The Gastraphetes

[Et tu brute]

I've seen and heard little of this weapon, but it seems to be a sort of mobile ballista maybe similar to the manuballista? I've heard it had to be rested against the stomach when fring giving it the name the "belly-bow", is this true, just some general info would be great.

Thanks

[Robert Vermaat]

Gastraphetes.

[Et tu brute]

Thanks, do you know when it was phased out or disapeared from use?

[Robert Vermaat]

No, that detailed info does not exist. I suppose that machines like these were used until the rise of gunpowder?

[Et tu brute]

It seems that it would be pretty un-wieldable on a battle field, was it used specifically in siege defence or similar when it could be rested on the parapets?

[D B Campbell]

It seems that it would be pretty un-wieldable on a battle field, was it used specifically in siege defence or similar when it could be rested on the parapets?

I think so. See the background figure (below).

Greek and Roman Artillery 399BC-AD363[/i] p.4)":2tjxmxpv]With the bow at full draw, the weapon could be lifted into the shooting position. This must usually have involved propping it on a wall, given the weight and bulk of the machine; otherwise, the archer would have required a portable prop, similar to those used by musketeers in the 17th century.

[Et tu brute]

That makes sense, thanks, do you know how widely the Gastraphetes was used?

[D B Campbell]

'fraid not. It's never specifically mentioned by historical writers.

imho It would've been supplanted by the new design of cheiroballistra/manuballista (ca. AD 100).

[Et tu brute]

Ok, thanks for all the help guys

[Paullus]

What information I've found states that the gastraphetes ("belly-bow") was invented circa 400 BC in Syracuse. It had an estimated standard draw weight ranging from 150 to 200 pounds. It was also largely confined to sieges due to its wieght and slow rate of fire.

The gastraphetes, or at least a crude version of it, shows up in "King Arthur" as the Saxon "armor piercing crossbow". Can see it qutie well in the final battle and during the battle on the frozen lake.

[Et tu brute]

Ah yes, I remember, is it known whether the real thing was armour piercing, from the draw poundage it seems it would have done some serious damage if not penertrated.

[Quadratus]

Ah yes, I remember, is it known whether the real thing was armour piercing, from the draw poundage it seems it would have done some serious damage if not penertrated.

It does quite a lot of damage trying to span it as well. I acquired a painful umbilical hernia from trying out a 200 lb draw weight reconstruction!

[Et tu brute]

hock: Very painful!

[D B Campbell]

... especially if (like Schramm's reconstruction, pictured here) the bow is made of steel!

[Eleatic Guest]

Now I have a question specifically to you, Duncan. You wrote in your book that there are some earlier references to crossbows than Dionysios' famous work shop of 399 BC. IIRC you mentioned a certain Zenon who invented a siege crossbow in the later half of the 5th century.

If this is correct, then why is the 399 BC date so persistently repeated as the date of the first introduction of the crossbow? Moreover, if Zenon had constructed SIEGE crossbows, I would assume that hand-held crossbows like the Gastraphetes must have appeared even earlier, since in my understanding the miniature forms evolves first (it happened also with gunpowder weapons where handguns preceded large cannons).

Regards