catapults

[Tulius Hostilius]

How! I am impressed by the responses!
Thank you all people!

Don Corleone,
“I think it predates the Sicilian Greeks. Didn't the Hittites use catapults to sack Nineveh?”

That was my doubt! I thought that they didn’t, but… I had the doubt, and no bibliography.

Red Harvest,
Thanks! Maybe I will buy "Ancient Siege Warfare", and the “Collapse of the Bronze Age”. They are books “written for the masses” but plenty helpful for those who aren’t experts in the time period.

For those who like the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, and RTW, why don’t you visit Troy Total War page (still developing):

http://www.troytotalwar.111mb.com/

and the forum:

http://s9.invisionfree.com/Troy_Tota...ex.php?act=idx

[Red Harvest]

Some more info that is interesting. I've only had the Kern book a short while (along with a dozen other books) so I have only read a few chapters. However, it quotes the Book of Chronicles about how King Uzziah (786-758 BC) strengthened Jerusalem's defenses. It says that he placed "engines, invented by skillful men," on the towers and corners of Jerusalem's fortifications. These "engines" shot arrows and "large stones." However, the translation of the passage is in doubt. One opinion is that the "engines" reference is not to catapults, but to wooden structures on the towers and walls. It is also suggested that the syrian reliefs of the siege of Lachish show such structures: wooden frames that held shields for archers and slingers so that they could hurl stones and shoot arrows at the attacking siege engines. Building improvised towers larger than the attacking siege towers was a common practice throughout the world of fortified cities. Another possibility is that the term was simply an anachronism that snuck in during later translations.

My King James Version says "And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal." I find the "great stones" part interesting. (The Revised Standard Version is nearly identical and is the text in the preceeding paragraph quoted by Kern.) Whether this is an anachronism due to various translations/transcriptions by the ancients, or if it is describing some other device is anyone's guess. I'm not sure what century the source Hebrew writings come from for 2nd Chronicles translation. Most tend to be about 6 th to 9th century AD from what I understand, something like 1300-1600 years after the events described in this verse.

I could even see such a device as being some sort of simple mobile ramp for rolling large stones down at equipment below...just as an example. Of course, that doesn't explain the arrows... It is possible that some sort of catapult was invented and in use, but if so it would predate the rest by at least 350 years...and that seems unlikely for the relative backwater of Judah. According to Kern, Babylonian siege ramp engineering calculation excercises have been found that suggest the effective lethal range of defender's bows and such was only about 60 meters (horizontal). That would tend to rule out their facing catapults, which would have a much longer sting. I admit that the 60 meter range seems a bit short, even for simple bows. However, defenders probably would not be inclined to make a habit of taking long range shots at well armoured siegers such as the Assyrians and Babylonians used. Their armour and shields should protect them quite well at 60 meters. If you were under siege for months or years, you might run out of bronze/iron arrow heads, and good arrow shafts fairly rapidly if you shot continuous long range volleys. Plus the 60 meters was probably and optimum value...longer ramps would mean a lot more time and labor, since the ramp size was THE determinant in how long it would take before the wall could be assaulted. So the engineers might have concluded that casualties at 60 meters were low enough to be at an annoyance level, rather than a serious hazard to the whole undertaking.

As an aside: This Ancient Siege Warfare book by Kern is really very good (even though I've only read about 100 pages total so far.) It has much more detailed and contiguous history in it than I expected. It flows very well and is not disjointed like some books about historical warfare.