11-18-2007, 09:04 PM
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:
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".)
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.
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?
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.
(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.
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.
