C. Sebastian Sommer, Suzana Matešić (Hrsg.). Limes XXIII: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Ingolstadt 2015 (Akten des 23. Internationalen Limeskongresses in Ingolstadt 2015). Beiträge zum Welterbe Limes, Mainz, 2018
Dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Erwin Schramm’s fundamental work "Μονάγκων und Onager".... more Dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Erwin Schramm’s fundamental work "Μονάγκων und Onager".
The one-armed torsion throwing machine, μονάγκων – known since the end of the third century B.C.E. – became the main stone-thrower of the Roman army of the period of the Dominate under the name of onager. No technical manual of this engine, similar to those found in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently known. All we have at our disposal are fragments from the works of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων as well as the well-known “Digression” by Ammianus Marcellinus.
Attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct the onager faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus. While it is possible that Ammianus did not understand the principles of action of this machine, it is unlikely that he provided an erroneous description, since he personally saw it in action. Resolving all contradictions within the dominant theoretical model that places the horizontal framework on the ground does not seem to be possible. A careful analysis of the well-known sources, with assistance from new late medieval iconographic witnesses resolves the contradictions and results in the new model that raises the spring-frame to a vertical position and the torsion bundle to a higher altitude.
Sanader, M., Rendić-Miočević, A., Tončinić D., I. Radman-Livaja (eds.). Proceedings of the XVIIth Roman Military Equipment Conference Zagreb 2010. Weapons and Military Equipment in a Funerary Context. Zagreb, pp. 327-345, 2013
The article is the first Russian translation of a short treatise “Epitedeuma” by Urbicius, a Gree... more The article is the first Russian translation of a short treatise “Epitedeuma” by Urbicius, a Greek author. In this treatise, in a rhetorical form, Urbicius recommends to the Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius (AD 491—518) to use special military devices, conventionally called “Cheval de frise”, to protect the Roman infantry formation. The devices had to neutralize the horses of enemy cavalrymen and thereby disable the enemy’s powerful cavalry. This translation is supplied with an introductory article and comments explaining the historical realities. / Статья представляет собой первый перевод на русский язык небольшого сочинения Урбикия, названного автором «Изыскание» («Epitedeuma»). В этом трактате в риторической форме изложения Урбикий рекомендует восточноримскому императору Анастасию (491—518 гг.) использовать для защиты пехотного строя римлян особые приспособления, условно называемые в литературе «рогатки», которые должны были нейтрализовать коней у вражеских всадников и тем самым вывести из строя сильную конницу противника. Перевод снабжен вступительной статьей и комментариями, объясняющими исторические реалии.
А.В.Дедюлькин, И.Ф. Каюмов, Д.В. Мещеряков. Эллинистические железные кирасы из Южного Приуралья. / Stratum plus. Археология и культурная антропология..- № 3. - С. 51-88, Jun 2019
A rare metal object is currently on display at the Governor’s Local History Museum of Orenburg (R... more A rare metal object is currently on display at the Governor’s Local History Museum of Orenburg (Russia). It is an almost completely preserved back plate of the Hellenistic iron muscle cuirass. The cuirass was unearthed in 1995 during archaeological excavations of the Sarmatian warrior grave No. 4 from the 4th tumulus of the “Berdyanka V” tumuli necropolis. Unfortunately, already in ancient times, the breast plate of the cuirass fell apart into small, now severely corroded pieces. At the initiative of the authors and with the permission of the Orenburg State Pedagogical University, where the pieces have been stored for a long time, a complete restoration of the breast plate was carried out in 2016-17. For the first time, the article presents the fully restored breast plate of the muscle cuirass and discusses the Hellenistic iron cuirasses from the nomadic burial mounds of the South Ural region. The Berdyanka warrior grave is synchronous with the chieftain’s tomb from the 1st tumulus of the Prokhorovka necropolis, eponymous for the Early Sarmatian culture. According to the archive photos, the cuirass from Prokhorovka was fully identical to the cuirass from Berdyanka. Their shape features indicate that they are equestrian armor. The authors review the problems of the Early Sarmatian culture chronology, the historical context of the graves with the cuirasses, and possible routes for import of armor to the nomads of the South Ural region. Both cuirasses were made in the second half of the 3rd - the first quarter of the 2nd centuries B.C.E. in arms workshops of the Seleucid Empire or of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The resemblance of the reviewed cuirasses with the similar body armor from Epirus and the Eastern Mediterranean shows continuance of the traditions among arms workshops of the Metropolis and the East Hellenistic states. The results of the metallographic study are presented in the Appendix. It has been established that the production of the both cuirasses used sufficiently pure medium-carbon steel without quenching and cementation.
В статье рассматриваются эллинистические железные панцири из погребений кочевников Южного Приуралья. Впервые публикуется полностью отреставрированный нагрудник мускульной кирасы из погребения 4 кургана 4 могильника Бердянка V. Особенности формы указывают, что это всаднический доспех. Воинское погребение могильника Бердянка V синхронно захоронению вождя из кургана 1 могильника Прохоровка, эпонимному для раннесарматской культуры. Судя по архивным фотографиям, панцирь из Прохоровки был полностью идентичен доспеху из Бердянки. Авторами рассматриваются проблемы хронологии раннесарматской культуры, исторический контекст погребений с кирасами и возможные пути попадания импортных доспехов к номадам Южного Приуралья. Оба панциря были изготовлены во второй половине ΙΙΙ — первой четверти ΙΙ вв. до н. э. в оружейных мастерских государства Селевкидов или Греко-Бактрийского царства. Сходство рассматриваемых панцирей с аналогичными доспехами из Эпира и Восточного Средиземноморья показывает преемственность традиции между оружейными мастерскими метрополии и государств эллинистического Востока. В приложении приводятся результаты металлографических исследований. Было установлено, что для производства обеих кирас использовалась достаточно чистая среднеуглеродистая сталь, которую не подвергали закалке и цементации.
An information booklet for 1:75 scale miniature model of a Roman torsion catapult with a figure o... more An information booklet for 1:75 scale miniature model of a Roman torsion catapult with a figure of ballistarius. The reconstruction of the catapult is based on the concepts delivered in the “Some thoughts on the construction of the Roman scorpio of the Principate period' presentation at the XXIV International Limes Congress in 2018 by Ildar Kayumov, who also made the catapult drawings.
Полиэн. Стратегемы: Издание второе, исправленное и дополненное / Перевод с греческого под общей редакцией А.К. Нефёдкина. СПб.: Евразия / Polyaeni Strategematon Libri Octo; Second edition, revised and enlarged. Edited by A. Nefedkin. SPb: Eurasia, ISBN 978-5-8071-0502-8, 2021
Читателю предлагается второе издание знаменитого сочинения греческого автора середины II века н. ... more Читателю предлагается второе издание знаменитого сочинения греческого автора середины II века н. э. из Македонии, о коем известно то, что к моменту начала Парфянской войны (161–162 гг.), несмотря на свой преклонный возраст, он продолжал выступать как адвокат в имперских судах в Риме и именно там, за довольно короткий период, написал сочинение о военных хитростях под названием «Стратегемы», принесшее ему впоследствии мировую славу. Сочинение это по сути своей является талантливой компиляцией, что, впрочем, ни в коей мере не уменьшает значение этой книги для историков, поскольку свидетельства, приводимые подчас уникальны, т. к. многие из источников, используемых автором «Стратегем», не сохранились. На страницах данного произведения читатель встретится с увлекательным описанием военных хитростей, уловок и героических поступков греческих, римских и варварских царей и полководцев, начиная с мифологических героев и заканчивая Цезарем и Октавианом Августом. «Стратегемы» это фактически энциклопедия военной мысли и военной практики античности. Перевод текста снабжен обширными комментариями. Перевод и комментарии Т.В. Антонова, Л.Д. Бондарь, О.Ю. Владимирской, А.Б. Егорова, А.И. Климина, И.В. Косинцевой, А.К. Нефёдкина, М.М. Холода; комментарии А.А. Абакумова, А.А. Амбарцумяна, А.С. Балахванцева, Н.Н. Болгова, К.Л. Гуленкова, И.Ф. Каюмова, А.А. Клейменова, О.В. Кулишовой, А.Г. Курилова, М.Ю. Лаптевой, А.М. Новичихина, Х. Туманс; вступительные статьи А.Б. Ксенофонтова, А.К. Нефёдкина. / This is the second edition of a famous work by a Greek author of the middle of the second century CE from Macedonia. It is known that by the outbreak of the Parthian War (161-162 CE), he continued to appear as a lawyer in the imperial courts of Rome despite his advanced age. It was there that he wrote, in a rather short period, a treatise on military tricks entitled Strategems, which later brought him worldwide fame. This work in its essence is a clever compilation, which in no way diminishes its historical importance. The given evidence is at times unique since many of the sources used by the author have not been preserved. Within the pages of this work the reader will encounter a fascinating description of military deceptions, tricks, and heroic deeds of Greek, Roman, and barbarian kings and generals, from mythological heroes to Caesar and Augustus. Strategems is virtually an encyclopedia of military thought and practice of Antiquity. The Russian translation of the text is provided with extensive commentary and includes two introductions. Translation and commentaries by T. Antonov, L. Bondar, O. Vladimirskaya, A. Egorov, A. Klimin, I. Kosintseva, A. Nefedkin, M. Kholod; commentaries by A. Abakumov, A. Ambartsumian, A. Balakhvantsev, N. Bolgov, K. Gulenkov, I. Kayumov, A. Kleymeonov, O. Kulishova, A. Kurilov, M. Lapteva, A. Novichikhin, H. Tumans; introductions by A. Xenophontov, A. Nefedkin.
Аноним. О военных делах. Перевод А.К. Нефёдкина, комментарии А.Б. Егорова, И.Ф. Каюмова, А.В. Козленко, А.К. Нефедкина, М.Н. Серафимова. - СПб / Anonymi Auctoris De Rebus Bellicis. Translation by A. Nefedkin, commentaries by A. Egorov, I. Kayumov, A. Kozlenko, A. Nefedkin, M. Serafimov. - SPb, 2014
Анонимный автор трактата «О военных делах» второй половины IV в. н.э. предлагает императорам Римс... more Анонимный автор трактата «О военных делах» второй половины IV в. н.э. предлагает императорам Римской империи осуществить ряд финансовых и военных реформ, которые должны, по его мнению, привести к улучшению экономической системы и укрепить ее обороноспособность. О самом авторе сочинения ничего не известно, возможно, он был чиновником. Книга снабжена переводом трактата, обширными комментариями и латинским текстом оригинала. / The anonymous author of the “De Rebus Bellicis,” written in the second half of the fourth century, addresses Roman emperors with suggestions on implementing a number of financial and military reforms. In his opinion, such reforms should improve the administrative system and reinforce the defensive power of the Empire. Nothing is known about the author himself; possibly, he was a bureaucrat. The book provides a translation of the treatise, extensive commentaries, and the original Latin text.
Арриан. Тактическое искусство. Перевод, комментарии, вступительная статья А. К. Нефёдкина, СПб / Arrian. The Art of Tactics. Introduction, translation and commentary by A. K. Nefyodkin. Saint Petersburg, 2010
The Greek and Roman torsion arrow-shooter, known as catapulta or scorpio, is arguably the most st... more The Greek and Roman torsion arrow-shooter, known as catapulta or scorpio, is arguably the most studied artillery piece of Antiquty. This fact has a simple explanation. Not only do we possess the detailed descriptions of this engine in the treatises of Philon, Heron, and Vitruvius, the figures from the treatise of Heron, the reliefs from the tomb of Vedennius, and the frieze of the Temple of Athena Nikephoros of the Pergamum Acropolis, but we also have a sufficient number of archaeological finds from Ampurias, Caminreal, Xanten-Wardt, Zeugma, Azaila, Cremona, Ephyra, and Carlisle, which complement well the theoretical descriptions of the treatises and the visual sources.
However, despite the apparent abundance of sources, many of the questions regarding the construction of the Vitruvian torsion arrow-shooters remain the subject of heated debates. Unfortunately, because of the indisputable authority of Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden, who made great contributions to the study of Greek and Roman artillery, parts of their hypotheses transformed into dogmas that veil the eyes of modern researchers. This paper attempts to revise some of the old axioms, such as, for example, the arms design and the module of proportions of these machines, both by taking into account the recent archaeological finds, especially from Xanten-Wardt, and by offering a new look at the old sources, including one of the medieval Arab military and technical treatises.
A one-armed torsion stone-throwing machine, μονάγκων, known at least since the end of the third/t... more A one-armed torsion stone-throwing machine, μονάγκων, known at least since the end of the third/the beginning of the second centuries B.C.E., in all probability became the main heavy stone-thrower of the Roman army of the period of the Dominate under the name of onager. This transition from complex two-arm to simpler single-arm machines aptly demonstrates the changing nature of warfare and of the post-reform Roman army itself. Nevertheless, judging from surviving descriptions of sieges and defenses of fortresses, the simplicity of their construction had little impact on the effectiveness of their use in battle by late Roman artillerists.
Unfortunately, a clear description of this simple engine, similar to those found, for example, in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently unknown. Either the engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration, or such description simply did not reach us. All we have at our disposal are small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων. And there is the well-known “Digression” by the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus that still torments its researchers.
So far, all attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct this machine faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus Marcellinus, our main source. And while it is possible that Ammianus Marcellinus did not understand the principles of its action, it is unlikely that he provided incorrect and contradictory description of the appearance of the machine, since he personally and repeatedly saw it in action. His text, therefore, has no need in conjectures, whereas he himself must be acquitted of the charges of incompetence.
Resolving the contradictions within numerous variations of the only dominant theoretical model does not seem to be possible, despite the fact that it relies on the authority of such eminent researchers of the Greco-Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden. However, through careful analysis of the above sources and taking into account certain late medieval iconographic witnesses as well as experimental data, it becomes both possible and necessary to literally turn the existing model of this machine’s design “on its head.”
A short anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”, an anti-crisis program of the sort, appeared in t... more A short anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”, an anti-crisis program of the sort, appeared in the end of the fourth century CE. Its author suggested to the Roman emperors not only to improve the financial and administrative system of the Empire, but also to compensate for the lack of the human resource by designing or modifying various military engines.
Two such engines, the “ballista qudrirotis” and “ballista fulminalis”, and especially the source of their propulsive force, were the focus of incessant attention of the researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century. Several principal questions are under discussion until today:
— Did the Roman technology of metalworking long before the late Middle Ages allow to employ the elasticity of steel as the source of energy in their throwing engines?
— What was the purpose of the mysterious “arcus ferreus” and “foraminis”?
— Did the innovations of the Anonymous author have to do with the source of the elastic energy of the ballistae?
— Finally, was the source of the propulsive force revolutionary or traditional?
This presentation surveys the discussion and offers an opinion on the above and some other secondary issues concerning the ballistae that are described in the anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”.
A short technical treatise entitled «Ηρωνος χειροβαλλίστρας κατασκευη και συμμετρία» attracted th... more A short technical treatise entitled «Ηρωνος χειροβαλλίστρας κατασκευη και συμμετρία» attracted the attention of the Graeco-Roman artillery researchers since the XIX century. In 1970s, E. Marsden and D. Baatz made an important contribution to understanding the cheiroballistra — the throwing engine that the treatise describes. The archaeological finds of the last 40 years that occurred in two small Late Roman bridgehead forts in the Danube limes in Romania, as well as in France, Morocco and Bulgaria, also played a significant role. But it was in the last decade that the questions about the construction of the cheiroballistra caused a particularly heated debate with the involvement of such researches as A. Wilkins, A. Iriarte, C. Miks, M.J.T. Lewis, D. Campbell, and T. Rihll. This discussion, which produced multiple physical reconstructions, focused on the following major issues:
— What was the diameter of the torsion springs of the cheiroballistra or whether it is possible to enter conjectures into the treatise
— What was the purpose of the crescent-shaped piece, attached to the rear end of the stock: was it a withdrawal-rest of the gastraphetes type for the draw, or did it serve the same function as a buttstock of a modern rifle
— How powerful was this engine and did it have a tripod base
— And finally, where did the cheiroballistra arms rotate: outside or inside of the torsion frame.
This article surveys the discussion and attempts at a satisfactory resolution of the majority of the issues regarding the construction of the cheiroballistra and the all-metal spring-frame ballistae in general.
One rare metal object has been stored for a long time in the Historical museum of Nova Zagora (Bu... more One rare metal object has been stored for a long time in the Historical museum of Nova Zagora (Bulgaria) and it was ignored till now. It was unearthed in 1962 during ploughing in the depth of 40-50 cm with a set of several iron tools about 1.5 km north-west from the village Elenovo near Nova Zagora. Not far from that place there was a significant Roman settlement of second-third centuries CE and a large tumulus’ necropolis.
The object is made of iron and represented a massive, oblong and narrow frame, which has a rectangular top and bottom plates with wide round holes and two long sidepieces with rectangular brackets symmetrically located two by two.
The hoard’s interpretation as a set of agricultural tools didn’t allow to determine the function of the object. Now it can be identified with confidence as the καμβέστριον, metal spring-frame of Late Roman arrow-shooting ballista. The height of the καμβέστριον is 26.5 cm and diameter of the holes for mounting of washers – 7 cm. The καμβέστριον is very similar in appearance to the bronze one, which was found in Sala (Morocco). The kambestrions from Gornea and Orşova (Dierna) bridgehead Danubian castellums are geographically closest to the Elenovo find.
Besides the hoard turned out not to be a set of agricultural tools but apparently a set of entrenching tools and weapons of Roman soldiers. The iron hoard included number of pickaxes, some digging tools and spades, tent peg, linchpin, head of socketed pilum and a bronze round shield-boss. Also there is a certain object in the deposit 45 cm long, which can only be a crank-handle with octahedral shank possibly used to rotate the same ballista's windlass.
The καμβέστριον and the crank-handle will cast new light upon appearance of the weapon used during the Roman age in Thracia.
A one-armed machine, μονάγκων, which has been known as a counter-siege defensive engine at least ... more A one-armed machine, μονάγκων, which has been known as a counter-siege defensive engine at least since the end of the third century BCE, became in all probability the main heavy stone-thrower of the Roman army of the Dominate age. This situation effectively illustrates the changes in the characteristics of the military operations of that time and the post-reform Roman army itself.
Unfortunately, а technical treatise with a clear description of this simple engine, such as found, for example, in the treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, has not reached us. Apparently, these great engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration. Nevertheless, such a description might have existed as there is some indirect supporting evidence. It is limited to small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century CE) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century CE) with a description of the machines similar to μονάγκων. Additionally, the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus in his famous “Digression,” which still keeps its researchers up at night, among other military machines described such engine under the name of onager (or scorpio).
All attempts to correctly interpret the existing evidence and to reconstruct this machine encountered a significant problem, namely, the interpretations had multiple contradictions with the main source, Ammianus Marcellinus’ text. This unfortunate state of the matter follows from the fact that in their interpretations the scholars and re-constructors continue to succumb to the influence of a single model, which rests on the authority of such outstanding researchers of the Greek and Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden.
However, a closer analysis of the aforementioned sources with some use of the late-medieval witnesses demonstrates that it is both possible and necessary to literally turn this universally accepted model of this machine’s design upside-down. In fact, Ammianus Marcellinus, as it seems, left a quite clear and accurate description of the onager containing no contradictions, since he personally and repeatedly saw this machine in action. Neither his text needs corrections, nor he needs to be blamed in incompetency.
C. Sebastian Sommer, Suzana Matešić (Hrsg.). Limes XXIII: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Ingolstadt 2015 (Akten des 23. Internationalen Limeskongresses in Ingolstadt 2015). Beiträge zum Welterbe Limes, Mainz, 2018
Dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Erwin Schramm’s fundamental work "Μονάγκων und Onager".... more Dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Erwin Schramm’s fundamental work "Μονάγκων und Onager".
The one-armed torsion throwing machine, μονάγκων – known since the end of the third century B.C.E. – became the main stone-thrower of the Roman army of the period of the Dominate under the name of onager. No technical manual of this engine, similar to those found in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently known. All we have at our disposal are fragments from the works of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων as well as the well-known “Digression” by Ammianus Marcellinus.
Attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct the onager faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus. While it is possible that Ammianus did not understand the principles of action of this machine, it is unlikely that he provided an erroneous description, since he personally saw it in action. Resolving all contradictions within the dominant theoretical model that places the horizontal framework on the ground does not seem to be possible. A careful analysis of the well-known sources, with assistance from new late medieval iconographic witnesses resolves the contradictions and results in the new model that raises the spring-frame to a vertical position and the torsion bundle to a higher altitude.
Sanader, M., Rendić-Miočević, A., Tončinić D., I. Radman-Livaja (eds.). Proceedings of the XVIIth Roman Military Equipment Conference Zagreb 2010. Weapons and Military Equipment in a Funerary Context. Zagreb, pp. 327-345, 2013
The article is the first Russian translation of a short treatise “Epitedeuma” by Urbicius, a Gree... more The article is the first Russian translation of a short treatise “Epitedeuma” by Urbicius, a Greek author. In this treatise, in a rhetorical form, Urbicius recommends to the Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius (AD 491—518) to use special military devices, conventionally called “Cheval de frise”, to protect the Roman infantry formation. The devices had to neutralize the horses of enemy cavalrymen and thereby disable the enemy’s powerful cavalry. This translation is supplied with an introductory article and comments explaining the historical realities. / Статья представляет собой первый перевод на русский язык небольшого сочинения Урбикия, названного автором «Изыскание» («Epitedeuma»). В этом трактате в риторической форме изложения Урбикий рекомендует восточноримскому императору Анастасию (491—518 гг.) использовать для защиты пехотного строя римлян особые приспособления, условно называемые в литературе «рогатки», которые должны были нейтрализовать коней у вражеских всадников и тем самым вывести из строя сильную конницу противника. Перевод снабжен вступительной статьей и комментариями, объясняющими исторические реалии.
А.В.Дедюлькин, И.Ф. Каюмов, Д.В. Мещеряков. Эллинистические железные кирасы из Южного Приуралья. / Stratum plus. Археология и культурная антропология..- № 3. - С. 51-88, Jun 2019
A rare metal object is currently on display at the Governor’s Local History Museum of Orenburg (R... more A rare metal object is currently on display at the Governor’s Local History Museum of Orenburg (Russia). It is an almost completely preserved back plate of the Hellenistic iron muscle cuirass. The cuirass was unearthed in 1995 during archaeological excavations of the Sarmatian warrior grave No. 4 from the 4th tumulus of the “Berdyanka V” tumuli necropolis. Unfortunately, already in ancient times, the breast plate of the cuirass fell apart into small, now severely corroded pieces. At the initiative of the authors and with the permission of the Orenburg State Pedagogical University, where the pieces have been stored for a long time, a complete restoration of the breast plate was carried out in 2016-17. For the first time, the article presents the fully restored breast plate of the muscle cuirass and discusses the Hellenistic iron cuirasses from the nomadic burial mounds of the South Ural region. The Berdyanka warrior grave is synchronous with the chieftain’s tomb from the 1st tumulus of the Prokhorovka necropolis, eponymous for the Early Sarmatian culture. According to the archive photos, the cuirass from Prokhorovka was fully identical to the cuirass from Berdyanka. Their shape features indicate that they are equestrian armor. The authors review the problems of the Early Sarmatian culture chronology, the historical context of the graves with the cuirasses, and possible routes for import of armor to the nomads of the South Ural region. Both cuirasses were made in the second half of the 3rd - the first quarter of the 2nd centuries B.C.E. in arms workshops of the Seleucid Empire or of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The resemblance of the reviewed cuirasses with the similar body armor from Epirus and the Eastern Mediterranean shows continuance of the traditions among arms workshops of the Metropolis and the East Hellenistic states. The results of the metallographic study are presented in the Appendix. It has been established that the production of the both cuirasses used sufficiently pure medium-carbon steel without quenching and cementation.
В статье рассматриваются эллинистические железные панцири из погребений кочевников Южного Приуралья. Впервые публикуется полностью отреставрированный нагрудник мускульной кирасы из погребения 4 кургана 4 могильника Бердянка V. Особенности формы указывают, что это всаднический доспех. Воинское погребение могильника Бердянка V синхронно захоронению вождя из кургана 1 могильника Прохоровка, эпонимному для раннесарматской культуры. Судя по архивным фотографиям, панцирь из Прохоровки был полностью идентичен доспеху из Бердянки. Авторами рассматриваются проблемы хронологии раннесарматской культуры, исторический контекст погребений с кирасами и возможные пути попадания импортных доспехов к номадам Южного Приуралья. Оба панциря были изготовлены во второй половине ΙΙΙ — первой четверти ΙΙ вв. до н. э. в оружейных мастерских государства Селевкидов или Греко-Бактрийского царства. Сходство рассматриваемых панцирей с аналогичными доспехами из Эпира и Восточного Средиземноморья показывает преемственность традиции между оружейными мастерскими метрополии и государств эллинистического Востока. В приложении приводятся результаты металлографических исследований. Было установлено, что для производства обеих кирас использовалась достаточно чистая среднеуглеродистая сталь, которую не подвергали закалке и цементации.
An information booklet for 1:75 scale miniature model of a Roman torsion catapult with a figure o... more An information booklet for 1:75 scale miniature model of a Roman torsion catapult with a figure of ballistarius. The reconstruction of the catapult is based on the concepts delivered in the “Some thoughts on the construction of the Roman scorpio of the Principate period' presentation at the XXIV International Limes Congress in 2018 by Ildar Kayumov, who also made the catapult drawings.
Полиэн. Стратегемы: Издание второе, исправленное и дополненное / Перевод с греческого под общей редакцией А.К. Нефёдкина. СПб.: Евразия / Polyaeni Strategematon Libri Octo; Second edition, revised and enlarged. Edited by A. Nefedkin. SPb: Eurasia, ISBN 978-5-8071-0502-8, 2021
Читателю предлагается второе издание знаменитого сочинения греческого автора середины II века н. ... more Читателю предлагается второе издание знаменитого сочинения греческого автора середины II века н. э. из Македонии, о коем известно то, что к моменту начала Парфянской войны (161–162 гг.), несмотря на свой преклонный возраст, он продолжал выступать как адвокат в имперских судах в Риме и именно там, за довольно короткий период, написал сочинение о военных хитростях под названием «Стратегемы», принесшее ему впоследствии мировую славу. Сочинение это по сути своей является талантливой компиляцией, что, впрочем, ни в коей мере не уменьшает значение этой книги для историков, поскольку свидетельства, приводимые подчас уникальны, т. к. многие из источников, используемых автором «Стратегем», не сохранились. На страницах данного произведения читатель встретится с увлекательным описанием военных хитростей, уловок и героических поступков греческих, римских и варварских царей и полководцев, начиная с мифологических героев и заканчивая Цезарем и Октавианом Августом. «Стратегемы» это фактически энциклопедия военной мысли и военной практики античности. Перевод текста снабжен обширными комментариями. Перевод и комментарии Т.В. Антонова, Л.Д. Бондарь, О.Ю. Владимирской, А.Б. Егорова, А.И. Климина, И.В. Косинцевой, А.К. Нефёдкина, М.М. Холода; комментарии А.А. Абакумова, А.А. Амбарцумяна, А.С. Балахванцева, Н.Н. Болгова, К.Л. Гуленкова, И.Ф. Каюмова, А.А. Клейменова, О.В. Кулишовой, А.Г. Курилова, М.Ю. Лаптевой, А.М. Новичихина, Х. Туманс; вступительные статьи А.Б. Ксенофонтова, А.К. Нефёдкина. / This is the second edition of a famous work by a Greek author of the middle of the second century CE from Macedonia. It is known that by the outbreak of the Parthian War (161-162 CE), he continued to appear as a lawyer in the imperial courts of Rome despite his advanced age. It was there that he wrote, in a rather short period, a treatise on military tricks entitled Strategems, which later brought him worldwide fame. This work in its essence is a clever compilation, which in no way diminishes its historical importance. The given evidence is at times unique since many of the sources used by the author have not been preserved. Within the pages of this work the reader will encounter a fascinating description of military deceptions, tricks, and heroic deeds of Greek, Roman, and barbarian kings and generals, from mythological heroes to Caesar and Augustus. Strategems is virtually an encyclopedia of military thought and practice of Antiquity. The Russian translation of the text is provided with extensive commentary and includes two introductions. Translation and commentaries by T. Antonov, L. Bondar, O. Vladimirskaya, A. Egorov, A. Klimin, I. Kosintseva, A. Nefedkin, M. Kholod; commentaries by A. Abakumov, A. Ambartsumian, A. Balakhvantsev, N. Bolgov, K. Gulenkov, I. Kayumov, A. Kleymeonov, O. Kulishova, A. Kurilov, M. Lapteva, A. Novichikhin, H. Tumans; introductions by A. Xenophontov, A. Nefedkin.
Аноним. О военных делах. Перевод А.К. Нефёдкина, комментарии А.Б. Егорова, И.Ф. Каюмова, А.В. Козленко, А.К. Нефедкина, М.Н. Серафимова. - СПб / Anonymi Auctoris De Rebus Bellicis. Translation by A. Nefedkin, commentaries by A. Egorov, I. Kayumov, A. Kozlenko, A. Nefedkin, M. Serafimov. - SPb, 2014
Анонимный автор трактата «О военных делах» второй половины IV в. н.э. предлагает императорам Римс... more Анонимный автор трактата «О военных делах» второй половины IV в. н.э. предлагает императорам Римской империи осуществить ряд финансовых и военных реформ, которые должны, по его мнению, привести к улучшению экономической системы и укрепить ее обороноспособность. О самом авторе сочинения ничего не известно, возможно, он был чиновником. Книга снабжена переводом трактата, обширными комментариями и латинским текстом оригинала. / The anonymous author of the “De Rebus Bellicis,” written in the second half of the fourth century, addresses Roman emperors with suggestions on implementing a number of financial and military reforms. In his opinion, such reforms should improve the administrative system and reinforce the defensive power of the Empire. Nothing is known about the author himself; possibly, he was a bureaucrat. The book provides a translation of the treatise, extensive commentaries, and the original Latin text.
Арриан. Тактическое искусство. Перевод, комментарии, вступительная статья А. К. Нефёдкина, СПб / Arrian. The Art of Tactics. Introduction, translation and commentary by A. K. Nefyodkin. Saint Petersburg, 2010
The Greek and Roman torsion arrow-shooter, known as catapulta or scorpio, is arguably the most st... more The Greek and Roman torsion arrow-shooter, known as catapulta or scorpio, is arguably the most studied artillery piece of Antiquty. This fact has a simple explanation. Not only do we possess the detailed descriptions of this engine in the treatises of Philon, Heron, and Vitruvius, the figures from the treatise of Heron, the reliefs from the tomb of Vedennius, and the frieze of the Temple of Athena Nikephoros of the Pergamum Acropolis, but we also have a sufficient number of archaeological finds from Ampurias, Caminreal, Xanten-Wardt, Zeugma, Azaila, Cremona, Ephyra, and Carlisle, which complement well the theoretical descriptions of the treatises and the visual sources.
However, despite the apparent abundance of sources, many of the questions regarding the construction of the Vitruvian torsion arrow-shooters remain the subject of heated debates. Unfortunately, because of the indisputable authority of Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden, who made great contributions to the study of Greek and Roman artillery, parts of their hypotheses transformed into dogmas that veil the eyes of modern researchers. This paper attempts to revise some of the old axioms, such as, for example, the arms design and the module of proportions of these machines, both by taking into account the recent archaeological finds, especially from Xanten-Wardt, and by offering a new look at the old sources, including one of the medieval Arab military and technical treatises.
A one-armed torsion stone-throwing machine, μονάγκων, known at least since the end of the third/t... more A one-armed torsion stone-throwing machine, μονάγκων, known at least since the end of the third/the beginning of the second centuries B.C.E., in all probability became the main heavy stone-thrower of the Roman army of the period of the Dominate under the name of onager. This transition from complex two-arm to simpler single-arm machines aptly demonstrates the changing nature of warfare and of the post-reform Roman army itself. Nevertheless, judging from surviving descriptions of sieges and defenses of fortresses, the simplicity of their construction had little impact on the effectiveness of their use in battle by late Roman artillerists.
Unfortunately, a clear description of this simple engine, similar to those found, for example, in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently unknown. Either the engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration, or such description simply did not reach us. All we have at our disposal are small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων. And there is the well-known “Digression” by the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus that still torments its researchers.
So far, all attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct this machine faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus Marcellinus, our main source. And while it is possible that Ammianus Marcellinus did not understand the principles of its action, it is unlikely that he provided incorrect and contradictory description of the appearance of the machine, since he personally and repeatedly saw it in action. His text, therefore, has no need in conjectures, whereas he himself must be acquitted of the charges of incompetence.
Resolving the contradictions within numerous variations of the only dominant theoretical model does not seem to be possible, despite the fact that it relies on the authority of such eminent researchers of the Greco-Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden. However, through careful analysis of the above sources and taking into account certain late medieval iconographic witnesses as well as experimental data, it becomes both possible and necessary to literally turn the existing model of this machine’s design “on its head.”
A short anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”, an anti-crisis program of the sort, appeared in t... more A short anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”, an anti-crisis program of the sort, appeared in the end of the fourth century CE. Its author suggested to the Roman emperors not only to improve the financial and administrative system of the Empire, but also to compensate for the lack of the human resource by designing or modifying various military engines.
Two such engines, the “ballista qudrirotis” and “ballista fulminalis”, and especially the source of their propulsive force, were the focus of incessant attention of the researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century. Several principal questions are under discussion until today:
— Did the Roman technology of metalworking long before the late Middle Ages allow to employ the elasticity of steel as the source of energy in their throwing engines?
— What was the purpose of the mysterious “arcus ferreus” and “foraminis”?
— Did the innovations of the Anonymous author have to do with the source of the elastic energy of the ballistae?
— Finally, was the source of the propulsive force revolutionary or traditional?
This presentation surveys the discussion and offers an opinion on the above and some other secondary issues concerning the ballistae that are described in the anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”.
A short technical treatise entitled «Ηρωνος χειροβαλλίστρας κατασκευη και συμμετρία» attracted th... more A short technical treatise entitled «Ηρωνος χειροβαλλίστρας κατασκευη και συμμετρία» attracted the attention of the Graeco-Roman artillery researchers since the XIX century. In 1970s, E. Marsden and D. Baatz made an important contribution to understanding the cheiroballistra — the throwing engine that the treatise describes. The archaeological finds of the last 40 years that occurred in two small Late Roman bridgehead forts in the Danube limes in Romania, as well as in France, Morocco and Bulgaria, also played a significant role. But it was in the last decade that the questions about the construction of the cheiroballistra caused a particularly heated debate with the involvement of such researches as A. Wilkins, A. Iriarte, C. Miks, M.J.T. Lewis, D. Campbell, and T. Rihll. This discussion, which produced multiple physical reconstructions, focused on the following major issues:
— What was the diameter of the torsion springs of the cheiroballistra or whether it is possible to enter conjectures into the treatise
— What was the purpose of the crescent-shaped piece, attached to the rear end of the stock: was it a withdrawal-rest of the gastraphetes type for the draw, or did it serve the same function as a buttstock of a modern rifle
— How powerful was this engine and did it have a tripod base
— And finally, where did the cheiroballistra arms rotate: outside or inside of the torsion frame.
This article surveys the discussion and attempts at a satisfactory resolution of the majority of the issues regarding the construction of the cheiroballistra and the all-metal spring-frame ballistae in general.
One rare metal object has been stored for a long time in the Historical museum of Nova Zagora (Bu... more One rare metal object has been stored for a long time in the Historical museum of Nova Zagora (Bulgaria) and it was ignored till now. It was unearthed in 1962 during ploughing in the depth of 40-50 cm with a set of several iron tools about 1.5 km north-west from the village Elenovo near Nova Zagora. Not far from that place there was a significant Roman settlement of second-third centuries CE and a large tumulus’ necropolis.
The object is made of iron and represented a massive, oblong and narrow frame, which has a rectangular top and bottom plates with wide round holes and two long sidepieces with rectangular brackets symmetrically located two by two.
The hoard’s interpretation as a set of agricultural tools didn’t allow to determine the function of the object. Now it can be identified with confidence as the καμβέστριον, metal spring-frame of Late Roman arrow-shooting ballista. The height of the καμβέστριον is 26.5 cm and diameter of the holes for mounting of washers – 7 cm. The καμβέστριον is very similar in appearance to the bronze one, which was found in Sala (Morocco). The kambestrions from Gornea and Orşova (Dierna) bridgehead Danubian castellums are geographically closest to the Elenovo find.
Besides the hoard turned out not to be a set of agricultural tools but apparently a set of entrenching tools and weapons of Roman soldiers. The iron hoard included number of pickaxes, some digging tools and spades, tent peg, linchpin, head of socketed pilum and a bronze round shield-boss. Also there is a certain object in the deposit 45 cm long, which can only be a crank-handle with octahedral shank possibly used to rotate the same ballista's windlass.
The καμβέστριον and the crank-handle will cast new light upon appearance of the weapon used during the Roman age in Thracia.
A one-armed machine, μονάγκων, which has been known as a counter-siege defensive engine at least ... more A one-armed machine, μονάγκων, which has been known as a counter-siege defensive engine at least since the end of the third century BCE, became in all probability the main heavy stone-thrower of the Roman army of the Dominate age. This situation effectively illustrates the changes in the characteristics of the military operations of that time and the post-reform Roman army itself.
Unfortunately, а technical treatise with a clear description of this simple engine, such as found, for example, in the treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, has not reached us. Apparently, these great engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration. Nevertheless, such a description might have existed as there is some indirect supporting evidence. It is limited to small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century CE) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century CE) with a description of the machines similar to μονάγκων. Additionally, the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus in his famous “Digression,” which still keeps its researchers up at night, among other military machines described such engine under the name of onager (or scorpio).
All attempts to correctly interpret the existing evidence and to reconstruct this machine encountered a significant problem, namely, the interpretations had multiple contradictions with the main source, Ammianus Marcellinus’ text. This unfortunate state of the matter follows from the fact that in their interpretations the scholars and re-constructors continue to succumb to the influence of a single model, which rests on the authority of such outstanding researchers of the Greek and Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden.
However, a closer analysis of the aforementioned sources with some use of the late-medieval witnesses demonstrates that it is both possible and necessary to literally turn this universally accepted model of this machine’s design upside-down. In fact, Ammianus Marcellinus, as it seems, left a quite clear and accurate description of the onager containing no contradictions, since he personally and repeatedly saw this machine in action. Neither his text needs corrections, nor he needs to be blamed in incompetency.
Uploads
The one-armed torsion throwing machine, μονάγκων – known since the end of the third century B.C.E. – became the main stone-thrower of the Roman army of the period of the Dominate under the name of onager. No technical manual of this engine, similar to those found in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently known. All we have at our disposal are fragments from the works of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων as well as the well-known “Digression” by Ammianus Marcellinus.
Attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct the onager faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus. While it is possible that Ammianus did not understand the principles of action of this machine, it is unlikely that he provided an erroneous description, since he personally saw it in action. Resolving all contradictions within the dominant theoretical model that places the horizontal framework on the ground does not seem to be possible. A careful analysis of the well-known sources, with assistance from new late medieval iconographic witnesses resolves the contradictions and results in the new model that raises the spring-frame to a vertical position and the torsion bundle to a higher altitude.
В статье рассматриваются эллинистические железные панцири из погребений кочевников Южного Приуралья. Впервые публикуется полностью отреставрированный нагрудник мускульной кирасы из погребения 4 кургана 4 могильника Бердянка V. Особенности формы указывают, что это всаднический доспех. Воинское погребение могильника Бердянка V синхронно захоронению вождя из кургана 1 могильника Прохоровка, эпонимному для раннесарматской культуры. Судя по архивным фотографиям, панцирь из Прохоровки был полностью идентичен доспеху из Бердянки. Авторами рассматриваются проблемы хронологии раннесарматской культуры, исторический контекст погребений с кирасами и возможные пути попадания импортных доспехов к номадам Южного Приуралья. Оба панциря были изготовлены во второй половине ΙΙΙ — первой четверти ΙΙ вв. до н. э. в оружейных мастерских государства Селевкидов или Греко-Бактрийского царства. Сходство рассматриваемых панцирей с аналогичными доспехами из Эпира и Восточного Средиземноморья показывает преемственность традиции между оружейными мастерскими метрополии и государств эллинистического Востока. В приложении приводятся результаты металлографических исследований. Было установлено, что для производства обеих кирас использовалась достаточно чистая среднеуглеродистая сталь, которую не подвергали закалке и цементации.
However, despite the apparent abundance of sources, many of the questions regarding the construction of the Vitruvian torsion arrow-shooters remain the subject of heated debates. Unfortunately, because of the indisputable authority of Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden, who made great contributions to the study of Greek and Roman artillery, parts of their hypotheses transformed into dogmas that veil the eyes of modern researchers. This paper attempts to revise some of the old axioms, such as, for example, the arms design and the module of proportions of these machines, both by taking into account the recent archaeological finds, especially from Xanten-Wardt, and by offering a new look at the old sources, including one of the medieval Arab military and technical treatises.
Unfortunately, a clear description of this simple engine, similar to those found, for example, in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently unknown. Either the engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration, or such description simply did not reach us. All we have at our disposal are small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων. And there is the well-known “Digression” by the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus that still torments its researchers.
So far, all attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct this machine faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus Marcellinus, our main source. And while it is possible that Ammianus Marcellinus did not understand the principles of its action, it is unlikely that he provided incorrect and contradictory description of the appearance of the machine, since he personally and repeatedly saw it in action. His text, therefore, has no need in conjectures, whereas he himself must be acquitted of the charges of incompetence.
Resolving the contradictions within numerous variations of the only dominant theoretical model does not seem to be possible, despite the fact that it relies on the authority of such eminent researchers of the Greco-Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden. However, through careful analysis of the above sources and taking into account certain late medieval iconographic witnesses as well as experimental data, it becomes both possible and necessary to literally turn the existing model of this machine’s design “on its head.”
Two such engines, the “ballista qudrirotis” and “ballista fulminalis”, and especially the source of their propulsive force, were the focus of incessant attention of the researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century. Several principal questions are under discussion until today:
— Did the Roman technology of metalworking long before the late Middle Ages allow to employ the elasticity of steel as the source of energy in their throwing engines?
— What was the purpose of the mysterious “arcus ferreus” and “foraminis”?
— Did the innovations of the Anonymous author have to do with the source of the elastic energy of the ballistae?
— Finally, was the source of the propulsive force revolutionary or traditional?
This presentation surveys the discussion and offers an opinion on the above and some other secondary issues concerning the ballistae that are described in the anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”.
— What was the diameter of the torsion springs of the cheiroballistra or whether it is possible to enter conjectures into the treatise
— What was the purpose of the crescent-shaped piece, attached to the rear end of the stock: was it a withdrawal-rest of the gastraphetes type for the draw, or did it serve the same function as a buttstock of a modern rifle
— How powerful was this engine and did it have a tripod base
— And finally, where did the cheiroballistra arms rotate: outside or inside of the torsion frame.
This article surveys the discussion and attempts at a satisfactory resolution of the majority of the issues regarding the construction of the cheiroballistra and the all-metal spring-frame ballistae in general.
The object is made of iron and represented a massive, oblong and narrow frame, which has a rectangular top and bottom plates with wide round holes and two long sidepieces with rectangular brackets symmetrically located two by two.
The hoard’s interpretation as a set of agricultural tools didn’t allow to determine the function of the object. Now it can be identified with confidence as the καμβέστριον, metal spring-frame of Late Roman arrow-shooting ballista. The height of the καμβέστριον is 26.5 cm and diameter of the holes for mounting of washers – 7 cm. The καμβέστριον is very similar in appearance to the bronze one, which was found in Sala (Morocco). The kambestrions from Gornea and Orşova (Dierna) bridgehead Danubian castellums are geographically closest to the Elenovo find.
Besides the hoard turned out not to be a set of agricultural tools but apparently a set of entrenching tools and weapons of Roman soldiers. The iron hoard included number of pickaxes, some digging tools and spades, tent peg, linchpin, head of socketed pilum and a bronze round shield-boss. Also there is a certain object in the deposit 45 cm long, which can only be a crank-handle with octahedral shank possibly used to rotate the same ballista's windlass.
The καμβέστριον and the crank-handle will cast new light upon appearance of the weapon used during the Roman age in Thracia.
Unfortunately, а technical treatise with a clear description of this simple engine, such as found, for example, in the treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, has not reached us. Apparently, these great engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration. Nevertheless, such a description might have existed as there is some indirect supporting evidence. It is limited to small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century CE) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century CE) with a description of the machines similar to μονάγκων. Additionally, the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus in his famous “Digression,” which still keeps its researchers up at night, among other military machines described such engine under the name of onager (or scorpio).
All attempts to correctly interpret the existing evidence and to reconstruct this machine encountered a significant problem, namely, the interpretations had multiple contradictions with the main source, Ammianus Marcellinus’ text. This unfortunate state of the matter follows from the fact that in their interpretations the scholars and re-constructors continue to succumb to the influence of a single model, which rests on the authority of such outstanding researchers of the Greek and Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden.
However, a closer analysis of the aforementioned sources with some use of the late-medieval witnesses demonstrates that it is both possible and necessary to literally turn this universally accepted model of this machine’s design upside-down. In fact, Ammianus Marcellinus, as it seems, left a quite clear and accurate description of the onager containing no contradictions, since he personally and repeatedly saw this machine in action. Neither his text needs corrections, nor he needs to be blamed in incompetency.
The one-armed torsion throwing machine, μονάγκων – known since the end of the third century B.C.E. – became the main stone-thrower of the Roman army of the period of the Dominate under the name of onager. No technical manual of this engine, similar to those found in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently known. All we have at our disposal are fragments from the works of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων as well as the well-known “Digression” by Ammianus Marcellinus.
Attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct the onager faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus. While it is possible that Ammianus did not understand the principles of action of this machine, it is unlikely that he provided an erroneous description, since he personally saw it in action. Resolving all contradictions within the dominant theoretical model that places the horizontal framework on the ground does not seem to be possible. A careful analysis of the well-known sources, with assistance from new late medieval iconographic witnesses resolves the contradictions and results in the new model that raises the spring-frame to a vertical position and the torsion bundle to a higher altitude.
В статье рассматриваются эллинистические железные панцири из погребений кочевников Южного Приуралья. Впервые публикуется полностью отреставрированный нагрудник мускульной кирасы из погребения 4 кургана 4 могильника Бердянка V. Особенности формы указывают, что это всаднический доспех. Воинское погребение могильника Бердянка V синхронно захоронению вождя из кургана 1 могильника Прохоровка, эпонимному для раннесарматской культуры. Судя по архивным фотографиям, панцирь из Прохоровки был полностью идентичен доспеху из Бердянки. Авторами рассматриваются проблемы хронологии раннесарматской культуры, исторический контекст погребений с кирасами и возможные пути попадания импортных доспехов к номадам Южного Приуралья. Оба панциря были изготовлены во второй половине ΙΙΙ — первой четверти ΙΙ вв. до н. э. в оружейных мастерских государства Селевкидов или Греко-Бактрийского царства. Сходство рассматриваемых панцирей с аналогичными доспехами из Эпира и Восточного Средиземноморья показывает преемственность традиции между оружейными мастерскими метрополии и государств эллинистического Востока. В приложении приводятся результаты металлографических исследований. Было установлено, что для производства обеих кирас использовалась достаточно чистая среднеуглеродистая сталь, которую не подвергали закалке и цементации.
However, despite the apparent abundance of sources, many of the questions regarding the construction of the Vitruvian torsion arrow-shooters remain the subject of heated debates. Unfortunately, because of the indisputable authority of Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden, who made great contributions to the study of Greek and Roman artillery, parts of their hypotheses transformed into dogmas that veil the eyes of modern researchers. This paper attempts to revise some of the old axioms, such as, for example, the arms design and the module of proportions of these machines, both by taking into account the recent archaeological finds, especially from Xanten-Wardt, and by offering a new look at the old sources, including one of the medieval Arab military and technical treatises.
Unfortunately, a clear description of this simple engine, similar to those found, for example, in treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, is currently unknown. Either the engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration, or such description simply did not reach us. All we have at our disposal are small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century C.E.) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century C.E.) with descriptions of machines similar to the μονάγκων. And there is the well-known “Digression” by the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus that still torments its researchers.
So far, all attempts to interpret the surviving information and to reconstruct this machine faced numerous contradictions with the text of Ammianus Marcellinus, our main source. And while it is possible that Ammianus Marcellinus did not understand the principles of its action, it is unlikely that he provided incorrect and contradictory description of the appearance of the machine, since he personally and repeatedly saw it in action. His text, therefore, has no need in conjectures, whereas he himself must be acquitted of the charges of incompetence.
Resolving the contradictions within numerous variations of the only dominant theoretical model does not seem to be possible, despite the fact that it relies on the authority of such eminent researchers of the Greco-Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden. However, through careful analysis of the above sources and taking into account certain late medieval iconographic witnesses as well as experimental data, it becomes both possible and necessary to literally turn the existing model of this machine’s design “on its head.”
Two such engines, the “ballista qudrirotis” and “ballista fulminalis”, and especially the source of their propulsive force, were the focus of incessant attention of the researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century. Several principal questions are under discussion until today:
— Did the Roman technology of metalworking long before the late Middle Ages allow to employ the elasticity of steel as the source of energy in their throwing engines?
— What was the purpose of the mysterious “arcus ferreus” and “foraminis”?
— Did the innovations of the Anonymous author have to do with the source of the elastic energy of the ballistae?
— Finally, was the source of the propulsive force revolutionary or traditional?
This presentation surveys the discussion and offers an opinion on the above and some other secondary issues concerning the ballistae that are described in the anonymous treatise “De Rebus Bellicis”.
— What was the diameter of the torsion springs of the cheiroballistra or whether it is possible to enter conjectures into the treatise
— What was the purpose of the crescent-shaped piece, attached to the rear end of the stock: was it a withdrawal-rest of the gastraphetes type for the draw, or did it serve the same function as a buttstock of a modern rifle
— How powerful was this engine and did it have a tripod base
— And finally, where did the cheiroballistra arms rotate: outside or inside of the torsion frame.
This article surveys the discussion and attempts at a satisfactory resolution of the majority of the issues regarding the construction of the cheiroballistra and the all-metal spring-frame ballistae in general.
The object is made of iron and represented a massive, oblong and narrow frame, which has a rectangular top and bottom plates with wide round holes and two long sidepieces with rectangular brackets symmetrically located two by two.
The hoard’s interpretation as a set of agricultural tools didn’t allow to determine the function of the object. Now it can be identified with confidence as the καμβέστριον, metal spring-frame of Late Roman arrow-shooting ballista. The height of the καμβέστριον is 26.5 cm and diameter of the holes for mounting of washers – 7 cm. The καμβέστριον is very similar in appearance to the bronze one, which was found in Sala (Morocco). The kambestrions from Gornea and Orşova (Dierna) bridgehead Danubian castellums are geographically closest to the Elenovo find.
Besides the hoard turned out not to be a set of agricultural tools but apparently a set of entrenching tools and weapons of Roman soldiers. The iron hoard included number of pickaxes, some digging tools and spades, tent peg, linchpin, head of socketed pilum and a bronze round shield-boss. Also there is a certain object in the deposit 45 cm long, which can only be a crank-handle with octahedral shank possibly used to rotate the same ballista's windlass.
The καμβέστριον and the crank-handle will cast new light upon appearance of the weapon used during the Roman age in Thracia.
Unfortunately, а technical treatise with a clear description of this simple engine, such as found, for example, in the treatises of Philon, Biton, Heron or Vitruvius, has not reached us. Apparently, these great engineers of antiquity did not deem it necessary to give it any consideration. Nevertheless, such a description might have existed as there is some indirect supporting evidence. It is limited to small fragments from the poliorcetic treatises of Apollodorus of Damascus (first century CE) and Anonymus Byzantinus (tenth century CE) with a description of the machines similar to μονάγκων. Additionally, the late Roman historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus in his famous “Digression,” which still keeps its researchers up at night, among other military machines described such engine under the name of onager (or scorpio).
All attempts to correctly interpret the existing evidence and to reconstruct this machine encountered a significant problem, namely, the interpretations had multiple contradictions with the main source, Ammianus Marcellinus’ text. This unfortunate state of the matter follows from the fact that in their interpretations the scholars and re-constructors continue to succumb to the influence of a single model, which rests on the authority of such outstanding researchers of the Greek and Roman artillery as Erwin Schramm and Eric Marsden.
However, a closer analysis of the aforementioned sources with some use of the late-medieval witnesses demonstrates that it is both possible and necessary to literally turn this universally accepted model of this machine’s design upside-down. In fact, Ammianus Marcellinus, as it seems, left a quite clear and accurate description of the onager containing no contradictions, since he personally and repeatedly saw this machine in action. Neither his text needs corrections, nor he needs to be blamed in incompetency.