Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE
#31
Duncan wrote:-
Quote: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!
Actually, I don't think Marsden was mistaken at all, since he directly quotes the greek, as I posted. I suspect your translation derives loosely from one of the french translations, who for "stones and stone throwing machines" have "pierres et tirreurs" ( lit: stones and shooters/launchers) - Shepherds english translation 1793 is rather difficult to get hold of !
The context also clearly implies machines;
"Polyaenus (2. 38. 2) writes: "Onomarchus, drawing up his
men in battle order against the Macedonians, occupied a crescent shaped
mountain in his rear. After he had concealed stones
and stone-throwing catapults in the ridges on both sides, he
led his forces into the underlying plain. When the Macedonians,
coming against them, hurled their javelins , the Phocians pretended to flee into the midst of the mountain.
The Macedonians in spirited and quick pursuit pressed against
them, but the Phocians by discharging stones from the ridges
shattered the Macedonian phalanx. ( Hand thrown stones are not going to travel from ridges to plain!...and hand thrown stones are hardly likely to outrange javelins either)Then Onomarchus signaled
the Phocians to turn around and close with the enemy. The
Macedonians, with their adversaries attacking them from the
rear and throwing stones at them from above, were put to
flight and retreated with much suffering."

Quote: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.
Biton refers to Zopyrus' machines ( see Paul B.'s post above) and Zopyrus floreat around the 350's, or if Paul is right, even earlier.Charon and Isidorus both describe non-torsion stone-throwers throwing balls up to 40lbs. We don't know for certain that Philip didn't have stone-throwers, merely that Alexander introduced Torsion stone-throwers at Halicarnassus, and as I said there is no reason the Phocians couldn't have them.....must go, so in haste....
"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
#32
Quote:Actually, I don't think Marsden was mistaken at all, since he directly quotes the greek, as I posted.
I know it's hard to believe, but even Homer nods. Smile Marsden doesn't actually quote the Greek, Paul -- he just writes "stone-throwers (petrobolous mechanas)" in his text. (I've quoted the Greek below, as an attachment.)

Quote:I suspect your translation derives loosely from one of the french translations, who for "stones and stone throwing machines" have "pierres et tirreurs" ( lit: stones and shooters/launchers) - Shepherds english translation 1793 is rather difficult to get hold of !
Nope -- it's my own translation of the Teubner Greek text. I haven't seen any French translations of Polyaenus, although from your citation they seem accurate. Even Shepherd's version, though somewhat idiosyncratic, accurately conveys the meaning: "men expert in throwing stones, furnished with huge stones and pieces of ragged rocks for the purpose".
If you look at line 3 of the Greek text (attached below), you'll see that Polyaenus wrote "petrous kai petrobolous" -- no mention of machines!

Quote:The context also clearly implies machines ... Hand thrown stones are not going to travel from ridges to plain!...and hand thrown stones are hardly likely to outrange javelins either
If you try to envisage the scene, the men are dropping rocks on the Macedonians from above. There is no need to outrange javelins.

If you want to interpret Onomarchus' petroboloi as machines -- besides the difficulty posed by the fact that we don't hear reports of stone-projectors for another 20 years -- you must somehow get around the design flaw (inherent particularly in stone-projectors) that, shooting downhill, the missile doesn't wait for the bowstring! It starts to slip away itself.

You can see that arguing for stone-projectors here starts to become very complicated. If Marsden hadn't made the initial mistake, I'm sure nobody would ever have imagined that Onomarchus' stone-throwers were anything other than men dropping rocks from their vantage point above the Macedonians.

Quote:Charon and Isidorus both describe non-torsion stone-throwers throwing balls up to 40lbs. We don't know for certain that Philip didn't have stone-throwers, merely that Alexander introduced Torsion stone-throwers at Halicarnassus, and as I said there is no reason the Phocians couldn't have them.
A pretty good reason would be that they didn't exist at the time. Your evidence for non-torsion stone-throwing bow-machines comes from a writer who may have been writing at any point between 238 BC and 133 BC, so we don't really know when Charon or Isidorus built their machines. Also, we don't know what size of missiles they used, because Biton doesn't tell us.
Anyone who wants to see stone-projecting catapults at this early date really has to come up with some evidence. Because, so far, there isn't any.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#33
Duncan wrote:-
Quote:I know it's hard to believe, but even Homer nods.
..Oh, I'm aware that the 'Gods have feet of clay', to coin another phrase, :wink: and that the normally meticulous Marsden is occasionally in error.
For example he says that Alexander's torsion powered stone-throwers were only used against personnel at Halicarnassus...whereas Arrian specifically tells us (in relation to a brick secondary wall) "..on the following day Alexander brought up his siege artillery to attack it.." and earlier, artillery in the towers "...from which to bombard the defenders of the wall.." and "..artillery and battering rams for breaching the defences.."
Again, the stone-throwers were used against a sortie "..the catapults mounted on towers kept up a continuous pressure by hurling heavy stones.." , but contra Marsden, we are not told their target, and they would not have been throwing stones into a mixed Infantry melee, Confusedhock: but rather at the enemy arrow-shooters firing in support from the city walls ( as anyone who thinks about it for two seconds would realise)
Quote:If you try to envisage the scene, the men are dropping rocks on the Macedonians from above. There is no need to outrange javelins
..."dropping"?...so you envisage a cliff-like scenario, then ( so why does Polyaenus say 'ridges', not 'cliffs'?)...what are the Macedonians doing marching up to a cliff, and where did the fleeing Phocians go?. This is no Thermopylae! we are told 'a crescent shaped mountain/hill' with ridges. This is special pleading, Duncan, and very unlikely....no hint of it in the source.....I'll take your line from the 'Roman recruits' thread !! ( and trust the source until proven otherwise )
Quote:you must somehow get around the design flaw (inherent particularly in stone-projectors) that, shooting downhill, the missile doesn't wait for the bowstring! It starts to slip away itself.
...easy to see you are no practising artillerist, Duncan ! How do you think mortars on top of a hill fire at attackers at the base ? (to take an extreme example) Your objection only holds if the stone throwers are trying to reach the base of a wall or cliff, which we must rule out because the source tells us otherwise....
Quote:I'm sure nobody would ever have imagined that Onomarchus' stone-throwers were anything other than men dropping rocks from their vantage point above the Macedonians.
...but as we can see, that's not at all what the source says!...you have to put a lot of 'spin' on to come up with that interpretation... And even if we were to ignore this anecdote, there is the separate 'evolutionary' evidence in Biton's technical treatise...
Quote:A pretty good reason would be that they didn't exist at the time.
... a rather too categorical statement given that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! We are here dealing with the evolution of artillery, as Marsden recognised. To say that stone- throwers didn't exist then is tantamount to saying non-torsion stone throwers came after torsion ones, a logical absurdity ( like saying australo-pithecus came after cro-magnon man!) :o
Quote:Your evidence for non-torsion stone-throwing bow-machines comes from a writer who may have been writing at any point between 238 BC and 133 BC, so we don't really know when Charon or Isidorus built their machines.
...just because Biton was writing a history of machines from years gone by, without telling us exactly when, doesn't mean they can't be roughly dated on internal evidence from their structure..
Quote:so we don't really know when Charon or Isidorus built their machines.
...but Marsden, on internal evidence which I find altogether very convincing was able to deduce that Isodorus' large stonethrower must date to before 315 B.C. aprox ( and probably much earlier), and Charons smallish stone-thrower earlier still - possibly 375-350 B.C.
Quote:Also, we don't know what size of missiles they used, because Biton doesn't tell us.
.....But , as with all catapults the projectile size can be determined from the size of the parts, thus Marsden was able to determine that Charon's machine probably threw a stone around 5 lbs, and Isidorus' machine perhaps as much as 40 lbs!...And clearly a fully-developed "forty pounder" didn't just spring into existence - it must have been preceded by smaller machines, which would fit in between Charon's early stone-thrower and Isodorus' giant. On evolutionary grounds, both those machines, especially Charon's one, were in existence at the time ! Smile
Quote:Anyone who wants to see stone-projecting catapults at this early date really has to come up with some evidence. Because, so far, there isn't any.
...other than (so far) Polyaenus' anecdote and the very evolution of catapult artillery itself, which Marsden convincingly argues ( even if he did add the word 'machines' to the anecdote in error)......as against evidence for "dropped" stones by hand...pure unsubstantiated supposition based on zero evidence ! ( I'll let you try to refute your own argument on sources...what's sauce for Vegetius, is sauce for Polyaenus ! ) :wink: :wink:
"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
#34
Have to do some digging but I think it is Pausanias in his 10th book that speaks of artillery and 30 mna stones. So I leave it here till I get the original
Kind regards
Reply
#35
Now you're just having a laugh, Paul.
I must have missed the bit where you're supposed to retract your adamant statement that Polyaenus wrote "stone-throwing machines". :wink:

Quote:...so you envisage a cliff-like scenario, then ( so why does Polyaenus say 'ridges', not 'cliffs'?)...what are the Macedonians doing marching up to a cliff, and where did the fleeing Phocians go?. This is no Thermopylae! we are told 'a crescent shaped mountain/hill' with ridges. This is special pleading, Duncan, and very unlikely....no hint of it in the source.....
The main problem is that we have no idea where this action occurred -- no other ancient author mentions it. (Sound familiar?!) We are entirely at Polyaenus's mercy for this one. (Not an enviable position to be in!)

Let's be honest and admit that your translation of the passage is somewhat subjective, Paul.
If we look at the original Greek (which I helpfully posted above) we can see that your use of "ridges" is a loaded term, introducing a detail which Polyaenus never wrote. He simply says that Onomarchus positioned his men tais 'ekaterôthen koruphais, "on the heights on either side".

You say that this was no Thermopylae. In fact, it looks worse. Philip is marching into a cul-de-sac formed by a crescent-shaped hill formation. (oros is a pretty vague word covering anything from a hill to a mountain -- would you agree, Stefanos?) Unbeknown to him, Onomarchus has positioned "rocks and rock-throwers" on the heights on either side.
(I use the term "rock" here as a neutral translation of petros, because using "stone" seems to over-excite the artillery fanatics! :wink: )

If we read the passage with an open mind, uncluttered by Marsden's unfortunate blunder, the scenario is blindingly clear.
Onomarchus tempts Philip forward into a cul-de-sac, which he has prepared as a killing ground. As the Phocian troops withdraw up the hillside, the rock-hurlers begin their work. Simple! No spin. Just a straightforward translation without inserting words into Polyaenus' mouth (like "ridges" and "catapults".)

Quote:...you have to put a lot of 'spin' on to come up with that interpretation... And even if we were to ignore this anecdote, there is the separate 'evolutionary' evidence in Biton's technical treatise...
But why would you want to ignore this anecdote, Paul?
It's a perfect example of trickery and the triumph of primitive means (chucking rocks) over hi-tech weaponry (the Macedonian phalanx). This is meat and drink to Polyaenus.

Quote:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
Here's another one: don't add details to an ancient source that were never there in the first place. :wink:
Let's remember the fundamental point that I'm making: Polyaenus never mentioned stone-projecting catapults!
You said something earlier about special pleading ... Ironic, eh?

Quote:...just because Biton was writing a history of machines from years gone by, without telling us exactly when, doesn't mean they can't be roughly dated on internal evidence from their structure..
Unfortunately, that's exactly the case. We have no functioning non-torsion bow-machines to examine. We have no idea how big the bow would need to be to shoot a certain size of missile. Marsden made some conjectures. But they were entirely theoretical.
Similarly, on the question of dating, we have no idea where the stone-throwing bow-machines figure. You've suggested a developmental sequence which sees the bow-machine reaching its full potential before torsion is explored. That's one theory. It's equally likely that the bow-machines followed their own developmental sequence, divorced from whatever was happening with torsion. We simply don't know.

Quote:...other than (so far) Polyaenus' anecdote and the very evolution of catapult artillery itself, which Marsden convincingly argues (even if he did add the word 'machines' to the anecdote in error)......as against evidence for "dropped" stones by hand...pure unsubstantiated supposition based on zero evidence !
I guess logic follows different rules in Australia. :wink:
(1) Polyaenus doesn't mention stone-throwing catapults, so his anecdote is inadmissable in this debate.
(2) We don't have a clear picture of the evolution of catapult artillery, so we don't really know what kinds of catapults were around in the 350s BC, besides the arrow-shooting gastraphetes.
(3) There is ample evidence, literary and sculptural, to show that the ancients did not share your disdain of rock-throwing. It was an effective and inexpensive method of assault, particularly by troops positioned on high ground.
(4) And did I mention, Polyaenus doesn't mention stone-throwing catapults.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#36
Hmmmmm, 'rock'-throwers....a precursor to 'stone' throwers....once the ancients found the smooth 'rocks' the fired had bettr trajectories then the ragged 'rocks' they fired..... :lol:
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#37
Duncan wrote:-
Quote:Now you're just having a laugh, Paul.
...well, I trust we are having a light-hearted debate. Smile

Quote:I must have missed the bit where you're supposed to retract your adamant statement that Polyaenus wrote "stone-throwing machines".
...evidently! My whole first paragraph acknowledges that Marsden can be wrong, and I even give another example, so I conceded your correction at once. BTW, it is not my"adamant statement", but rather Marsden's ! Then there's this , where I acknowledge for a second time that Marsden is wrong to add the word 'machines'
Paullus wrote:-
Quote:even if he did add the word 'machines' to the anecdote in error
Duncan wrote:-
Quote:uncluttered by Marsden's unfortunate blunder
..."unfortunate blunder" seems too strong and emotive a term for Marsden turning what is ambiguous and implied into a positive assertion...the idea that it is machines that are in question is just as reasonable, if not more so, as the assertion that 'hand-thrown is meant, and in fact on balance of probability, more likely...at least you don't have to invent cliffs to have stones dropped off, or have the Macedonians obligingly stand under them while the Phocians did so - they would only have to withdraw a very small distance to be perfectly safe from 'dropped' rocks ..... Smile
Quote:As the Phocian troops withdraw up the hillside, the rock-hurlers begin their work.
Hold on, you were arguing 'cliff' and 'dropped' earlier ! :? wink: :lol:
Quote:But why would you want to ignore this anecdote, Paul?
......I don't, particularly, but clearly there is an ambiguity here we can't resolve, other than by implication..so I thought to demonstrate that leaving Polyaenus aside for a moment, there is till other evidence for stone-throwing machines at this time....
Quote:Here's another one: don't add details to an ancient source that were never there in the first place.
.....I never do ! That translation is not mine, it is someone else's...I quoted it to show that it is not just Marsden who thinks 'petroboloi'/stone throwers or launchers are machines, but many others too......you are the only person I'm aware of whose opinion is otherwise.... Smile
Quote:We have no idea how big the bow would need to be to shoot a certain size of missile.
The size of the bow is not entirely certain, it is true - but you need to read Marsden again...he calculated/estimated the size of projectile from the (known) dimensions of other parts, such as the slider. In any event, the actual 'calibre' doesn't matter, the fact that stone throwing non-torsion machines existed in Philip's day is what is important.
Quote:Let's remember the fundamental point that I'm making: Polyaenus never mentioned stone-projecting catapults! You said something earlier about special pleading ... Ironic, eh?
.....of course, your emphasised point is simply not true, is it? What we have is an ambiguity...I could equally say there is no mention of 'by hand' either.Let us take the translation I quoted earlier, with the original ambiguities restored, and including your translation of 'heights'...
Quote:"Polyaenus (2. 38. 2) writes: "Onomarchus, drawing up his
men in battle order against the Macedonians, occupied a crescent shaped
mountain/hill in his rear. After he had concealed stones
and stone-throwers (petroboloi)on the ridges/heights(still no mention of 'cliffs, then') on both sides, he
led his forces into the underlying plain. When the Macedonians,
coming against them, hurled their javelins , the Phocians pretended to flee into the midst of the mountain.
The Macedonians in spirited and quick pursuit pressed against
them, but the Phocians by discharging(greek word? - not 'dropping' then?) stones from the ridges/heights ( where are the cliffs? :roll: )
shattered the Macedonian phalanx. ( Hand thrown stones are not going to travel from ridges to plain!...and hand thrown stones are hardly likely to outrange javelins either, or to 'shatter' the Macedonian Phalanx. Furthermore, hand thrown stones would hardly reach more than the fringes/extreme flanks of the Macedonian army, and hardly to the middle, and so would be unlikely to panic the whole Macedonian army! In fact, after this, they were so panicked that they mutinied, refusing to campaign against Onomarchus at first, until Philip harangued them and reminded them it was a Sacred war, so the Gods were on their side....Does this sound like the effect hand-thrown stones would have on a battle-hardened army?...on the other hand, if they had met stone-throwing artllery for the first time...QED! )Then Onomarchus signaled
the Phocians to turn around and close with the enemy. The
Macedonians, with their adversaries attacking them from the
rear and throwing stones at them from above, were put to
flight and retreated with much suffering."
Quote:It's equally likely that the bow-machines followed their own developmental sequence, divorced from whatever was happening with torsion. We simply don't know
...so you reject evolution then! :wink: Some rather bizarre consequences, just so you can have 'dropped' stones from a (non-existent) cliff.....
Quote:(1) Polyaenus doesn't mention stone-throwing catapults, so his anecdote is inadmissable in this debate. ..and he doesn't mention 'hand thrown or dropped either...one must deduce the meaning from the context and the events surrounding the event, with 'stone-throwers' more likely to be machines for the reasons set out...
(2) We don't have a clear picture of the evolution of catapult artillery, so we don't really know what kinds of catapults were around in the 350s BC, besides the arrow-shooting gastraphetes. ...so we must ignore the logic of evolution...we know that Philip's engineer is the likely inventor of torsion artillery. It is a certainty that stonethrowers like Charon's and bigger existed prior to this, so there is absolutely no reason the Phocians couldn't have had them
(3) There is ample evidence, literary and sculptural, to show that the ancients did not share your disdain of rock-throwing. Unfair! I have no disdain for stone-throwing by hand, and never said so...but then as now, hand thrown stones are not exactly a lethal weapon that would panic an army, still less an armoured one carrying shields!...and to the point that, for the one and only time, next season it refused to take the field...It was an effective and inexpensive method of assault, particularly by troops positioned on high ground. ....hardly !! ....and where's your evidence for ANY army in antiquity being routed by having stones thrown/dropped at them ?
(4) And did I mention, Polyaenus doesn't mention stone-throwing catapults ........well, I wasn't going to descend to this level of debate, but...and did I mention, Polyaenus doesn't mention'hand thrown' or 'dropped' or 'cliffs'?
Smile D lol: :lol:
"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
#38
Still digging for Pausanias. Hope it will solve the problem.
Well petrovolos means shooting (hurling?) stones. Voli in Greek is shot.
Oros (mountain) is from 800 meters anything less is lofos (hill)
At least our school geography said so.

So Polyenos talks about a mountain at least 800m (2400 feet or more).
Thessaly is a flatland surrounded by mountains. Olympus (N) Pindos (W) Ossa (NE) Pelio (E). Only small hills exist north of Pagassai (modern Volos) where Phokians lost their final battle.

So either Polyenos makes mistake (or the medieval copier) and we have increased liklehood of artillery if it happened at the Paggasai hills or the event happened at Tempi (north pass between Olynpus and Ossa) and Duncan's scenario is very possible.

Kind regards
Reply
#39
Quote: ...well, I trust we are having a light-hearted debate.
Plato would've been proud of us. :wink:

Quote:I conceded your correction at once.
I apologise, Paul -- I failed to notice that.

Quote:the idea that it is machines that are in question is just as reasonable, if not more so, as the assertion that 'hand-thrown is meant, and in fact on balance of probability, more likely ...
This is the crux of our disagreement, Paul. I do not accept that machines are more likely.

Quote:...at least you don't have to invent cliffs to have stones dropped off, or have the Macedonians obligingly stand under them while the Phocians did so - they would only have to withdraw a very small distance to be perfectly safe from 'dropped' rocks ..... Smile
This bit made me laugh out loud. If you check our respective messages, you'll see that I have never used the word "cliffs". In fact, you have invented the cliffs, Paul. Big Grin

And, of course, the Macedonians evidently did obligingly rush into Onomarchus' trap. Polyaenus says so. Once Philip's phalanx was in the killing zone, the troops hiding on the heights above pelted them with rocks, while the Phocians (who had feigned retreat into the crescent-shaped hill formation) turned on them.

"You only have to withdraw a very small distance to be perfectly safe from dropped rocks." I'm sure that's what Philip was shouting at his disordered phalanx, as it struggled to retreat from the trap.

Quote:Hold on, you were arguing 'cliff' and 'dropped' earlier ! Now it's 'hillside' and 'hurled' is it ?
Naughty, naughty! Those were your words, Paul.
I went to some lengths (even posting the Greek text) to show that Polyaenus refers to "the heights on either side" of the cul-de-sac. In other words, the men are hiding on the hillsides, ready to pelt the Macedonians with rocks.
(By the way, how on earth do you hide a stone-throwing machine with a 9-foot bow?! Actually, several of them! Dozens, d'you think? Come to that, how do you perch them on your cliffs?!)

Quote:That translation is not mine, it is someone else's...I quoted it to show that it is not just Marsden who thinks 'petroboloi'/stone throwers or launchers are machines, but many others too......you are the only person I'm aware of whose opinion is otherwise.... Smile
I suppose if you repeat an error often enough, people will begin to believe it. I don't know who your "many others" are, but I'll bet they all reference Marsden. The French translation that you criticised for not saying "machines" is prior to Marsden. Similarly, Shepherd.
His unfortunate blunder, ... er innocent mistake, has cast a long shadow.

In case you give the impression that petrobolos always means a machine, it most certainly doesn't. W.K. Pritchett wrote a sizeable tome about human lithoboloi and petroboloi which, unfortunately, I don't have access to, just now.

Quote:Your emphasised point is simply not true, is it? What we have is an ambiguity...I could equally say there is no mention of 'by hand' either.
But I would say that there is.
Polyaenus (thankfully) rarely mentions artillery, but on the two occasions that he does, he correctly uses the verb aphiêmi, "to shoot". On this occasion, as you can see from the fragment (posted below), he uses the verb ballô, "to throw". So there are no machines shooting. Only men throwing.
(And before you say it, allow me to retract "dropping" as a poorly-chosen synonym. If you're on a hillside, you need to throw, rather than drop.)

Quote:I have no disdain for stone-throwing by hand, and never said so...but then as now, hand thrown stones are not exactly a lethal weapon that would panic an army, still less an armoured one carrying shields!
Off the top of my head, I can think of two relevant episodes which you must be aware of.
Thucydides (1.106) records how a force of Corinthian hoplites (!!) were trapped and stoned to death by Athenian light troops.
And later (4.43), he describes how a section of the Corinthian phalanx at Solygia retired up a slope to a dry-stone wall, and showered their Athenian adversaries with the stones.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#40
Duncan wrote:-
Quote:Paullus Scipio wrote:
...at least you don't have to invent cliffs to have stones dropped off, or have the Macedonians obligingly stand under them while the Phocians did so - they would only have to withdraw a very small distance to be perfectly safe from 'dropped' rocks .....

This bit made me laugh out loud. If you check our respective messages, you'll see that I have never used the word "cliffs". In fact, you have invented the cliffs, Paul.
Quite right - my apologies ...you merely actually said 'dropped', and only implied 'cliff or cliff-like' to go with dropped! :lol: O.K., so it's 'hillside' ( or if Stefanos is correct - see his post -mountainside, which rather changes the scale of things ) and 'hurled/shot/launched' then ( see Stefanos post again - and noting that ancient and modern greek often are different due to changed meaning over time...)
Quote:In other words, the men are hiding on the hillsides, ready to pelt the Macedonians with rocks.
...there's no mention of men, merely 'petroboloi'/stone throwers, which word appears to be the heart of the debate - I shall return to it later
Quote:(By the way, how on earth do you hide a stone-throwing machine with a 9-foot bow?! Actually, several of them! Dozens, d'you think?
To a military man, easy ! If the heights/ridges are forested or scrub-covered, no problem at all ! How about if the slope is bare? Again, easy ! depending on whether the slope is concave or convex, either on or just behind the crest, completely invisible, and only the rocks/stones appear, as if by magic! ( very demoralising I should think!) Confusedhock:
...which is a lot easier than concealing hundreds/thousands of men at hand-throwing distance on a slope, say 25 yards/metres....unless of course, we go back to a cliff scenario again! Smile D lol: :lol:
Quote: In case you give the impression that petrobolos always means a machine, it most certainly doesn't. W.K. Pritchett wrote a sizeable tome about human lithoboloi and petroboloi which, unfortunately, I don't have access to, just now.
...back to that ambiguous word again! :? )
BTW 'ballo' if Stefanos is correct, means 'shot', at least in modern Greek..... and if the lexica are correct this was the ancient meaning too - "to throw or hurl or shoot with (a thing)"....(Liddell Scott) .....such as a machine, sling, or bow. So the more correct meaning is (something) shooting, which in context can only be machines....no imaginary men throwing! :lol:

Quote:Thucydides (1.106) records how a force of Corinthian hoplites (!!) were trapped and stoned to death by Athenian light troops.
And later (4.43), he describes how a section of the Corinthian phalanx at Solygia retired up a slope to a dry-stone wall, and showered their Athenian adversaries with the stones.
...relevant how? I never said there were no hand thrown missiles at all, and I meant 'lethal' in the sense of 'lethal' to an army, to the point of mutiny and refusal to take the field ( only artillery here in Philip's case, and the prospect of elephants by the thousand, in Alexander's case, had this effect on the hard-bitten Macedonian army). But taking 'lethal to individuals', in your first instance the killing is shooting fish in a barrel by proper Athenian light troops - slingers and javelinmen, or maybe slingers alone - there is no mention of 'hand-thrown', and in your second example, when Corinthian Hoplites take to throwing lumps of dry stone wall, no-one is reported killed.... both your examples are irrelevant.
One more point; we must always take the surrounding circumstances into account. A man who shoots another is a murderer, right? But what if the victim was coming at him with a knife? Or he's a soldier? Circumstances alter cases! Smile wink: :wink:
"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
#41
Just a thought, any chance they were rolling big rocks down the hill?
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#42
Very probable rolling them in Pagassai or dropping them at Tempoi.
But Pagassai has the chance of artilerty use. The hillocks are gentle.
Paggasai though is unlikely because they are not oros (mountain) but hills.

Kind regards
Reply
#43
Very interesting debate.

It is a bit difficult for me to imagine lots of clumsy machines in a roadless hillside, used as early mountain artillery.

On the other hand the reaction of the Macedons and Philipp could indeed be an indication for unconventional methods, i.e. throwing machines.

Are the machines of the Phoceans mentioned thereafter? They lost the next battle, did they use machines again or disappeared the Phocean throwers from history after the first use? Would be a bit strange, wouldn't it?
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#44
After beating the Phokians he "broke all their weapons".
The Phokians were mainly well equiped peltasts.
They appear as such later in Chaeronea and at the sack of Thebes by Alexander. Which begs the question: what weapons Philip broke?

By that time Greeks knew the gastrafetes and Phokians with the delphic money hired lots of mercenaries. Assuming they had artillery it might have been an enlarged gastrafetes cabable of throwing stones but not the size of Later hellenistic artillery. Just a thought.

Kind regards
Reply
#45
Quote:...there's no mention of men, merely 'petroboloi'/stone throwers, which word appears to be the heart of the debate. Well, to clarify what you said, the lexica(LSJ et al) give petrobolos as "engine for throwing stones". It occurs some 16 times in Greek texts, where it almost always has that meaning ... Now in fairness, it can't have had that meaning before'stone-throwers' were invented ..., so its original meaning will have been a human 'stone thrower' [?!] ....but Polyaenus is a very late writer and is virtually certain to be using it in its 'modern' sense of 'stone-thrower' in the mechanical sense.... Smile lol:
Lexica? You mention Liddell-Scott-Jones, which is always a good place to start. But it's not exhaustive. And it is fairly selective, taking its examples from a small core of texts.

In any event, you've made my case for me! You admit that the basic meaning of the word petrobolos is a man throwing a stone. Not an imaginary man. But a real man. Throwing a stone. Only the context would suggest otherwise to a Greek reader. So, Philon writing a book about catapults can clearly use petrobolos to mean "a stone-projecting catapult", without having to explain every time. Similarly, Athenaeus.

You also mention Polybius and Diodorus. Both interesting examples. Early on, Polybius uses the phrase petrobolika organa (literally "stone-throwing engine": 5.99.7), as if to make sure that his readers will know what he means by "stone-throwing". Diodorus does something similar at 24.1.2 (petrobolon organon). LSJ stick their necks out with Polyb. 5.4.6, where the meaning is only clear from the context. Polyb. 8.7.2 is another interesting one, where the reference to petroboloi kai katapeltai (literally "stone-throwers and catapults") again makes it clear that he means artillery.

So these examples that you have selected are not at all as clear-cut as you hoped. In two instances, it even looks as if Polybius and Diodorus go out of their way to explain -- "look, we're going to use this word petrobolos, but you must understand that it's actually a machine here, not a man."

Quote:Xenophon - before the invention of such machines), uses a derivative of this in reference to a stoning.
Xenophon -- a first-rate military author who lived before the advent of catapults -- uses the word petroboloi (not "a derivative" -- I don't know why you've used that odd term) to indicate what can only be men throwing rocks by hand. (Xen., Hellenica 2.4.12: "Behind the hoplites, however, were stationed peltasts and light javelin-men, and behind them the petroboloi.")

Quote:I never said there were no hand thrown missiles at all, and I meant 'lethal' in the sense of 'lethal' to an army ... But taking 'lethal to individuals', in your first instance the killing is shooting fish in a barrel by proper Athenian light troops - slingers and javelinmen, or maybe slingers alone - there is no mention of 'hand-thrown' ... both your examples are irrelevant.
Not shooting fish in a barrel, Paul. Not shooting anything, in fact.
Thucydides uses the verb kataleuô, "stoning to death". Anyone who has seen Life of Brian knows that this means throwing rocks by hand. It's nasty and it's lethal, even to hoplites.
(By the way, Thucydides says that it's the unarmoured psiloi who are given this task -- we don't know whether they're javelinmen or slingers, but that's not important because they have set aside their usual fighting style in order to beat the Corinthian hoplites to a pulp with rocks.)
Worse still, a phalanx has no reply to this kind of attack. They can stand and take it, or they can reverse! So I'm not sure why you think this is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:In this instance, immediately after this encounter, the Army's reaction was to refuse to take the field and Philip's reaction was to take an immediate interest in Artillery, become the foremost proponent of it in greek warfare, and even become the butt of jokes over his deep interest.
You certainly spin an entertaining yarn, Paul.
(1) How do we know that Philip's army immediately mutinied? It's not in Polyaenus. And we don't know the date of the encounter with Onomarchus. So where does this mutiny figure? (I have not memorised Diodorus ... yet.)
(2) How do we know that Philip's immediate reaction was to take an interest in artillery? It's not in Polyaenus. And we don't know .. etc. etc.
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 18,045 05-20-2008, 11:59 AM
Last Post: Paralus

Forum Jump: