Medieval Torsion Catapults

[Urselius]

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.

[Koyuncu]

First of all, thanks for your effort about translation Mr. Campbell. Today I got your translation in my phone read it repeatedly and with my very limited English, I recognized too that weapon is not a torsion but tension powered artillery.

As You already pointed out, for torsion weapons the rigidity of both frame and arm is important factor for harnessing full power of twisted skeins.

Another problem is that it would be impossible to remove the pitons while they are in a fully stretched torsion spring and replace them with prefabricated bow arms.

And then we remove (?) these pitons and there place the aforementioned two leaves of the bow, each on one side, their wide end on the strip of wood fixed to the side of the intermediate cross-member into the notch that has been set aside, and two hooks of green oak are placed at the side of each end and firmly nailed, intended to prevent it sliding out of its location.

Also, here Tarsusi, describes how the wide end of bow arm is nailed to oak strips for preventing their sliding. Thus it is impossible to draw weapon's arms since their one end is fixed unlike classical torsion weapons.

In my opinion, the weapon is actually a large crossbow and it's arms are also passed through a horse hair-silk fabric that provides a slight mechanical advantage and a kind of damping effect which protects long bow arms from breaking.

While searching about my theory, I took a more close look to Medieval Siege Weapons (2): Byzantium, the Islamic World and India AD 476-1526, David Nicolle, and there is a manuscript indicating front view of weapon. As you can see, the bows larger ends are firmly fitted to oak strips placed both sides of cross-member just like in the translation of Mr. Campbell.

Translation also mentions that the "ziyâr" is placed approximately two thirds of the way from the middle of the cross member, just like the wire-like drawings in the manuscript.

Here, the related part of mentioned book; http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ybcl...on&f=false

While searching I also find another Osprey image picturing a small scale "Ziyâr" sketched almost exactly same as defined in translation except the small ziyâr's bow arms are fitted to "majra", stock of crossbow while large ziyâr's bow arms are fixed to front frame of weapon.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Not a bad reconstruction, that appears to be one of those Arabic hand grenades (I've seen images where they found some in Persia dating to the 11th century). We know the Byzantines used hand grenades too for Greek Fire.

[Eleatic Guest]

Anyone knows the earliest unequivocal (re)appearance of
(a) the torsion arrow-shooter and
(b) the torsion stone projector (one- or two-armed)
in
(1) Byzantium,
(2) Latin West and
(3) the Arab world
after 600 AD?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

In terms of the actual Scorpio or Torsion Bolt shooter? It was used continuously into the Late Roman and Byzantine Era, although its counterpart the Onager disappeared in favor of the Trebuchet when the Byzantines invented that in the 7th century.

[Eleatic Guest]

In terms of the actual Scorpio or Torsion Bolt shooter?

Either. Now that I think of it I have never heard of the discovery of remains of medieval torsion catapults or stone ball arsenals which could give valuable clues beyond medieval iconographic. and literary sources. Not that I have looked specifically for archaeological evidence of this era, but still it seems to be curiously rare. :-?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Latest finds of the Scorpio we have date to the 4th century. After that it is mentioned in the Strategicon I think.

[D B Campbell]

Anyone knows the earliest unequivocal (re)appearance of (a) the torsion arrow-shooter and (b) the torsion stone projector (one- or two-armed) ...

Interesting question. Did they re-appear? Or do they simply die out, to be replaced by non-torsion equivalents?

Maurice's Strategikon (ca. AD 590 ?) certainly mentions ballistrai (Section 12B, 6.8-10, 18.9-10, 21.12-15). However, the balistarioi of Leo's Taktika (ca. AD 900?) seem to have been simply lifted from the Strategikon and cannot provide independent evidence (afaik they are glossed as manganarioi). I'd say that Maurice is the last definite evidence of torsion arrow-shooters.

Later sources (e.g. the Chronographia of Theophanes) use the term toxobolistrai, which sound as if they are non-torsion bow-weapons. By this time, we read of various crossbow-like devices (e.g. muas and solenaria), and I suspect that the torsion arrow-shooter had died out.

Similarly, I suspect that the torsion onager was replaced by the simpler trebuchet mechanism. However, I'd be fascinated to hear if anyone has the unequivocal evidence you are seeking.

[Eleatic Guest]

Chevedden mentions an onager present at the siege of Rome by the Goths (Procopius, De Bello Gothico, 1.21.19).

The funny thing is that if all torsion-powered siege weapons really had disappeared by 600 AD, as he argues, then why did all the basic designs demonstrably make a comeback later on: onager, two-armed stone throwers, arrow-shooters? A bit too much coincidence for my taste given that other high cultures like India or China did not manage to develop torsion-powered catapults even once.

The only other possibility would be that some medieval theoretical supermind(s) sat down and reconstructed ancient artillery from the artillery treatises, but given the problems modern commentators have had to make sense of them, I very much doubt that this scenario. The reality is that those who argue for the disappearance of ancient artillery fail to sufficiently explain its reemergence. Some kind of continuity of the engineering tradition in the early medieval period, be it in Byzantium, the Near East or the Latin West, seems to be the safest bet.

[Eleatic Guest]

Chevedden (p. 164) also mentions an onager active at the siege of Rome by the Goths (Procopius, De Bello Gothico, 1.21.19).

[D B Campbell]

an onager active at the siege of Rome by the Goths (Procopius, De Bello Gothico, 1.21.19).

Of course, I was taking Procopius for granted. Agathias, too, appears to mention torsion artillery (3.21.3; 25.2). And Evagrius -- though only "katapeltai that are commonly called lithoboloi" (5.10).

And then we arrive at Maurice's Strategikon.

Alan Wilkins (JRMES 11, 2000, pp. 91-2) has proposed that the torsion carroballista (i.e. cart-mounted arrow-shooter) survived into the 10th century, on the basis of "Emperor Constantine's 10th century De administrando imperio ... [which] describes (chapter 53) the use of polemikai hamaxai meta cheirotoxobolistrôn = 'war wagons with hand-arrow-shooter' -- note the last word's close resemblance to cheiroballistra". Given that contemporary sources use the word toxobolistra, probably (imho) for a non-torsion crossbow-like device (cf. arcuballista), I'm not sure that the addition of cheiro- on the front proves that these ones were torsion machines. Nor does the fact that they were carried in carts prove that they were carroballistae (imho).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

If I'm correct the Carroballista was mounted on the cart, not carried by a soldier in the cart.

[Ildar]

Sorry Duncan,
You are committing the same error, as did Wilkins in his article, that is, you quote a source from a secondary reference without checking. It might be allowed on a forum, but I do not think it is admissible in a scholarly article, which Wilkins’ paper undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, Wilkins, due to his Greek correspondent, made every possible mistake in that quote:

1) The events described in chapter 53 of the “De administrando imperio,” as the text of the chapter is telling us, have to do with the times of Diocletian and Constantine the Great, that is, to the end of the third — the beginning of the fourth century. However, some modern Russian scholars compellingly argue for even earlier dating. Unfortunately, after the words of Mommsen, who called this chapter “Chersonesos’ tales,” the Western historiography, unlike the Soviet/Russian, hardly paid any attention to this chapter.

2) The expression πολεμικαι αμαξαι μετα χειροτοξοβολιστρων is absent from the text of chapter 53 altogether. But there are others, for example, κατασκευάσαντες άρματα πολεμικα και ενθέντες εν αυτοις τας λεγομένας χειροβολίστρας, “having equipped war chariots and placed hand bolistras in them.” Moreover, the term χειροβολίστρα is used four times in the text, whereas άρματα πολεμικα — two times, so it is hard to make a mistake.

3) Finally, let me once again quote my discussion with Aitor Iriarte from the old RAT (ezboard):

The earliest literary evidence of employment of ballistae on military carts in the battlefields of the Bosporian-Roman wars referred to the period from the end of third century to the beginning of fourth century AD (Const. Porph. De adm. imp., 53 || 28-44, 131-135). In the battle near the Bosporian city-walls ballistarii of Chersonesos with cheirobolistras on military carts covered false retreat, probably being moved from rear side of the battle line and operated from ambushes. Apparently, the detachment of ballistarii, armed manuballistae, in armed forces of Chersonesos played a rather significant role and according the message of the author of the treatise has made the decisive contribution to a victory in battles near the Bosporus and on the Ister river. The list of materials for manufacture and repairs established to annual output by the emperor Constantine (Const. Porph. De adm. imp., 53 || 150) specifies that these cheirobolistras most likely were torsion engines with all-metal spring-frame. The list included sinews (νευρόν), probably intended for manufacture of spring-cord, hemp (κάνναβον), either for the cord or for the bowstrings, iron (σίδηρον), probably for manufacture of spring-frames, olive oil (έλαιον), either to lubricate sinews (Philon, Bel., W61) or to preserve iron parts of the machines from rust.

[D B Campbell]

Sorry Duncan, You are committing the same error, as did Wilkins in his article, that is, you quote a source from a secondary reference without checking.

With the greatest respect, Ildar, I rarely quote a source without checking it, and I would only be making the same error as Alan Wilkins if I agreed with him. You'll see from my my post that I don't agree with his analysis!

Nevertheless, I am always glad to hear from you, Ildar. I'm particularly grateful for your clarification of the source that Alan Wilkins refers to.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

If you have it, could you provide the primary source regarding the battle with the Bosporan Kingdom? It would be much appreciated.