Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Different parts and terminology of catapult in English Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Manouchehr M.





Joined: 23 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 2:59 am    Post subject: Different parts and terminology of catapult in English         Reply with quote

Dear friends,

Could you help me with this trerminology? Thanks

Regards
Manouchehr

http://www.mmkhorasani.com
http://www.arms-and-armor-from-iran.de
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 5:38 am    Post subject: Re: Different parts and terminology of catapult in English         Reply with quote

Manouchehr M. wrote:
Dear friends,

Could you help me with this trerminology? Thanks

Regards
Manouchehr


Manouchehr,

I'm not expert on the subject, but I believe that "catapult" is actually a generic English term for a siege engine that hurls rocks, rather than a specific type of engine. Perhaps you were referring to a mangonel? http://www.mangonel.com/
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 9:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 10:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Manouchehr M.





Joined: 23 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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

http://www.mmkhorasani.com
http://www.arms-and-armor-from-iran.de
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Manouchehr M. wrote:
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


Well the book I mentioned calls it a " spoon " when the place to put the stone is integral with the throwing arm but most
" catapults " seem to have used a sling attached to the end of the throwing arm as this is probably more efficient at accelerating the projectile. ( Trébuchets would also use a sling ).

Depending on period and depending on which books you read there seems to be some " fuzziness " about the name of things: A Ballista is defined as a stone thrower at one point in time is defined as a giant arrow thrower at a later period !
Very confusing ? A bit like the definition of hackbut or archebuse/musket changed from the 14th century to the 17th.

It's probably much easier defining these machines descriptively or as illustrations than being sure about a consistent nomenclature: A modern system of nomenclature might not correspond at all to period nomenclature and even then it might not even have been standardized in period ( any period ? ) A Greek might have called it something and a Roman something else ? At least that is the impression I get from the contradictions I read depending on which book I read.

Now being sure what to call a specific engine is hard enough, I have no clue if the different parts had names that we have a record of ? Sometimes it's like those little plastic things at the end of shoelaces: I'm sure they have a name but only one person In a million would know it. Wink Laughing Out Loud

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 10:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jun, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
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


The spoon version is probably a 19th century thing and a Hollywood film cliché because the sling is probably much more efficient.

Well I don't know latin but the word " ballista " seems very related to the word " ballistic " and essentially just means a thrower of something. Eek! At some point someone decided or the customs became to define it as a arrow or large dart thrower and catapult or onager more of a stone thrower ??? Although I have seen those definitions reversed 180° and probably in error.

Maybe we need some sort of Oakeshott's typology for siege engines just for the ease of communications the same way the
Oakeshott typology is a very useful modern system of classification even if it would mean nothing to people in period.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 6:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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. Sad

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 12:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 12:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 1:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
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


Just to be more precise arbalest in French is " ARBALÈTE " lat. arcus and balista.

Again in French: CATAPULTE, lat. catapulta. ( picture of a stone throwing onager using a " spoon " )
BALISTE, lat. balista. ( picture of the torsion type shooting dart like missile and being like a giant crossbow in general appearance ).

The above from my old " Petit Laroussse illustré " printed in 1952. The illustrations of weapons in the dictionary probably based on the Victorian period illustrations of Violet LeDuc I assume or similar sources, explaining the quaint and more or less inaccurate design of the catapulte i.e. spoon on a long lever arm but using a giant bow for power rather than the more accurate torsion method. The balista looks much closer to more modern representations in the dictionary illustrations.

Now these are the French names accepted in the Larousse at the time, 1952 ! This may not help directly with the English words, but since the French and English languages have been borrowing ( stealing ) from each other back and forth for a thousand years at least. It's very possible that it's a good clue to English usage from the 19th century until today.

Now Medieval or Renaissance usage are maybe different and not necessarily accurate when naming ancient siege engines the way the Greeks or Romans would have in their own period.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,642

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
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.


Thanks Dan for clarifying that the terms got reversed in application at some point.

For most of my life I understood the " modern " usage as being the correct definitions, then, a couple of years ago I read different books that gave the reverse ( Roman era ) definitions to my great confusion ! Eek!

At least now I know why. Big Grin I guess it's because all the books I read in my childhood all used the modern definition consistantly and I had no idea why those other books where getting it wrong ( well maybe not wrong ? It depends which one should be now accepted as having precedence and being the right nomenclature !? ).

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Manouchehr M.





Joined: 23 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 2:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Excellent information. Thank you very much gentlemen.

Kind regards
Manouchehr

http://www.mmkhorasani.com
http://www.arms-and-armor-from-iran.de
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 10:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Not sure exactly what you mean. You stated balista was not the correct term.


Did I?

In case you interpreted it that way, then mea culpa for not wording the post specifically enough. I never intended to say that "ballista" was incorrect or that "balistarii" was the wrong way to refer to crossbowmen. This small misunderstanding lies at the core of our rather ridiculous debate--ridiculous because I could never see where I was disagreeing with you, and in fact I wasn't.

Remember, I did agree that the medieval reference to ballistarii pointed specifically and incontrovertibly to crossbowmen. The evidence is more equivocal for earlier formations, such as the balistarii cohorts of the Notitia Dignitatum.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jun, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jun, 2007 1:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
since my early latin classes I thought the terms catapulta and balista were usually rather ambiguous still.


I'd say I agree with this. There were many authors who wrote about siege warfare in antiquity, and it seems like every single author has his own style of classification. Not to mention the ancient historians and memoirists who advance their own classification systems, and the more modern (usually Victorian) interpreters/translators who, in the attempt to make some sense of the jumble, invented yet more classification systems. And if somebody decides to write a Spotlight article on siege weapons, I bet it'll have one more new classification system to go with!

The study of ancient and medieval siege weapons is such a nice subject, isn't it?
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Different parts and terminology of catapult in English
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum