Ancient Warfare Historian talks about movies depicting Medieval warfare

[Common Soldier]

I did not make up any term. My use of catapult was in line with general academic usage describing any bolt or ball throwing twin armed or bow based device in the classical world or even the later single armed devices

You have multiple opportunities to demonstrate somebody else using the term "rhodian catapult" but failed to do so. Demonstrate that somebody else is using the term "rhodian catapult" and I will offer an apology. Right now, you are dodging the issue. i haven't seen anybody but you use the exact term "rhodian catapult", and please stop avoiding the issue by talking about just catapult, that is not the issue. It was your use of an invented term by you "rhodian catapult" that was the point.

I tossed in Rhodian since of course that is one place that it was used the devise in question.

But "rhodian catapult" is not used by others, it is a term you.made up. Stop being insulting because others don't know a term you.invented. And you are wrong as usual. You tossed I. The term Rhodian, lower case, not upper case as you claim. The has you used the upper case it would have been more obvious that you meant a catapult from Rhodes.


Again, what contemporary primary source, in their own words, said that a polyboloa couple not be turned or pivoted. If you said it previously, then I apologize, but can you againtell me the ancient source that specifically.saie a polybolos could not be rotated or pivoted?

[conon394]

Again, what contemporary primary source, in their own words, said that a polyboloa couple not be turned or pivoted. If you said it previously, then I apologize, but can you again tell me the ancient source that specifically. saie a polybolos could not be rotated or pivoted?

Really quite the demand now is that not. I was unaware of peer reviewed journal standards are now enforced at the VV - you will be uploading a CV to demonstrate you do have a PhD in a relative classical history related field so as to referee this new situation.

In this case It has been quite some time since I have had access to the Belopoeica of Philo Byzantium and one that had both the Greek and a translation - 20 years in fact ( the Greek would help me little now my koine is pretty rusty). So thus my initial comment is post #2 was purely by memory. Old notes allow me to refine that to sections 73 -77 but I did not annotate my notes to passage level sorry to disappoint you (nor can I recall now if there was a supra 'book' level I left off). Its toward the end Philo criticizes the weapon for a fixed line of fire no matter its achievement in rate of fire and crew minimization. The point than of the reference was the Philo believed himself and thought his readers would agree that an army could quickly react to a fixed firing weapon - which is what the historian in the video asserts about the ball thing.

You have multiple opportunities to demonstrate somebody else using the term "rhodian catapult" but failed to do so

I see no particular reason to do so it was and remains an accurate description that if googled directs to exactly the device I had in mind when I typed the post. You are in fact miss quoting me I typed "Rhodian automatic catapult". I admit I did gap a 'the' out of that originally so its not absolutely clear I meant a type of catapult associated only with Rhodes as far as the record shows.


Again if you google that it does in fact take you directly a direct description of the artillery I had in mind. On balance I can see no particular reason to have typed the "The polybolos [a repeating catapult of the twin armed Torsion spring type that shot only bolts using a unique hopper and chain action system] as described by Philo of Byzantium in his work the Belopoeica (sections 73-77) made by Dionysius of Alexandria for Hellenistic Democracy of Rhodes at their Arsenal. Where in at the end of his description he disparaged it for having a fixed firing line". I could than have pointed out that Philo's opinion has in fact been criticized on a number of fronts. The key thing is Philo clearly has in mind the exact thing the bowling ball chute does - shooting directly at approaching troops from a fortification. However historians have pointed out the man was being unfair. His attack would not be a factor on a ship and the reduced crew would be desirable since Rhodes continued to use smaller ships in and era of larger ones (that had the crew and deck space for more artillery). Also Landels(*) pointed out if situated in a projecting bastion and shooting across a line of advance it would be very effective. But than I would just than have spent a lot time typing about a device that was only casually important to the point in question. I would also likely have felt the need now to point most historians think Philo probably did not get a solid look at the polybolos in any case since he is a bit vague in his description and quick to attack it compared to the products of the Ptolemies (his employer) which he is both more keen on and clearly knows well. Note also I recall Philo also disliked that it was locked into a singular type of bolt and had no ability to switched to stones or shot the hopper system likely also meant only accurate at closer ranges.

But In fact I provided a perfectly useful transliteration of 'polybolos' Which is as I noted muti or many shooter. But of course any catapult (or insert any of the other terms you derive any number of classical authors) of any type could in fact be so described. Thus I added Automatic to indicate its was something more that a manual one shot and reset device but well an automated version of a catapult allowing one (theoretically) operator to work the artillery. And than I added the place that built it and used it - Rhodes.

Stop being insulting because others don't know a term you.invented

Whom did I insult? So far you seem to have singularly decided I am insulting you.

But the thing is I could have used 'polybolos' in my initial post vs 'Rhodian automatic catapult' and I doubt it would any more intelligible to most people. And in fact Googling either I get more or less the same page of entries.

And you are wrong as usual. You tossed I. The term Rhodian, lower case, not upper case as you claim. The has you used the upper case it would have been more obvious that you meant a catapult from Rhodes

It is not capitalized in my original post? You sure? When asked for clarification I used the term Philo gave it polybolos but I was wrong 'as usual' wow - you have statistics on that or something I would be curious to know how often I have misled the TWC community.

In any case again the point was largely immaterial to the one I was making. I mean realistically if you want to attack my original post for being casual or lazy it makes more sense to say I should have said Philo of Byzantium an ancient engineer of siege weaponry attacked the ideal of any fixed forward firing 'machine' or 'device' because the enemy would move out of the line of fire (err shot). I need never even tried to mention the specific device he had in mind.


------------

And how many times would a SWAT team have to wear riot gear for weeks at a time? Or march 25 miles a day like Harold's did to reach the Battle of Hastings. And I imagine modern helmets are more comfortable to wear than ancient one.

The real question is what percentage of soldiers on an ancient battlefield would be professional ones, and what percentage would be part time who had to provide all their own equipment?

And if I or you were watching a movie about Harold's army being ambushed and surprised in camp or on the forced march one would not argue a lack of helmets by men who clearly could afford them. Similarly for example I have no issue with the police station attack in terminator nobody is expecting and I have no reason to think a SWAT squad would sitting down playing cards in full kit when a somebody smashed through the walls and opened fire with multiple weapons [Opps different era did a double check they only finally managed to get to the AR 15s/M-16s, no body armor. My PO had hers in the office but did not were it outside of an in person visit to somebodies house and the place had a multiple buttons in the front desk to drop seal the entry with steel doors and baffles and it started out with bullet proof glass and a not a flimsy front desk - the terminators entry would be a bit slower in SE Idaho] . And only at the very end are a few cops able to reach body armor and heavy weapons in the chaos. The original point was the ideal the elites of an army that are otherwise fully equipped with expensive armor would be in active combat w/o the singular exception of the helmets - which is just needed so you can recognize the expensive actors.

To your larger point yes some people would in fact not have them but by in large they are not the people who are the main characters who are in fact wealthy and have access to the best stuff.


Also I am surprised you have not attacked me for not citing Xenophon by work and chapter and verse If I am wrong as usual surly I am making that up as well - fires/night blind.

* Cited above already you look it up.