Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE
#16
Quote:I believe that the only time elephants ever appeared in the region of Sparta was when Pyrrhus ...

This is true, though it was in support of the would-be Spartan usurper and adventurer Cleonymus. Perhaps the most effective employment of elephants was that of a Spartan who may well have been one of the young men left to face Pyrrus by flower of the Spartan army which had deployed in Crete- Xanthippus.

Do you cover him and Bagradas extensively in your book?
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#17
Oh yes, Xanthippus gets a few pages at Bagradas along with the inept Regulus. I suspect that Xanthippus was there in Sparta when Pyrrhus attacked, and perhaps worked with Pyrrhus' captured elephants upon Pyrrhus' death just a week later.

Quote:
Quote:I believe that the only time elephants ever appeared in the region of Sparta was when Pyrrhus ...

This is true, though it was in support of the would-be Spartan usurper and adventurer Cleonymus. Perhaps the most effective employment of elephants was that of a Spartan who may well have been one of the young men left to face Pyrrus by flower of the Spartan army which had deployed in Crete- Xanthippus.

Do you cover him and Bagradas extensively in your book?
John Kistler
writer, businessman, elephant lover
Reply
#18
Do you see parallels between Bagradas and Cannae? (as an aside, did elephants play a role at Cannae? I have seen arguement on this topic.)
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#19
Quote:Do you see parallels between Bagradas and Cannae? (as an aside, did elephants play a role at Cannae? I have seen arguement on this topic.)

It is unlikely that there was more than one elephant at Cannae, that would be Surus, and Hannibal was riding him. I am familiar with one Roman source that says the Romans drove a bunch of elephants into the river at Cannae, but no other sources mention this. It seems that all but Surus died within a week or two of the Battle of the Trebbia. Hannibal did get a shipment of elephant reinforcements via ship from Carthage a few years after Cannae. I suspect that if Hannibal had possessed several elephants at Cannae he certainly would have deployed them against the key Roman cavalry which had to flee before the envelopment could begin.

Although Xanthippus strategy and Hannibal's you mention do both involve encompassing the enemy, Bagradas and Cannae are rather different. I see Cannae as an improvement on Hannibal's father's battle against the Mercenaries in the Truceless War. Hamilcar set ambushes or strong units on the sides of the battlefield, left a weak center, and feigned a center retreat. The mercenaries pursued, and were soon encompassed and destroyed. Hannibal's strategem at Cannae seems almost identical, just executed perfectly against an even better enemy.
John Kistler
writer, businessman, elephant lover
Reply
#20
Quote:Although Xanthippus strategy and Hannibal's you mention do both involve encompassing the enemy, Bagradas and Cannae are rather different. I see Cannae as an improvement on Hannibal's father's battle against the Mercenaries in the Truceless War.

The battle you are referring to is the "Saw" I assume.

I think at Bagradas-1 the mercenaries fulfilled the role of the center at Cannae, whether planned or not. The fear of elephants more that the fact that they "despised" the mercenaries would have served to draw the romans into envelopment.

Had the carthaginians used anything like these tactics prior to Bagradas?
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#21
Duncan wrote:-
Quote:He is most probably the driving force behind the development of catapults in Greece.)
...some clarification is needed here.Philip was probably the driving force behind the development of torsion catapults, from around 350 B.C. The first (non-torsion, crossbow-like) catapults appear in the hands of Dionysius of Syracuse, in 399B.C., when they come as a nasty surprise to the Carthaginians....

...and there is no inherent reason that the Phocians shouldn't have possessed and used non-torsion catapults against Philip...after all, the war was about the fact that the Phocians had made themselves masters of the richest treasury in all Greece(Delphi) and were using the proceeds to buy lots of mercenaries, so they could certainly afford catapults....the idea of human stonethrowers doesn't make sense to me and would hardly be worth recording.......and what Polyaenus actually says is"petrobolous mechanas" - stone throwing machines!
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#22
Quote:The first (non-torsion, crossbow-like) catapults appear in the hands of Dionysius of Syracuse, in 399B.C., when they come as a nasty surprise to the Carthaginians....


They are originally developed in Taras if I recall, where the science of mechanics- the applied version of the science of mathematics and considered of lower status- originates.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#23
Paul B. wrote:-
Quote:They are originally developed in Taras if I recall, where the science of mechanics- the applied version of the science of mathematics and considered of lower status- originates.
...really? I hadn't come across that before.In fact, Diodorus tells us categorically, that in 399B.C. when Dionysius I was Tyrant of Syracuse and preparing for war, manufacturing weapons of all sorts......
"In fact the catapult was invented at this time in Syracuse, since the ablest skilled workmen had been gathered from every where into one place....." Diodorus XIV.42 and ".....the Syracusans slew many of the enemy by using from the land the catapults which shot sharp-pointed missiles. Indeed this weapon caused great dismay, because it was a new invention at this time..." Diodorus XIV.50.4
No mention of Taras, and AFIK Diodorus is our only source for the invention of catapults......so I'm most interested if there is more on this subject.... Smile
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#24
Duncan would probably know for sure, but off the top of my head there was a fellow whose name begins with a "Zo" who invented a double non-torsion bow at roughly the same date that the gastrophetes appears in Syracuse. I think it was a different fellow who is credited as being the father of mechanics- specifically applying mathematics to weaponry. I'll look into both.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#25
To follow up on my previous post:

The "father of mechanics" I was referring to is the Pythagorean contemporary of Plato Archytas of Taras. There is a new book about this truly interesting fellow by carl Huffman, "Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, philosopher and mathematician king". He rejects the the idea that he was in fact the founder, but notes that his theorem became integral to the science of artillery. I only read a review of the book so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear it.

The other fellow I discussed was Zopyrus. He is also a contemporary of Plato and is mentioned by Biton as as a designer of "flexion catapults". Though contemporary, he did probably work after the Dionysian think-tank at Syracuse, so you are right about the origin. But I don't know for sure.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#26
Paul B. wrote:-
Quote:The other fellow I discussed was Zopyrus. He is also a contemporary of Plato and is mentioned by Biton as as a designer of "flexion catapults".
...ah, yes -Zopyrus of Tarentum is referred to in one of the surviving treatises on catapults by Biton,( who wrote for AttalusI of Pergamum in the early second century B.C,) as the inventor of two of the non-torsion machines he describes. Diels, in his 'Antike Technik', proposed that he was the same as the Zopyrus who figures in Iamblichus' list of 'Pyrhagoreans',( the Vitae Pythagoreanus)a list based in turn on that of Aristoxenus. Since 'both' floreat in the mid-fourth century, it is likely. Since by all accounts, he appears some 50 years after the invention of catapults, he can hardly be a founder inventor!

The Pythagorean mathematician Archytas of Tarentum is said to have founded a school of Mechanics ( who were more into applied science than most philosophical schools) - DiogenesVIII.82.
He is not, AFIK, associated with catapults in any way, though some credit him with describing a Theory of the mechanical advantage of Pulleys, around 400 B.C. - which if true would be helpful to catapult artificers.He is also mentioned by Plato at 7.338
"...Dionysius was greatly afraid, I believe, because of his love of glory, lest any should suppose that it was owing to my contempt for his nature and disposition, together with my experience of his mode of life, that I was ungracious and was no longer willing to come to his court... Dionysius...sent a trireme to fetch me, in order to secure my comfort on the voyage; and he sent Archedemus, one of the associates of Archytas, believing that I esteemed him above all others...and all...were giving me the same account, how that Dionysius had made marvellous progress in philosophy...
...And other letters kept coming both from Archytas and from the men in Tarentum, eulogizing the philosophy of Dionysius, and saying that unless I come now I should utterly dissolve their friendship with Dionysius which I had brought about, and which was of no small political importance"
Diogenes quotes a letter from Archytus to Plato and his response and Plato says in his Republic that Archytus solved the Geometric problem of 'doubling a cube'.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#27
Quote:Since by all accounts, he appears some 50 years after the invention of catapults, he can hardly be a founder inventor!

My sources put him closer to the beginning than the middle of the century, thus closer to the origination and surely within the first wave of inventors.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#28
Quote:My sources put him closer to the beginning than the middle of the century, thus closer to the origination and surely within the first wave of inventors
Presumably these are secondary sources, of whom Kingsley seeks to push Zopyrus closer to the first batch of artificers, but there is no evidence for this in the primary sources.
"The traditional dating for Zopyrus puts him in the first half of the fourth century, but Kingsley has 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."

The problem with this is that Zopyrus' machines, as described by Biton, are clearly later developments of the original gastraphetes type, which fits a date c. 350 B.C. much better than placing him earlier with Dionysius' original inventors. There is no real reason to 'push' Zopyrus' dates back, and plenty of reasons not to.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#29
Quote:The problem with this is that Zopyrus' machines, as described by Biton, are clearly later developments of the original gastraphetes type, which fits a date c. 350 B.C. much better than placing him earlier with Dionysius' original inventors. There is no real reason to 'push' Zopyrus' dates back, and plenty of reasons not to.

Specifically they are improvements. I see no reason to deny his presence in the "think-tank", surely Taras would have been represented given the advanced state of Pythagorean mechanics. Either he or his mentor was there- or both. I know of no source that puts him at 350. The consensus seems to be the "first half of the 4th century". This is no more likely to be 350 than it is to be 400!

Here, argue with Duncan (My search online just led me back here):

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... bc749f9287
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#30
Quote:the idea of human stonethrowers doesn't make sense to me and would hardly be worth recording.......and what Polyaenus actually says is"petrobolous mechanas" - stone throwing machines!
That was Marsden's mistake, Paul. Polyaenus just says "stone-throwers". Other authors writing in Greek (e.g. Appian) use the word to mean "men chucking rocks".
And why doesn't stone-throwing by hand make sense? It has a long and honourable pedigree, in the literature and sculptural evidence. If Philip's phalanx was repulsed using this humble method, all the more reason to record it! Big Grin

Quote:...and there is no inherent reason that the Phocians shouldn't have possessed and used non-torsion catapults against Philip...
That's certainly the argument used by people who wish to interpret Polyaenus's stone-throwers as machines. Occam's trusty razor advises caution, though. If Xenophon or even Diodorus, somebody half-way reliable, had mentioned stone-throwing machines, that would've been quite a different matter. But it's Polyaenus! And he doesn't even say they're machines! So, basically, the evidence is ... zero. Confusedhock:

I think the death blow to this argument is the fact that Philip II didn't ever acquire stone-throwing machines. He was too busy developing arrow-shooters. Alexander is the first guy that we hear of using "stone-projectors". Up until then, anything remotely resembling a catapult was used to shoot arrows.

The catapult was, after all, based on the concept of the bow. It stands to reason that it took a couple of generations for people to make the mental leap and realise that bigger machines, designed along the same lines, could shoot stones, too. (And don't you dare say "onager". :wink: ) It's just a pity that Heron didn't record the early history of the catapult in more detail.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Question Polybius or Plutarch for 3rd Mantinea ? Michael Collins 3 1,226 10-18-2019, 10:41 AM
Last Post: Michael Collins
  A bungled deployment at 1st Mantinea? Michael Collins 0 540 08-28-2019, 08:44 AM
Last Post: Michael Collins
  spartan army at Mantinea 418 BC Marcvs75 64 18,034 05-20-2008, 11:59 AM
Last Post: Paralus

Forum Jump: