The early history of the crossbow

[Eleatic Guest]

The earliest reasonably reliable date for the crossbow is from the 5th century BC,[3] from the Greek world. The historian Diodorus Siculus (fl. 1st century BC), described the invention of a mechanical arrow firing catapult (katapeltikon) by a Greek task force in 399 BC.[4][5] The weapon was soon after employed against Motya (397 BC), a key Carthaginian stronghold in Sicily.[6][7] Diodorus is assumed to have drawn his description from the highly rated[8] history of Philistus, a contemporary of the events then. The date of the introduction of crossbows, however, can be dated further back: According to the inventor Hero of Alexandria (fl. 1st c. AD), who referred to the now lost works of the 3rd century BC engineer Ctesibius, this weapon was inspired by an earlier hand-held crossbow, called the gastraphetes (belly shooter), which could store more energy than the Greek bows. A detailed description of the gastraphetes, along with a drawing, is found in Heron's technical treatise Belopoeica.[9][10] A third Greek author, Biton (fl. 2nd c. BC), whose reliability has been positively reevaluated by recent scholarship,[11][5] described two advanced forms of the gastraphetes, which he credits to Zopyros, an engineer from southern Italy. Zopyrus has been plausibly equated with a Pythagorean of that name who seems to have flourished in the late 5th century BC.[12][13] He probably designed his bow-machines on the occasion of the sieges of Cumae and Milet between 421 BC and 401 BC.[14][15] The bows of these machines already featured a winched pull back system and could apparently throw two missile at once.[7]

From the mid-fourth century BC onwards, evidence of the Greek use of crossbows becomes more dense and varied: Arrow firing machines (katapaltai) are briefly mentioned by Aeneas Tacticus in his treatise on siegecraft written around 350 BC.[7] An extant inscription from the Athenian arsenal, dated between 338 and 326 BC, lists a number of stored catapults with shooting bolts of varying size and springs of sinews.[16] The later entry is particularly noteworthy as it constitutes the first clear evidence for the switch to torsion catapults which are more powerful than the flexible crossbows and came to dominate Greek and Roman artillery design thereafter.[7] Another Athenian inventory from 330-329 BC includes catapults bolts with heads and flights.[16] Arrow firing machines in action are reported from Philip II's siege of Perinth (Thrace) in 340 BC.[17] At the same time, Greek fortifications began to feature high towers with shuttered windows in the top, presumably to house anti-personnel arrow shooters, as in Aigosthena.[18] In Roman times the crossbow became to be known as arcuballista.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

Two questions:
1. Can we call arrow shooters crossbows as well, particularly in English? I am lead here by terminology designating bow machines as double siege crossbows, etc.
2. Any more evidence for the 5th and 4th c. BC? Archaeological remains, inscriptions, etc.?

[D B Campbell]

1. Can we call arrow shooters crossbows as well, particularly in English?

I'd be careful equating "crossbow" with "arrow-shooting catapult", Stefan. (For example, the machines used by Philip II were surely stand-mounted catapults, rather than hand-held weapons.) Most people restrict their use of the word "crossbow" to the medieval weapon. The Greek gastraphetes could be described as "crossbow-like" or "a hand weapon similar to the crossbow", but would not be designated as "a crossbow".

The earliest reasonably reliable date for an arrow-shooting machine is from the 5th century BC,[3] from the Greek world. The historian Diodorus Siculus (fl. 1st century BC), described the invention of a mechanical arrow firing catapult (katapeltikon) by a Greek task force in 399 BC.[4][5] ...

It is likely that Dionysius was using a gastraphetes-related machine, but not certain. As you correctly note, Diodorus calls it a katapeltikon, not a gastraphetes, or even a crossbow! (I've made my suggestion in red.)

The date of the introduction of crossbows, however, can be dated further back: ... A third Greek author, Biton (fl. 2nd c. BC), whose reliability has been positively reevaluated by recent scholarship,[11][5] described two advanced forms of the gastraphetes, which he credits to Zopyros, an engineer from southern Italy. Zopyrus has been plausibly equated with a Pythagorean of that name who seems to have flourished in the late 5th century BC.[12][13] If the identification is correct, he may have designed his bow-machines on the occasion of the sieges of Cumae and Milet between 421 BC and 401 BC.[14][15] The bows of these machines already featured a winched pull back system and could apparently throw two missile at once.

Also, I'd be careful about stating anything pre-399 BC as fact, rather than theory, Stefan. If we've got the wrong Zopyrus, then the whole theory falls apart. (Again, I've made my suggestion in red.)

From the mid-fourth century BC onwards, evidence of the Greek use of arrow-shooting machines becomes more dense and varied: ... At the same time, Greek fortifications began to feature high towers with shuttered windows in the top, which could have been used to house anti-personnel arrow shooters, as in Aigosthena.[18] In Roman times the machine known as an arcuballista was probably similar to the crossbow.

Again, just be careful of using "crossbow" when all we know is that the machine shot arrows and could be carried around by an individual. (Again, suggestions in red.)

Otherwise, very nicely summarised!

[hoplite14gr]

Laudes for the clarification Dancan!

[D B Campbell]

Laudes for the clarification Dancan!

Thanks!

[g_b]

In Roman times the machine known as an arcuballista was probably similar to the crossbow.[/quote]


Just a thought...

Could the term "arcu" in arcuballista just refer to the "arcus ferreus" (as named by the Anonymus de rebus bellicis)?

In that case the arcuballista would be a variant of an iron framed ballista and the byzantine name toxobolistra would be just the direct translation of the latin word...

IIRC this has been mentioned by IP Stephenson (very often I don't agree with him, but here he could be right...).

But maybe we will never know...

[D B Campbell]

IIRC this has been mentioned by IP Stephenson (very often I don't agree with him, but here he could be right...).

I'd be very surprised if he had come up with this one!

I think Marsden already considered this in 1969/1971. Of course, you'd then need to explain why there are manuballistae (= cheiroballistrai) and arcuballistae, if they're essentially the same thing. Personally, I prefer the arcuballista as "bow-ballista" powered by a bow, to draw a distinction with the torsion manuballista / cheiroballistra.

[g_b]

[I'd be very surprised if he had come up with this one!

I was surprised, too. The book I was thinking about is "Late Roman Infantry Equipment"

As I said, probably we will never know. The question is just why should two quite similar types of weapons be used (and manufactured) at the same time and in the same place of the battle line?

And why should the Romans apply the term "ballista" to a tension powered weapon? (The arrow projecting catapults were started to be called ballista when they became palintones).

Vegetius (and he is the only one who describes this battle array using carro-, manu- and arcu-ballistas...afaik...) was a theorist who drew from older sources.

But again, probably we will never.... :wink:

[Eleatic Guest]

Thank you very much, Duncan. :!:

At the risk of becoming repetitive, please allow me to request for some further clarifications:

1. Definition: Does the term "crossbow" refer in English only to the hand-held version or also to stand-mounted bow machines? And is it confined solely to flexible bow constructions or also to torsion weapons? Thirdly, if only the medieval version can be justifiedly called a crossbow, but not the gastraphetes, then why is the term also commonly employed in connection with the very different Chinese versions?

2. Now all arrow firing machines leaving aside, what is the earliest evidence for the hand-held 'crossbow'? In my view, if we are insistent on differing catapults from hand-held versions, there yawns a huge gap of several hundred years between the Gastraphetes, dated by Heron to before 399 BC and the earliest appearance of potential crossbow-like weapon such as the cheiroballistra, manu- and arcuballista! What about ancient inscriptions, depictions or archaeological remains of crossbow bolts?

[D B Campbell]

1. Definition: Does the term "crossbow" refer in English only to the hand-held version or also to stand-mounted bow machines? And is it confined solely to flexible bow constructions or also to torsion weapons? Thirdly, if only the medieval version can be justifiedly called a crossbow, but not the gastraphetes, then why is the term also commonly employed in connection with the very different Chinese versions?

Only the hand-held version, Stefan. And only those weapons with flexible bow construction. I can't comment on the Chinese ones -- aren't they flexible bow contruction, though? -- but for ancient Greece and Rome, the experts are pretty careful not to call our torsion machines "crossbows".

2. Now all arrow firing machines leaving aside, what is the earliest evidence for the hand-held 'crossbow'? In my view, if we are insistent on differing catapults from hand-held versions, there yawns a huge gap of several hundred years between the Gastraphetes, dated by Heron to before 399 BC and the earliest appearance of potential crossbow-like weapon such as the cheiroballistra, manu- and arcuballista! What about ancient inscriptions, depictions or archaeological remains of crossbow bolts?

Not so, Stefan. There is certainly a yawning gulf between the gastraphetes and the arcuballista which is reckoned to have been the same kind of hand-held flexible bow machine (pace g_b!).

For the crossbow, there are the well-known Gallo-Roman sculptures that seem to show hunting equipment in a C2 or C3 context. I don't know the references offhand, but they are illustrated in Daremberg-Saglio (under arcuballista). These are genuine crossbows.

For hand-held torsion weapons -- which we wouldn't call crossbows! -- there is a steady stream of small torsion washers (modioli), which indicate the continued use of the scorpidion / scorpio minor (?) and then the cheiroballistra / manuballista. And the odd hint in the literary sources (e.g. Arrian's cavalry shooting arrows "from a machine" on horseback).

[Eleatic Guest]

Puuh, now I know why the material on ancient mechanical artillery is so scattered at WP, because you need for almost every single device a separate article! But you helped me alot, now I have to figure out how to distribute the evidence...

[Eleatic Guest]

For hand-held torsion weapons -- which we wouldn't call crossbows! -- ...

But Baatz, apparently, did:

3.2. The early torsion crossbow (Hellenistic/Roman Principate).
Baatz takes finds of small bronze washers as evidence of this weapon, citing the upper calibre threshold of 5.5/6cm. He provides a table (Table 1, p. 7) of small washers (Ephyra; Mahdia; Bath; Elginhaugh; Volubilis 466 & 467), and cites Arrian (Tact. 43.1, with D B Campbell, Bonner Jahrb. 186, 1986) as evidence of handheld torsion weapons up to Hadrianic times.
3.3. The late-Roman torsion crossbow.
Baatz cites the archaeological finds from Gornea and Volubilis. He notes the problems of interpreting the "Cheiroballistra" text (e.g. method of spanning the machine not mentioned). Cheiroballistra = Vegetius' manuballista.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... straphetes [/quote]

[D B Campbell]

But Baatz, apparently, did

I think you're quoting my summary of Baatz's paper in JRMES 1999! And he does indeed use the word "Torsionsarmbrust" to indicate what he elsewhere calls a "mechanischer Handwaffe". So you are quite right.

He is usually careful to refer to "Armbrustartige Torsionswaffen" (e.g. DNP 6, 1999, col. 342).
(He used to correct me when I called it a crossbow! )

[M. Demetrius]

I don't want to let this topic lie fallow. It's a great discussion.
I would like, however, to get any information or diagram from somebody on how the arcuballista rolling nut/trigger mechanism's parts look, and how they interact to hold the bolt in place until the time to loose it.

I understand the principle, but not the specifics. Helps anyone?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have the same issue, it varies from crossbow to crossbow but it seems to be similar to the simplest of Medieval crossbows. I'd imagine the Romans would put a spring into it so the trigger would snap back, I know they did it with doorknobs.

The Haute-Loire Arcuballista is the only known Depiction we have of one, and Maurice and Vegetius both give brief mentions. Arrian and Ammianus also refer to Ballistarii on Horseback. Comitatus has proven that works with the Arcuballista.

[Thomas V.]

Hello M. Demetrios, MMFA and everyone interestet in the arcuballista,

the following article features archeological finds, that might belonged to a roman crossbow (p. 87-90):

http://archive.org/stream/wiltshirearcha...6/mode/2up

Regarding the specifics of the release mechanism of the arcuballista, it should be mentioned that the linked article contains a drawing and the measurements of the nut.

The handle that has been found in the same grave as the nut bears a striking similarity to the handle shown on the carving from Solignac (Fig. 467):

http://dagr.univ-tlse2.fr/sdx/dagr/feuil...&vue=image

Regards,

Thomas