Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote-

Tut, tut, Paul. Do we need to remind you of the forum rules? Ad hominem insults are not welcome.

...the terminology was meant in a humorous way, but if you have taken offence, then I unreservedly apologise. OTOH, the suggestion that I do not quote sources (me, of all people!) is one I find very offensive and repugnant.

"Most likely" in who's opinion, Paul?

.....well I'll let readers figure it out. An army either doesn't recover from a major defeat, or it takes time, so the incident is 'most likely' to have been the second one. Look at any sequence of battles - there is often a preliminary clash, followed by a major battle. In any event it doesn't matter which way round it occurred, Diodorus tells us that the Macedonian army immediately went into crisis afterward.

Actually it's your interpretation of the sources, Paul.

..not just mine - every scholar's except yours - and it is still;
"reasoned logic based on the facts and the sources"...unlike your fairytale based on nothing but a barely possible interpretation of a word used by a late (as in 500years later!) author who used it at a time when it was synonymous with 'stone-throwing machine', and when the context and circumstances make it plain that 'machines' are being referred to.Your argument is about as logical as some future historian arguing that horses were still in general use in 21st century London because commuters 'rode' to work! :roll: :lol: :lol:

Because that would've been the natural thing to do? "If only I'd had my catapults", groaned Onomarchus, as he fled the battlefield. I don't think so!

..You are awful long on sarcasm, and awful short on facts and logic.... and you don't read the sources,( or for that matter the very post you quote! ) even after I give you the references, or you'd know that Onomarchus didn't make it off the battlefield.

No ancient authority calls Polyidos "a famous catapult engineer".

Well, I think we can safely assume that Philip didn't hire a poet to design his catapults and other siege machiney... :wink: :wink: And again this is by-the-by, the point being that before the incident with Onomarchus, Philip has no catapults, and a few short years afterward, he is the foremost artillerist in Greece! (whether designed by Polyeidos or not) :o )

Perinthus won that one

Hardly !You must not be reading the sources properly,again! Although Perinthus stood at the end of an Isthmus atop some cliffs, and could only be approached on a 200 yard front, Philip smashed his way in,using his siege train, in a matter of weeks, killing most of the defenders in the process. The survivors pulled back, and carried out a series of desperate defences from row after row of terraced houses, which the Perinthians used as interior walls. Philip had accomplished his purpose, and chose not to winkle out the survivors at great cost and no gain, so he left enough troops to maintain a blockade/siege and took his army off against Byzantium.
I wouldn't call that a win, and I bet the Perinthian survivors didn't either ! hock:

You're trying to prove that Onomarchus had stone-projecting catapults in "355 ,354, or 353 B.C." by pointing out that Philip had arrow-shooters in 340 BC. Where's the "reasoned logic"?!

No, I'm not! It seems that in desperation, you are taking quotations out of context. :evil: ......or else your reading of my posts is careless. What I wrote was;
"Turning now to Philip's acquisition and interest in Artillery." Perinthus and the speed with which Philip takes such a strong defence using his siege train and catapults is relevant to his 'acquisition and interest' in artillery, post-Onomarchus. Obvious relevance, really!

That's your opinion.

..and many others - you've mentioned a few eminent names yourself :wink:

which I think are men and you think are machines

...me and everyone else except you...I mentioned this earlier, but who else (scholars, I mean) holds to your 'opinion'?

Sources?

..I've already given the source earlier in the thread, when discussing the likely machines in question, and didn't see the need to repeat...Charon's non-torsion stonethrower.But of course, you must have known that, mustn't you ? :wink:

That's a very good point, Wolfgang.

...or rather, it would have been, had we been talking about "clumsy machines", but we are not.
If further proof were needed, a very similar sized machine, 2.3mx2.3 m, designed by Zopyrus, is called, and described as, a"Mountain Gastraphetes" demonstrating that machines of this size could, and doubtless were, used in mountains/hills( by Onomarchus, for example!) D lol:

(Why do you think that?)

...What a good question ! I have set out clearly why Onomarchus used machines, but aside from the antique meaning of the word, 500 years before Polyaenus, you've given NO reasons for why you, and apparently you alone, think the stone-throwers were human. Go ahead, make a case, if you can. Then it will be my turn to pour scorn and sarcasm...... D lol: :lol: