11-25-2007, 07:34 PM
Round 15 (ding, ding).
And as far as it being "everyone's [version] except mine", it would be more accurate to say that it's Eric Marsden's version. It's natural for subsequent (post-1969) authors, touching upon the specialised area of artillery, to trust what Marsden wrote, because most of the time he presents a sensible, balanced view of the development of artillery.
But they have all presumably made the same mistake that you made -- to assume that Marsden accurately quoted Polyaenus. Unfortunately, he didn't.
When I joined this thread on 31 October, I made the perfectly reasonable observation that "it is possible (some of us would say probable) that Polyaenus' "stone-throwers" were humans rather than machines".
I pointed out that, "in the Onomarchus passage, he [Polyaenus] doesn't specifically mention catapults". Elsewhere (namely Strat. 7.9), he assists us by using the word katapeltai, but not here. (That's interesting in itself. Why use the word at 7.9 but not at 2.38? Just one more Polyaenian puzzle.)
Now, you and I both know that Polyaenus is no Diodorus. As I said then, "anything he [Polyaenus] says must be weighed up carefully".
In particular, without knowing where Polyaenus took his information, we cannot be sure whether he means "men expert in throwing stones, furnished with huge stones and pieces of ragged rocks for the purpose" (Shepherd's version), or mechanical stone-projectors (which is what Marsden assumed).
I'm reminded of the maxim that "insults are often an indicator of flawed reasoning".
So let's look at your reasoning.
When you finally acknowledged that Polyaenus didn't write "stone-throwing machines", you appealed to "the separate 'evolutionary' evidence in Biton's technical treatise".
(I sympathise with you in your choice of witnesses: because if you had to choose two of the most problematic sources in the entire canon of ancient Greek history, you couldn't do better than Polyaenus and Biton!)
1. "Context"? I didn't think it was necessary to reiterate that the arrow-shooting gastraphetes was heralded in 399 BC as a new development. Our source, Diodorus Siculus, seems particularly keen to report on siege machinery whenever it is used. So it's interesting that he never mentions catapults again until the latter years of Philip II's reign. That led Marsden to propose that Philip had been instrumental in developing catapults, while noting that he only ever used arrow-shooters. We first hear of stone-projectors during the reign of Alexander.
The importance of this historical context is, of course, that anyone suggesting that stone-projecting catapults existed prior to this date really must come up with some good evidence.
2. "Circumstances"? I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose that, as I said above, anyone who wishes to suggest that Onomarchus had stone-projecting catapults really must come up with some good evidence.
3. "Heaping scorn on any opinion bar my own, in an offensive manner?" Now that's surprising! Only one of us has used disparaging language, and it wasn't me. If I have insulted you at any point, it was entirely unintended and probably due, as a Scotsman, to my poor command of English.
4. "Selective citation of sources"? The only sources of relevance to this discussion are Polyaenus himself (and I even posted a graphic of Polyaenus' original text!!), Diodorus for background material (e.g. 16.35.5, on Onomarchus fleeing the battlefield), and possibly Biton (whom you have introduced). Are there others that you feel are relevant?
5. "Distortion"? This one seems to be based on my throwaway remark that Onomarchus fled the final battlefield. You replied (in rather triumphalist tone, I think) that I really ought to have known that "Onomarchus didn't make it off the battlefield" (no source cited). I generally trust Diodorus Siculus for this period -- I was quoting him --, but Pausanias also says that "Philip won the action and Onomarchus fled" (10.2.3). You accuse me of "trying to mislead" (although the thread is actually about a completely different battle!), because "there are several versions of how he died" -- maybe you'd be good enough to share your sources, if you feel they are relevant?
Fact 1: we only know about two stone-throwing bow-machines.
Fact 2: we don't have any idea when Charon built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that it must've been after 399 BC (when Dionysius says the gastraphetes appeared at Syracuse), and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise (because he is the source).
Fact 3: we don't have any idea when Isidorus built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that (as above) it must've been after 399 BC, and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise.
Fact 4: we don't know when Biton wrote his treatise, except that it must've been some time between 241 BC and 133 BC (because he dedicated it to "King Attalus").
Conclusion: we don't have a chronology for stone-throwing bow-machines, so we don't know their relationship with the torsion catapult.
Quote:1. It's not "my" version, it's everyone's except yours.....1. It's your version, as far as this thread's concerned, Paul. When you joined on 16 November, you announced that "what Polyaenus actually says is"petrobolous mechanas" - stone throwing machines!" (no source cited).
And as far as it being "everyone's [version] except mine", it would be more accurate to say that it's Eric Marsden's version. It's natural for subsequent (post-1969) authors, touching upon the specialised area of artillery, to trust what Marsden wrote, because most of the time he presents a sensible, balanced view of the development of artillery.
But they have all presumably made the same mistake that you made -- to assume that Marsden accurately quoted Polyaenus. Unfortunately, he didn't.
Quote:2.If you think it is not a 'fairytale', then post your evidence and reasoning, as I have suggested.( and I don't mean just the potential ambiguity....)2. I'm sure anyone who has managed to stick with this thread will realise that the crux is, in fact, Polyaenus' ambiguity.
When I joined this thread on 31 October, I made the perfectly reasonable observation that "it is possible (some of us would say probable) that Polyaenus' "stone-throwers" were humans rather than machines".
I pointed out that, "in the Onomarchus passage, he [Polyaenus] doesn't specifically mention catapults". Elsewhere (namely Strat. 7.9), he assists us by using the word katapeltai, but not here. (That's interesting in itself. Why use the word at 7.9 but not at 2.38? Just one more Polyaenian puzzle.)
Now, you and I both know that Polyaenus is no Diodorus. As I said then, "anything he [Polyaenus] says must be weighed up carefully".
In particular, without knowing where Polyaenus took his information, we cannot be sure whether he means "men expert in throwing stones, furnished with huge stones and pieces of ragged rocks for the purpose" (Shepherd's version), or mechanical stone-projectors (which is what Marsden assumed).
Quote:3. If you are offended by 'fairytale' then I gladly apologise...I'm not offended by your use of terms like "fairytale" and "bollocks", or your unsubstantiated accusations of distortion. I just don't think they're very helpful in trying to hold a reasoned discussion.
I'm reminded of the maxim that "insults are often an indicator of flawed reasoning".
So let's look at your reasoning.
When you finally acknowledged that Polyaenus didn't write "stone-throwing machines", you appealed to "the separate 'evolutionary' evidence in Biton's technical treatise".
(I sympathise with you in your choice of witnesses: because if you had to choose two of the most problematic sources in the entire canon of ancient Greek history, you couldn't do better than Polyaenus and Biton!)
Quote:All you've done is suggest that the meaning of 'petroboloi' could mean human stone throwers...you haven't examined the context, or the circumstances, or anything else other than to heap scorn on any opinion bar your own, in an offensive manner, which you now compound by phrases such as "bombasting us with opinion"...when in fact I cite sources for all to see, and not selectively as you have done.It's the assembled body of ancient Greek literature that proves (not "suggests") that the meaning of petroboloi (and its cognate lithoboloi) can be "men throwing rocks".
1. "Context"? I didn't think it was necessary to reiterate that the arrow-shooting gastraphetes was heralded in 399 BC as a new development. Our source, Diodorus Siculus, seems particularly keen to report on siege machinery whenever it is used. So it's interesting that he never mentions catapults again until the latter years of Philip II's reign. That led Marsden to propose that Philip had been instrumental in developing catapults, while noting that he only ever used arrow-shooters. We first hear of stone-projectors during the reign of Alexander.
The importance of this historical context is, of course, that anyone suggesting that stone-projecting catapults existed prior to this date really must come up with some good evidence.
2. "Circumstances"? I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose that, as I said above, anyone who wishes to suggest that Onomarchus had stone-projecting catapults really must come up with some good evidence.
3. "Heaping scorn on any opinion bar my own, in an offensive manner?" Now that's surprising! Only one of us has used disparaging language, and it wasn't me. If I have insulted you at any point, it was entirely unintended and probably due, as a Scotsman, to my poor command of English.
4. "Selective citation of sources"? The only sources of relevance to this discussion are Polyaenus himself (and I even posted a graphic of Polyaenus' original text!!), Diodorus for background material (e.g. 16.35.5, on Onomarchus fleeing the battlefield), and possibly Biton (whom you have introduced). Are there others that you feel are relevant?
5. "Distortion"? This one seems to be based on my throwaway remark that Onomarchus fled the final battlefield. You replied (in rather triumphalist tone, I think) that I really ought to have known that "Onomarchus didn't make it off the battlefield" (no source cited). I generally trust Diodorus Siculus for this period -- I was quoting him --, but Pausanias also says that "Philip won the action and Onomarchus fled" (10.2.3). You accuse me of "trying to mislead" (although the thread is actually about a completely different battle!), because "there are several versions of how he died" -- maybe you'd be good enough to share your sources, if you feel they are relevant?
Quote:You know perfectly well, or should do, that Charon's stonethrower, while undated, is highly likely to be contemporaneous, on evolutionary grounds alone.You mentioned this evolutionary business before, as if it is self-evident:-
Quote: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!)I think it would be more accurate, given the imperfect state of our knowledge, to draw an analogy with Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons -- two similar, but essentially different, beasts. It is not at all "logically absurd" to say that bow-machines developed separately from the torsion catapult.
Fact 1: we only know about two stone-throwing bow-machines.
Fact 2: we don't have any idea when Charon built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that it must've been after 399 BC (when Dionysius says the gastraphetes appeared at Syracuse), and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise (because he is the source).
Fact 3: we don't have any idea when Isidorus built his stone-throwing bow-machine, except that (as above) it must've been after 399 BC, and must've been before Biton wrote his treatise.
Fact 4: we don't know when Biton wrote his treatise, except that it must've been some time between 241 BC and 133 BC (because he dedicated it to "King Attalus").
Conclusion: we don't have a chronology for stone-throwing bow-machines, so we don't know their relationship with the torsion catapult.
Quote:machines this size were specifically designed for 'mountain use'...and as you are well aware(presumably), a change of string and slider turned an arrow shooter into a stone-thrower anywayAgreed. Provided you realise that the stone must be roughly the same weight as the arrow.
Quote:It is a bit difficult for me to imagine lots of clumsy machines in a roadless hillside, used as early mountain artillery.I entirely agree with you, Wolfgang, and I take this opportunity to note that Schramm already made the same point about Zopyrus' so-called "mountain" gastraphetes -- it does seem a fairly cumbersome machine. (See below for one interpretation.)
