Genava55

Maybe we should skip the Sarvatobhadra (the cartwheel shape engine), this is too complicated. We still have the Jāmadagnya shooting arrows and the Āsphāṭima, a kind of catapult shooting non-specified projectiles. What devices could be suitable candidates? The pào or chinese mangonel? The oxybeles? The lithobolos? The onager? A kind of bow catapult? (not sure it really existed however) Finally about the battering ram, does a hammer device is an interesting idea? Does an incendiary siege weapon is too much?

Indeed. Now I am wondering if it is a catapult at all. Because the translator used the word catapult for the Āsphāṭima but not for the Sarvatobhadra. Maybe it is simply like a water mill to throw big stones from the walls at short distance or a wheel you spin with a long sling in rope to throw a large stone at modest distance. Not really. When an onager is assembled, you need to put stress on the axis where the arm is fixed. When it is ready to work, the arm is not resting against the frame (the front beam), it is actually pushing against it. The winch by pulling the arm to load the catapult gives an extra torsion but much of the torsion is already set before pulling the arm. This is quite obvious in the reenactment in "Battle Castle with Dan Snow" of what they called a mangonel, the arm bounces on the frame but immediately comes back pushing against it after the shot. And there is a good reason for this, elasticity is not linear, especially on ancient material. If the sinews is not properly stressed before pulling the arm, then when you will shot you will get a significant time during which the arm is not getting a supplementary acceleration. The acceleration needs to be constantly in work during the shot to have a maximum of efficiency, so for that the force must be applied continuously. The sinews must be above a threshold of torsion to have this continuous force applied during the release.

I specifically said I wasn't talking about the mangonel or the trebuchet as suitable candidates. It is simply the idea of large wheels used either for the torsion of the sinew around an arm or for the traction of a rope that could fit with the description. In the case of an onager, there are only two axis where some wheels-shaped handles could fit (I am not sure of the word in English, a crank, a handle, a winch reel?): the axis for the torsion storing the energy for the propulsion or the axis to pull the arm and to load the weapon. Personally I would have imagine the "wheels" on the axis for the torsion, controlling the force of the propulsion. How? It is a stationary/immovable device and it is said only to have a shape like a cartwheel, not necessarily wheels to move the engine. The verb "to spin" can be used in several situation other than a rolling device. The only alternative I see is that it is nothing like a catapult but actually something to push stones from the fortifications. But the translation uses the word "hurl". Clearly, there are other devices mentioned as well throwing projectiles. Any bow-based catapult like an oxybeles would be as well reasonable hypothesis. Even a catapult like this is much more simpler: The same for a Chinese like trebuchet based on men traction, it could be as well a reasonable hypothesis due to its simplicity. I was simply curious about this cart-wheel shaped engine.

That's a good example, although a bit too large (euphemism). I had in mind the trebuchet/mangonel with wheels on the side, this is a striking feature for myself and other people. I am not suggesting that siege engine specifically, which is very different than an onager. But this is only the way I imagined when the mechanism could take a lot of room in the imagination of an observer to end with "cart-wheel shape" observation. My hypothesis, trying to stay simple and reasonable, is simply that two large wheels on the sides were used to make the torsion. Since the onager has such a simple design, not very large, the wheels could be quite a striking feature in comparison. Otherwise, a cart-wheel shape catapult would necessitate much more fantasy (like Da Vinci prototypes). The author of the article seems to consider the possibility that during Philon's lifetime the principle of an one-armed catapult already existed.

One example of unknown about the onager: From: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0677.pdf So I am not convinced a design similar to the onager in its principles wouldn't have been known far before.

Actually we don't know the Romans invented it, but the earliest account is in Ammianus Marcellinus book. The account itself makes me think it is an older weapon because of the confusion between the names and the author noting that the reference to an onager comes from "modern times", in opposition to an other name. It could be, but how it would make it look like a "cart-wheel shape"? Personally I preferred a vertical design because it is more striking visually. Well, we have no indication they borrowed their siege engines from the Greeks. This is simply the most conservative and orthodox hypothesis. But if Jaina literature is correct, then a kind of catapult existed before the Mauryas (which is possible since the Chineses had one before the Han dynasty). This one?

Personally I am in favor of a catapult for the Mauryas, I find it a reasonable hypothesis according to the hints from literature. We won't be able to reenact the original design, that's sure. But with reasonable supposition, it shouldn't be hard to have a working engine. For example, an onager is not that hard to animate and to understand in its principle. The design should only be modified but its principle could stay the same.

@fatherbushido @Nescio @LordGood @Sundiata and anyone else wanting to give his/her opinion. What about some stone-throwing catapults? Personally I think the cart-wheel shaped engine could be some kind of onager with two wheels twisted to make the torsion (like a ship's wheel to handle it). Some ideas of devices that could fit large wheels: Finally about the battering ram, I find interesting there is no mention of it. What about a hammer-like device instead? It would fit the same role.

Why not Italic mercenaries? I think we could take reference on the Lucanians to design new units. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lucanian_fresco_tomb_painting_depicting_a_duel_judge_by_a_sphinx,_340_BC,_Paestum_Archaeological_Museum_(14416492100).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lucanian_fresco_tomb_painting_of_a_two_men_fighting,_3rd_century_BC,_Paestum_Archaeological_Museum_(14416565189).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lucanian_fresco_tomb_painting_depicting_a_duel,_375-350_BC,_Paestum_Archaeological_Museum_(14599884491).jpg

From: A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Page 272. Available on lib gen. About Jaina literature: I think I have found the source: Trishashti Shalaka Purusha Caritra Having determined on this device and having put the god in his heart, the king, Śreṇika’s son, observed a three-day fast. Impelled by his penance and the friendship in a former birth, Śakra and Indra Camara came to him then. The Indra of the gods and the Indra of the Asuras said, “Sir, what do you wish?” He said, “If you are pleased, let Ceṭaka be killed.” Śakra said again: “Ask for something else. Ceṭaka is a co-religionist of mine, Certainly, I will not kill him. Nevertheless, king, I shall give you bodily protection, so that you will not be conquered by him.” He said, “Very well.” Indra Camara thought fit to make a battle which had big stones and a thorn,[2] and a second which had a chariot and a mace, leading to victory. In the first a pebble that had fallen would resemble a large stone. The thorn would be superior to a large weapon. In the second the chariot and the mace roam without an operator. The enemy-army, which had risen for battle, is crushed on all sides by them. Then the three, the Indra of the gods, the Indra of the Asuras, and the Indra of men, Kūṇika, fought with Ceṭaka’s army. A general, named Varuṇa, a grandson of the charioteer Nāga, an observer of the twelve vows, possessing right-belief, making a two-day fast, his mind always disgusted with worldly existence, having made a three-day fast at the end of the two-day fast, because of the attack on the king, strongly urged by King Ceṭaka himself, entered the battle, faithful to a promise, the chariot-mace being so irresistible. https://www.wisdomlib.org/jainism/book/trishashti-shalaka-purusha-caritra/d/doc216048.html This encyclopedia considers the same interpretation: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe133 I don't know if other Jaina texts gives the same account but with a less religious narrative.

So according to the Arthaśāstra (which is slightly out of our time frame), there are siege engines shooting projectiles at long distance: (Stationary) Sarvatobhadra is a cartwheel-shaped device that, when spun, hurls stones. (Stationary) Jāmadagnya is a device for shooting arrows. (Stationary and possibly) Bahumukha appears to refer to a position or a device on a tower from which arrows are shot. (Mobile) Āsphāṭima is a sort of catapult to hurl weapons. Incendiary and anti-incendiary siege engines: (Stationary) Saṃghāṭī is a machine for propelling incendiary devices to burn down turrets. (Stationary) Parjanyaka is a kind of fire engine to put out fires. A device to tear down pillars: (Mobile) Utpāṭima is a device for tearing down pillars. Pillars and beams based defense: (Stationary) Viśvāsaghātin consists of a beam placed outside the city walls that, when released, kills approaching soldiers. (Stationary) Bāhu consists of two pillars meant, when released, to crush those coming between them. (Stationary) Ūrdhvabāhu is a similar device, but it consists of only one pillar 50 Hastas long, and Ardhabāhu is a pillar half as high. (Mobile) Devadaṇḍa is a long pole to be released from the top of the defensive wall. Weapons hurled down to the enemy: (Stationary?) Yānaka is a rod one Daṇḍa long mounted on wheels and meant to be hurled at oncoming soldiers. (Mobile) Śataghni is a large pillar studded with sharp nails with a cartwheel at one end and intended to be hurled down at the enemies. Mobile light weapons for siege: Musalayaṣṭi is a pike made of hard Accacia wood. Hastivāraka is a pole with two or three prongs to ward off elephants. Spr̥ktalā is a club with sharp points. Kuddála, a kind of spade. Udghāṭima is a hammer-type device. Mudgara and Gada, hammer and mace discharged by a mechanical device. Other engines and devices: (Mobile) Tālavr̥nta is a fan-like device to hurl up dust against the enemy. (Mobile) Sūkarikā is a bag filled with cotton or wool to protect against stones hurled at the fortifications. (Mobile) Pāñcālika is a large wooden plank studded with sharp nails to be placed under the water in the moat.

During the Theban–Spartan War of 378–362 BC: Diodorus Siculus, 15, 70, 1: From Sicily, Celts and Iberians to the number of two thousand sailed to Corinth, for they had been sent by the tyrant Dionysius to fight in alliance with the Lacedaemonians, and had received pay for five months. The Greeks, in order to make trial of them, led them forth; and they proved their worth in hand-to-hand fighting and in battles and many both of the Boeotians and of their allies were slain by them. Accordingly, having won repute for superior dexterity and courage and rendered many kinds of service, they were given awards by the Lacedaemonians and sent back home at the close of the summer to Sicily. Xen. Hell. 7.1.20: Just after these events had happened, the expedition sent by Dionysius to aid the Lacedaemonians sailed in, numbering more than twenty triremes. And they brought Celts, Iberians, and about fifty horsemen. On the following day the Thebans and the rest, their allies, after forming themselves in detached bodies and filling the plain as far as the sea and as far as the hills adjoining the city, destroyed whatever of value there was in the plain. And the horsemen of the Athenians and of the Corinthians did not approach very near their army, seeing that the enemy were strong and numerous. During the Peloponnesian war, about the Sicilian Expedition in 415-413 BC: Thuc. 6.90: "Thus stands the matter touching my own accusation. And concerning what we are to consult of, both you and I, if I know anything which you yourselves do not, hear it now. [2] We made this voyage into Sicily, first (if we could) to subdue the Sicilians, after them the Italians, after them, to assay the dominion of Carthage, and Carthage itself. [3] If these or most of these enterprises succeeded, then next we should have undertaken Peloponnesus, with the accession both of the Greek forces there and with many mercenary barbarians, Iberians and others of those parts, confessed to be the most warlike of the barbarians that are now. we should also have built many galleys besides these which we have already (there being plenty of timber in Italy); with the which besieging Peloponnesus round, and also taking the cities thereof with our land forces, upon such occasions as should arise from the land, some by assault and some by siege, we hoped easily to have debelled it and afterwards to have gotten the dominion of all Greece. [4] As for money and corn to facilitate some points of this, the places we should have conquered there, besides what here we should have found, would sufficiently have furnished us. Also Italian mercenaries on the side of Athenes against Sicily: Thuc. 7.33: About the same time came unto them also the aid of the Camarinaeans, five hundred men of arms, three hundred darters, and three hundred archers. Also the Geloans sent them men for five galleys, besides four hundred darters and two hundred horsemen. [2] For now all Sicily, except the Agrigentines, who were neutral, but all the rest, who before stood looking on, came in to the Syracusian side against the Athenians. [3] [Nevertheless], the Syracusians, after this blow received amongst the Siculi, held their hands and assaulted not the Athenians for a while. Demosthenes and Eurymedon, having their army now ready, crossed over from Corcyra and the continent with the whole army to the promontory of Iapygia. From thence they went to the Choerades, islands of Iapygia, and here took in certain Iapygian darters to the number of two hundred and fifty, of the Messapian nation. [4] And having renewed a certain ancient alliance with Artas, who reigned there and granted them those darters, they went thence to Metapontum, a city of Italy. There, by virtue of a league, they got two galleys and three hundred darters, which taken aboard, they kept along the shore till they came to the territory of Thurii. [5] Here they found the adverse faction to the Athenians to have been lately driven out in a sedition. [6] And because they desired to muster their army here, that they might see if any were left behind, and persuade the Thurians to join with them freely in the war, and, as things stood, to have for friends and enemies the same that were so to the Athenians; they stayed about that in the territory of the Thurians.

To continue the debate: And another important contribution from Nescio: So there are evidences for a large variety of siege engines one or two centuries after the Mauryas. It is not perfectly on the good time frame and possibly some exchange and development have been in place after the Mauryas but they could be a heritage from the Mauryas as well. What we do with this information? Nescio, you beat me for a few seconds ahaha Edit: furthermore the weird "cartwheel-shaped" ballista/catapult is not really a description matching Roman or Greek examples at my knowledge. It seems to be a torsion engine using some kind of wheel or wheelS, to hurl stones. Edit2: some kind of springald catapult? Edit3: or something like this trebuchet/mangonel? lol Edit 4: Or something much simpler (and much more credible):

That's a very different approach than the original proposal in this thread but it could be a good idea in theory. First we group the civs by strategical themes which gives 6 or 7 groups, then we balance the civs within the groups and finally the groups between them. However, how do you balance groups between them (not within)? Simply by a statistical analysis of the matches online and with back-and-forth changes?

To be precise, I am personally against the idea to build groups based on history and general strategical guidelines and to stick with those to balance the civs. I understand that the civs belongs to the same conceptual groups due to their design, because in the way we design a faction we are constrained by historical evidences. So it is logical that the Iberians, the Britons and the Gauls have several similarities in their strategies. Because historically they had. It is logical that Macedonians, Seleucids and Ptolemies have several similarities as well. But I am against the idea to balance the civs only with their similar counterparts. If the Iberians, the Britons and the Gauls are only balanced in regard to each other, then it will probably result to unbalance when players of those civs will face other civs from other groups. Because let's face it, it would be the case regularly. So I suggest those grouping should be different according to their goals. I agree to group the civs between them according to their similarities and history when it is done with the purpose to draw the general kind of strategies and gameplay. Like in Wijitmaker proposal with thematic group. But when it is grouping in the purpose of balancing the civs, it should be mixed groups. Because it is not directly the civs that are unbalanced but some general strategies that are far better than others. As I said, I agree with your observation that 78 matchups to balance is too much. I agree with your idea to balance the civs only in their own group. I simply don't see the relevance to balance a civ only against a similar civ.

Exactly. The issue with balancing very similar factions (the so-called "Celtic" group of European barbarians factions for example) will probably result in strong imbalance between the groups instead. I don't see the need to make historical groups for a purely gameplay motive, eg balancing the civs. I agree that balancing 78 matchups is too difficult. But at least it should be balanced between different kind of factions, as a representative sample of the reality (eg the players won't care at all of the historical groups online).

Group 1: Mediterranean supremacy Romans Carthaginians Athenians Group 2: Aegean enemies Spartans Macedonians Persians Group 3: Galatian safari Gauls Seleucid Ptolemies Group 4: The rest of the world Britons Iberians Mauryas Kushites Obviously the names of the groups are only an excuse but at least like this the civ could be really balanced

A generic peltophoroi could work as well for a better skirmisher unit. Or the original peltastes could be replaced by psilos or euzonos or akontistes, and the pelstates added as a better skirmisher. For the sword issue, anyway the system is broken and hardly justified so let's make a sword hoplite unit with the minimum effort and let's see if the system will prevail in the future.

I agree. In fact this is a common issue with Polybius work, he came up very often with a logical explanation without really having any evidence for this. This is hard to distinguish what comes from witnesses or other literal accounts and what comes from his own reasoning and thoughts. But indeed it seems the idea of the African elephants being smaller than the Indian ones was a common conception during classical times. I don't think there are evidences in classical literature for the ancients to know about different species of African elephants. Initially, in the beginning of the thread I thought there was one, the Adoulis inscription: I thought Troglodytic would have been applied to a different kind of elephant but actually this is not necessarily the case after discussing about it with Nescio and reading the article he gave me. So maybe the ancients didn't really know about the bush elephants we all know today. The difficulty is first the inconsistencies in elephant representation and the lack of elephant remains in ancient context. Furthermore, the few remains found are generally not analyzed with DNA techniques, exclusively from an osteological perspective. Which is known to be ineffective in the differentiating African elephant species, excepted if the whole skeleton is found (but it is never the case). An example with this article in which the authors are clearly unable to identify the subspecies/species from the bones (or the tusks in this case), only from reasoning: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16302693

Anyway, amateurs won't solve easily problems experts cannot. This is difficult to keep parsimony in one hypothesis when there is incentivisation for gameplay diversity and uniqueness. Moreover there is contradiction between current evidences and historical accounts for Ptolemaic war elephants. Several hypotheses can be drawn but none can be really ruled out neither proven correct: Polybius made up account or mistake. This is possible since it is not the first time there is made-up explanations in Polybius' work. So common bush elephants are still a credible hypothesis. Elephants from a population of Bush elephants being smaller because of selective pressure (see island effect / Foster's rule / Insular dwarfism). Younger bush elephants because they were easier to capture and to tame. Forest elephants from not clearly identified past ecosystems at the proximity of the Sahara. Unknown species or subspecies of "North African" elephants today extinct from which the Ptolemies gathered their war elephants. Clearly an issue arise with the relation between the Ptolemies and the Kushites, because there is a possibility they were using the same elephants (at least at some point).

https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Community-Service/Meine-Ehrenamtliche-Bodendenkmalpflege-in-Brandenburg-227264538040786/

Nice job. It is a shame we didn't have proper Celtic heroes yet as a reference for you.

Other pictures of this iron helmet (with bronze front band): Lead weight at the front is simply to balance the whole thing because it has been reused as a bucket.