Catapults as torture devices?

[Macedon]

So, I would say that this catapult(s) device seems to me to be comprised of two boards somehow fastened to each other like a book. The victim would be bolted or nailed on one or both and then crushed or pulled.

[Robert Vermaat]

Been trying to reply to this thread all morning, but was thwarted by repeated "Error 403"s. :?

I bet that must have tortured you! :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Mind you, I did think about launching someone from a large onager too! :mrgreen:

So the answer is that no actual siege machines were used in torture, but devices on which victims were 'stretched'?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Mind you, I did think about launching someone from a large onager too! :mrgreen:

So the answer is that no actual siege machines were used in torture, but devices on which victims were 'stretched'?

I don't think thats conclusive. It would be expediant in the field to utilise the equipment available.
Plenty of artilery in the Legions train.

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't think thats conclusive.

I have a feeling you want field tests? :twisted:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I don't think thats conclusive.

I have a feeling you want field tests? :twisted:

Now there's an idea!! :twisted:

[Robert Vermaat]

Darn, I gave him ideas... Shoot!

[D B Campbell]

Actually, gents, after some research, the use of the word catapult as a torture device seems to not be peculiar at all

But evidently as a later meaning. The Diodorus Siculus passage shows that the threat of shooting by catapult could be used to terrify victims. This (imho) is probably what Chariton has in mind, too.

The later history of the word καταπέλτης is, I think, instructive. By the second century, "catapults" were either ballistae or onagri; the classic catapulta (sometimes called the scorpio) had fallen out of use. It is true that Ammianus suddenly uses the word twice, but in contexts where he has obviously lifted it from an earlier source. (He is known to have had a predilection for archaizing.)

By the time we get Byzantine sources like Hesychius (quoted by George) and, for that matter, the Suda, it seems that "catapult" has taken on a new meaning. So the late lexicographers present a confusing mix of pre-2nd C "artillery" material and contemporary Byzantine "torture" material. The Suda's entry is worth quoting, to add to the other late sources listed by George.

Καταπέλτης: εἶδος κολαστηρίου. καὶ Καταπελτάσουσιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀκοντίσουσι, καταπολεμήσουσι: πέλτη γὰρ εἶδος μηχανῆς, ἀφ' ἧς ἀκόντια καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ ἀφιᾶσιν. ἢ καταδραμοῦνται: πέλτη γὰρ ἀσπὶς μικρὰ μὴ ἔχουσα ἱμάντα. καὶ Καταπελταφέται, οἱ ταῦτα πέμποντες. ἵστη δὲ προμάχους, ξύλα παχέα ἔχοντας διπήχεα σεσιδηρωμένα, ἃ ἔμελλον ὡς καταπέλτας ἐκ χειρὸς ἐς τοὺς ἐλέφαντας προσκολλᾶν. ὁ δὲ Λογοθέτης λέγει ἐν τῷ τοῦ ἁγίου Θύρσου μαρτυρίῳ: δεσμοῖς χειρῶν, καταπέλταις ποδῶν.

Katapeltes: a kind of instrument of correction. Also [found as] Katapeltasousin, meaning they will use javelins, they will overcome in war; for a pelte [is] a kind of machine, from which they launch javelins and other [missiles]. Or [meaning] they will overrun; for a pelte [is] a small shield which has no strap. Also [found as] Katapeltaphetai, [meaning] the men who despatch these [missiles]. "He appointed champions, who had thick wooden [spears] two cubits long and overlaid with iron, which they were intending to stick at close range, like catapults, into the elephants."* The Logothete says in the martyrdom of St. Thyrsus: "with hands in fetters, feet in catapults".**

* A quote from Appian, Lybica 41.173.
** A quote from Symeon Metaphrastes.

[Robert Vermaat]

By the time we get Byzantine sources like Hesychius (quoted by George) and, for that matter, the Suda, it seems that "catapult" has taken on a new meaning. So the late lexicographers present a confusing mix of pre-2nd C "artillery" material and contemporary Byzantine "torture" material.

Oddly it's the same with 'plumbata'. From a throwing dart it becomes a Medieval leaded torture device.

[Macedon]

By the time we get Byzantine sources like Hesychius (quoted by George) and, for that matter, the Suda, it seems that "catapult" has taken on a new meaning. So the late lexicographers present a confusing mix of pre-2nd C "artillery" material and contemporary Byzantine "torture" material. The Suda's entry is worth quoting, to add to the other late sources listed by George.

Yet, the Macchabees translation of the Septuagint is much earlier so I wouldn't agree that the evidence points to it being a later (or much later) term. I also found some later accounts where it is written that the term was so (as a torture device) used by "the Greeks", which in Byzantine texts would mean that it is an ancient word, but this is indirect evidence. The real question is when would one date the Macchabees text.

[D B Campbell]

Yet, the Macchabees translation of the Septuagint is much earlier so I wouldn't agree that the evidence points to it being a later (or much later) term. ... The real question is when would one date the Macchabees text.

I did not notice your edit, where you added the passage from 4 Maccabees (XI.9-10, I think). Of course, it's worth noting that this text remains undated,* except that it seems to have been known to Eusebius (d. AD 339).

* A stylistic analysis (noted by deSilva in his 2006 commentary) showed that 4.67 per cent of the words used by the writer are not elsewhere attested until the first century AD, while a further 2.9 per cent are not elsewhere attested until the second century AD, and 1.64 per cent are found nowhere else; some words (percentage unstated) are apparently only found in third century texts. Of course, this is not, of itself, evidence of date. But it's highly suggestive in the current context!

[Macedon]

...which would bring it close to the time of the text in the OP, even if the latest dating should be accepted. Another matter would of course be whether Chariton's work should with certainty be dated in the 1st century AD and whether it survived without any corruption. What we can be sure of is that the term was used for the contraption in question at least since the fourth or third century, very possibly even before that, and that makes its use by Chariton (if uncorrupted) possibly refer to the torture device rather than to the missile-hurling catapult as (to me) would make more sense in the context.

Btw, doesn't it make you wonder where deSilva placed this particular word in his analysis? Plus, I would love to have that list... about 5% of the words used in the Macchabees never attested before the 1st century AD? Sounds too much. A very interesting subject.

[richsc]

Why has no one mentioned the famous scene from Tarzan ?? Talk about torsion!

[Robert Vermaat]

Why has no one mentioned the famous scene from Tarzan ?? Talk about torsion!

Famous scene? Remind us please?

[Epictetus]

Reardon suggests that Chaereas and Callirhoe dates to the mid first century AD, but he is by no means certain. He also says that "some papyrus fragments strongly suggest that the story was popular and widely distributed in Egypt in the second century AD." Unfortunately, he doesn't go into great detail about the scholarly research behind the text - I believe the book I have is more to present the text in English and not to go into the scholarly debates. These are mentioned, but very briefly.