The Gastraphetes

[Eleatic Guest]

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

AFAIK, steel crossbows only appeared in the 14th century in Europe and remained unknown to Arabs and Chinese.

[D B Campbell]

why is the 399 BC date so persistently repeated as the date of the first introduction of the crossbow?

Because Diodorus Siculus says so.
I have suggested that he was mistaken, and that 399 BC represented the first appearance of the "catapult" (i.e. the gastraphetes) at Syracuse.

I would assume that hand-held crossbows like the Gastraphetes must have appeared even earlier

Me, too. I believe that the "advanced" bow-machines attributed to Zopyrus of Tarentum probably date from the later 5thC BC, which gives us a (tentative) terminus ante quem for the development of the hand-held version.

AFAIK, steel crossbows only appeared in the 14th century in Europe

Schramm evidently did not know this!

[Eleatic Guest]

Me, too. I believe that the "advanced" bow-machines attributed to Zopyrus of Tarentum probably date from the later 5thC BC, which gives us a (tentative) terminus ante quem for the development of the hand-held version.

Which ancient author attributed them to Zopyrus? Could you provide your sources, I'd like to include them at Wikipedia. :wink:

[D B Campbell]

Could you provide your sources

• * "Invention" of katapeltikon, 399 BC: Diod. Sic. 14.42.1.
  * Use of katapeltai oxybelesi at Motya, 397 BC: Diod. Sic. 14.50.4.
  * Gastraphetes designed by Zopyrus of Tarentum at Miletus: Biton 61.12-65.1.
  * The one designed by Zopyrus of Tarentum at Cumae: Biton 65.1-67.4.

[size=92:39t3kzy4](Osprey didn't want sources cited in Greek and Roman Siege Machinery and Greek and Roman Artillery (2003), but I started sneaking them into the siege warfare books.)[/size]

[aitor iriarte]

Duncan,
Which source makes you think that Zopyrus machines belong to the Vth century BC?
I shall be extremely interested on knowing about that. I tend to overlook non-torsion artillery more than it deserves...

Aitor

[D B Campbell]

Duncan, Which source makes you think that Zopyrus machines belong to the Vth century BC?

Pure speculation, Aitor!

Greek and Roman Artillery[/i], p.5)":1eknjrsb]Biton describes two machines designed by Zopyrus, one at Cumae, perhaps in connection with the Sabellian conquest of 421 BC, and the other at Miletus, probably prior to the Persian annexation of the town in 401 BC.

I'm hoping to work up a full argument (if I ever get time), but these are the bare bones. Basically, we have a rough chronology for Zopyrus and the Pythagorean school at Tarentum. The trick is finding likely occasions on which the people of Cumae and Miletus might have made use of a catapult (probably a novel and expensive item). I'm open to any other suggestions.

[Eleatic Guest]

Thanks D B.

I'm open to any other suggestions.

Perhaps some starting points:

Zopyrus of Tarentum is mentioned twice, in a treatise on siege-engines by Biton (3rd or 2nd century BC), as the inventor of an advanced form of the type of artillery known as the belly-bow (Marsden 1971, 74-77). Zopyrus' bow used a winch to pull back the string and hence could shoot a six-foot wooden missile 4.5 inches thick (Marsden 1969, 14). It is not implausible to suppose that this is the same Zopyrus as is listed in Iamblichus' catalogue of Pythagoreans under Tarentum (Diels 1965, 23), although Biton does not call him a Pythagorean. The traditional dating for Zopyrus puts him in the first half of the fourth century (Marsden 1971, 98, n. 52), but Kingsley has convincingly argued that he was in fact active in the last quarter of the fifth century, when he designed artillery for Cumae and Miletus (1995, 150 ff.). In a famous passage, Diodorus reports that in 399 BC Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse, gathered together skilled craftsmen from Italy, Greece and Carthage in order to construct artillery for his war with the Carthaginians (XIV 41.3). It seems not unlikely that Zopyrus was one of those who came from Italy. There is no reason to suppose, however, as Kingsley (1995, 146) and others do, that Zopyrus' interest in mechanics was connected to his Pythagoreanism or that there was a specifically Pythagorean school of mechanics in Tarentum (Huffman 2005, 14-17).

It is controversial whether this Zopyrus of Tarentum is the same as Zopyrus of Heraclea, who is not called a Pythagorean in the sources, but who is reported in late sources to have written three Orphic poems, The Net, The Robe and The Krater, which probably dealt with the structure of human beings and the earth (West 1983, 10 ff.). This Zopyrus could be from the Heraclea closely connected to Tarentum, but he might also be from the Heraclea on the Black Sea. A late source connects Zopyrus of Heraclea with Pisistratus in the 6th century (West 1983, 249), which would mean that he could not be the same as Zopyrus of Tarentum in the late 5th century. On the other hand, Orphic writings are assigned to a number of other Pythagoreans, and it is not impossible that the same person had interests both in Orphic mysticism and mechanics. Kingsley supposes that the myth at the end of Plato's Phaedo is based in minute detail on Zopyrus' Krater or an intermediary reworking of it (1995, 79-171), and tries to connect specific features of the myth to Zopyrus' interest in mechanics (1995, 147-148), but the parallel which he detects between the oscillation of the rivers in the mythic account of the underworld and the balance of opposing forces used in a bow is too general to be compelling. The connection between Zopyrus and the Phaedo is highly conjectural and must remain so, as long as there are no fragments of the Krater, with which to compare the Phaedo.

SOURCE: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/

PS: Zopyrus' Mountain Gastrophetes: http://www.frapanthers.com/teachers/whi ... allery.htm

[aitor iriarte]

I see; thanks Duncan and Stefan!

Aitor

[Eleatic Guest]

• * "Invention" of katapeltikon, 399 BC: Diod. Sic. 14.42.1.
  * Use of katapeltai oxybelesi at Motya, 397 BC: Diod. Sic. 14.50.4.

IIRC, wasn't there at least one more ancient author recording the 'invention'?

[D B Campbell]

Zopyrus of Tarentum is mentioned twice, in a treatise on siege-engines by Biton (3rd or 2nd century BC), as the inventor of an advanced form of the type of artillery known as the belly-bow (Marsden 1971, 74-77). Zopyrus' bow used a winch to pull back the string and hence could shoot a six-foot wooden missile 4.5 inches thick (Marsden 1969, 14).

These are the Biton refs that I gave you, Stefan. (Marsden 1971 has the Greek text.)

It is not implausible to suppose that this is the same Zopyrus as is listed in Iamblichus' catalogue of Pythagoreans under Tarentum (Diels 1965, 23), although Biton does not call him a Pythagorean. The traditional dating for Zopyrus puts him in the first half of the fourth century (Marsden 1971, 98, n. 52), but Kingsley has convincingly argued that he was in fact active in the last quarter of the fifth century, when he designed artillery for Cumae and Miletus (1995, 150 ff.).

This is exactly what I would argue, too.

In a famous passage, Diodorus reports that in 399 BC Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse, gathered together skilled craftsmen from Italy, Greece and Carthage in order to construct artillery for his war with the Carthaginians (XIV 41.3). It seems not unlikely that Zopyrus was one of those who came from Italy. There is no reason to suppose, however, as Kingsley (1995, 146) and others do, that Zopyrus' interest in mechanics was connected to his Pythagoreanism or that there was a specifically Pythagorean school of mechanics in Tarentum (Huffman 2005, 14-17).

Why not? The Pythagorean Archytas of Tarentum was known as the father of mechanics, for goodness sake!
(I've got Huffman 2005 on order. Summertime reading ...)

PS: Zopyrus' Mountain Gastrophetes: http://www.frapanthers.com/teachers/whi ... allery.htm

These plans are just lifted from Marsden. In the Greek and Roman Artillery Osprey, I've tried to look at Biton's text afresh and offer a new(ish) interpretation.

IIRC, wasn't there at least one more ancient author recording the 'invention'?

Nope. Unless you mean Pliny's spurious list of peoples and their inventions: "... the Cretans invented the catapult, the Syrophoenicians invented the ballista, ..." :roll:

[Eleatic Guest]

This is exactly what I would argue, too.

I wanted bring the Kingsley source to your attention.

Btw is the dating of Biton fixed to the 3rd or 2nd century BC? (I read the only hint he gave away on the time of his writing is his dedication to one Attalos, king of Pergamum.) Perhaps if we could establish an early, 3rd century BC date for Biton, nearer to the events he describes, this would also enhance the credibility of his source. Just a thought.

[D B Campbell]

I wanted bring the Kingsley source to your attention.

Thanks!

Btw is the dating of Biton fixed to the 3rd or 2nd century BC?

Biton is a very peculiar source. As you said, the dating hinges on his dedication to a certain King Attalus, who must be one of three Pergamene rulers (I, 241-197 BC; II, 160-138 BC; III, 138-133 BC).

All commentators have chosen Attalus I, in order to make Biton as early as possible. But his mention of the sambuca ought not to pre-date the Roman siege of Syracuse (214 BC), when that machine is first seen in action. (See Greek and Roman Siege Machinery, Osprey 2003, pp. 24-33 and plate B for the sambuca.) Of course, we cannot be certain: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", after all. But there is a likelihood that the sambuca was newly invented around 214 BC.

In fact, Michael Lewis (Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 159ff.) has made a persuasive case for dating Biton much later, to 156-155 BC, when an emergency at Pergamum made Attalus II grateful for his collection of antiquated machinery.

[Eleatic Guest]

Thanks D B.

I'm open to any other suggestions.

Perhaps some starting points:

Zopyrus of Tarentum is mentioned twice, in a treatise on siege-engines by Biton (3rd or 2nd century BC), as the inventor of an advanced form of the type of artillery known as the belly-bow (Marsden 1971, 74-77). Zopyrus' bow used a winch to pull back the string and hence could shoot a six-foot wooden missile 4.5 inches thick (Marsden 1969, 14). It is not implausible to suppose that this is the same Zopyrus as is listed in Iamblichus' catalogue of Pythagoreans under Tarentum (Diels 1965, 23), although Biton does not call him a Pythagorean. The traditional dating for Zopyrus puts him in the first half of the fourth century (Marsden 1971, 98, n. 52), but Kingsley has convincingly argued that he was in fact active in the last quarter of the fifth century, when he designed artillery for Cumae and Miletus (1995, 150 ff.). In a famous passage, Diodorus reports that in 399 BC Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse, gathered together skilled craftsmen from Italy, Greece and Carthage in order to construct artillery for his war with the Carthaginians (XIV 41.3). It seems not unlikely that Zopyrus was one of those who came from Italy. There is no reason to suppose, however, as Kingsley (1995, 146) and others do, that Zopyrus' interest in mechanics was connected to his Pythagoreanism or that there was a specifically Pythagorean school of mechanics in Tarentum (Huffman 2005, 14-17).

It is controversial whether this Zopyrus of Tarentum is the same as Zopyrus of Heraclea, who is not called a Pythagorean in the sources, but who is reported in late sources to have written three Orphic poems, The Net, The Robe and The Krater, which probably dealt with the structure of human beings and the earth (West 1983, 10 ff.). This Zopyrus could be from the Heraclea closely connected to Tarentum, but he might also be from the Heraclea on the Black Sea. A late source connects Zopyrus of Heraclea with Pisistratus in the 6th century (West 1983, 249), which would mean that he could not be the same as Zopyrus of Tarentum in the late 5th century. On the other hand, Orphic writings are assigned to a number of other Pythagoreans, and it is not impossible that the same person had interests both in Orphic mysticism and mechanics. Kingsley supposes that the myth at the end of Plato's Phaedo is based in minute detail on Zopyrus' Krater or an intermediary reworking of it (1995, 79-171), and tries to connect specific features of the myth to Zopyrus' interest in mechanics (1995, 147-148), but the parallel which he detects between the oscillation of the rivers in the mythic account of the underworld and the balance of opposing forces used in a bow is too general to be compelling. The connection between Zopyrus and the Phaedo is highly conjectural and must remain so, as long as there are no fragments of the Krater, with which to compare the Phaedo.

SOURCE: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/

PS: Zopyrus' Mountain Gastrophetes: http://www.frapanthers.com/teachers/whi ... allery.htm

This theory is apparently gaining ground:

Ein weiteres entscheidendes Indiz, dass der Bauchspanner des Heron weit vor 399/8 existierte, ist die in der Forschung kaum zur Kenntnis genommene Neudatierung des ältesten von Zopyros Mechanicus gebauten Bogenpfeilgeschützes in Kyme – Italien mit dem terminus ante quem 421. Wenn der Bauchspanner des Heron der ersten Artillerie vorausgeht, muß er eine nicht zu bestimmende Zeitspanne älter sein als genau dieses Geschütz.

Hans Michael Schellenberg: “Diodor von Sizilien 14,42,1 und die Erfindung der Artillerie im Mittelmeerraum“, ''Frankfurter Elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde'', Vol. 3 (2006), pp.14-23 (18f.) http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.d ... enberg.pdf

[Pericles of Rhodes]

If people are interested there was a reconstructed Gastraphetes fired during the 'What the Ancients did for us' series. It is on you tube here - 7mins into the first video and the beginning of the next-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcq43Ijb ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRJy1jRXIFg&feature=user

Looks like great fun!

Enjoy

[Susanne]

There is a well preserved Gastraphetes in the Classical Greek exhibit in the War Museum of Athens.