Dear friends,

Could you help me with this trerminology? Thanks

Regards
Manouchehr

That is a hard one. I do not know of anything that does a detailed job on each part. The long lever used to toss the item I have heard called the 'arm' or 'throwing arm' I have heard the supports called the 'frame' or legs. You then have the cords of various natures employed and the sling. You also have the counter weight. In medieval sources I have only ever seen them specifically mention material for the sling and the rest is just wood for engines.... I have seen them also state material for the counter weight.... lead from a roof or what not.

Mangonel is equally vague in historical sources as is onoger etc. These though seem to indicate the projection of stones. I think roman's had a more organised system though that might eb helpful. I think medieval writers would use a variant of trebuchet, catapult or mangonel often for the same devise. It is a more modern custom to define the these terms specifically, at least from what I have seen in English records. An example is here the king send men to built engines. Thes engines are called sprinaglds, tripicets and mangonels. It becomes clear that the mangonel and trebuchet devise are one and the same from later accounts. The term giant crossbow and springald seem to be the same as well. If lucky they have a word for large before crossbow or indicate they shoot bolts a yard long to differentiate them from normal crossbows....

RPM

Manouchehr;

You could look up this book: Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons, Konstantine Nossov © 2005,published by
The Lyons Press.

Covers the Ancient and medieval world. Very good book and well illustrated.

The author has a PHD from Moscow University, is an advisor on arms, armour and warfare, and he is the author of numerous books and articles on ancient and medieval history. ( from the back flap of the dust jacket )

Hope this helps.

Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for your kind help. Jean thanks for your reference. I will surely buy the book. What is the part called where one puts the stones in?

Kind regards
Manouchehr

what is even more confusing is balista is used for normal crossbows as well during a great part of the middle ages....

I have never found a contemporary reference to where the stone is placed minus the sling style..... sorry.

RPM

Well, this article on the trebuchet by Paul Chevedden touches a bit on terminology:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/chevedden.htm

while George T. Dennis's piece on Byzantine artillery goes a bit deeper into it:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/dennis2.pdf

but neither deals with the English terminology. :(

BTW, I can only repeat the answers said elsewhere--the English terminology for the parts of mechanical siege weapons is far from fixed. You can say "cup" or "spoon" and people will get it all the same that it's the thing at the end of the throwing arm, although I agree with others that a sling was historically more common than a static cup.

And another BTW: the crossbow was technically an "arcuballista" in medieval times, hence "arbalest." But the Romans had a unit called "balistarii" that might have used crossbows--we don't know for sure.

La Fayette,

Thanks for posting those articles. Very interesting. I wonder if they still have that trebuchet working.... Shropshire is not too far from where I am.


Not to start a debate on terminology but the term arcubalista has come up only a handful of times over the last number of years full time research of medieval primary sources I have been studying. Balista is by far the favorite term in late medieval england at least in latin. The close and patent rolls are full of the word balista used for crossbow.... never once arcubalista from what I have seen so far (only have read from Edward I to Henry VII patent, Edward I-Edward III Close Rolls). Arcus does pop up but means a simple bow in every account. The term for archer in latin has nothing to do with arcus.... saggitarius is archer, sagitta arrow- it often denotes misslemen in general but most often seems to be bowmen. In fact the term balistarius seems to be used in most of the accounts I have seen fro crossbowmen. It surely is possible that arcubalista was used--- arcu= bow and balista= a throwing devise, in latin that is but by the late medieval period from what I have seen it is not.

cheers.

RPM

Well, I was speaking about that arcuballista thing from the etymological angle. By medieval times proper, the Englishmen probably knew of it only through the Gallicized version (that "arbalest" thing). And the balistarii I was referring to was a unit in the 5th-century (!) Notitia Dignitatum, which is why we're not certain about their use of crossbows--they're not like the medieval ballistarii, for whom we have pretty much incontrovertible evidence about their weapons.

Not sure exactly what you mean. You stated balista was not the correct term. My point is that it clearly is used so in the medieval period and likely in england more so. Once again I am not sure they derived their term from arcubalista and unless you have read of someone tracing the term from early medieval to late I doubt it could be proven. My guess is more that the terms were likley used in different places or people to whatever they prefered but that likely regional favorites occured. Also highly doubt the English got it from the gallicized as well. They had a strong latin culture for their learned and would have gotten it directly from the latin, which as I wrote above used balista and balisterius. Unless you have some information that proves otherwise I think a simple look into a medieval latin dictionary might help. From Lathams medieval latin balista means crossbow. I know of no better source to really look at.

RPM

Just looked up arbalest in my anglo-norman dictionary. Looks like Arbalest or equivilent is the french word for crossbow.
So if anything is more likley was used in documents written in England Just found two examples from a french inventory that seem to substanciate this some.

I also reread some of my notes on the Patent Rolls and found arbalasters used at least once. I will keep my eyes open as I read and see if I find anymore.

cheers,

RPM

The word "ballista" today refers to engines that resemble large crossbows while "catapults" are stone throwers. The Romans used the terms to describe the oppostite (i.e. catapultas refered to the large crossbows). At some point in time the definitions switched.

Excellent information. Thank you very much gentlemen.

Kind regards
Manouchehr

La Fayette,

I was not trying to debate as much as make sure I was being clear and why I was of the opinion I am and understand if there was something that I missed under the radar or something that said otherwise. I was not trying to be hostile or pick a fight. If I came off so then I apologize.

Jean,

I was just giving the stem for comparison to the word we were discussing. Thanks though. I was thinking in Anglo-norman is nomitive singular is arbalestres but I need to go check it out.

Dan,

While I have not read anything roman or contemporary for years now... since my early latin classes I thought the terms catapulta and balista were usually rather ambiguous still. Both engines of war for throwing. Less so than many medieval writtings but still rather vague from what I remember. There are also other names that seem more specific that I came across that were used as well. I should go back and take a look but I doubt it will be very soon. It would be rather interesting to reread some of the accounts and see how this takes place and if and when the terms start to reverse.

Manouchehr,

Here is a book on giant crossbows and springalds that is very good. Hope it helps. I found it very good for these types of siege equipment.

http://www.royalarmouriesshop.org/cgi-bin/sh0...98#aR00598

RPM