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.