TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
The original book contains two separate works (Projectile-Throwing
Engines and Mediæval Bows), each of which begins on its own page 1 and
whose figures begin with “Fig. 1”. To allow hyperlinks to work properly,
the second one’s page numbers in this eBook begin on page 101.
In this Plain Text version, Transcriber has inserted visible page
numbers along the right margin, in the form [Page nn], to make it easier
for readers to find references.
Figure numbers have not been changed, but in the HTML version, links to
the figures go to the correct ones in each work.
Superscripts in this Plain Text version are represented as ^e or ^{T.}
Additional notes will be found near the end of this eBook.
THE
PROJECTILE-THROWING ENGINES
OF THE ANCIENTS
AND
TURKISH AND OTHER ORIENTAL BOWS
OF MEDIÆVAL AND LATER TIMES
_By the same Author._
THE CROSSBOW,
MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN, MILITARY AND SPORTING:
Its Construction, History, and Management.
WITH A TREATISE ON
THE BALISTA AND CATAPULT OF THE ANCIENTS.
With 220 Illustrations. Medium 4to. 63_s._ net.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 39 Paternoster Row, London,
New York, Bombay, and Calcutta.
A SUMMARY OF
THE HISTORY, CONSTRUCTION AND
EFFECTS IN WARFARE
OF THE
PROJECTILE-THROWING
ENGINES
OF THE ANCIENTS
WITH A TREATISE ON THE
STRUCTURE, POWER AND MANAGEMENT
OF
TURKISH AND OTHER ORIENTAL BOWS
OF MEDIÆVAL AND LATER TIMES
BY
SIR RALPH PAYNE-GALLWEY, B^{T.}
FORTY ILLUSTRATIONS
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
1907
All rights reserved
THE PROJECTILE-THROWING ENGINES OF THE ANCIENTS
CONTENTS
PART PAGE
I. INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON ANCIENT PROJECTILE ENGINES 3
II. THE CATAPULT 11
III. THE BALISTA 21
IV. THE TREBUCHET 27
V. HISTORICAL NOTES ON ANCIENT AND MEDIÆVAL SIEGE ENGINES AND
THEIR EFFECTS IN WARFARE 31
PREFACE
Since my recent book on mediæval archery and ancient weapons was
issued,[1] I have obtained a considerable amount of information
concerning the projectile engines of the Greeks and Romans. I now print
a concise account of the history, construction and effects in warfare
of these engines.
In this summary the additional notes I have acquired are included.
I also append a treatise fully describing that remarkable weapon the
Turkish composite bow, which I only cursorily dealt with in the work
referred to.
R. P. G.
THIRKLEBY PARK,
THIRSK:
_Dec. 1906_.
[1] _The Crossbow, Mediæval and Modern, Military and
Sporting: its Construction, History, and Management. With
a Treatise on the Balista and Catapult of the Ancients._
220 illustrations. Messrs. Longmans & Co., 39 Paternoster
Row, London.
[Page 3]
PART I
_INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON ANCIENT PROJECTILE ENGINES_
Of ancient Greek authors who have left us accounts of these engines,
Heron (284–221 B.C.) and Philo (about 200 B.C.) are the most
trustworthy.
Both these mechanicians give plans and dimensions with an accuracy that
enables us to reconstruct the machines, if not with exactitude at any
rate with sufficient correctness for practical application.
Though in the books of Athenæus, Biton, Apollodorus, Diodorus,
Procopius, Polybius and Josephus we find incomplete descriptions, these
authors, especially Josephus, frequently allude to the effects of the
engines in warfare; and scanty as is the knowledge they impart, it is
useful and explanatory when read in conjunction with the writings of
Heron and Philo.
Among the Roman historians and military engineers, Vitruvius and
Ammianus are the best authorities.
Vitruvius copied his descriptions from the Greek writers, which shows
us that the Romans adopted the engines from the Greeks.
Of all the old authors who have described the engines, we have but
copies of the original writings. It is therefore natural that we should
come across many phrases and drawings which are evidently incorrect, as
a result of repeated transcription, and which we know to be at fault
though we cannot actually prove them to be so.
With few exceptions, all the authors named simply present us with their
own ideas when they are in doubt respecting the mechanical details and
performances of the engines they wish to describe.
All such spurious information is, of course, more detrimental than
helpful to our elucidation of their construction and capabilities.
It frequently happens that in a mediæval picture of one of these
machines some important mechanical detail is omitted, or, from the
difficulty of portraying it correctly, is purposely concealed by
figures of soldiers, an omission that may be supplied by reference to
other representations of the same weapon.
[Page 4]
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--BESIEGING A FORTIFIED TOWN WITH A BATTERY OF
CATAPULTS AND BALISTAS.
_Criticism._--In this picture the balistas are fairly correct, but the
catapults are too small.
_From Polybius. Edition 1727._]
[Page 5]
It is, indeed, impossible to find a complete working plan of any one of
these old weapons, a perfect design being only obtainable by consulting
many ancient authorities, and, it may be said, piecing together the
details of construction they individually give.
* * * * *
We have no direct evidence as to when the engines for throwing
projectiles were invented.
It does not appear that King Shalmaneser II. of Assyria (859–825 B.C.)
had any, for none are depicted on the bronze doors of the palace
of Balâwat, now in the British Museum, on which his campaigns are
represented, though his other weapons of attack and defence are clearly
shown.
The earliest allusion is the one in the Bible, where we read of Uzziah,
who reigned from B.C. 808–9 to B.C. 756–7. ‘Uzziah made in Jerusalem
engines invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the
bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal.’ (2 Chronicles xxvi.
15.)
Diodorus tells us that the engines were first seen about 400 B.C., and
that when Dionysius of Syracuse organised his great expedition against
the Carthaginians (397 B.C.) there was a genius among the experts
collected from all over the world, and that this man designed the
engines that cast stones and javelins.
From the reign of Dionysius and for many subsequent centuries, or till
near the close of the fourteenth, projectile-throwing engines are
constantly mentioned by military historians.
But it was not till the reign of Philip of Macedon (360–336 B.C.)
and that of his son Alexander the Great (336–323 B.C.) that their
improvement was carefully attended to and their value in warfare fully
recognised.
As before stated, the Romans adopted the engines from the Greeks.
Vitruvius and other historians tell us this, and even copy their
descriptions of them from the Greek authors, though too often with
palpable inaccuracy.
To ascertain the power and mechanism of these ancient engines a very
close study of all the old authors who wrote about them is essential,
with a view to extracting here and there useful facts amid what are
generally verbose and confused references.
There is no doubt that the engines made and used by the Romans
after their conquest of Greece (B.C. 146), in the course of two or
three centuries became inferior to the original machines previously
constructed by the Greek artificers.
Their efficiency chiefly suffered because the art of manufacturing
their important parts was gradually neglected and allowed to become
lost.
[Page 6]
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--A SIEGE.
_Criticism._--The picture is open to the spectator in order that he may
see both defenders and besiegers at work.
The besieged have just cast a stone from a catapult. The stone is
falling on the movable tower belonging to the attacking side.
_From Polybius. Edition 1727._]
[Page 7]
For instance, how to make the skein of sinew that bestowed the very
life and existence on every projectile-casting engine of the ancients.
The tendons of which the sinew was composed, the animals from which it
was taken, and the manner in which it was prepared, we can never learn
now.
Every kind of sinew, or hair or rope, with which I have experimented,
either breaks or loses its elasticity in a comparatively short time,
if great pressure is applied. It has then to be renewed at no small
outlay of expense and trouble. Rope skeins, with which we are obliged
to fit our models, cannot possibly equal in strength and above all in
elasticity, skeins of animal sinew or even of hair.
The formation of the arm or arms of an engine, whether it is a catapult
with its single upright arm or a balista with its pair of lateral ones,
is another difficulty which cannot now be overcome, for we have no idea
how these arms were made to sustain the great strain they had to endure.
We know that the arm of a large engine was composed of several spars of
wood and lengths of thick sinew fitted longitudinally, and then bound
round with broad strips of raw hide which would afterwards set nearly
as hard and tight as a sheath of metal.
We know this, but we do not know the secret of making a light and
flexible arm of sufficient strength to bear such a strain as was
formerly applied to it in a catapult or a balista.
Certainly, by shaping an arm of great thickness we can produce one
that will not fracture, but substance implies weight, and undue weight
prevents the arm from acting with the speed requisite to cast its
projectile with good effect.
A heavy and ponderous arm of solid wood cannot, of course, rival in
lightness and effectiveness a composite one of wood, sinew and hide.
The former is necessarily inert and slow in its action of slinging a
stone, while the latter would, in comparison, be as quick and lively as
a steel spring.
When the art of producing the perfected machines of the Greeks was
lost, they were replaced by less effective contrivances.
If the knowledge of constructing the great catapult of the ancients in
its original perfection had been retained, such a clumsy engine as the
mediæval trebuchet would never have gained popularity. The trebuchet
derived its power from the gravity of an immense weight at one end of
its pivoted arm tipping up the other end, to which a sling was attached
for throwing a stone.
[Page 8]
As regards range, there could be no comparison between the efficiency
of a trebuchet, however large, as worked merely by a counterpoise, and
that of an engine deriving its power from the elasticity of an immense
coil of tightly twisted sinew.
It is certain that if the latter kind of engine had survived in its
perfect state the introduction of cannon would have been considerably
delayed, for the effects in warfare of the early cannon were for a long
period decidedly inferior to those of the best projectile engines of
the ancients.
Notwithstanding many difficulties, I have succeeded in reconstructing,
though of course on a considerably smaller scale, the chief projectile
throwing engines of the ancients, and with a success that enables them
to compare favourably, as regards their range, with the Greek and Roman
weapons they represent.
Still, my engines are by no means perfect in their mechanism, and are,
besides, always liable to give way under the strain of working.
One reason of this is that all modern engines of the kind require to be
worked to their utmost capacity, _i.e._ to the verge of their breaking
point, to obtain from them results that at all equal those of their
prototypes.
A marked difference between the ancient engines and their modern
imitations, however excellent the latter may be, is, that the former
did their work easily, and well within their strength, and thus without
any excessive strain which might cause their collapse after a short
length of service.[2]
[2] Again, though my largest catapult will throw a stone to a
great distance it cannot throw one of nearly the weight
it should be able to do, considering the size of its
frame, skein of cord and mechanism. In this respect it is
decidedly inferior to the ancient engine.
The oft-disputed question as to the distance to which catapults
and balistas shot their projectiles can be solved with approximate
accuracy by comparing their performances--as given by ancient military
writers--with the results obtainable from modern reproductions.
While treating of this matter we should carefully consider the position
and surroundings of the engines when engaged in a siege, and especially
the work for which they were designed.
As an example, archers, with the advantage of being stationed on high
towers and battlements, would be well able to shoot arrows from 270 to
280 yards. For this reason it was necessary for the safe manipulation
of the attacking engines that they should be placed at about 300 yards
from the outer walls of any fortress they were assailing.
As a catapult or a balista was required not only to cast its missile
among the soldiers on the ramparts of a fortified place, but also to
send it clear over the walls amid the houses and people within the
defences, it is evident that the engines must have had a range of from
400 to 500 yards, or more, to be as serviceable and destructive as they
undoubtedly were.
[Page 9]
Josephus tells us that at the siege of Jerusalem, A.D. 70 (‘Wars of
the Jews,’ Book V. Chapter VI.), stones weighing a talent (57¾ lbs.
avoirdupois) were thrown by the catapults to a distance of two or more
‘stades.’
This statement may be taken as trustworthy, for Josephus relates what
he personally witnessed and his comments are those of a commander of
high rank and intelligence.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--A FORTIFIED TOWN BEING BOMBARDED BY A CATAPULT.
_Criticism._--The stones thrown by the besieged may be seen falling in
the trenches of the besiegers. The catapult depicted is drawn on much
too small a scale.
_From Polybius. Edition 1727._]
Two or more ‘stades,’ or let us say 2 to 2¼ ‘stades,’ represent 400 to
450 yards. Remarkable and conclusive testimony confirming the truth of
what we read in Josephus is the fact that my largest catapult--though
doubtless much smaller and less powerful than those referred to by the
historian--throws a stone ball of 8 lbs. in weight to a range of from
450 to nearly 500 yards.
It is easy to realise that the ancients, with their great and perfect
engines fitted with skeins of sinew, could cast a far heavier stone
than one of 8 lbs., and to a longer distance than 500 yards.
[Page 10]
Agesistratus,[3] a Greek writer who flourished B.C. 200, and who wrote
a treatise on making arms for war, estimated that some of the engines
shot from 3½ to 4 ‘stades’ (700 to 800 yards).
[3] The writings of Agesistratus are non-extant but are
quoted by Athenæus.
Though such a very long flight as this appears almost incredible, I
can adduce no sound reason for doubting its possibility. From recent
experiments I am confident I could now build an engine of a size and
power to accomplish such a feat if light missiles were used, and if its
cost were not a consideration.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--A SIEGE CATAPULT (WITHOUT A SLING).
_From Polybius. Edition 1727._]
[Page 11]
PART II
_THE CATAPULT (WITH A SLING)_
[Illustration: FIG. 5.--A SIEGE CATAPULT (WITHOUT A SLING).
_Criticism._--This engine was moved into position on rollers and then
props were placed under its sides to adjust the range of the projectile.
The end of the arm was secured by the notch of the large iron catch
and was released by striking down the handle of the catch with a heavy
mallet.
The arm is, however, too long for the height of the cross-bar against
which it strikes and would probably break off at its centre.
The hollow for the stone is much too large, as a stone big enough to
fit it could not be cast by a weapon of the dimensions shown in the
picture.
_From an Illustrated Manuscript, Fifteenth Century (No. 7239), Bibl.
Nat. Paris._]
The mediæval catapult was usually fitted with an arm that had a hollow
or cup at its upper end in which was placed the stone it projected, as
shown above in fig. 5.[4] I find, however, that the original and more
perfect form of this engine, as employed by the Greeks and ancient
Romans, had a sling, made of rope and leather, attached to its arm.[5]
(Fig. 6, following page.)
[4] See also _The Crossbow_, _etc._, Chapters LV., LVI.,
illustrations 193 to 202.
[5] In mediæval times catapults which had not slings cast
great stones, but only to a short distance in comparison
with the earlier weapons of the same kind that were
equipped with slings. I can find no allusions or pictures
to show that during this period any engine was used with
a sling except the trebuchet, a post-Roman invention.
All evidence goes to prove that the secret of making the
skein and other important parts of a catapult was in a
great measure lost within a couple of centuries after the
Romans copied the weapon from their conquered enemies the
Greeks, with the result that the trebuchet was introduced
for throwing stones.
The catapult was gradually superseded as the art of its
construction was neglected, and its efficiency in sieges
was therefrom decreased.
The catapults of the fifth and sixth centuries were very
inferior to those described by Josephus as being used at
the sieges of Jerusalem and Jotapata (A.D. 70, A.D. 67),
p. 37.
[Page 12]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.--SKETCH PLAN OF A CATAPULT FOR SLINGING STONES
ITS ARM BEING PARTLY WOUND DOWN.
Approximate scale: ¼ in. = 1 ft.]
[Page 13]
The addition of a sling to the arm of a catapult increases its power by
at least a third. For example, the catapult described in Chapters LV.,
LVI., of my book,[6] will throw a round stone 8 lbs. in weight, from
350 to 360 yards, but the same engine with the advantage of a sling to
its arm will cast the 8-lb. stone from 450 to 460 yards, and when its
skein is twisted to its limit of tension to nearly 500 yards.
[6] _The Crossbow_, _etc._
If the upper end of the arm of a catapult is shaped into a cup to
receive the stone, as shown in fig. 5, p. 11, the arm is, of necessity,
large and heavy at this part.
If, on the other hand, the arm is equipped with a sling, as shown in
fig. 6, opposite page, it can be tapered from its butt-end upwards, and
is then much lighter and recoils with far more speed than an arm that
has an enlarged extremity for holding its missile.
When the arm is fitted with a sling, it is practically lengthened by as
much as the length of the sling attached to it, and this, too, without
any appreciable increase in its weight.
The longer the arm of a catapult, the longer is its sweep through the
air, and thus the farther will it cast its projectile, provided it is
not of undue weight.
The difference in this respect is as between the range of a short sling
and that of a long one, when both are used by a school-boy for slinging
pebbles.
The increase of power conferred by the addition of a sling to the arm
of a catapult is surprising.
A small model I constructed for throwing a stone ball, one pound in
weight, will attain a distance of 200 yards when used with an arm that
has a cup for holding the ball, though when a sling is fitted to the
arm the range of the engine is at once increased to 300 yards.
The only historian who distinctly tells us that the catapult of the
Greeks and Romans had a sling to its arm, is Ammianus Marcellinus. This
author flourished about 380 A.D., and a closer study of his writings,
and of those of his contemporaries, led me to carry out experiments
with catapults and balistas which I had not contemplated when my work
dealing with the projectile engines of the Ancients was published.
[Page 14]
[Illustration: FIG. 7.--CATAPULT (WITH A SLING). Side view of frame and
mechanism.
Scale: ½ in. = 1 ft.]
[Page 15]
Ammianus writes of the catapult[7]:
‘In the middle of the ropes[8] rises a wooden arm like a chariot pole
... to the top of the arm hangs a sling ... when battle is commenced a
round stone is set in the sling ... four soldiers on each side of the
engine wind the arm down till it is almost level with the ground ...
when the arm is set free it springs up and hurls forth from its sling
the stone, which is certain to crush whatever it strikes. This engine
was formerly called the “scorpion,” because it has its sting erect,[9]
but later ages have given it the name of Onager, or wild ass, for when
wild asses are chased they kick the stones behind them.’
[7] _Roman History_, Book XXIII., Chapter IV.
[8] _i.e._ in the middle of the twisted skein formed of ropes
of sinew or hair.
[9] The upright and tapering arm of a catapult, with the
iron pin on its top for the loop of the sling, is here
fancifully likened to the erected tail of an angry
scorpion with its sting protruding.
FIG. 7.--CATAPULT (WITH A SLING), SEE OPPOSITE PAGE.
A. The arm at rest, ready to be wound down by the rope attached to it
and also to the wooden roller of the windlass. The stone may be seen in
the sling.
The upper end of the pulley rope is hitched by a metal slip-hook (fig.
6, p. 12) to a ring-bolt secured to the arm just below the sling.
B. The position of the arm when fully wound down by means of the
windlass and rope. See also EE, fig. 8, page 16.
C. The position of the arm at the moment the stone D leaves the sling,
which it does at an angle of about 45 degrees.
E. By pulling the cord E the arm B is at once released from the
slip-hook and, taking an upward sweep of 90 degrees, returns to its
original position at A.
[Illustration: THE SLING (OPEN).]
[F. Its fixed end which passes through a hole near the top of the arm.
G. The leather pocket for the stone.
H. The loop which is hitched over the iron pin at the top of the arm
when the stone is in position in the sling, as shown at A and B, fig.
7.]
[Page 16]
[Illustration: FIG. 8.--CATAPULT (WITH A SLING). Surface view of frame
and mechanism. Scale: ½ in. = 1 foot. The arm EE is here shown wound
down to its full extent. (Compare with B, fig. 7, page 14.)]
I. I. } The side-pieces.
II. II. }
III. IV. The large cross-pieces.
V. The small cross-piece.
The ends of the cross-piece beams are stepped into the side-pieces.
AA. The skein of twisted cord.
BB. The large winding wheels. The skein is stretched between these
wheels, its ends passing through the sides of the frame, and then
through the wheels and over their cross-bars. (Fig. 12, p. 19.)
By turning with a long spanner (fig. 6, p. 12) the squared ends of the
spindles DD, the pinion wheels CC rotate the large wheels BB and cause
the latter to twist the skein AA, between the halves of which the arm
EE is placed.
FF. The wooden roller which winds down the arm EE. (Fig. 6, p. 12.)
The roller is revolved by four men (two on each side of the engine) who
fit long spanners on the squared ends of the iron spindle GG.
[Page 17]
This spindle passes through the centre of the roller and through the
sides of the frame.
The small cogged wheels, with their checks, which are fitted to the
ends of the spindle GG, prevent the roller from reversing as the arm is
being wound down. (Fig. 6, p. 12.)
HH. The hollows in the sides of the frame which receive the lower
tenons of the two uprights. Between the tops of these uprights the
cross-beam is fixed against which the arm of the catapult strikes when
it is released. (Fig. 6, p. 12.)
KK. The hollows for the lower tenons of the two sloping supports which
prevent the uprights, and the cross-beam between them, from giving way
when the arm recoils. (Fig. 6, p. 12.)
[Illustration: FIG. 9.--ONE OF THE PAIR OF WINCHES OF A CATAPULT.
Scale: 1/16 in. = 1 in.]
I. Surface view of one of the winches and of the thick iron plate in
which the socket of the large winding wheel of the winch revolves.
II. View of a winch (from above) as fitted into one of the sides of the
frame of the catapult. One end of the twisted skein may be seen turned
round the cross-bar of the large wheel.
III. Side view of the large wheel of a winch.
IV. The cross-bar of one of the large wheels. These pieces fit like
wedges into tapering slots cut down the barrels, or inside surfaces, of
their respective wheels.
V. Perspective view of the wheels of a winch.
The winches are the vital parts of the catapult as they generate its
projectile power.
[Page 18]
They are employed to twist tightly the skein of cord between which the
butt-end of the arm of the engine is placed.
The cord composing the skein is stretched to and fro across and through
the sides of the catapult, and alternately through the insides of the
large wheels and over their cross-bars; as shown in fig. 8, p. 16.
FIG. 10. THE IRON SLIP-HOOK.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.]
This simple contrivance not only pulled down the arm of a catapult but
was also the means of setting it free. However great the strain on the
slip-hook, it will, if properly shaped, easily effect the release of
the arm.
The trajectory of the missile can be regulated by this form of release,
as the longer the distance the arm is pulled down the higher the angle
at which the projectile is thrown.
On the other hand, the shorter the distance the arm is drawn back, the
lower the trajectory of its missile.
The slip-hook will release the arm of the engine at any moment, whether
it is fully or only partially wound down by the windlass.
The slip-hook of the large catapult shown in fig. 6, p. 12, has a
handle, _i.e._ lever, 10 inches long, the point of the hook, which
passes through the eye-bolt secured to the arm, being one inch in
diameter.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--A SPRING ENGINE WITH A SLING ATTACHED TO ITS
ARM, WHICH CAST TWO STONES AT THE SAME TIME.
_From ‘Il Codice Atlantico,’ Leonardo da Vinci._ 1445–1520.]
[Page 19]
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--THE SKEIN OF CORD.]
A. The skein as first wound over the cross-bars of the large wheels
(shown in section) of the winches.
B. The skein with the butt-end of the arm (shown in section) placed
between its halves.
C. The skein as it appears when tightly twisted up by the winches.
Compare with AA, fig. 8, p. 16.
Cord of Italian hemp, about ¼ in. thick, is excellent for small
catapults. For large ones, horsehair rope, ½ in. thick, is the best
and most elastic. Whatever is used, the material of the skein must be
thoroughly soaked in neats-foot oil for some days previously, or it is
sure to fray and cut under the friction of being very tightly twisted.
Oil will also preserve the skein from damp and decay for many years.
HOW TO WORK THE CATAPULT
There is little to write under this heading; as the plans, details of
construction and illustrations will, I trust, elucidate its management.
The skein should never remain in a tightly twisted condition, but
should be untwisted when the engine is not in use.
Previous to using the catapult its winches should be turned with the
long spanner, fig. 6, p. 12, first the winch on one side of the engine
and then the one on the other side of it, and each to exactly the same
amount.
[Page 20]
Small numerals painted on the surfaces of the large wheels near their
edges, will show how much they have been revolved; in this way their
rotation can be easily arranged to correspond.
As the skein of cord is being twisted by the very powerful winches, the
arm will gradually press with increasing force against the cross-beam
between the uprights. The arm should be so tightly pressed against the
fender, or cushion of straw, attached to the centre of this beam, that,
whether large or small, it cannot be pulled back the least distance by
hand.
If the skein of my largest catapult is fully tightened up by the
winches, three strong men are unable to draw the arm back with a rope
even an inch from the cross-beam, though the windlass has to pull it
down from six to seven feet when the engine is made ready for action.
When the skein is as tight as it should be, attach the slip-hook to the
ring-bolt in the arm and place the stone in the sling suspended from
the top of the arm.
The arm can now be drawn down by means of long spanners fitted to the
windlass. Directly the arm is as low as it should be, or as is desired,
it should be instantly released by pulling the cord fastened to the
lever of the slip-hook.
The least delay in doing this, and the resulting continuation of the
immense strain on the arm, may cause it to fracture when it would not
otherwise have done so.
The plans I have given are those of my largest engine, which, ponderous
as it seems--(it weighs two tons)--is, however, less than half the size
of the catapult used by the ancients for throwing stones of from forty
to fifty pounds in weight.
As the plans are accurately drawn to scale, the engine can easily be
reproduced in a smaller size.
An interesting model can be constructed that has an arm 3 feet in
length, and a skein of cord about 4 inches in diameter. It can be
worked by one man and will throw a stone, the size of an orange, to a
range of 300 yards.
The sling, when suspended with the stone in position, should be one
third the length of the arm, as shown in fig. 7, p. 14.
If the sling is shortened, the ball will be thrown at a high elevation.
If the sling is lengthened, the ball will travel at a lower angle and
with much more velocity.
[Page 21]
PART III
_THE BALISTA_
[Illustration: FIG. 13.--BALISTA FOR DISCHARGING HEAVY ARROWS OR
JAVELINS. Approximate scale: ½ in. = 1 foot.]
This engine is here shown ready for discharge with its bow-string drawn
to its full extent by the windlass.
The heavy iron-tipped arrow rests in the shallow wooden trough or
groove which travels along the stock.
The trough has a strip of wood, in the form of a keel, fixed beneath
it. This keel travels to or fro in a dove-tailed slot cut along the
upper surface of the stock for the greater part of its length. (F, fig.
14, p. 23.)
[Page 22]
The arrow is laid in the trough before the bow-string is stretched. (A,
B, fig. 14, p. 23.)
The balista is made ready for use by turning the windlass. The windlass
pulls back the sliding trough, and the arrow resting in it, along the
stock of the engine, till the bow-string is at its proper tension for
discharging the projectile. (Fig. 13, p. 21.)
As the trough and the arrow are drawn back together, the arrow can be
safely laid in position before the engine is prepared for action.
The catch for holding the bow-string, and the trigger for releasing it,
are fixed to the solid after-end of the wooden trough. (Fig. 14, p. 23.)
The two ratchets at the sides of the after-end of the trough travel
over and engage, as they pass along, the metal cogs fixed on either
side of the stock. (Fig. 14, p. 23.)[10]
[10] When the bow-string has been released and the arrow
discharged, the ratchets are lifted clear of the cogs on
the stock of the engine. This allows the trough to be
slid forward to its first position as shown in A, B, Fig.
14. It is then ready to be drawn back again for the next
shot.
By this arrangement the trough can be securely retained, in transit, at
any point between the one it started from and the one it attains when
drawn back to its full extent by the windlass.
As the lock and trigger of the balista are fixed to the after-end of
the sliding trough (fig. 14, p. 23), it will be realised that the arrow
could be discharged at any moment required in warfare, whether the
bow-string was fully or only partially stretched.
In this respect the balista differed from the crossbow, which it
somewhat resembled, as in a crossbow the bow-string cannot be set free
by the trigger at an intermediate point, but only when it is drawn to
the lock of the weapon.
It will be seen that the balista derives its power from two arms; each
with its separate skein of cord and pair of winches.
These parts of the balista are the same in their action and mechanism
as those of the catapult.
FIG. 14 (OPPOSITE PAGE).--THE MECHANISM OF THE STOCK OF AN
ARROW-THROWING BALISTA.
A. Side view of the stock, with the arrow in the sliding trough before
the bow-string is stretched.
B. Surface view of the stock, with the arrow in the sliding trough
before the bow-string is stretched.
C. Section of the fore-end of the stock, and of the trough which slides
in and along it.
[Page 23]
[Illustration: FIG. 14.--THE MECHANISM OF THE STOCK OF AN ARROW-THROWING
BALISTA.]
D. Surface view of the trough, with the trigger and catch for the
bow-string.
E. Side view, showing the keel (F) which slides along the slot cut in
the surface of the stock as the trough is drawn back by the windlass.
G. Enlarged view of the solid end of the trough. This sketch shows the
catch for the bow-string, the trigger which sets it free, the ratchets
which engage the cogs on the sides of the stock, and the slot cut in
the stock for the dove-tailed keel of the trough to travel in.
* * * * *
Balistas were constructed of different sizes for the various purposes
of siege and field warfare. The smallest of these engines was not much
larger than a heavy crossbow, though it more than equalled the latter
in power and range.
The small balistas were chiefly used for shooting through loopholes and
from battlemented walls at an enemy assaulting with scaling ladders and
movable towers.
The largest had arms of 3 ft. to 4 ft. in length, and skeins of twisted
sinew of 6 in. to 8 in. in diameter.
Judging from models I have made and carefully experimented with; it
is certain that the more powerful balistas of the ancients could cast
arrows, or rather feathered javelins, of from 5 to 6 lbs. weight, to a
range of from 450 to 500 yards.
[Page 24]
[Illustration: FIG. 15.--BALISTA FOR THROWING STONE BALLS. Approximate
scale: ½ in. = 1 foot.
This engine is here shown with its bow-string only slightly drawn along
its stock by the windlass.]
It will be seen that this engine is almost identical in construction
with the one last described. (Fig. 13, p. 21.)
The difference is that it propelled a stone ball instead of a large
arrow.
The ball was driven along a square wooden trough, one-third of the
diameter of the ball being enclosed by the sides of the trough so as to
keep the missile in a true direction after the bow-string was released.
The bow-string was in the form of a broad band, with an enlargement at
its centre against which the ball rested.
The description given of the mechanism and management of the engine for
throwing arrows can be applied to the construction and manipulation
of this form of balista, which was also made of large and small
dimensions.
[Page 25]
Small engines, with arms about 2 ft. in length and skeins of cord about
4 in. in diameter, such as those I have built for experiment, will send
a stone ball, 1 lb. in weight, from 300 to 350 yards.
There is little doubt that the large stone-throwing balista of the
Greeks and Romans was able to project a circular stone, of 6 to 8 lbs.
weight, to a distance of from 450 to 500 yards.[11]
[11] The balls used by the ancients in their catapults and
balistas were often formed of heavy pebbles inclosed in
baked clay, the reason being that balls made in this way
shattered on falling and hence could not be shot back
by the engines of the enemy. The balistas for throwing
arrows, and those employed for casting stones, were
fitted with axles and wheels when constructed for use in
field warfare.
[Illustration: FIG. 16.--THE SLIDING TROUGH OF THE STONE-THROWING
BALISTA.]
A. Surface view, with the stone in position.
B. Side view, with the stone in position.
C. Front view of the stone as it rests in the trough against the
enlarged centre of the bow-string.
D. Enlarged view of the solid end of the sliding trough. This sketch
shows the ball in position against the bow-string; the catch holding
the loop of the bow-string, and the pivoted trigger which, when pulled,
releases the catch. One of the pair of ratchets which engage the cogs
on the sides of the stock, as the trough is drawn back by the windlass
to make ready the engine, is also shown. The trough has a keel to it,
and slides to or fro along the stock in the same manner as in the
arrow-throwing balista. (Fig. 13, p. 21.)
Compare with figs. 13, 14, pp. 21, 23, for further explanation of
details.
[Page 26]
[Illustration: FIG. 17.--A SIEGE BALISTA IN THE FORM OF AN IMMENSE
STONEBOW.
_From ‘Il Codice Atlantico,’ Leonardo da Vinci, 1445–1520._
_Criticism._--A stonebow of vast size. A and B represent two kinds
of lock. In A, the catch of the lock over which the loop of the
bow-string was hitched, was released by striking down the knob to
be seen below the mallet. In B, the catch was set free by means
of a lever. C shows the manner of pulling back the bow-string. By
turning the spoked wheels, the screw-worm revolved the screwed bar
on which the lock A, travelled. The lock, as may be seen, worked to
or fro in a slot along the stock of the engine. In the illustration
the bow is fully bent and the man indicated is about to discharge
the engine. After this was done, the lock was wound back along the
screw-bar and the bow-string was hitched over the catch of the
lock preparatory to bending the bow again. Besides being a famous
painter, Leonardo was distinguished as an inventor and exact writer
on mechanics and hydraulics.
‘No artist before his time ever had such comprehensive
talents, such profound skill or so discerning a judgment to
explore the depths of every art or science to which he applied
himself.’--JOHN GOULD, _Dictionary of Painters_, 1839.
From the above eulogy we may conclude that the drawings of ancient
siege engines by Leonardo da Vinci are fairly correct.
]
[Page 27]
PART IV
_THE TREBUCHET_
This engine was of much more recent invention than the catapult or the
balista of the Greeks and Romans. It is said to have been introduced
into siege operations by the French in the twelfth century. On the
other hand, the catapult and the balista were in use several centuries
before the Christian Era. Egidio Colonna gives a fairly accurate
description of the trebuchet, and writes of it, about 1280, as though
it were the most effective siege weapon of his time.
The projectile force of this weapon was obtained from the gravitation
of a heavy weight, and not from twisted cordage as in the catapult and
balista.
From about the middle of the twelfth century, the trebuchet in great
measure superseded the catapult. This preference for the trebuchet
was probably due to the fact that it was able to cast stones of about
300 lbs. in weight, or five or six times as heavy as those which the
largest catapults could project.[12]
[12] The catapult had, besides, become an inferior engine
to what it was some centuries before the trebuchet was
introduced, the art of its construction having been
neglected.
The stones thrown by the siege catapults of the time of Josephus would
no doubt destroy towers and battlements, as the result of the constant
and concentrated bombardment of many engines. One huge stone of from
200 to 300 lbs., as slung from a trebuchet, would, however, shake the
strongest defensive masonry.
The trebuchet was essentially an engine for destroying the upper part
of the walls of a fortress, so that it might be entered by means of
scaling ladders or in other ways. The catapult, by reason of its longer
range, was of more service in causing havoc to the people and dwellings
inside the defences of a town.
From experiments with models of good size and from other sources, I
find that the largest trebuchets--those with arms of about 50 ft. in
length and counterpoises of about 20,000 lbs.--were capable of slinging
a stone from 200 to 300 lbs. in weight to a distance of 300 yards, a
range of 350 yards being, in my opinion, more than these engines were
able to attain.[13]
[Page 28]
[13] Egidio Colonna tells us that the trebuchet was sometimes
made without a counterpoise, and that in such a case
the arm of the engine was worked by a number of men
pulling together instead of by a heavy weight. I cannot
believe this, as however many men pulled at the arm of
a trebuchet they could not apply nearly the force that
would be conveyed by the gravitation of a heavy weight.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.--THE TREBUCHET.
The arm is fully wound down and the tackle of the windlass is detached
from it. The stone is in the sling and the engine is about to be
discharged by pulling the slip-hook off the end of the arm. The
slip-hook is similar to the one shown in fig. 10, p. 18.
N.B.--A Roman soldier is anachronistically shown in this picture. The
trebuchet was invented after the time of the Romans.]
[Page 29]
The trebuchet always had a sling in which to place its missile.
The sling doubled the power of the engine and caused it to throw its
projectile twice as far as it would have been able to do without it.
It was the length of the arm, when suitably weighted with its
counterpoise, which combined with its sling gave power to the
trebuchet. Its arm, when released, swung round with a long easy sweep
and with nothing approaching the velocity of the much shorter arm of
the catapult.
The weight of a projectile cast by a trebuchet was governed by the
weight of its counterpoise. Provided the engine was of sufficient
strength and could be manipulated, there was scarcely any limit to its
power. Numerous references are to be found in mediæval authors to the
practice of throwing dead horses into a besieged town with a view to
causing a pestilence therein, and there can be no doubt that trebuchets
alone were employed for this purpose.
As a small horse weighs about 10 cwt., we can form some idea of the
size of the rocks and balls of stone that trebuchets were capable of
slinging.
When we consider that a trebuchet was able to throw a horse over the
walls of a town, we can credit the statement of Stella,[14] who writes
‘that the Genoese armament sent against Cyprus in 1376 had among other
great engines one which cast stones of 12 cwt.’
[14] Stella flourished at the end of the fourteenth century
and beginning of fifteenth. He wrote _The Annals of
Genoa_ from 1298–1409. Muratori includes the writings of
Stella in his great work, _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_,
25 vols., 1723–38.
Villard de Honnecourt[15] describes a trebuchet that had a counterpoise
of sand the frame of which was 12 ft. long, 8 ft. broad, and 12 ft.
deep. That such machines were of vast size will readily be understood.
For instance, twenty-four engines taken by Louis IX. at the evacuation
of Damietta in 1249, afforded timber for stockading his entire
camp.[16] A trebuchet used at the capture of Acre by the Infidels
in 1291, formed a load for a hundred carts.[17] A great engine that
cumbered the tower of St. Paul at Orleans and which was dismantled
previous to the celebrated defence of the town against the English in
1428–9, furnished twenty-six cartloads of timber.[18]
[15] Villard de Honnecourt, an engineer of the thirteenth
century. His album translated and edited by R. Willis,
M.A., 1859.
[16] Jean, Sire de Joinville. He went with St. Louis to
Damietta. His memoirs, written in 1309, published by F.
Michel, 1858.
[17] Abulfeda, 1273–1331. Arab soldier and historian, wrote
_Annals of the Moslems_. Published by Hafnire, 1789–94.
Abulfeda was himself in charge of one of the hundred
carts.
[18] From an old history of the siege (in manuscript) found in
the town hall of Orleans and printed by Saturnin Holot, a
bookseller of that city, 1576.
[Page 30]
All kinds of articles besides horses, men, stones and bombs were
at times thrown from trebuchets. Vassāf[19] records ‘that when the
garrison of Delhi refused to open the gates to Ala’uddin Khilji in
1296, he loaded his engines with bags of gold and shot them into the
fortress, a measure which put an end to the opposition.’
[19] Persian historian, wrote at end of thirteenth and
beginning of fourteenth century. The preface to his
history is dated 1288, and the history itself is carried
down to 1312.
Figs. 18, 20, pp. 28, 32, explain the construction and working of a
trebuchet.
[Illustration: FIG. 19.--CASTING A DEAD HORSE INTO A BESIEGED TOWN BY
MEANS OF A TREBUCHET.
_From ‘Il Codice Atlantico,’ Leonardo da Vinci, 1445–1520._]
[Page 31]
PART V
_HISTORICAL NOTES ON ANCIENT AND MEDIÆVAL SIEGE ENGINES AND THEIR
EFFECTS IN WARFARE_
It is evident that a history of ancient siege engines cannot be created
_de novo_. All that can be done is to quote with running criticism what
has already been written about them.
The first mention of balistas and catapults is to be found in the Old
Testament, two allusions to these weapons being made therein.
The references are:
2 Chronicles xxvi. 15, ‘And he[20] made in Jerusalem engines, invented
by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot
arrows and great stones withal.’
[20] Uzziah.
Ezekiel xxvi. 9, ‘And he shall set engines of war against thy walls.’
Though the latter extract is not so positive in its wording as the one
first given, it undoubtedly refers to engines that cast either stones
or arrows against the walls, especially as the prophet previously
alludes to other means of assault.
One of the most authentic descriptions of the use of great missive
engines is to be found in the account by Plutarch of the siege of
Syracuse by the Romans, 214–212 B.C.
Cæsar in his Commentaries on the Gallic and Civil wars, B.C. 58–50,
frequently mentions the engines which accompanied him in his
expeditions.
The balistas on wheels were harnessed to mules and called
carro-balistas.
The carro-balista discharged its heavy arrow over the head of the
animal to which the shafts of the engine were attached. Among the
ancients these carro-balistas acted as field artillery and one is
plainly shown in use on Trajan’s Column.
According to Vegetius, every cohort was equipped with one catapult and
every century with one carro-balista; eleven soldiers being required to
work the latter engine.
[Page 32]
[Illustration: FIG. 20.--THE ACTION OF THE TREBUCHET.
A. The arm pulled down and secured by the slip-hook previous to
unhooking the rope of the windlass. B. The arm released from the
slip-hook and casting the stone out of its sling. C. The arm at the end
of its upward sweep.]
[Page 33]
Sixty carro-balistas accompanied, therefore, besides ten catapults, a
legion. The catapults were drawn along with the army on great carts
yoked to oxen.
In the battles and sieges sculptured on Trajan’s Column there are
several figures of balistas and catapults. This splendid monument
was erected in Rome, 105–113, to commemorate the victories of Trajan
over the Dacians, and constitutes a pictorial record in carved stone
containing some 2,500 figures of men and horses.
It is astonishing what a large number of catapults and balistas were
sometimes used in a siege. For instance, at the conquest of Carthage,
B.C. 146, 120 great catapults and 200 small ones were taken from the
defenders, besides 33 great balistas and 52 small ones (Livy).[21]
[21] Just previous to the famous defence of Carthage, the
Carthaginians surrendered to the Romans ‘two hundred
thousand suits of armour and a countless number of arrows
and javelins, besides catapults for shooting swift bolts
and for throwing stones to the number of two thousand.’
From Appian of Alexandria, a Greek writer who flourished
98–161.
Abulfaragio (Arab historian, 1226–1286) records that at the siege of
Acre in 1191, 300 catapults and balistas were employed by Richard I.
and Philip II.
Abbo, a monk of Saint Germain des Prés, in his poetic but very detailed
account of the siege of Paris by the Northmen in 885, 886, writes ‘that
the besieged had a hundred catapults on the walls of the town.’[22]
[22] These were probably balistas, as Ammianus Marcellinus
writes of the catapult, ‘An engine of this kind placed on
a stone wall shatters whatever is beneath it, not by its
weight but by the violence of its shock when discharged.’
Among our earlier English kings Edward I. was the best versed in
projectile weapons large and small, including crossbows and longbows.
In the Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, an account is given
of his ‘War-wolf,’ a siege engine in the construction of which he was
much interested and which was no doubt a trebuchet.
This machine was of immense strength and size, and took fifty
carpenters and five foremen a long time to complete. Edward designed it
for the siege of Stirling, whither its parts were sent by land and by
sea.
Sir Walter de Bedewyne, writing to a friend on July 20, 1304 (see
Calendar of State Documents relating to Scotland), says: ‘As for
news, Stirling Castle was absolutely surrendered to the King without
conditions this Monday, St. Margaret’s Day, but the King wills it
that none of his people enter the castle till it is struck with his
“War-wolf,” and that those within the castle defend themselves from the
said “War-wolf” as best they can.’
From this it is evident that Edward, having constructed his ‘War-wolf’
to cast heavy stones into the castle of Stirling to induce its garrison
to surrender, was much disappointed by their capitulation before he had
an opportunity of testing the power of his new weapon.
[Page 34]
One of the last occasions on which the trebuchet was used with success
is described by Guillet in his ‘Life of Mahomet II.’[23] This author
writes: ‘At the siege of Rhodes in 1480, the Turks set up a battery
of sixteen great cannon, but the Christians successfully opposed the
cannon with a counter-battery of new invention.[24]
[23] Guillet de Saint George, born about 1625, died 1705.
His _Life of Mahomet II._ was published in 1681. He was
the author of several other works, including one on
riding, warfare and navigation, termed the _Gentleman’s
Dictionary_. The best edition of this book is in English
and has many very curious illustrations. It is dated 1705.
[24] Called a new invention because the old siege engine of
which this one (probably a trebuchet) was a reproduction
had previously been laid aside for many years.
‘An engineer, aided by the most skilful carpenters in the besieged
town, made an engine that cast pieces of stone of a terrible size.
The execution wrought by this engine prevented the enemy from pushing
forward the work of their approaches, destroyed their breastworks,
discovered their mines, and filled with carnage the troops that came
within range of it.’
At the siege of Mexico by Cortes in 1521, when the ammunition for the
Spanish cannon ran short, a soldier with a knowledge of engineering
undertook to make a trebuchet that would cause the town to surrender.
A huge engine was constructed, but on its first trial the rock with
which it was charged instead of flying into the town ascended straight
upwards, and falling back to its starting-point destroyed the mechanism
of the machine itself.[25]
[25] _Conquest of Mexico._ W. Prescott, 1843.
Though all the projectile engines worked by cords and weights
disappeared from continental warfare when cannon came to the front
in a more or less improved form, they--if Vincent le Blanc is to be
credited--survived in barbaric nations long after they were discarded
in Europe.
This author (in his travels in Abyssinia) writes ‘that in 1576 the
Negus attacked Tamar, a strong town defended by high walls, and that
the besieged had engines composed of great pieces of wood which were
wound up by cords and screwed wheels, and which unwound with a force
that would shatter a vessel, this being the cause why the Negus did not
assault the town after he had dug a trench round it.’[26]
[26] Vincent le Blanc, _Voyages aux quatre parties du monde,
redigé par Bergeron_, Paris, 1649. Though the accounts
given by this author of his travels are imaginative,
I consider his allusion to the siege engine to be
trustworthy, as he was not likely to invent so correct a
description of one.
Plutarch, in his Life of Marcellus the Roman General, gives a graphic
account of Archimedes and the engines this famous mathematician
employed in the defence of Syracuse.
It appears that Archimedes showed his relative Hiero II., King of
Syracuse, some wonderful examples of the way in which immense weights
could be moved by a combination of levers.
[Page 35]
Hiero, being greatly impressed by these experiments, entreated
Archimedes temporarily to employ his genius in designing articles of
practical use, with the result that the scientist constructed for the
king all manner of engines suitable for siege warfare.
Though Hiero did not require the machines, his reign being a peaceful
one, they proved of great value shortly after his death when Syracuse
was besieged by the Romans under Marcellus, 214–212 B.C.
On this occasion Archimedes directed the working of the engines he had
made some years previously for Hiero.
Plutarch writes: ‘And in truth all the rest of the Syracusans were no
more than the body in the batteries of Archimedes, whilst he was the
informing soul. All other weapons lay idle and unemployed, his were the
only offensive and defensive arms of the city.’
When the Romans appeared before Syracuse, its citizens were filled with
terror, for they imagined they could not possibly defend themselves
against so numerous and fierce an enemy.
But, Plutarch tells us, ‘Archimedes soon began to play his engines upon
the Romans and their ships, and shot against them stones of such an
enormous size and with so incredible a noise and velocity that nothing
could stand before them. The stones overturned and crushed whatever
came in their way, and spread terrible disorder through the Roman
ranks. As for the machine which Marcellus brought upon several galleys
fastened together, called _sambuca_[27] from its resemblance to the
musical instrument of that name; whilst it was yet at a considerable
distance, Archimedes discharged at it a stone of ten talents’ weight
and, after that, a second stone and then a third one, all of which
striking it with an amazing noise and force completely shattered it.[28]
[27] _Sambuca._ A stringed instrument with cords of different
lengths like a harp. The machine which Marcellus brought
to Syracuse was designed to lift his soldiers--in small
parties at a time and in quick succession--over the
battlements of the town, so that when their numbers
inside it were sufficient they might open its gates to
the besiegers. The soldiers were intended to be hoisted
on a platform, worked up and down by ropes and winches.
As the machine was likened to a harp, it is probable it
had a huge curved wooden arm fixed in an erect position
and of the same shape as the modern crane used for
loading vessels. If the arm of the _sambuca_ had been
straight like a mast, it could not have swung its load of
men over a wall. Its further resemblance to a harp would
be suggested by the ropes which were employed for lifting
the platform to the summit of the arm, these doubtless
being fixed from the top to the foot of the engine.
[28] It is, I consider, impossible that Archimedes, however
marvellous the power of his engines, was able to project
a stone of ten Roman talents or nearly 600 lbs. in
weight, to a considerable distance! Plutarch probably
refers to the talent of Sicily, which weighed about 10
lbs. A stone of ten Sicilian talents, or say 100 lbs.,
could have been thrown by a catapult of great strength
and size.
Though the trebuchet cast stones of from 200 lbs. to
300 lbs. and more, this weapon was not invented till long
after the time of Archimedes.
[Page 36]
‘Marcellus in distress drew off his galleys as fast as possible and
sent orders to his land forces to retire likewise. He then called a
council of war, in which it was resolved to come close up to the walls
of the city the next morning before daybreak, for they argued that
the engines of Archimedes, being very powerful and designed to act at
a long distance, would discharge their projectiles high over their
heads. But for this Archimedes had been prepared, for he had engines
at his disposal which were constructed to shoot at all ranges. When,
therefore, the Romans came close to the walls, undiscovered as they
thought, they were assailed with showers of darts, besides huge pieces
of rock which fell as it were perpendicularly upon their heads, for the
engines played upon them from every quarter.
‘This obliged the Romans to retire, and when they were some way
from the town Archimedes used his larger machines upon them as they
retreated, which made terrible havoc among them as well as greatly
damaged their shipping. Marcellus, however, derided his engineers
and said, “Why do we not leave off contending with this geometrical
Briareus, who sitting at ease and acting as if in jest has shamefully
baffled our assaults, and in striking us with such a multitude of bolts
at once exceeds even the hundred-handed giant of fable?”
‘At length the Romans were so terrified that, if they saw but a rope
or a beam projecting over the walls of Syracuse, they cried out that
Archimedes was levelling some machine at them and turned their backs
and fled.’
As Marcellus was unable to contend with the machines directed by
Archimedes and as his ships and army had suffered severely from the
effects of these stone- and javelin-casting weapons, he changed his
tactics and instead of besieging the town he blockaded it and finally
took it by surprise.
Though, at the time of the siege of Syracuse, Archimedes gained a
reputation for divine rather than human knowledge in regard to the
methods he employed in the defence of the city, he left no description
of his wonderful engines, for he regarded them as mere mechanical
appliances which were beneath his serious attention, his life being
devoted to solving abstruse questions of mathematics and geometry.
Archimedes was slain at the capture of Syracuse, B.C. 212, to the great
regret of Marcellus.
The following extracts from Josephus, as translated by Whiston, enable
us to form an excellent idea of the effects of great catapults in
warfare:
(1) _Wars of the Jews_, Book III., Chapter VII.--The siege of Jotapata,
A.D. 67. ‘Vespasian then set the engines for throwing stones and darts
round about the city; the number of the engines was in all a hundred
and sixty.... At the same time such engines as were intended for that
purpose threw their spears buzzing forth, and stones of the weight of a
talent were thrown by the engines that were prepared for doing so....
[Page 37]
‘But still Josephus and those with him, although they fell down dead
one upon another by the darts and stones which the engines threw upon
them, did not desert the wall.... The engines could not be seen at a
great distance and so what was thrown by them was hard to be avoided;
for the force with which these engines threw stones and darts made them
wound several at a time, and the violence of the stones that were cast
by the engines was so great that they carried away the pinnacles of the
wall and broke off the corners of the towers; for no body of men could
be so strong as not to be overthrown to the last rank by the largeness
of the stones.... The noise of the instruments themselves was very
terrible, the sound of the darts and stones that were thrown by them
was so also; of the same sort was that noise that dead bodies made when
they were dashed against the wall.’
(2) _Wars of the Jews_, Book V., Chapter VI.--The siege of Jerusalem,
A.D. 70. ‘The engines that all the legions had ready prepared for them
were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to
the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones
were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only
repelled the excursions of the Jews but drove those away who were upon
the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a
talent[29] and were carried two or more stades.[30]
[29] 57¾ lbs. (avoirdupois).
[30] Two stades would be 404 yards; the measure of a stade is
606¾ English feet.
‘The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those who
stood first in the way but by those who were beyond them for a great
space.
‘As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for
it was of a white colour and could therefore not only be perceived by
the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its
brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave
notice when an engine was let go ... so those that were in its way
stood off and threw themselves down upon the ground. But the Romans
contrived how to prevent this by blacking the stone; they could then
aim with success when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had
been previously.’
The accounts given by Josephus are direct and trustworthy evidence, for
the reason that this chronicler relates what he personally witnessed
during the sieges he describes, in one of which (Jotapata) he acted the
part of a brave and resourceful commander.
Tacitus in describing a battle fought near Cremona between the armies
of Vitellius and Vespasian, A.D. 69, writes: ‘The Vitellians at this
time changed the position of their battering-engines, which in the
beginning were placed in different parts of the field and could only
play at random against the woods and hedges that sheltered the enemy.
They were now moved to the Postumian way, and thence having an open
space before them could discharge their missiles with good effect.’[31]
[31] Tacitus continues: ‘The fifteenth legion had an engine
of enormous size, which was played off with dreadful
execution and discharged massy stones of a weight to
crush whole ranks at once. Inevitable ruin must have
followed if two soldiers had not signalised themselves
by a brave exploit. Covering themselves with shields of
the enemy which they found among the slain, they advanced
undiscovered to the battering-engine and cut its ropes
and springs. In this bold adventure they both perished
and with them two names that deserved to be immortal.’
[Page 38]
Froissart chronicles that at the siege of Thyn-l’Evêque, 1340, in the
Low Countries, ‘John, Duke of Normandy had a great abundance of engines
carted from Cambrai and Douai. Among others he had six very large ones
which he placed before the fortress, and which day and night cast great
stones which battered in the tops and roofs of the towers and of the
rooms and halls, so much so that the men who defended the place took
refuge in cellars and vaults.’
Camden records that the strength of the engines employed for throwing
stones was incredibly great and that with the engines called
mangonels[32] they used to throw millstones. Camden adds that when
King John laid siege to Bedford Castle, there were on the east side of
the castle two catapults battering the old tower, as also two upon the
south side besides another on the north side which beat two breaches in
the walls.
[32] Catapults were often called mangons or mangonels, but in
course of time the name mangonel was applied to any siege
engine that projected stones or arrows. In this case the
trebuchet is intended, as no catapult could project a
millstone.
The same authority asserts that when Henry III. was besieging
Kenilworth Castle, the garrison had engines which cast stones of an
extraordinary size, and that near the castle several balls of stone
sixteen inches in diameter have been found which are supposed to have
been thrown by engines with slings[33] in the time of the Barons’ war.
[33] The engines here alluded to by Camden were trebuchets.
Holinshed writes that ‘when Edward I. attacked Stirling Castle, he
caused an engine of wood to be set up to batter the castle which shot
stones of two or three hundredweight.’ (See allusion to this, p. 33.)
Père Daniel, in his _Histoire de la Milice Françoise_, writes: ‘The
great object of the French engineers was to make siege engines of
sufficient strength to project stones large enough to crush in the
roofs of houses and break down the walls.’ This author continues: ‘The
French engineers were so successful and cast stones of such enormous
size that their missiles even penetrated the vaults and floors of the
most solidly built houses.’[34]
[34] These engines would also be trebuchets.
[Page 39]
The effects of the balista on the defenders of a town were in no degree
inferior to those of the catapult. The missile of the balista consisted
of a huge metal-tipped wooden bolt which, although of far less weight
than the great ball of stone cast by a catapult or the far larger
one thrown by a trebuchet, was able to penetrate roofs and cause
great destruction in ranks of soldiers. Cæsar records that when his
lieutenant Caius Trebonius was building a movable tower at the siege of
Marseilles, the only method of protecting the workmen from the darts of
engines[35] was by hanging curtains woven from cable-ropes on the three
sides of the tower exposed to the besiegers.[36]
[35] Balistas.
[36] ‘For this was the only sort of defence which they had
learned, by experience in other places, could not be
pierced by darts or engines.’ Cæsar’s _Commentaries on
the Civil War_, Book II., Chapter IX.
Procopius relates that during the siege of Rome in 537 by Vitiges King
of Italy, he saw a Gothic chieftain in armour suspended to a tree which
he had climbed, and to which he had been nailed by a balista bolt which
had passed through his body and then penetrated into the tree behind
him.
Again, at the siege of Paris by the Northmen in 885–886, Abbo writes
that Ebolus[37] discharged from a balista a bolt which transfixed
several of the enemy.
[37] Abbot of Saint-Germain des Prés and one of the chief
defenders of the town.
With grim humour Ebolus bade their comrades carry the slain to the
kitchen, his suggestion being that the men impaled on the shaft of
the balista resembled fowls run through with a spit previous to being
roasted.
Not only were ponderous balls of stone and heavy bolts projected into
a town and against its walls and their defenders, but, with a view to
causing a pestilence, it was also the custom to throw in dead horses,
and even the bodies of soldiers who had been killed in sorties or
assaults.
For example, Varillas[38] writes that ‘at his ineffectual siege of
Carolstein in 1422, Coribut caused the bodies of his soldiers whom the
besieged had killed to be thrown into the town in addition to 2,000
cartloads of manure. A great number of the defenders fell victims to
the fever which resulted from the stench, and the remainder were only
saved from death by the skill of a rich apothecary who circulated in
Carolstein remedies against the poison which infected the town.’
[38] French historian, born 1624, died 1696.
Froissart tells us that at the siege of Auberoche, an emissary who came
to treat for terms was seized and shot back into the town. This author
writes:
‘To make it more serious, they took the varlet and hung the letters
round his neck and instantly placed him in the sling of an engine and
then shot him back again into Auberoche. The varlet arrived dead before
the knights who were there and who were much astonished and discomfited
when they saw him arrive.’
Another historian explains that to shoot a man from the sling of an
engine he must first be tied up with ropes, so as to form a round
bundle like a sack of grain.
The engine with which such fiendish deeds were achieved was the
trebuchet.
[Page 40]
A catapult was not powerful enough to project the body of a man. This
difficulty was overcome by cutting off the head of any unfortunate
emissary for peace, if the terms he brought were scornfully rejected.
His letter of supplication from the besieged was then nailed to his
skull, and his head was sent flying through space to fall inside the
town as a ghastly form of messenger conveying a refusal to parley.
As it was always an object to the besiegers of a town to start a
conflagration if they could, Greek fire was used for the purpose. The
flame of this fearfully destructive liquid, the composition of which
is doubtful, could not be quenched by water. It was placed in round
earthenware vessels that broke on falling, and which were shot from
catapults; as the roofs of ancient and mediæval dwelling-houses were
usually thatched, it of course dealt destruction when it encountered
such combustible material.
The successful attack or defence of a fortified town often depended on
which of the armies engaged had the more powerful balistas, catapults
or trebuchets, as one engine of superior range could work destruction
unimpeded if it happened that a rival of similar power was not
available to check its depredations.
Froissart relates that ‘at the siege of Mortagne in 1340, an engineer
within the town constructed an engine to keep down the discharges of
one powerful machine in the besieging lines. At the third shot he was
so lucky as to break the arm of the attacking engine.’ The account of
this incident, as given by Froissart, is so quaint and graphic that I
quote it here: ‘The same day they of Valencens raysed on their syde a
great engyn and dyd cast in stones so that it troubled sore them within
the town. Thus y^e first^e day passed and the night in assayling and
devysing how they might greve them in the fortress.
‘Within Mortagne there was a connying maister in making of engyns who
saw well how the engyn of Valencens did greatly greve them: he raysed
an engyn in y^e castle, the which was not very great but he trymmed it
to a point,[39] and he cast therwith but three tymes. The firste stone
fell a xii[40] fro the engyn without, the second fell on y^e engyn, and
the thirde stone hit so true that it brake clene asonder the shaft of
the engyn without; then the soldyers of Mortagne made a great shout, so
that the Hainaulters could get nothing ther[41]; then the erle[42] sayd
how he wolde withdrawe.’
[39] _i.e._ with great exactness or ‘to a hair.’
[40] A foot.
[41] Could not throw any more stones.
[42] Count of Hainault. He was besieging Tournay, but left
that place and went to besiege Mortagne and ordered the
people of Valenciennes to go with him.
(From the translation made at the request of Henry VIII. by John
Bourchier, second Lord Berners, published 1523–1525.)
[Page 41]
These siege engines when only of moderate size were not always
successful, as in some cases the walls of a town were so massively
built that the projectiles of the enemy made little impression upon
them. Froissart tells us that it was then the habit of the defenders
of the walls to pull off their caps, or produce cloths, and derisively
dust the masonry when it was struck by stones.
_Some of the historians, mechanicians and artists from whom
information on balistas, catapults and trebuchets may be derived,
are as follows. I name them alphabetically irrespective of their
periods:_
ABBO: A monk of Saint-Germain des Prés, born about the middle of the
ninth century, died in 923. He wrote a poem in Latin describing the
siege of Paris by the Northmen in 885–886.
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS: Military historian. Died shortly after 390. His
work first printed at Rome 1474. The latest edition is that of V.
Gardthausen, 1874–1875.
APPIAN: Historian. Lived at Rome during the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian
and Antoninus Pius, 98–161. The best edition of his History is that
of Schweighaeuser, 1785.
APOLLODORUS OF DAMASCUS: Built Trajan’s Column, 105–113. Architect
and engineer. Addressed a series of letters to the Emperor Trajan
on siege engines (_vide_ Thévenot).
ATHENÆUS: Lived in the time of Archimedes, B.C. 287–212. The author
of a treatise on warlike engines (_vide_ Thévenot).
BITON: Flourished about 250 B.C. Wrote a treatise on siege engines
for throwing stones (_vide_ Thévenot).
BLONDEL, FRANÇOIS: French engineer and architect; born 1617; died
1686.
CÆSAR, JULIUS (the Dictator): Born B.C. 100; died B.C. 44. Author of
the ‘Commentaries’ on the Gallic and Civil wars.
CAMDEN, WILLIAM: Born 1551; died 1623. Antiquary. Published his
‘Britannia’ 1586–1607.
COLONNA, EGIDIO: Died 1316. Archbishop of Bourges 1294, after having
been tutor to Philip the Fair of France. His best known works are
‘Quæstiones Metaphysicales’ and ‘De Regimine Principum’; the latter
was written about 1280. Colonna gives a description of the siege
engines of his time.
DANIEL, PÈRE GABRIEL: Historian. Born 1649; died 1728.
[Page 42]
DIODORUS (The Sicilian): Historian. Lived under Julius and Augustus
Cæsar (Augustus died A.D. 14). The best modern edition is that
edited by L. Dindorf, 1828.
FABRETTI, RAFFAEL: Antiquary. Born 1618; died 1700.
FROISSART, JEAN: French chronicler. Born about 1337; died 1410. His
Chronicles printed about 1500. Translated into English by Lord
Berners, and published 1523–1525.
GROSE, FRANCIS: Military historian and antiquary. Born about 1731;
died 1791. Published ‘Military Antiquities’ 1786–1788.
HERON OF ALEXANDRIA: Mechanician. Lived B.C. 284–221. Bernardino
Baldi edited his work on arrows and siege engines, 1616 (_vide_
Thévenot).
ISIDORUS, BISHOP OF SEVILLE: Historian. Died 636.
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS: Jewish historian. Born A.D. 37; died about the
year 100. Wrote the ‘History of the Jewish Wars’ and also ‘Jewish
Antiquities.’ Josephus, acting as commander of the besieged,
bravely defended Jotapata, A.D. 67, against the Roman general
Vespasian. He was also present with the Roman army during the siege
of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70.
LEONARDO DA VINCI: Italian painter. Born 1445; died 1520. In the
immense volume of sketches and MSS. by this famous artist, which is
preserved at Milan and entitled ‘Il Codice Atlantico,’ there are
several drawings of siege engines.
LIPSIUS, JUSTUS: Historian. Born 1547; died 1606.
MÉZERAY, FRANÇOIS E. DE: French historian. Born 1610; died 1683.
Published ‘Histoire de France,’ 1643–1651.
NAPOLEON III.: ‘Etudes sur l’artillerie,’ compiled by order of the
Emperor and containing many drawings of the full-sized models of
siege engines made by his orders, with interesting and scientific
criticism of their power and effect.
PHILO OF BYZANTIUM: A writer on and inventor of warlike and other
engines. Lived shortly after the time of Archimedes (Archimedes
died 212 B.C.): was a contemporary of Ctesibius, who lived in the
reign of Ptolemy Physcon, B.C. 170–117 (_vide_ Thévenot).
PLUTARCH: Biographer and historian. Time of birth and death unknown.
He was a young man in A.D. 66.
POLYBIUS: Military historian. Born about B.C. 204. His History
commences B.C. 220 and concludes B.C. 146. The most interesting
edition is the one translated into French by Vincent Thuillier with
a commentary by de Folard, 1727–1730.
PROCOPIUS: Byzantine historian. Born about 500; died 565. The best
edition is that of L. Dindorf, 1833–1838.
[Page 44]
RAMELLI, AGOSTINO: Italian engineer. Born about 1531; died 1590.
Published a work on projectile and other engines, 1588.
TACITUS, CORNELIUS: Roman historian. Born about A.D. 61.
THÉVENOT, MELCHISEDECH, 1620–1692: Edited a book called ‘Mathematici
Veteres,’ containing several treatises on the siege operations
of the ancients, including the construction and management of
their projectile engines. In this book are to be found the
writings on the subject of military engines that were compiled
by Athenæus, Apollodorus, Biton, Heron and Philo. Thévenot was
King’s librarian to Louis XIV. After his death the manuscript of
‘Mathematici Veteres,’ or ‘The Ancient Mathematicians,’ was revised
and published by La Hire in 1693. The book was again edited by
Boivin, an official in the King’s library, who lived 1663–1726.
The treatises contained in Thévenot were finally re-edited and
published by C. Wescher, Paris, 1869.
VALTURIUS, ROBERTUS: Military author. Living at the end of the
fifteenth century. His book ‘De Re Militari’ first printed at
Verona, 1472.
VEGETIUS, FLAVIUS RENATUS: Roman military writer. Flourished in the
time of the Emperor Valentinian II., 375–392. The best edition is
that of Schwebel, 1767.
VIOLLET-LE-DUC: French military historian. Published his
‘Dictionnaire raisonné de l’Architecture,’ 1861.
VITRUVIUS POLLIO: Architect and military engineer and inspector of
military engines under the Emperor Augustus. Born between B.C. 85
and 75. His tenth book treats of siege engines. Translated into
French with commentary by Perrault, 1673. The most interesting
editions of Vitruvius are those containing the commentary on siege
engines by Philander. The best of these is dated 1649.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.--THE CAPTURE OF A FORTRESS.
_Criticism._--A fortification being entered by the besiegers, who have
made a breach in the outside wall with a battering ram.
A catapult is in the left corner of the picture, and four men are
taking a balista up the approach to the gateway.
_From Polybius. Edition 1727._ ]
[Page 101]
A TREATISE ON
THE CONSTRUCTION, POWER AND MANAGEMENT
OF TURKISH AND OTHER ORIENTAL BOWS
OF MEDIÆVAL AND LATER TIMES
CONTENTS
PART PAGE
I. THE TURKISH BOW. CONSTRUCTION AND DIMENSIONS 103
II. THE BOW-STRING 106
III. THE ARROW 107
IV. THE METHOD OF STRINGING A TURKISH, PERSIAN, OR INDIAN BOW 109
V. THE HORN GROOVE 111
VI. THE THUMB-RING 112
VII. THE RANGE OF THE TURKISH BOW 119
[Page 102]
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--TURKISH REFLEX COMPOSITE BOW, UNSTRUNG AND
STRUNG, AND ITS FLIGHT ARROW.]
[Page 103]
PART I
_THE TURKISH BOW--CONSTRUCTION AND DIMENSIONS_
Length of bow, measured, before it is strung, from end to end along its
outer curve with a tape, 3 ft. 9 in. (AAAAA fig. 1, opposite page).
Span of bow, measured between its ends when strung, 3 ft. 2 in. (BB
fig. 1.)
Length of bow-string, 2 ft. 11 in.
Greatest width of each arm of bow, 1⅛ in.
Thickness of each arm, at a distance of 6 in. from the centre of the
handle of the bow, ½ in.[43]
[43] In the very powerful bows, such as the one shown in Fig.
15, p. 121, the thickness at these parts is from ⅝ to ¾
in.
Circumference of each arm, at a distance of 6 in. from the centre of
the handle of the bow, 3 in.
(The arms of the Persian, Indian, and Chinese composite bows have a
width of from 1½ to 2 in.; and though the span of these bows, when
strung, is from 4 to 5 ft. and more, they do not shoot a light arrow
nearly so far as the shorter, narrower, and in proportion far stronger
and more elastic Turkish ones.)
The strength of the bow, or the weight that would be required on the
centre of the bow-string to pull it down from the bow to the full
length of the arrow, is 118 lbs. (This is without taking into account
the additional two or three inches the point of the arrow should be
drawn within the bow along the horn groove.)
Weight of bow, avoirdupois, 12½ oz.
Though I have carefully examined over fifty of these small Turkish
bows, I have never seen one that exceeded 1¼ in. in width at its widest
part, or if measured with a tape along its outer curve, when unstrung
(AAAAA, fig. 1), was over 3 ft. 10 in. in length. Bows that are 4 or
5 in. longer than the dimensions here given are invariably of Persian
or Indian manufacture, and are very inferior in the elasticity that
is requisite for long-distance shooting, though in decoration and
construction they often closely resemble Turkish bows.
[Page 104]
The bow is chiefly constructed of very flexible horn and sinew. These
materials were softened by heat and water and then longitudinally glued
to a slight lath of wood varying from ⅛ to ¼ in. in thickness (except
where it formed the handle of the bow), and from ½ to 1 in. in width.
This strip of wood formed the core or mould of the bow, and extended
at each of its ends for 3 in. beyond the strips of horn and sinew that
were fixed on its opposite sides, and which slightly overlapped it.
(Fig. 2, p. 105.) The projecting ends of the wooden strip were enlarged
so as to form the solid extremities of the bow in which the nocks for
the bow-string were cut. (CC fig. 3, p. 106.)
The two curved horn strips, which in part comprised the arms of the
bow (on its inside face when it was bent), were cut from the horn of a
buffalo or an antelope, and average about ¼ in. in thickness.
The thicker ends of these pieces meet at the middle of the handle of
the bow and their tapered ends extend to within 3 in. of its wooden
points. (EE fig. 3, p. 106.)
The sinew that represents the back of the bow is from the great neck
tendon of an ox or stag. This was probably shredded longitudinally,
and, after being soaked in elastic glue, compressed into a long flat
strip about ¼ in. thick, which was first moulded in a pliable state to
the wooden core and then glued to it. It thus formed the back of the
bow when it was bent. (DDD fig. 3, p. 106.)
The bark of the cherry-tree, or thin leather or skin, was next glued
over the sinew to preserve it from injury and damp. The horn parts,
or inner face of the bow when it was strung, were not covered with
bark or skin, a feature of the Turkish bow that, together with its
small size, distinguishes it from the bows of India and other Oriental
countries.[44]
[44] Though the horn strips which form the belly, or inner
surface when it is strung, of a Chinese or a Tartar bow,
are neither covered nor decorated, the great size of
these weapons easily distinguishes them from those of
Turkish manufacture. (Figs. 13, 14, pp. 116, 117.)
In the best Turkish bows this outer coating of bark, leather or skin
was lacquered a brilliant crimson and elaborately decorated with gold
tracery, the date of the bow being always placed at one of its ends and
the name of its maker at the other.
The horn and sinew (the materials which really form the bow and give it
its power and elasticity) may be likened to a tube, the small centre of
which is filled with wood. (Sections, fig. 2, opposite page.)
[Page 105]
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--SECTIONS OF A TURKISH BOW
Half full size.]
I. Section of bow at 6 in. from one of its ends.
II. Section of bow at half-way between the centre of its handle and
one of its ends.
III. Section of bow at the centre of its handle, which is here
thickly covered with sinew.
IV. Longitudinal section of bow at half-way between the centre of
its handle and one of its ends.
_Light shading_, AAAA. The compressed sinew forming the back of the
bow when it is strung.
_Dark shading_, BBBB. The horn forming the inner surface of the bow
when it is strung.
_Lined centres._ The thin lath of wood to which the horn and sinew
parts of the bow are moulded and fixed.
The thin wooden lath, in places only ⅛ in. thick, bestowed no strength
on the bow, as it was merely its heart or core to which the two curved
strips of horn and the long band of sinew were glued. (Fig. 3, p. 106.)
As it would have been very difficult and tedious to shape so fragile a
lath in one length to suit the outline of the finished bow, this lath
was always made in three pieces, which were fitted together at their
joints and then secured with glue. (Fig. 3.)
The middle piece formed the core of the handle of the bow and the other
pieces the core of its limbs. (Fig. 3.)
The extremities of the two outer pieces of the core were enlarged to
form the strong projecting points of the bow in which the nocks for the
bow-string were cut. (CC fig. 3.)
[Page 106]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--LONGITUDINAL PLANS OF THE PARTS OF A TURKISH
BOW.]
AAA. The three pieces of thin wood that formed the core of the bow.
Surface view. (The two outer lengths of the core were steamed into a
curve as shown in CCC.)
BBB. The pieces glued together. Surface view.
CCC. The pieces glued together. Side view.
DDD. The strip of sinew that was glued to the core, and which formed
the back or outer surface of the bow when it was reversed and strung.
EE. The two strips of naturally curved horn that were glued to the
core, and which formed the belly or inner surface of the bow when it
was reversed and strung.