Trebuchet and Romans

[Koyuncu]

Hi all,

While reading Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States, I found out an interesting idea that Romans may independently invent traction trebuchet. What is your opinion about it?

Here the related part;

Beyond what may be dubbed the current consensus of an introduction around 580, there also seems to be hard evidence of the existence of the trebuchet even before this. Joshua the Stylite described a huge engine used by the Amidenes (*Amida 502f) to lob vast stones, crushing the protective padding the Persians had placed over their siege mound and in the process killing the engineers working on it. It was, fittingly enough, named “the Crusher.” The practice of naming large individual trebuchets became common later; many great trebuchets received poetic names due to their immense power. The custom can be dated to *Theodosiopolis in 421/2, where Theodoret describes a huge stone-thrower, named after the apostle Thomas, used against the Persians. Too little is recorded of its effects and use to be certain, but taken with the evidence from Epiphanius, this may be the first recorded instance of such a weapon.

There appear to be no clear descriptions of trebuchets in either Procopius or Agathias, while Menander, of course, is very fragmentary. Procopius, who participated at *Rome (537f), provides the standard description of artillery which is still familiar from the ancient arsenal.40 However, a rocky outcrop that caused concern for the defenders at *Antioch in 540 had not been noticed by the original builders, nor dealt with during later repairs. This was a strange oversight in light of the great Persian threat, who could apparently threaten the walls from this point. It has been suggested that some sort of new machinery was causing this concern.41 Indeed, Procopius does refer to an interesting incident where the Persian defenders of *Petra (550) built an additional wooden tower onto one of the bastions, whence they threw large stones at approaching rams. This “wooden tower” might actually have been the frame of a trestle trebuchet, protecting pulling crews from enemy fire. Procopius was by then finished with his military career, and seems not to have been aware of the trebuchet or its mechanics, so he would simply have misunderstood what was actually going on. In fact, the Strategikon advises that when siege towers approached the walls, counter-towers should be built on the facing walls without roofs, so that the defenders had enough room to operate their mangana. Here the lever mechanism is not attached to the trestle frame or tower, presumably so that both can be manipulated and moved separately according to need.42 This seems to fit the description of Procopius. Agathias as well had difficulties with certain technical innovations, but he knew his Procopius well. It is therefore very interesting that he described the Roman besiegers as setting up τὰ τῶν μεγάλων λίθων ἀκοντιστήρια καὶ ἄλλα ἄττα τοιάδε ὄργανα, “the hurlers of the great stones and certain other such machines” at *Onoguris (555).43 Now Procopius knew first hand the traditional arsenal of ballistrai and onagers, which he had seen in use at Rome, and for which he would have been responsible for procuring supplies, at least on some occasions. Although he did not describe them too well, they were familiar and regular components in most sixth-century sieges, as we have seen (chapter 5.2.2). Agathias would also have known as much. However, it is clear that Agathias was here facing something unfamiliar for which there was no word, since ἀκοντιστήριον is a hapax that only occurs here (and in a dictionary entry in the Suda, which only quotes Agathias). Thus, rather than finding a classicizing Ersatz term for it, like Theophylact did, he tried to be creative (although recall that he also referred to a helepolis at the *Chersonese 559, cf. 8.2.1 above). The name unfortunately does not give us much to go by; it simply means a “thrower” or “hurler,” derived from the verb to throw (ἀκοντίζω), which was mostly used about javelins (sg. ἀκόντιον). However, since it was used for “great stones” it is clear that we are not dealing with a giant ballista, and the expression “other such machines” hints at artillery of varying types and sizes. Furthermore, we have an instance at *Thessalonica (615) with petroboloi “hurling stones” (ἀκοντίζοντες λίθους), i.e. a quite similar context and meaning.44 Finally, Agathias provides some evidence from Narses’ invasion of Italy in 552-53 that indicates a more aggressive mode of siege warfare with more widespread use of artillery to capture cities, such as *Cumae and *Lucca.

Thus, on the basis of fairly hard evidence of unknown machinery in Joshua the Stylite and Agathias, as well as good indications of its construction in Procopius (especially when read against Strategikon), it is likely that the traction trebuchet had become known in the eastern Mediterranean area at the latest by around 500. The philological and (admittedly circumstantial) historical evidence may even support a date around 400. If the theory of diffusion from China is to be upheld, there are two possible routes via Central Asia. One is that the Huns or another nomadic group brought it with them well before the Avars, although this is problematic for reasons of logistics, organization, and lack of evidence. The other route is through the Persian Empire, which certainly did have the necessary infrastructure under the Sassanids, and engaged in warfare with sedentary Central Asian polities that were also in contact with China. However, there is no trace of this engine in any of the research conducted thus far on the wars of the 4th-early 6th centuries. Therefore we cannot rule out independent innovation. The basic mechanical principle of lever force was long known to the Greeks and Romans and apparently applied to military engines in the 1st century and used directly for military purposes in the late 4th. The early instances may have been experimental innovations spurred by particular threats, so had not become widespread by the time Justinian’s war of reconquest began in the 530s, but intense border warfare in the East from 540 and the regular involvement of civilian craftsmen and engineers in local defense provide a very plausible context for rapid diffusion.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think it's more likely that they just built a really big onager. But nevertheless, very interesting post!

IIRC there's some thought that in Jordanes that some of the "machines" Attila brought to bear against Aquileia were Traction Trebuchets but there's a lot of variables to account for when translating that passage.

[Koyuncu]

Interesting indeed. I can't locate now but I remember reading about "The Crusher" and it was interpreted as a large crane used to release huge boulders over Persian siege works. Also, that "wooden tower" could actually be the base of crane too. Such vague descriptions are prone to different interpretations thus we need some special aid here.

[Robert]

Looking at the mechanics of both the onager and the trebuchet, the later is far more fitting to lob large stones then the former. The trebuchet's immense power is based on two principles, one being the use of gravity to propel the heavy counterweight, the other the long arm and sling, providing a very effective lever mechanism, which generates far greater power then a torsion wound siege engine ever can. It is plain, simple physics.

[Koyuncu]

It looks simple and plain but it is not Robert. During early ages trebuchets were powered by a crew of pullers. Team hauls the opposite site of throwing arm thus causing sling fling and cast missile. Such machines are used to create a covering fire for attacking side, preventing defenders rising their heads. Much powerful type, counter weight trebuchets that capable of crushing defenses and siege works were invented somewhere around 12th century.

Another point is the word used for traction trebuchet, manganon, also used to for construction devices consist of levers and pulleys which could be interpreted as a crane as I mentioned earlier.

[Robert]

Ah, OK, well, I have fired those in France. Good fun, too! And it lobs a hefty stone a good distance, even with only about 6 guys manning it. From my observation, to hurl a stone requires explosive power, so pulleys are more or less out. A crane would have to have a very long boom to drop a rock on any defensive position (the construction of such a thing near the enemy positions looks like suicide), so I like your idea of the early use of the traction trebuchet. I wonder if you could calculate the amount of force 20 or so pullers could exert on the boom. Also, we need to look into the advantage gained using one. I can think of the firing rate being a good bit higher, as there is no need to crank the machine to a working torsion.

[Koyuncu]

Yes, you are absolutely right about quick firing specialty of traction trebuchet. Even with inexperienced team of pullers it is possible to cast 4 shots in a minute. Thus, such high rate of fire was quite beneficial for attackers since defenders could not raise their heads under barrage of missiles.

Above examples differs from this type of trebuchets by the power factor. First trebuchets were not capable of casting huge missiles that crushes siege works. This make me to think that forementioned examples are rather large cranes used to release boulders over nearby enemy siege engines.

Here another passage from same book examining the case from philological aspect;

The word manganon (μάγγανον) is fundamental to understanding the diffusion of the traction trebuchet. In classical Greek denoting “magic” or a “trick,” this semantic meaning passed to the derivations manganeia (μαγγανεία), which is frequently used in ecclesiastical writers to denote the trickery or wiles of the devil, and manganeuō (μαγγανεύω, verb) or manganeuma (μαγγάνευμα, noun), which is often used for more simple trickery or quackery. The term manganon however became applied to lever-machines that were able to shift very large weights (thus appearing “magical” or at least clever) and used for several purposes. In the 1st century, Heron of Alexandria used the term as an element in a pulley system to operate other types of engines,17 but it was also associated with construction (since it was used of technology employed to operate cranes) and the mechanical opening of doors. A 5th-century hagiography records the use of such lever-machines (mangana) to tear the flesh of St. Euphemia with the aid of four stones as counterweights. As early as the 4th century, mangana were associated with warfare: Epiphanius, a late 4th-century ecclesiastical historian, elaborates on how Joshua captured Jericho when “there were neither engines nor mangana, no rams, no helepoleis, but [nonetheless] the sound of the horn trumpet alone” brought down the walls. He also used the word in adjectival form, manganika: thus μαγγανικαῖς μηχανίαις, but here with its meaning of magic tricks.20 In the late 6th century Strategikon, there were still two uses of manganon: one for the war machine (alternating with petrobolos; cf. 8.2.3), and one for a counterweight-operated construction engine that had been adopted for wall defense by dropping heavy objects (stones, sharpened logsand the like) which were then pulled up again with the counterweight.

After c. 600, the adjectival form (neuter plural) manganika became common for the traction trebuchet. Originally, this would have been used with a word such as mekhanemata or organa, but in most instances it occurs alone. It appears thus in a number of sources, beginning with Miracula sancti Demetrii on the siege of *Thessalonica (618) and Chronicon Paschale on *Constantinople (626), where the description of the engines in use leaves no room for doubt.22 Based on these descriptions and alternation with other terms whose meaning is secured (see 8.2.3 below), it is clearly a stone-throwing machine operated by lever power and not used in any other sense in this period.

[Robert]

Ah right! BUT .... that crane would have to be VERY close to the defence to be able to drop a rock on it ... Wood burns and firearrows were well known. Interestingly, this last portion of tekst deals with the use of counterweights, which is what powers a later trebuchet.

[Koyuncu]

To counter the fire weapons of defenders, such machines were covered by skins of freshly slain cow or sheep. To tear this protective cover, sharpened beams were released from above and in this case they are pulled back with counterweights in order to use again and again.Other method was to drop a huge rock to crush entire structure with it's crew inside. Here a medieval manuscript image clearly pictures such operation. (Except there is no winch to pull back thrown objects)

[Koyuncu]

In my humble opinion, such a resemblance cannot be explained with independent invention. There is indeed a connection but we need more evidence for support.