century al-Tarsusi text in the Bodleian MS Hunt 264.

Bottom line it seems to describe a canon-like engine that uses tension instead of gunpowder (and dart instead of cannonballs).

In other words, a stand-mounted crossbow! :whistle:

Take a (hollow ?) cylinder, proportionate to the size of the arc, and twice the length of the arrow. When the cord is locked all the way back, there should be a lock there to catch the cord. That lock should be made of iron and copper, and should be proportionate to the size of the arc.

The hollow cylinder is the stock of the crossbow, which has a similar name in the Greek and Roman treatises. Hollow, because there's a groove for the arrow to lie along. The "arc" is, of course, the bow, and the "cord" is the bowstring.

It (I can't tell if it's the lock or cylinder) should be pierced halfway crosswise, and a nail should be introduced through that hole, That nail should be attached on both side of the slit made into the cylinder. The hook should be able to go up or down through the cylinder. When it (not sure what) is taken away, the cord is released and that sends the arrow downrange in proportion to the tension of the cord.

Visualise how the Greek/Roman arrow-shooting mechanism works, and you can see what's going on here. It's the component called the "claw" or the "hand", which grips the bowstring until it's time to release the arrow.

The arrow should be proportionate to the arc and its size. There are some that are one "coudée" long, with the thickness of a spear, and whose iron part weighs as much as one "ratl of Egypt", more or less depending on the arc. The arrow is placed into the cylinder in front of the cord.

Again, imagine the Greek/Roman arrow-shooter. The arrow is always proportionate to the power of the bow (in a non-torsion device) or the torsion-frame (in a torsion device). The "coudée" is a cubit, which is half a yard or one-and-a-half feet.

If you desire to place on the median transverse (=traverse médiane ?) three arcs in the same fashion, you should allow for an opening for each to let the arrow go through. The cord is tightened with "something circular" (tour seems out of context, but it seems like some sort of a wheel), operated by a single man.

The author now envisages a triple-crossbow, mounted on the same stand and spanned or drawn by a winch, presumably so that all three are primed simultaneously.

[Koyuncu]

Thank you so much for your effort Tim and welcome to RAT! :-) Now things are much easy to understand. Yet, I must say I am disappointed to learn that Tarsusi was describing an ancient Greek trigger. Just like below;



In your crystal clear translation it is obvious since there are few points clearly specifies this type of lock. First, the hook mentioned here is actually the "claw" as already pointed by Dr. Campbell, fixed by a nail crosswise when compared to stock of crossbow. Other vertical five "cubit" long part is "hand" part of lock. The longer the hand the easier to release claw as already pointed by Tarsusi. Last words are about compound pulley system that used to draw the huge bow with 1800 kg draw weight which is operated by one man. (Last image, below leftside)

Well, now I think it is not that surprising since there are some other crossbow drawings of Tarsusi which depicts that kind of lock. Here Tarsusi puts a hidden crossbow with a "claw" and "hand" trigger in a shield.



@Dr. Campbell, thanks for your interpretation. Those really helped me to get the picture. The image mentioned in the text is not helpful since only shows the front view of machine but I will share it here too.

[Koyuncu]

Evidently the modern author infers a draw weight of 1.500 kg by assuming 75 kg per person. This is highly interesting. Do we have data on the draw power of ancient catapults/ballistae, either derived from ancient sources or won through experimental archaeology?

PS: Seems like one Liebel in Springalds and Great Crossbows (Royal Armouries Monograph, 1998) did some calculations. He arrives at 800 pounds for a cheiroballistra and nearly 4.000 pounds draw power for a springald.

I am curious about that too. In ancient machines cocking mechanisms were usually linear ratchet or ratcheted wheels. Peter Purton, in his book, Late Medieval Siege, claims that screw drawing mechanism of medieval springalds enabled engineers to build more powerful machines compared to ancient torsion weapons. In this point I can't see why ancient mechanisms were not enough to handle late medieval springalds. Also, casting the screw bar would demand great craftsmanship and good sum of money thus much simpler ratchet design could be more preferable. Could this change only depend on power of machine? If that so, could we conclude that medieval weapons were much powerful than ancient counterparts? I am doubtful about this since ancient weapons could launch much heavier missiles thus requiring more power.

Also, How did you get the 4000 kg value? I failed to find it over net.

[Koyuncu]

I just found another drawing of torsion weapon, either a design or an existing weapons in an German manuscript dated between 1420-1440.