10? Huh?

Make that 8. My bad.

I'm not sure I have enough money to buy free copies for everyone on CHF. Might have to sell my house and car for that.

TL,

Thanks for the link. Looks like the Hebrew catapult wasn't a catapult at all.

This is what I've re-edited my text to. Let me know if the Greek name has been translated correctly?

******************
It was not immediately clear what form these "machines... for shooting arrows and large stones" were, but from the distinction the passage made between these machines and the "bows and stones for slinging" provided to the army, it does seem possible that they were siege engines of some sort. However, there remains no corroborative evidence of 9th century B.C. Hebrew catapults, and this reference to a possible catapult may instead have been a result of an error in the translation of the original Hebrew text. In the original text by Ezekiel, the word used was “karim” which meant battering ram, but this was mistranslated by the Greek chronicler in 250 B.C. to the word "belostaseiz" or "ballistarium" in Latin, meaning "artillery platform".

I was asking about a Dionysios type multi-shot machine because I find this passage a bit confusing. To me it sounds like you are describing a
a. mobile ("wagon-mounted")
b. multi-arrow ("multibolt")
c. multi-shot ("repeater")

crossbow - which I find hard to believe.



Me neither, but interestingly there is a similar lack of information about mobile field units in the West. The first mention of field artillery is at Alexander's Thracian war in the late 330s, but from then on almost no more mentions in the literature till Caesar.-






Hm, I am not sure why everybody always assumes the Greeks and Romans had no composite bows. After all, a Scythian archer unit has been serving as police force in Athens since the 500s making a transfer of technology plausible.

John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.78 describes first the invention of the gastraphetes and the 'conventional' oxybeles and then goes on: "Having reached the limit of power of the composite bow, catapult designers turned to a new source of power: torsion." I find Warry usually to be precise and mindful, even though the brevity of his comment is obviously unsatisfying here.

I would gladly be of help, but unfortunately I have no command of Greek.

Perhaps, but I've yet to find a single source that mentions the use of composite bows by Greeks or Romans, and always by Auxillery/mercenary units.

The other issue is the composite construction. Both use the same word COMPOSITE. But what does it really mean? Is one composite the same as another just because both are called composite?

I don't know how the composite bows of the Scythians were constructed but perhaps, while they were composite, they just weren't in the optimal composition of layers and hence the turn towards torsion as a means of upscaling bow power. If good composite technology was available to the Greeks and the Romans, I seriously doubt they would have sidelined it as a weapon type.

The Chinese composite bows matched, and in the case of the multi-bow assemblies exceeded the typical ranges of torsioned ballistas. Surely there must have been a difference in the composite bow of East Asia compared to the composite bow of the Greco-Roman world.

Have there been any studies done to find out, firstly the composite construction of bows used in the Greco-Roman world, and secondly, how optimal were these composites? Even in Chinese archery, there are a few different types of making composite bows and no single method of making composites equals another in power.

My own personal understanding of the spread of composite technology is as such:

Composite bows were first invented in Mesopotamia where it travelled into Northern India, East Asia and the fringes of the Mediterranean. However, the technology either slowed or did not progress into better composite methods except in East Asia where bamboo made the crucial difference in a complex 3-layered construction and hence enabled an upscaling of bow power unachievable elsewhere. The Greco-Romans, knowing the limitations of their own composites and coupled with their non-discovery ofr opposing multiple bow assemblies, took an alternative development route, abandoning composite in favour of torsion.

Ah... I see the problem. The word "Repeater" should not be there. I'll edit it out. Thanks for spotting it.

If thats the case, thats rather a semantic problem! Archers, like slingers, were quasi per definitionem auxiliary units as an auxiliary means a soldier with no Roman citizenship. But after service Roman citizenship was usually granted to the individual soldier.

The term "auxilary" lies at the core of the Roman political system and the people termed as auxiliary changed greatly with the expansion of the empire as more and more people became Roman citizens and the Romans recruited from farther and farther away their specialists. If auxiliaries used such weapons regularly, then it was a Roman weapon because auxiliarymen were subjects, though not citiyen, of the Roman Empire. (another matter are ally as they were soldiers from independent or semi-independent countries like Armenia).

Yeah, my thoughts, too.



Do you have sources for that claim? So far, my experience is that opinions in respect of effective range, maximum range and penetrating power differ wildy and there is practically no consent in anything.

Modern replicas of the Greek and Roman arcuballista and catapults have been tested in the West by military experts for 150 years (Napoleon III. ordered the first tests) and are thus their range and power are rather well documented, but I havent heard of much tests with Eastern weapons and I find reliance on ancient sources alone rather problematic. Were there modern tests with Han or Tang artillery?

Han artillery, no(at least that I know of). Tang artillery(1000m as max), yes. I don't know wether the latter had been experimented on in order to find the max range. All I know is that Persian(during the Mongol siege against Assasin castles)/Chinese sources puts it at around 1000 meters as max(Note that this is the Tang ballista, not the Han ballista 500 yrs before). Roman ballistas would probably have shot at 100 meters instead of its max of 400-500 meters. Mostly because it takes 12 seconds to get for the bolt to get there at such a range.

Do the 1000 meters refer to modern tests or ancient sources?



Dont want to sound picky, but I find this passage too confusing, especially the words "automatic" and "repeating". So Zhu Ge Nu were mounted? And the wheels were linked with the trigger of a repeating bow ("(powered by linkage with the wheels)")? I find that hard to believe.

As I said, the 1000 meters came from Chinese and Persian sources. I don't know whether anybody tested proper reconstructions of these machines for range. I doubt it, considering that a third world country would put their money elsewhere into somewhere more profitable.



I can't imagine how it works either, but I also can't imagine why he would lie(if he wants fame there are plenty of better lies to go around).

Nothing to do with lying, I had rather another translation error in mind. I am no engineer, but such a trigger mechanism would make gearwheels necessary, which moreover would have to work flawlessy on a bumpy tracks. I doubt that the ancients already that sophisticated technology, although they may have taken over the gearwheel principle from water mills, but which I find unlikely considering they were a fairly new technology then.

If such an full-automatic, mobile and repeating arrow-shooter had really existed and worked, then it would easily represent the epitome of all ancient artillery. But then I would find it hard to understand why the machine hadnt become the standard in Chinese warfare.

What's your translation of it? Keep in mind that these "machines" fire randomly and in random directions. It would only work in a few cases in which there are dustorms or other such cases(along with terrain).

TL, even in the pdf article you pointed me to, it mentions how unreliable and inconsistent torsioned weapons were.

Makes sense when you have to depend on soldiers keeping the torsion at the right torque all the time.

Hi,

I missed the comments re Romans.

All Roman soldiers were taught to use bows (and ride horses) they just didn't use them in battles till later. Ther are remains of horn/wood/sinew bows from early imperial sites, so the composite technologies exsisted. There are also remains of self bows (well horn nocks and no other plates). After the Hunnic intrusions the Romans adopted the Hunnic bow as it was larger, more powerful and fired longer arrows than their exsisting bows (ie a 'better' composite bow). The torsion powered ballista were kept as they were considerably more powerful. Ther is lots of archeological evidence that shows how the ballista had a 'long range sniper rifle' effect (eg lots of closely grouped shots in Ancient British HQ areas at Maiden Castle some 800m from Roman siege lines).

I hope that helps.

This is a direct quote from the bible.

"Uzziah provided for all the army the shields, spears, helmets, coats of mail, bows and stones for slinging. In Jerusalem he set up machines, invented by skilled workers, on the towers and the corners for shooting arrows and large stones. And his fame spread far, for he was marvelously helped until he became strong."

(More info thanks to TL)
In the original text by Ezekiel written ca. 580 B.C., the word used was “karim” which meant battering ram, but this was mistranslated by the Greek chronicler in 250 B.C. to the word "belostaseiz" or "ballistarium" in Latin, meaning "artillery platform".

So it would seem that the translation was errorneous to begin with. The bible unfortunately continues to carry this error.

I discussed this with someone on a catapult forum and while he believes it is still possible that the reference is not refering to battering rams at all but still catapults mainly from the "set up machines.... on the towers and corners...", I'm inclined to believe otherwise mainly because the later Assyrian reliefs don't show a single catapult despite the incredible detail on other siege engines, as well as no further mention exists on stone-throwers in the area until the 399B.C. invention in sycracuse. My own thoughts on what it might have been? I also don't think they were battering rams unless they were used to "batter" at enemy siege towers and ladders. Instead they might have been rock-slides for cascading rocks down a slope from the top of towers. More probable perhaps?

Hehehe.

************
Judaism - Haggada Volume1,Ch5
Nimrod, however, was not to be turned aside from his purpose, to make Abraham suffer death by fire. One of the princes was dispatched to fetch him forth. But scarcely did the messenger set about the task of throwing him into the fire, when the flame leapt forth from the furnace and consumed him. Many more attempts were made to cast Abraham into the furnace, but always with the same success- whoever seized him to pitch him in was himself burnt, and a large number lost their lives. Satan appeared in human shape, and advised the king to place Abraham in a catapult and sling him into the fire. Thus no one would be required to come near the flame. Satan himself constructed the catapult. Having proved it fit three times by means of stones put in the machine, they bound Abraham, hand and foot, and were about to consign him to the flames. At that moment Satan, still disguised in human shape, approached Abraham, and said, "If thou desirest to deliver thyself from the fire of Nimrod, bow down before him and believe in him." But Abraham rejected the tempter with the words, "May the Eternal rebuke thee, thou vile, contemptible, accursed blasphemer!" and Satan departed from him.

Islam - Stories of the Prophets
So then Nimrod asked his people what to do with him so they told him: burn him and make a victory for our gods if you want. Al-Sâdiq said: the king of Abraham and his folks were not wise for they said for Nimrod burn him, but the king of Moses and his folks were wise because when he (the king) asked his folks for what to do with Moses they told him to give him a chance with his brother and call every magician in the land, then Nimrod captivated Abraham and collected the woods and so when it was the day to throw him in the fire, Nimrod and his soldiers showed up and he built before that a building to see what will happen to Abraham when he is thrown in the fire and to see how the fire would burn him and the Satan came to them and showed them how to make the catapult because no one was able to approach the fire and they were buffled how to throw him into that great flame, and birds were burnt from a far because of it, so then they put Abraham onto the catapult and it is said that Azar came and slapped him and told him to get back to the religion but he did not care about it.
They mentioned that none of God's creation, except for the human beings, wouldn't ask God to save Abraham, so the earth said: O Lord, none on my back worships You except of him, would he be burnt! And angels said: O Lord, Your friend Abraham is getting burnt. So then, God did say: if he called for me, I will save him. And Gabriel said: O Lord, Your friend Abraham is getting burnt and You sent Your enemy to burn him. So then said God: Be silent, only a slave like you would say this because he is afraid of being late. and he is My slave, I can take him back whenever I want to, and if he called Me I would answer him. So then Abraham (PUH) called his Lord by the words that are in the chapter of Al-Ikhlâs: O Allah (God), O The One, O The eternally besought of all, O One that begetteth not nor was begotten, O One that there is none comparable unto Him, save me from the fire by Your mercy. The narrator said: then Gabiel met with Abraham in the air and he was put in the catapult, and said to him: do you need me O Abraham? So then Abraham answered: for you no, but for the Lord of universe yes, so he (Gabriel) gave him a ring that has an engraving saying: No other god except for Allah, Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, Allah is before my back, Allah supports me, Allah got my life.
*************
I'm not sure. I can send you the PDF of the relevant pages from the book if you like. PM me your e-mail. But it really doesn't say much more than what I've stated above. Would need to check the author's sources to dig any deeper. This author is a very credible author though.

The Haggada dates back to the 5-3rd century B.C. at the earliest.

What do you guys think if the book was in hardcover?

It will last longer than paperback, but if I am not mistaken, it would cost more. If the target audience are collectors, best for the book in hardcover.

Hardcover books are usually much more expensive, especially if they also have colour. That might reduce your readership base, or tempt them to make photocopies

On the Haggadah, I found some info here:
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/haggada.htm

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

The late date of the Haggadah seems to make it less credible as a source on early Hebrew history. The account of the catapult may well have been inspired by Roman weapons.

As for Islamic stories, many of them were derived from Judaism: http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/prophets/intro.html

My printer just threw me a curved ball just now. They can print hardcover (get this... this is wierd...) cheaper than softcover.

I'm now stuck. My shipping to the US now needs to be reworked since I checked only for the weight of softcover books.

What pricing would suit a hardcover book of 160+ pages you think?


I agree. My conclusions as well.

At least S$30+, although most hardcover non-fiction books printed outside Singapore now seem to cost around S$50.

That's what I've found too. Just to give some comparisons, from my own survey of what's out there, similar books at borders are going at about $40-60. Osprey books are between $24-29 (usually not more than 100 pages).

RLT in Texas is suggesting USD29.99 as a decent saleable price for softcover.

The hardcover/softcover price is because the costs are dependant on run size, paperbacks are much cheaper if you can produce very large numbers of them.

I presume you are still looking at direct sales, rather than going through a publisher. If so you need to pitch a competative price as you won't have up front placing in bookshops etc.. I'd suggest a delivered price of no more than 30 USD in N America (roughly 23 Euros in Europe, 15 pounds UK), as the price lowers sales are likely to increase.

Have you thought about print on demand ? eg www.lulu.com

Osprey are at 15 Euros in Europe. And the web is awash with scans of their plates.

English Ospreys

Just a quick update to let you know that I'm adding a whole new appendix section into the book based on some new photographs just received from Dr. T. D. Lopez of the Cambodian Research Centre for Development who's done a comprehensive survey of the Bayon bas relief on my behalf and catalogued a total of 7 different elephant-mounted catapults and 6 wheel-mounted catapults! I believe this is the first time such a complete catalogue has been done at Bayon. We're also pouring over the photographs in detail to see if there are variations in the catapults themselves. Info in the section on acruballistas will be edited appropriately if and when any new info is found.

Wow. That's really exciting! This could mean both of you have injected whole new material into the mainstream of catapult literature, I never heard of elephant mounted catapults before!

In 2004, I was there at Bayon and walked down the whole gallery, if I had only known what to look for then.

Here's a sample. Note both the elephant mounted AND the wheeled arcuballista in this one photo.

Nice, I wonder whether the real soldiers have the long ears as depicted by the photo.

Anyway, is that a photo of a wall ingraving?

Yup. It's a photograph of stone bas relief. I have quite a bit of work ahead of me to crop and redo the photos to try and bring out the details. Will add them in my book when I'm done. As you can probably tell, I'm practically jumping for joy at this new discovery. Some of these arcuballista have never been identified before!

Another interesting thing I've noticed is the bowstring arrangements seem to vary a little from catapult to catapult. There's one I can't figure out with a strange hook-like attachment.

So far the photos have raised more questions than answers. Intriguing... There are soldiers wearing Cham headdress but this is a Khmer bas relief to commemorate their war against the Cham so why are some of their soldiers wearing the typical Cham flower-headdress?

Many of the wheeled arcuballistas are incompletely carved with one very clearly still in outline as if still waiting of the carver to finish.

I still can't figure out the hook-like arcuballista bowstring arrangement. It's just so different from the rest.

Finally finished going through all the photos. Sigh, I was hoping to spot a sangong but too bad, they were all double bow arcuballistas. The tech for sangong was already available at the time in China when the Song sent someone down to teach the Chams. Maybe it's a case of only selling old technology to your neighbours who might potentially turn the same weapons against you? hehehe Interestingly cool insight I think if this were true.

Now I know why I have overlooked those ones. I do not spot them even now!

Is it an arrow-shooter or even a stone-thrower on the back of the elephant?

I wonder where the Khmer at their intermediary geographical position got their catapult technology from? From India, China or perhaps even a home development?

Double bow arcuballistas. Song China sent someone to Champa in the 12th century A.D. to instruct them on it's use. Must have spread to the Khmers by the 13th century A.D. which is what these bas relief are dated to.

Here's another picture. This one much more obvious, showing the double bows and the bowstring.

When I get back from vaccation, I'll try to dig some info up, but I believe that current thoughts are that the weapons were dismounted from elephant/waggon to fight. (as opposed to Roman cart mounted bolt shooters and, nuch later, Sultanate of Delhi elephanst with small cannon, both of which remained mounted to fire).

Unmounted? Hmmm... possible but they already had the wheeled ones so it doesn't quite make sense to have them both unmounted.

Some of the elephant-mounted catapults also feature 3 persons, a forward elephant driver, and two men manning the catapult. If the catapults were only being transported, there wouldn't be a need to have two pax behind the catapults IMO.

According to Michel Jacq-Hergoualc’h in his book “L'armement Et L'organisation De L'armee Khmere : Aux XIIe Et XIIIe Siecles D'apres Les Bas-Reliefs D'Angkor Vat, Du Bayon Et De Banteay Chmar”, they were probably Cham soldiers under the employ of the Khmers, either deserters, mercenaries or perhaps catapult instructors.


I begining to believe that this was a single-bow catapult. I've discussed this with Dr. Thanakvaro and he says the double-claw stick was used to draw the bowstring for rapid loading of bolts. It is obviously an elephant-mounted arcuballista but no where can we see a second "reversed" bow anywhere unlike in the other arcuballistas.

Hi, Jieming, I have a question about the Ji Che and the Wu Gang Che. On your website, you listed both of them as inventions of the Western Han dynasty. Could you please give more details? Thanks.

Not sure what kind of details you want. These two terms appear only in Han era text. The Wu Gang Che appears to be some kind of mobile artillery platform that follows an expeditionary army out into the field.

Interesting snippet of info that Yun dug out for me. In the Yuan Shi, chapter 210 is this reference to the Mongol invasion of Champa in A.D. 1283. The Chams used 100 hui hui pao to defend themselves from the Mongols.

Needham briefly mentions this in his book but he attributes it to Arab merchants. I have a slightly different theory which seems more plausible. The first use of the hui hui pao in China was in 1273 Xiangyang. This sudden jump in Cham technology is in my opinion, due to Song dynasty soldiers/engineers fleeing the Mongols. They would have helped the Chams resist.

Your theory is plausible, yet the Muslim engineers at Xiangyang kept all foriegners away from the hui hui pao. No Chinese were to operate the trebuchet. I can't remember the name of the book (all my books are in storage at the moment) that states this. It was written by a Polish author.

Still, merchants from the Khurasan region would have seen trebuchets in their area and may have had an engineer with them.

Chris

Interesting! I had no idea that it had been transmitted past China.

Selfish, I know, but could you post the original source text here?

The song copied the counterweight design by example. It's really a no brainer once you've seen it in action. Hang a bucket. Fill with stones. Winch it up. Let go. Q.E.D. We do have some textual evidence that point to the Song adapting the counterweight for their catapults prior to the fall. So yes, they could have transmitted it to the Chams. Anything with a falling counterweight is a hui hui pao in the terminology of the day, doesn't have to be built by actual Muslims.

Freaking awesome.

I just read that archaeological research on the old Qin, Zhao and Yan walls show that they were approximately 3.5-4.5m in height, 4m width at the top and 5m width at the base on average.

This matches almost perfectly my calculations for a Warring States rammed earth wall based conjectural evidence from the Mohist text as given in Appendix F of my book!

Extracted from "Chinese Siege Warfare: Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity", Appendix F, pp XVII
"We can therefore conclude that the typical fortified city wall of the Warring States period based on clues found in the Mozi, would probably have stood at approximately between 3 to 4.6 metres in height, with a top-of-wall width of at least 3 metres and a corresponding base width of at least 4.6 metres."

Ok, there is one slight difference and that is the Mohist text was talking about a city wall while the archaeological evidence was given for the border walls of the Qin, Jin & Yin but still... arguably close enough.... feels freaking awesome to be vindicated and have one's calculations proven and matched by actual evidence!

Nice! If only more rammed earth fortifications would have survived intact, though. I own a book written by John King Fairbank that says the city walls of the earlier Shang Dynasty capital were 8 meters (27 feet) tall. In fact, I have added that info to the wikipedia article on the Shang Dynasty.

Great to see that your work is vindicated!
Eric (En Rui)

The Shang walls at Zhengzhou are certainly very impressive.

Here's what Dr. Todd (who is currently in Xinzheng lecturing) wrote to me in an e-mail just this morning.

"... the Shang city wall of Zhengzhou was 22 meters thick, with the greatest surviving height 9 meters. At the top of the wall it was still 10 meters thick. The dirt was pounded between sloping wooden walls. I think our city wall at Xinzheng was about the same thickness. On the east wall near our campus, it is more like 12 meters high. But it is probably the best-preserved in all China, and we were right in the center of ancient China, a weak state surrounded by hostile larger ones. Our city walls were famous for the protection they afforded. Someday I think I will try to take precise measurements. The top of the wall is very nearly at the same height of the 5th floor balcony of a nearby apartment. I'm sure it is taller than the one I showed you in the photo with the girl standing in front. Unfortunately, Qin Shihuang wiped out our state in 230 BC, his first conquest on the road to creating an empire."