Hi guys, thought id just raise this subject for discussion.

I was just wondering to myself how come our ancestors didnt move into the Industrial Revolution?

We had discoverd the atom, steam, automata, gears etc....so why didn't our blessed ancients hellenes move into the industrial sector? I see so many ancient texts of phenomenal things we made, even our eastern brothers marveled at our constructions and technologia.

Lakonian I think you read to much Liakopoulos :)

Lakonian I think you read to much Liakopoulos :)


Ela re akrita, im being serious. I mean some of the things we built is like beyond phenomenal, our everday society is based on ancient greek creations and principals....the list would never end if we were to analyse how many people have built there discoveries on ancient Greek foundations..Galileo (or however you spell his name), Newton...blah blah.

I have read that an ancient Greek Astronomer had created a flying bird!It ran on steam and flapped its wings...and a temple with automated doors that were activated when a guests foot would touch the first step, trumpets would blow and the statues would move automaticaly...these things cannot be disregarder as tall tales, they are recorded by our ancestors...what about the antykythera mechanism?

Man, check out the official website of antykythera mechanism, Greek American and British scientists who have come to a conclusion that it was an ancient Greek astronomical computer which contained gears so fine, only lasers could have crafted it!?

Theres more than meets the eye with our ancestors and it fascinating.

Its not that the advancements which constituted the industrial revolution were that amazing, its the economic, political and social forces it unleashed which changed the world and have nothing to do with ancient Greece in that sense.

What do you mean had nothing to do with ancient Greece?

I just dont see the point in asking "why didnt Greece have an industrial revolution" when the vital ingredients and outcomes of the industrial revolution bear no resemblence to environment of ancient Greece.

You can talk about how advanced the gizmos and machinery was, perhaps more advanced than parts of Europe at that time but we already know that the ancient greeks excelled in fields further than other peoples thousands of years later. Still today they surpass us in many ways though no longer technologically

I see what you mean brother, but i just wonder why it wasnt applied in the sense of creating efficiency is ceratin ares, like steamed boats, electrical lighting, i know ist sounds extreme but come on, great thinkers is one thing and discovering atoms is just plain phenomenal which ever way you look at it.

I still wonder how the hell they even studied the planets without telescopes moon ok, mars ok, venus and mercury fine, but what about saturn? Jupiter? How the hell did Plato know saturn carried rings?

How did they view Venus coming in the path of the sun without going blind? There are Greek astronomical texts which describe this process and without sun shades you cant view it! Only telescopes can view this , with the human the brightness of teh sun wuld be overwhelming.

Akrita Liakopulos is a looney tune, im love my Greek history and yes i think they were mystical most of the times, but Liakopoulos is abit too wierd.lol

Lakonian the most development cities at the past according the historical sources in the antiquity were 4 cities.
Ephesus,Athens,Roma and Alexandria.

Why in none of them we dont fhave ind any evidence in order to support your claims as about the industrial develpoment (specially in those that we have Greek influence) ?

Sorry dude, i didnt get the second sentence, abit of typos there :) (dont wory im typo king, rush rush rush)

Sorry dude, i didnt get the second sentence, abit of typos there :) (dont wory im typo king, rush rush rush)

Why in none of them we dont have find any evidence(archaelogical) in order to support your claims as about the industrial develpoment ?

In a century or more they would have gone to that level

Why in none of them we dont have find any evidence(archaelogical) in order to support your claims as about the industrial develpoment ?

No No, brother read my initial post. I never claimed they moved into the industrial revo, i question why they didnt?
If you are asking where is the evidene of the techonology we had...my friend you need to hit the books. Or better yet visit Techonologia museum in Thessaloniki. Type and search on antikythera mechanism, type and search on Hero Of Alexandria, he created a mechanical , yes a mechanical fountain, and the first steamed engine:Work
Hero wrote extensively, on several branches of geometry, land surveying, mechanics and optics. His works include: "Geometry", "Definitions", "Stereometry", "Engines of War", "Winches", "Ballistics", "Reflections". Many of his works have been lost, while others survive in fragments in Greek or Latin. Five complete works survive: "Pneumatics" and "Automata" in Greek and "Mechanics", "Metrics" and "Dioptra" in Arabic.

Hero is best known today for his famous mechanical "Fountain", and for his formula for finding the area of a triangle from the length of the sides. His most important invention, however, was the aeolipile, a steam-powered engine. His "Dioptra" is a work on land surveying, and is considered one of the best of its kind. He was a skilled draughtsman, and his works are decorated with a wealth of sketches that make them wholly priceless. His language is simple, his thinking energetic and his teaching straightforward, all of which helped make his works extremely popular and contributed to their dissemination. Many of them were translated, first into Arabic and then into Latin, and they constituted the foundation of mechanics and related sciences until the 18th century.

- The discovery of the steam-engine.

Although there are indications that Archimedes and Philo made some simple use of steam, the discovery of the steam engine definitely belongs to Hero. In the history of mechanics, the rotating device invented by Hero is known as an aeolipile or steam sphere or wind ball. The principle was very simple: a large sealed cauldron of water was placed over a source of heat. As the water boiled, steam rose into two pipes, between which was pivoted a sphere. Jets of steam escaped from the sphere through two L-shaped outlets, sending it spinning around at great speed. This remarkable device was used in many different mechanisms and constructions, but was never developed to the point where it became as important a discovery as Papin's steam-powered piston in 1681. This was largely because the power of steam was considered a paradoxical phenomenon and not a dynamic state. Nonetheless, the repeated discovery of the power of steam, from Leonardo da Vinci with his 'architron', a steam cannon based on an invention of Archimedes, to Papin and his pressure cooker, owe much to the ancient Greek mechanical engineers: Archimedes, Philo (who invented a steam siren for lighthouses) and Hero, not to mention Philomenes, who in 250 BC built a steam pressure vessel very like that of Papin, although without the latter's safety valve. Papin corresponded with Leibnitz, who had translated Hero's work on pneumatics, in which he describes his aeolipile. This is just one more indication of the Greek contribution to the discovery of the steam engine.

- The odometer and the naval log.

The odometer is first described by Vitruvius, who devotes a whole chapter to it. This shows the importance of the device, which Vitruvius says was "transmitted to us by our predecessors". Vitruvius, however, was referring to a roughly similar device that was probably either designed or made by Archimedes. This, apart from a brief reference in John Tsetses much later, is the only evidence connecting Archimedes with the odometer. Hero, by contrast, describes it in detail in chapter 34 of his "Dioptra", where he describes it as a an adjunct to the dioptra. His odometer was a set of toothed wheels that used an endless screw to transmitt the forward progress of the vehicle's wheels and convert it into units of length. The distance travelled could then be read off a graduated table on the upper surface of the box housing the mechanism: something like the taximeter to which modern researchers have humorously compared it.

The naval log mentioned by Hero in paragraph 38 of his "Dioptra" was a variation on this device. A paddlewheel on a float fitted to the outside of the hull was connected to a mechanism like that described for the odometer, located inside the vessel. The final wheel in the series made a full revolution every Roman mile, or about 1400 metres. Both these instruments were important and very useful inventions, especially the naval variant, which improved the measurement of distances at sea. The naval log was replicated by K. N. Rados in wood and brass and exhibited at the International Exhibition in Bordeaux in 1907. The odometer was reconstructed recently by Dutch engineer Andre Sleeswyk, who presented it at a special congress on technology held in Athens in 1987.

my friend that is only one Greek wwho did this, in the following link you wil find much more, enjoy brother:

ww . tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/5. Ancient Greek Technologists[/url]

Hero Of Alexandria,

You can see a full list of his 'inventions' and a little pic of how they might have looked at the 'University of Rochester':

THE PNEUMATICS OF HERO OF ALEXANDRIA (http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/)

Lakonian now I get your point because your initial post was and seems weird!!!!

Yes I agree with your source

TMTh:: Ancient Greek Technologists (http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet.html)

The reasons are plenty. One is what Voulgaroktonos said, the overall environment. Second due to the lack of centralization. Third, which i have in mind for some time now is maybe because our ancestors were environmentally friendly. Even more advanced that we are know, in thought.

And finally because the Judeo-Christians, infiltrated the stupid and arrogant Romans.

When the Hellenic values re-appeared in the Globe from a decimated point, where they were, it took the world less than a century to evolve industrialization, so logically Olvios's argument stands, less than a century it would have taken them, considering that they had such intentions in case they were not environmentally-friendly.

The reasons are plenty. One is what Voulgaroktonos said, the overall environment. Second due to the lack of centralization. Third, which i have in mind for some time now is maybe because our ancestors were environmentally friendly. Even more advanced that we are know, in thought.

And finally because the Judeo-Christians, infiltrated the stupid and arrogant Romans.

When the Hellenic values re-appeared in the Globe from a decimated point, where they were, it took the world less than a century to evolve industrialization, so logically Olvios's argument stands, less than a century it would have taken them, considering that they had such intentions in case they were not environmentally-friendly.

Good answer brother, i was thinking the same thing, but then again, clever them, i dont think they would have pushed on with coal mining and such, they would have used the natural elements such as sea water which can generate energy, and wind ofcourse for electricity, who knows what the world would be like if it was left to our ancestors guys, i think a better one, only because there seemed to that balance between philosophy and science and common sense which the ancients had.

Even Hesiod warned of the natural disasters that would come if we abuse nature.

Hey guys, sorry to dig up this one again but i found a fantastic article that backs up why Greeks never realy had the interest to break into the Industrial revo. Enjoy.

Ancient and Modern Science: Some Observations
by
Ian Johnston

Greek Science and The Vision of the World

We should not, however, too quickly claim to see the start of everything in the modern enterprise we call science in the activity of these ancient Greek thinkers. For there were some really important differences between the old philosophers and the modern scientific researcher. To begin with, the primary aim of the Greek thinkers was to arrive at a better contemplative understanding of the nature of things. They had no notion of using their speculations as a means of gaining control of nature or of altering the natural conditions of life.

This point is crucial. At its heart, the Greek philosophical interest in mathematical investigations of the natural world was moral and religious. It was motivated above all by the desire to arrive at a higher knowledge of the divine, the permanent ordering principles by which the world, in all its manifestations, was arranged. In a sense, these philosophers saw a rigorous study of mathematics as a process of spiritual cleansing designed to prepare the human mind for the contemplation of the divine purpose (in other words, as an alternative to many irrational religious rituals, myths, and mysteries). This tradition is very much a part of Socrates's entire project (as recorded and interpreted by Plato).

Since the ancient Greeks saw nature as divine, as having a mysteriously vital soul of its own, an essence with which human beings constantly interacted, there could be no question of "changing" nature or seeking in some ways to alter the given facts of life. Such an endeavour would have violated the way these philosophers understood the world. Nature (including the world around them and the cosmos) was a divinely alive mystery which might be intellectually apprehended and contemplated (at least in part). The aim of scientific speculation was to assist in that essentially contemplative exercise.

For that reason, Greek scientists showed no great interest in experimentation and no desire to develop their scientific thinking into practical applications. By the Hellenistic period (the fourth and third centuries BC), for example, Greek scientists knew about all the principles necessary to construct a steam engine. But the notion that they might actually build one and use it to overcome certain natural limitations never occurred to them. Nature was there to be wondered at, contemplated, even worshipped, not to be tampered with or altered.

Moreover, since the mysterious divine powers which were the creative source of everything, including political structures just as much as natural phenomena, were good, a mathematical understanding of the world linked the inquiring spirit of the thinker with the search for the ultimate purposes of things. To such a mind, it was far less important to figure out how things worked than to focus upon what these things might mean in the overall moral arrangement of the universe. Hence, the pursuit of what we might call science was primarily an inquiry into questions of value. A properly disciplined inquiry into nature could lead to a fuller understanding of the moral issues on which questions of justice in the community depended. The practical value of such inquiry was thus primarily moral.

The Four Causes

This major emphasis on value becomes most apparent in the Aristotle's famous explanation of the different causes for all phenomena. If scientific speculation is, in very large part, a search for rational explanations of cause (i.e., for an answer to this question "How did this natural phenomenon come into existence?"), then, according to Aristotle, there were four possible ways of accounting for that cause: the Material Cause, the Efficient Cause, the Formal Cause, and the Final Cause.

The material cause explains the phenomenon in terms of the material out of which it is made; the efficient cause explains the phenomenon in terms of the process which puts the materials together; the formal cause explains the phenomenon in terms of the plan or design or arrangement of the materials; and the final (*) cause explains the phenomenon in terms of its purpose (especially its moral purpose).

(* The original text used the word “formal” and not “final” which is probably a typing error)

So, for example, if we wanted to account for the existence of, say, a house, the material cause would be the wood, nails, glass, concrete, and so on which make up the house; the efficient cause would be the actions of the various workers who constructed it (carpenters, roofers, carpet layers, and so on); the formal cause would be the architectural design and drawings; the final cause would be a moral reason why the house ought to be built at all and why it should look the way it does in the wider context of the community and the world.

The explanations sought by classical science were concerned above all with the final cause, that is, with an account of whatever one was speculating about which placed it in the overall moral scheme of the universe, linking that object or institution with a sense of moral purposiveness and hence with the divine structure of the universe (what Plato and Aristotle call the Good). This was the central purpose in almost all the most important speculations of Greek philosophy about the natural world or about politics, simply because for these thinkers the most challenging fact of life was an ethical concern: knowledge about the world only mattered if it helped people to understand how they ought to behave (i.e., gave them insight into the ultimate standards of morality and justice). Such thinking is called teleological (from the Greek word telos meaning goal), because it seeks explanations for things in terms of their final purposes.

Given this emphasis, it is not difficult to appreciate why ancient Greek science placed little emphasis on experimentation or working with theories which might enable them to manipulate nature (i.e., change some factor in nature). Of course, like all cultures the classical Greeks had a certain technical knowledge, for example, in medicine, metallurgy, pottery, construction (especially of ships), and selective breeding of domestic animals, but it is clear that the philosophers inquiring into nature considered this form of knowledge (which we prize highly as something immediately allied to our scientific endeavours) distinctly inferior. Extending this technical expertise in some way played no role whatsoever in their speculative theories (even though some of them were experts in technical matters, like military defenses and weapons).


I realy agree with this article because its just plain logic, Greeks would self cotradict themselves if they actualy allowed there knowledge to roll out completely physically on the world, could you imagine what we would be like today.....robots doing our work?Atomic knowledge where to be studied in the Spartans military camps and the Athenians...nuclear war anyone?And by the way theres is evidence of Greeks actualy using biological warfare, just not shiny and neat looking as it is today. Time travel ? Why not...Nikola Tesla (serbian elctrical magnetic engineer) though time travel was possible, and wars of the future would be fought by self autmated machines......why would our ancestors want such a world? You see us Greeks we were perfect in many perspectives, but still human....

Never mind though, i still lay the blame on Byzantians and Roman Christian campaigns as to why so much was lost, perhaps they feared more than the Greeks what would hapen to the world if this sort of knowledge fell into the wrong hands.....we can see the damage that America has done and will continue to do so.

In a century or more they would have gone to that level

Too true. The barbarous Romans came and stole/destroyed everything and afterwards the Byzantines preferred prayers over technology.

Too true. The barbarous Romans came and stole/destroyed everything and afterwards the Byzantines preferred prayers over technology.

Ehetlaios, dont hold to much hate in you my brother, you see, as time goes on, more and more is being revealed about our past and it keeps puting a sour face on the Church and everyone that everyone that ever denied our potential.

If one day this world is destroyed, perhaps another life will pass by ths planet and wonder at the creations and knowledge of the Hellenics.

Untill then keep reading and embrace what who we are without looking back at the Persians, Indians , Romans, Turks, Franks, Slavs, Anglos, Goths, Vikings, Jews, Byzantians, all who have taken a piece of us to make themselves into a civil human, and failed, leave them behind.

Archytas wrote a book "Description of the circuit of a hermetically closed sphere around the Earth"(concept of a satellite??) according to the Technological Museum of Thessaloniki.

His work is as follows:

The idea of flight had a perennial and passionate fascination for many ancient peoples; this is especially true of Greece, where not only the gods but also an assortment of demigods and mythical creatures were endowed with this gift. From myth to reality, however, is a long step, even though it was partially spanned by Daedalus with his famous airborne escape from Crete. While the flight of Daedalus and Icarus was probably mythical (opinion is divided), the feat of Archytas by contrast was truly revolutionary: in 425 BC he constructed the first flying machine in history. His "pigeon" (as he called it) was powered by a system of jet propulsion, and in one experiment it flew a distance of 200 metres. Once it fell to the ground, however, this machine could not take off again. Evanghelos Stamatis thinks it must have been some sort of jet-propelled craft driven by a compressed air system.

This, then, was an early application of aerodynamics, that is, the harnessing of the force of compressed air; and it is not a legend: Archytas' experiment is attested in literature and is a matter of fact. The inventor of the "pigeon" was an exceptional mathematician and engineer, an avid builder of mechanical constructions, and is held to be the inventor of the screw, the pulley and a child's rattle. He is also credited with an amazing account of a journey around the world in a hermetically sealed sphere! Archytas' "pigeon", which is chronicled by Favorinus and by Aulus Gellius (in his Attic Nights), represents the realisation of the Hellenic passion for flight. The world's first model aeroplane flew- if only for a short distance - in Greece in 425 BC.

Principal works (only very few fragments survive):

"On the Delian Problem": Duplication of the cube by the section of the hemicyclinder (Altar of Delos). Commentaries exist in Eutocius and Vitruvius.

"Proportions": Arithmetical, geometrical, harmonic.

"On Mathematics".

"Studies".

"On the number ten".

"On pipes".

"On mechanics".

"On Agriculture".

"On harmony".

"Description of the circuit of a hermetically closed sphere around the earth" (Concept of the satellite).


Now this belief of him thinking of a satellite is by the geniusus in Thessaloniki Museum!

Sorry to dig up this fossil, but man, its beyond me how advanced we were. Im reading up something on electricity, i wanna see if i can track something on this.......Oh if you guys wanna check out the The Museum website:

TMTh:: Ancient Greek Technologists (http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1.html)

P.S i also posted this because i remember someone doubted Greeks invented flying machines.

Architectural historians have long credited the Romans with inventing the aboveground barrel vault, but a recent discovery at the site of Morgantina shows that the innovation goes back to the third century B.C. and may have originated in Hellenistic Sicily.

A collapsed vaulted room was revealed during excavations at the ancient Greek settlement last summer. Constructed of a parallel series of interlocking hollow terra-cotta tubes encased in mortar, the vault in the Baths of Aphrodite is known to antedate the Roman capture of Morgantina in 211 B.C., making it apparently the earliest freestanding, aboveground barrel vault yet known. Sandra Lucore, who directed the room excavation, calls the interlocking-tube construction system "interesting and awkward." Such interlocking vault construction may have provided an important transition between earlier underground masonry vaults and later aboveground concrete vaults seen at sites like Pompeii, according to Malcolm Bell III, codirector of the Morgantina excavations.


http://www.archaeology.org/0401/newsbriefs/jpegs/greeks.jpeg
The vaulted ceiling of this third-century B.C. room was constructed from a series of interlocking tubes

Bricks

There are three sorts of bricks; the first is that which the Greeks call Didoron ( didwron), being the sort we use; that is, one foot long, and half a foot wide. The two other sorts are used in Grecian buildings; one is called Pentadoron, the other Tetradoron. By the word Doron the Greeks mean a palm, because the word dwron signifies a gift which can be borne in the palm of the hand. That sort, therefore, which is five palms each way is called Pentadoron; that of four palms, Tetradoron. The former of these two sorts is used in public buildings, the latter in private. ...The proper seasons for brick-making are the spring and autumn, because they then dry more quably. Those made in the summer solstice are defective, because the heat of the sun soon imparts to their external surfaces an appearance of sufficient dryness, whilst the internal parts of them are in a very different state; hence, when thoroughly dry, they shrink and break those parts which were dry in the first instance; and thus broken, their strength is gone. Those are best that have been made at least two years; for in a period less than that they will not dry thoroughly. When plastering is laid and set hard on bricks which are not perfectly dry, the bricks, which will naturally shrink, and consequently occupy a less space than the plastering, will thus leave the latter to stand of itself. From its being extremely thin, and not capable of supporting itself, it soon breaks into pieces; and in its failure sometimes involves even that of the wall. It is not, therefore, without reason that the inhabitants of Utica allow no bricks to be used in their buildings which are not at least five years old, and also approved by a magistrate. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, de Architectura See also VITRUVIUS, BOOK II, CHAPTER 3 On bricks

Caltrops 330B.C


An early example of a reinforcing obstacle intended for use on a battlefield, as opposed to during a siege, occurred around 330 BC during the time of Alexander the Great. The Greeks were aware of a new invention called caltrops, which could be scattered in front of their battle lines to disrupt the terrifying attacks of the massive Persian war elephants. Caltrops are devices with four metal points arranged so that when three are on the ground, the fourth projects upward as a hazard to animal hooves or tires. Caltrops were used as recently as the Korean Conflict, when the U.S. Air Force dropped them on Chinese convoys to puncture tires. The U.S. also dropped them on the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam War. Major William C. Schneck The Origins of Military Mines

Guys take the time to read some of these amazing things we had in B.C! Honestly Greece must of been the superpower of the ancients...yet still all credit is always given to the f@cken Romans...the only thing they created was Jewish propaganda.


I still think Greece had more than meets the eye...why is it that the Industrial Revo began after all the ancient Greek scipts where studied...Renaissance was because of our texts.

The historian, Lewis Mumford has proposed that the Industrial Revolution had its origins in the early Middle Ages, much earlier than most estimates. He explains that the model for standardised mass production was the printing press and that "the archetypal model for the [industrial era] was the clock". He also cites the monastic emphasis on order and time-keeping, as well as the fact that Mediaeval cities had at their centre a church with bell ringing at regular intervals as being necessary precursors to a greater synchronisation necessary for later, more physical manifestations such as the steam engine.

Can we say that Greeks did have an Industrial Revolution in the making but obvious barbaric campaigns made sure they never bloomed?
Anyways il find some more stuff to post.

Camera Obscura

According to some reports on the net Archimedes used a box with a little hole on one side and a piece of papyrus on the other. The image was passing through the hole and was shaping an image on the papyrus. I do not have found more details and references for this story. The earliest known written evidence of a camera obscura can be found in Aristotle's documentation of a device in 350-330 BC in Problemata" (Patti, 1993). Aristotle's apparatus contained a dark chamber that had a single small hole to allow for sunlight to enter. With this device, he made observations of the sun. He noted that no matter what shape the hole was, it would still display the sun correctly as a round object. Another observation that he made was that when the distance between the aperture (the tiny hole) and the surface with the image increased, the image would become amplified. (Who said that Aristotle did not like experiments???) Although no one is perfectly sure, many attribute the invention of the camera obscura to Aristotle.


The first casual reference [to the Camera Obscura] is by Aristotle (Problems, ca 330 BC), who questions how the sun can make a circular image when it shines through a square hole. Euclid's Optics (ca 300 BC), presupposes the camera obscura as a demonstration that light travels in straight lines. Egnacio Danti in commentary on his translation of Euclid's Optica (1573), adds a description of the camera obscura... Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.) observed the crescent shape of the partially eclipsed sun projected on the ground through the holes of a strainer, and the gaps between the leaves of a tree. He also noticed that the smaller the hole, the sharper the image. In modern cameras, this is analogous to the diaphragm. Adventures in CyberSound: The Camera Obscura (http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/CAMERA_OBSCURA.html)

Impressive to say the least lads.........

P.S If you search the Camera Obscura in Wiki it gives the credit to an Arab 900 A.D.....ofcourse

Dioptra

Dioptra a surveying device invented by Heron of Alexandria for triangulation long before English mathematician Leonard Digges' 16th-century telescopic theodolite, which was used in navigation, surveying and civil engineering to determine the direction of roads, tunnels or other structures.

Heres a pic of it looked like;

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeronAlexandria-Dateien/Dioptra2.jpg

Reconstruction of Heron's dioptra from Schöne, Hero Alexandrinus. Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia. Vol. III: Rationes dimetiendi et commentation dioptrica. Griechisch und Deutsch H. Schöne. - Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1903.

This is absolutely amazing. To think we even had automated weapons!! Who where we re pethia?

:worshippy

Most complex catapult (καταπέλτης) invented in ancient times was a repeating weapon designed (according to Soedel and Foley ) by Dionysius of Alexandria (Διονύσιος ο Αλεξανδρεύς), who worked in the arsenal at Rhodes. As this detail drawing shows, arrows were fed by gravity from a magazine into the arrow trough by means of a revolving drum that was slotted to accept one shaft at a time. The revolution of the drum was controlled by a curved cam groove on its surface, which engaged a metal finger mounted on the slider. The motion of the slider was in turn produced by two flat-linked chains on each side to the machine. According to the surviving text describing the repeater, the chains ran over five-sided prisms at each end of their loop. In the author’s view these prisms are assumed to have worked as inverted gears; in other words, the chain-link drive for the cocking and firing sequence relied on an engagement between the lugs on the chain links and a pentagonal gear for accepting the lugs. The rear prism was turned by a winch, and the bowstring claw was locked and unlocked at the appropriate times by pegs mounted in the stock of the weapon, past which the slider moved. Hence by reciprocating the winch the device could fire arrows automatically until the magazine was empty.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults-Dateien/image009.jpg


http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults-Dateien/dion3.jpg

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults-Dateien/dion1.jpg

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults-Dateien/dion2.jpg

The catapult development started in Sicily with the Greek tyrant Dionysios I providing the financial means required for the experiments that were necessary to find the optimal design. Except in Sicily , Rhodes and Alexandria were the main centers of the development of the catapult technology, in Alexandria advanced by the support of the Greek Ptolemaic kings of Egypt. In the end of the first century AD the Roman engineer Sextus Frontinus wrote in Strategemeta that the war devices have reached their [physical] limits a long time ago and there is no hope for improvements.

There were unique devices produced by Archimedes such as a catapult that used steam power and in principle was a canon. It was described by Cicero in a manuscript discovered in a church library by Francisco Petrarch (1304 -1374). Petrarch collected Greek and Roman manuscripts neglected in various libraries for many centuries: His remark: "

"Each famous author of antiquity whom I recover places a new offence and another cause of dishonor to the charge of earlier generations, who, not satisfied with their own disgraceful barrenness, permitted the fruit of other minds, and the writings that their ancestors had produced by toil and application, to perish through insufferable neglect. Although they had nothing of their own to hand down to those who were to come after, they robbed posterity of its ancestral heritage"

Leonardo's quotations from books and his lists of titles supply nothing more than a hint as to his occasional literary studies or recreations. It was evidently no part of his ambition to be deeply read and he more than once expressly states that he did not recognise the authority of the Ancients, on scientific questions, which in his day was held paramount. Archimedes is the sole exception, and Leonardo frankly owns his admiration for the illustrious Greek to whose genius his own was so much akin. The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci

Architronito e una macchina di fino rame, invenzlon d' Archimede. Leonardo Da Vinci:

The Cicero manuscript later was used by Leonardo Da Vinci who called the device "Architronito" in honour of Archimedes. He produced only drawings of the steam gun but Ioannis Sakas, a Greek expert of the work of Archimedes used this information to build a test device in 12.5.1981. A vessel was heated and when it reached 400 degrees Celsius 6 g of water was enough to produce in 10 seconds steam that expanding could throw a tennis ball size stone 50 meters. The reconstructed Archimedes steam gun by Sakas was only 1/5 the size of the original.

A Greek newspaper reported 3 days later about the result of the experiment of Sakas. From another Greek website the numbers which are given for the original is that it was able to shoot a 23 kg stone in 1100 meters and it was invented by Archimedes probably around 213 BC one year before his death. The Greek expert Evangelos Stamatis provided even a better performance estimate: 1.2 km for a 36 kg object. As Cicero reports Archimedes experimented with various devices to be used against the Romans (See for example the burning Mirrors). If and how the device was used by the Greek Syracuseans in practice and why such a device was not used or developed further by the Romans is unknown.

Archimedes Canon, Leonardo Da Vinci:ARCHITRONITO/ATMOTILEBOLO

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Architronio.jpg

What amazes me is when Sakas created his version of this genius, it was only 1/5 of what Archimedes intended it to be! And it fired at a range of 50 metres! As above some designs claimed more than 1Km distnace at actual size!!! Imagine if these where actualy put to practice and Spartans or Athenians had there hands on it! Man, talk about catastrophe. At the begining of this thread we have covered why Greeks never took this step, and why Archimedes never liked to draw plans of his machines...man has a way of turning it on themselves for obvious reasons......bravo re Ellinares mou......phlisophia sta panda!

I have read somwhere that in the battle of Troy it was reported that Greeks had used chemical weapons ( poison) . For example the use of scorpion and snake poison. They would dab the tips of the arrows and it was affective. Im not sure if this was true, but it was linked to Achilles death. Il get the source.

Φάρος Αλεξάνδρειας

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/PharosTelescope.jpg

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/PharosNew.jpg

The first lighthouse of the World, the “Pharos of Alexandria”, lasted for over 1500 years in the harbor of Alexandria. It is one of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World described by the poet Antipater of Sidon around 130 BC.

The Pharos was built to warn sailors of the treacherous sandbars off Alexandria, one of the busiest ports of the ancient world. It consisted of a three-stage tower, decorated with sculptures of Greek deities and mythical creatures, atop which stood a lantern with a giant bonfire whose light may have been focused by mirrors, perhaps made of polished bronze, into a beam visible 35 miles out to sea. 300 Slaves worked on the Pharos that was build in 17 years.


The Pharos on the Pharos island in Alexandria


The Pharos island and the Pharos according to the Natural History Museum, New York and an image today (E. Bauer: Die sieben Weltwunder, p. 130) Alexandria from Space


Ancient accounts such as those by Strabo and Pliny the Elder give us a brief description of the "tower" and the magnificent white marble cover. They tell us how the mysterious mirror could reflect the light tens of kilometers away. Legend says the mirror was also used to detect and burn enemy ships before they could reach the shore. It is said that the light from the top could be seen 30 to 300 miles away! Statius 40-96 AD describes that the light of the Pharos in the night is like that of the Moon. Pliny describes that the light was visible up to 465 kilometers which is impossible except if it would be much larger. Epiphanus writes that the tower was 560 meters. The idea of the lighthouse was adopted by the Romans who constructed also many lighthouses.


The Pharos of Alexandria in the City founded by Alexander. The left Greek stamp shows a coin that shows probably the construction of the Pharos, Stamps of the Seven Wonders of the World

The Pharos was as an idea of Ptolemy I Soter (367-283/2) BC, but it was build only after his death during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the period (284 BC-246 BC). It was designed by the Greek architect Sostratus of Cnidus ( Σώστρατος ), a contemporary of Euclid, but detailed calculations for the structure and its accessories were carried out at the Alexandria Library/Mouseion. The costs for the Pharos: 800 Talents. The monument was dedicated to the Savior Gods: Ptolemy Soter (lit. savior) and his wife Berenice. The lighthouse was still functioning when the Arabs conquered Alexandria in AD 642, but an earthquake damaged the lantern about 50 years later. The Pharos was hit by earthquakes in 1303 and 1323. In 1349 it was in ruins as the Arab traveller Ibn Battuta describes who visited Pharos found it "in such a state of ruin that it was impossible to enter". In 1480 the Egyptian Mamluke Sultan Ashraf Quaitbay built a fort on the site. Certain parts were recuperated and integrated with the fort. But there was little interest, until recently, in knowing more about the main building and the statuary which lay underwater.

One of the descriptions of the Pharos is from 1166 from Abou-Haggag Al-Andaloussi, an Arab traveler who visited the Lighthouse. He documented a wealth of information and gave an accurate description of the structure which helped modern archaeologists reconstruct the monument. It was composed of three stages: The lowest square, 55.9 m high with a cylindrical core; the middle octagonal with a side length of 18.30 m and a height of 27.45 m; and the third circular 7.30 m high. The total height of the building including the foundation base was about 117 m, equivalent to a 40-story modern building. Other sources say that it was even larger, some to even 500 m, but around 120 meters is probably more realistic. At least it was definitely larger than any of the lighthouses that today exist.

The Guiness Book of Records describes the current tallest lighthouse: The steel Marine Tower at Yamashita Park in Yokohama (since 1954), Japan is 106 m (348 ft) high. It has a visibility range of 32 km (20 miles) and an observatory 100 m (328 ft) above the ground.

The internal core was used as a shaft to lift the fuel needed for the fire. At the top stage, the mirror reflected sunlight during the day while fire was used during the night. At the top was an open cupola where a fire burned to provide light. In ancient times, a statue of Poseidon adorned the summit of the building.



Asterix and Cleopatra


It was only in the 1990s that the lighthouse resurfaced. While shooting underwater scenes for a film on Hellenistic Alexandria, the Egyptian director Asmaa El-Bakri noticed a concrete dike being built on top of the ruins to protect Fort Quaitbay. A few meters underwater sphinxes and colossal statues of men and women were found. A stone torso of a woman from the third-century BC. X In 1993, when the Egyptian government began building a concrete breakwater around the base of the fortress to protect it from storm damage, there was an outcry from archaeologists who feared the operation might destroy any surviving remains of the Pharos and other nearby ancient buildings. The project was temporarily halted, and scholars from the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities and the French Centre d'Études Alexandrines, led by Jean-Yves Empereur, began searching the waters around the fortress. Begun in 1994 under the direction of Jean-Yves Empereur, head of the Alexandria Study Centre, the mission has thus far classified over 2000 pieces.


The Pharos and Ptolemy II in an Egyptian Stamp from 1998

According to Chris Scarre of Cambridge University, "Their finds confirm that one side of the Pharos collapsed into the sea, and that much material from this amazing structure still lies scattered on the seabed. Only now can we begin to appreciate the true extent and importance of the remains." In addition to the torso, Empereur's team has recovered some 30 other sculptures not from the Pharos, including sphinxes, granite columns and capitals, a fragment of an obelisk with a hieroglyphic inscription, and a headless statue of the pharaoh Ramesses II (ca. 1290-1224 BC).


H. Thiersch: Pharos, Antike Islam und Occident – Ein Beitrag zur Architekturgeschichte; B. G. Teubner, Leipzig und Berlin 1909, a German book about the Pharos of Alexandria describing the possibility that it was also used as a telescope. Ibn Khordadhbeh writes in the 9th century AD that one could see even people in Constantinople looking from the telescope of the Pharos.



A 3D reconstuction of the Pharos

The other category of findings consists of much heavier blocks of granite – 49 to 69 tons. The fact that some were broken into two or three pieces indicates that they fell from a great height. Empereur’s team is convinced that these are remnants of the lighthouse. The Pharos was among the tallest man-made buildings until the completion of the Eiffel Tower in Paris in 1889. Only the Pyramids one of the Seven Wonders survived until our times and the last destroyed of these Wonders was the Pharos of Alexandria.

James Abbott:

The light at the top of the tower was produced by a fire, made of such combustibles as would emit the brightest flame. This fire burned slowly through the day, and then was kindled up anew when the sun went down, and was continually replenished through the night with fresh supplies of fuel. In modern times, a much more convenient and economical mode is adopted to produce the requisite illumination. A great blazing lamp burns brilliantly in the center of the lantern of the tower, and all that part of the radiation from the flame which would naturally have beamed upward, or downward, or laterally, or back toward the land, is so turned by a curious system of reflectors and polyzonal lenses, most ingeniously contrived and very exactly adjusted, as to be thrown forward in one broad and thin, but brilliant sheet of light, which shoots out where its radiance is needed, over the surface of the sea. Before these inventions were perfected, far the largest portion of the light emitted by the illumination of light-house towers streamed away wastefully in landward directions, or was lost among the stars.



Of course, the glory of erecting such an edifice as the Pharos of Alexandria, and of maintaining it in the performance of its functions, was very great; the question might, however, very naturally arise whether this glory was justly due to the architect through whose scientific skill the work was actually accomplished, or to the monarch by whose power and resources the architect was sustained. The name of the architect was Sostratus. He was a Greek. The monarch was, as has already been stated, the second Ptolemy, called commonly Ptolemy Philadelphus. Ptolemy ordered that, in completing the tower, a marble tablet should be built into the wall, at a suitable place near the summit, and that a proper inscription should be carved upon it, with his name as the builder of the edifice conspicuous thereon. Sostratus preferred inserting his own name. He accordingly made the tablet and set it in its place. He cut the inscription upon the face of it, in Greek characters, with his own name as the author of the work. He did this secretly, and then covered the face of the tablet with an artificial composition, made with lime, to imitate the natural surface of the stone. On this outer surface he cut a new inscription, in which he inserted the name of the king. In process of time the lime moldered away, the king's inscription disappeared, and his own, which thenceforward continued as long as the building endured, came out to view.

Urban Planning: programs pursued in most industrialized countries in an attempt to achieve certain social and economic objectives, in particular to shape and improve the urban environment in which increasing proportions of the world's population spend their lives. Encyclopedia Britannica

The arrangement of private dwellings is considered to be more pleasant and more convenient for other purposes if it is regularly planned, both according to the newer and according to the Hippodamian manner; but for security in war [the arrangement is more useful if it is planned in] the opposite [manner], as it used to be in ancient times. For that [arrangement] is difficult for foreign troops to enter and find their way about when attacking. Aristotle

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/MiletusPlan.jpg

Plan of Miletus around 470 BC A higher resolution Plan of Miletus


A color version and a map of the region around Miletus

The invention of formal city planning was attributed to Hippodamus (or Hippodamos) of Miletus (Ιππόδαμος ο Μιλήσιος) (c. 498- c. 408 BC). Hippodamus helped to design the new harbor town of Piraeus, which served as a commercial port for Athens further inland. Hippodamus' name is frequently associated with other orthogonally planned towns, such as Olynthus, Priene, and Miletus. His direct involvement in these cases remains unproven, but his name remains permanently associated with this type of plan that we call Hippodamian.

The catapult played a key role in making urban life in the fourth century B.C. significantly more precarious. During his first five years in power Alexander captured five major cities and many smaller ones. A passage in the Politics of Aristotle (Alexander’s tutor) reflects the change. Rational town planning, with straight streets intersecting to form quadrilateral city blocks, had just been popularized in Greece by the architect Hippodamus. Aristotle objected that at least part of every city should preserve the haphazard arrangement of earlier times to make it more difficult for invaders to fight their way in. Moreover, he wrote, the design of walls and their careful maintenance was particularly important at that time, “when…catapults and other engines for the siege of cities [have] attained such a high degree of precision. Werner Soedel and Vernard Foley Ancient Catapults

Hippodamus arranged the buildings and the streets of Miletus around 450 BC such that the winds from the mountains and the sea close to Miletus could flow optimal through the city and provide a cooling during the hot summer. In De architectura libri decem Vitruvius also mentions that in planning we have to consider the influence of the winds. Hippodamus first applied to his home city the grid plan which he had developed on inspiration from geometrically designed settlements, and that later many cities were laid out according to this plan. Miletus, which is a fine example of the grid plan, comprises houses on blocks created by streets and side streets crossing at right angles, with public buildings in the city centre, This plan retained in the Hellenistic period, however in the Roman period it began to deteriorate gradually and inevitably.

The Greeks were the first to use solar architecture They oriented their houses to make use of the sun during winter, while obscuring its rays during summer and entire cities were built this way as early as 400 BC.

According to R. Herzog the root of rational urban planning can be found also in the comedy of Aristophanes: The satire as complement to the utopia may confront us with rational management of space, money, work, sexual relationships.

Aristotle Politics concerning political and social ideas of Hippodamus:

Hippodamus, the son of Euryphon, a native of Miletus, the same who invented the art of planning cities, and who also laid out the Piraeus—a strange man, whose fondness for distinction led him into a general eccentricity of life, which made some think him affected (for he would wear flowing hair and expensive ornaments; but these were worn on a cheap but warm garment both in winter and summer); he, besides aspiring to be an adept in the knowledge of nature, was the first person not a statesman who made inquiries about the best form of government.

The city of Hippodamus was composed of 10,000 citizens divided into three parts—one of artisans, one of husbandmen, and a third of armed defenders of the state. He also divided the land into three parts, one sacred, one public, the third private: the first was set apart to maintain the customary worship of the Gods, the second was to support the warriors, the third was the property of the husbandmen. He also divided laws into three classes, and no more, for he maintained that there are three subjects of lawsuits—insult, injury, and homicide. He likewise instituted a single final court of appeal, to which all causes seeming to have been improperly decided might be referred; this court he formed of elders chosen for the purpose. He was further of opinion that the decisions of the courts ought not to be given by the use of a voting pebble, but that every one should have a tablet on which he might not only write a simple condemnation, or leave the tablet blank for a simple acquittal; but, if he partly acquitted and partly condemned, he was to distinguish accordingly. To the existing law he objected that it obliged the judges to be guilty of perjury, whichever way they voted. He also enacted that those who discovered anything for the good of the state should be honored; and he provided that the children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained at the public expense, as if such an enactment had never been heard of before, yet it actually exists at Athens and in other places. As to the magistrates, he would have them all elected by the people, that is, by the three classes already mentioned, and those who were elected were to watch over the interests of the public, of strangers, and of orphans. These are the most striking points in the constitution of Hippodamus. There is not much else.

The first of these proposals to which objection may be taken is the threefold division of the citizens. The artisans, and the husbandmen, and the warriors, all have a share in the government. But the husbandmen have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor land, and therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior class. That they should share in all the offices is an impossibility; for generals and guardians of the citizens, and nearly all the principal magistrates, must be taken from the class of those who carry arms. Yet, if the two other classes have no share in the government, how can they be loyal citizens? It may be said that those who have arms must necessarily be masters of both the other classes, but this is not so easily accomplished unless they are numerous; and if they are, why should the other classes share in the government at all, or have power to appoint magistrates? Further, what use are farmers to the city? Artisans there must be, for these are wanted in every city, and they can live by their craft, as elsewhere; and the husbandmen too, if they really provided the warriors with food, might fairly have a share in the government. But in the republic of Hippodamus they are supposed to have land of their own, which they cultivate for their private benefit. Again, as to this common land out of which the soldiers are maintained, if they are themselves to be the cultivators of it, the warrior class will be identical with the husbandmen, although the legislator intended to make a distinction between them. If, again, there are to be other cultivators distinct both from the husbandmen, who have land of their own, and from the warriors, they will make a fourth class, which has no place in the state and no share in anything. Or, if the same persons are to cultivate their own lands, and those of the public as well, they will have difficulty in supplying the quantity of produce which will maintain two households: and why, in this case, should there be any division, for they might find food themselves and give to the warriors from the same land and the same lots? There is surely a great confusion in all this.

Neither is the law to commended which says that the judges, when a simple issue is laid before them, should distinguish in their judgement; for the judge is thus converted into an arbitrator. Now, in an arbitration, although the arbitrators are many, they confer with one another about the decision, and therefore they can distinguish; but in courts of law this is impossible, and, indeed, most legislators take pains to prevent the judges from holding any communication with one another. Again, will there not be confusion if the judge thinks that damages should be given, but not so much as the suitor demands? He asks, say, for twenty minae, and the judge allows him ten minae (or in general the suitor asks for more and the judge allows less), while another judge allows five, another four minae. In this way they will go on splitting up the damages, and some will grant the whole and others nothing: how is the final reckoning to be taken? Again, no one contends that he who votes for a simple acquittal or condemnation perjures himself, if the indictment has been laid in an unqualified form; and this is just, for the judge who acquits does not decide that the defendant owes nothing, but that he does not owe the twenty minae. He only is guilty of perjury who thinks that the defendant ought not to pay twenty minae, and yet condemns him.

To honor those who discover anything which is useful to the state is a proposal which has a specious sound, but cannot safely be enacted by law, for it may encourage informers, and perhaps even lead to political commotions. This question involves another. It has been doubted whether it is or is not expedient to make any changes in the laws of a country, even if another law be better. Now, if an changes are inexpedient, we can hardly assent to the proposal of Hippodamus; for, under pretense of doing a public service, a man may introduce measures which are really destructive to the laws or to the constitution. But, since we have touched upon this subject, perhaps we had better go a little into detail, for, as I was saying, there is a difference of opinion, and it may sometimes seem desirable to make changes. Such changes in the other arts and sciences have certainly been beneficial; medicine, for example, and gymnastic, and every other art and craft have departed from traditional usage. And, if politics be an art, change must be necessary in this as in any other art. That improvement has occurred is shown by the fact that old customs are exceedingly simple and barbarous. For the ancient Hellenes went about armed and bought their brides of each other.

In the magnificent and spacious Grecian city of Ephesus an ancient law was made by the ancestors of the inhabitants, hard indeed in its nature, but nevertheless equitable. When an architect was entrusted with the execution of a public work, an estimate thereof being lodged in the hands of a magistrate, his property was held, as security, until the work was finished. If, when finished, the expense did not exceed the estimate, he was complimented with decrees and honors. So when the excess did not amount to more than a fourth part of the original estimate, it was defrayed by the public, and no punishment was inflicted. But when more than one fourth of the estimate was exceeded, he was required to pay the excess out of his own pocket. Vitruvius On Budget Overruns

Except Aristotle's work about Hippodamus there is also Theano of Thurii with her work On Virtue dedicated to Hippodamus.

Another city planner was Deinocrates of Rhodes who worked as an architect for Alexander the Great. He also used a regular grid pattern for the city of Alexandria in Egypt.

VITRUVIUS

THE SITE OF A CITY

1. For fortified towns the following general principles are to be observed. First comes the choice of a very healthy site. Such a site will be high, neither misty nor frosty, and in a climate neither hot nor cold, but temperate; further, without marshes in the neighbourhood. For when the morning breezes blow toward the town at sunrise, if they bring with them mists from marshes and, mingled with the mist, the poisonous breath of the creatures of the marshes to be wafted into the bodies of the inhabitants, they will make the site unhealthy. Again, if the town is on the coast with a southern or western exposure, it will not be healthy, because in summer the southern sky grows hot at sunrise and is fiery at noon, while a western exposure grows warm after sunrise, is hot at noon, and at evening all aglow.

2. These variations in heat and the subsequent cooling off are harmful to the people living on such sites. The same conclusion may be reached in the case of inanimate things. For instance, nobody draws the light for covered wine rooms from the south or west, but rather from the north, since that quarter is never subject to change but is always constant and unshifting. So it is with granaries: grain exposed to the sun’s course soon loses its good quality, and provisions and fruit, unless stored in a place unexposed to the sun’s course, do not keep long.

3. For heat is a universal solvent, melting out of things their power of resistance, and sucking away and removing their natural strength with its fiery exhalations so that they grow soft, and hence weak, under its glow. We see this in the case of iron which, however hard it may naturally be, yet when heated thoroughly in a furnace fire can be easily worked into any kind of shape, and still, if cooled while it is soft and white hot, it hardens again with a mere dip into cold water and takes on its former quality.

4. We may also recognize the truth of this from the fact that in summer the heat makes everybody weak, not only in unhealthy but even in healthy places, and that in winter even the most unhealthy districts are much healthier because they are given a solidity by the cooling off. Similarly, persons removed from cold countries to hot cannot endure it but waste away; whereas those who pass from hot places to the cold regions of the north, not only do not suffer in health from the change of residence but even gain by it.

5. It appears, then, that in founding towns we must beware of districts from which hot winds can spread abroad over the inhabitants. For while all bodies are composed of the four elements, that is, of heat, moisture, the earthy, and air, yet there are mixtures according to natural temperament which make up the natures of all the different animals of the world, each after its kind.

6. Therefore, if one of these elements, heat, becomes predominant in any body whatsoever, it destroys and dissolves all the others with its violence. This defect may be due to violent heat from certain quarters of the sky, pouring into the open pores in too great proportion to admit of a mixture suited to the natural temperament of the body in question. Again, if too much moisture enters the channels of a body, and thus introduces disproportion, the other elements, adulterated by the liquid, are impaired, and the virtues of the mixture dissolved. This defect, in turn, may arise from the cooling properties of moist winds and breezes blowing upon the body. In the same way, increase or diminution of the proportion of air or of the earthy which is natural to the body may enfeeble the other elements; the predominance of the earthy being due to overmuch food, that of air to a heavy atmosphere.

7. If one wishes a more accurate understanding of all this, he need only consider and observe the natures of birds, fishes, and land animals, and be will thus come to reflect upon distinctions of temperament. One form of mixture is proper to birds, another to fishes, and a far different form to land animals. Winged creatures have less of the earthy, less moisture, heat in moderation, air in large amount. Being made up, therefore, of the lighter elements, they can more readily soar away into the air. Fish, with their aquatic nature, being moderately supplied with heat and made up in great part of air and the earthy, with as little of moisture as possible, can more easily exist in moisture for the very reason that they have less of it than of the other elements in their bodies; and so, when they are drawn to land, they leave life and water at the same moment. Similarly, the land animals, being moderately supplied with the elements of air and beat, and having less of the earthy and a great deal of moisture, cannot long continue alive in the water, because their portion of moisture is already abundant.

8. Therefore, if all this is as we have explained, our reason showing us that the bodies of animals are made up of the elements, and these bodies, as we believe, giving way and breaking up as a result of excess or deficiency in this or that element, we cannot but believe that we must take great care to select a very temperate climate for the site of our city, since healthfulness is, as we have said, the first requisite.

9. I cannot too strongly insist upon the need of a return to the method of old times. Our ancestors, when about to build a town or an army post, sacrificed some of the cattle that were wont to feed on the site proposed and examined their livers. If the livers of the first victims were dark-coloured or abnormal, they sacrificed others, to see whether the fault was due to disease or their food. They never began to build defensive works in a place until after they had made many such trials and satisfied themselves that good water and food had made the liver sound and firm. If they continued to find it abnormal, they argued from this that the food and water supply found in such a place would be just as unhealthy for man, and so they moved away and changed to another neighbourhood, healthfulness being their chief object.

10. That pasturage and food may indicate the healthful qualities of a site is a fact which can be observed and investigated in the case of certain pastures in Crete, on each side of the river Pothereus, which separates the two Cretan states of Gnosus and Gortyna. There are cattle at pasture on the right and left banks of that river, but while the cattle that feed near Gnosus have the usual spleen, those on the other side near Gortyna have no perceptible spleen. On investigating the subject, physicians discovered on this side a kind of herb which the cattle chew and thus make their spleen small. The herb is therefore gathered and used as a medicine for the cure of splenetic people. From food and water, then, we may learn whether sites are naturally unhealthy or healthy.

11. If the walled town is built among the marshes themselves, provided they are by the sea, with a northern or north-eastern exposure, and are above the level of the seashore, the site will be reasonable enough. For ditches can be dug to let out the water to the shore, and also in times of storms the sea swells and comes backing up into the marshes, where its bitter blend prevents the reproductions of the usual marsh creatures, while any that swim down from the higher levels to the shore are killed at once by the saltness to which they are unused. An instance of this may be found in the Gallic marshes surrounding Altino, Ravenna, Aquileia, and other towns in places of the kind, close by marshes. They are marvellously healthy, for the reasons which I have given.

12. But marshes that are stagnant and have no outlets either by rivers or ditches, like the Pomptine marshes, merely putrefy as they stand, emitting heavy, unhealthy vapours. A case of a town built in such a spot was Old Salpia in Apulia, founded by Diomede on his way back from Troy, or, according to some writers, by Elpias of Rhodes. Year after year there was sickness, until finally the suffering inhabitants came with a public petition to Marcus Hostilius and got him to agree to seek and find them a proper place to which to remove their city. Without delay he made the most skilful investigations, and at once purchased an estate near the sea in a healthy place, and asked the Senate and Roman people for permission to remove the town. He constructed the walls and laid out the house lots, granting one to each citizen for a mere trifle. This done, he cut an opening from a lake into the sea, and thus made of the lake a harbour for the town. The result is that now the people of Salpia live on a healthy site and at a distance of only four miles from the old town.

CHAPTER 5


THE CITY WALLS

1. After insuring on these principles the healthfulness of the future city, and selecting a neighbourhood that can supply plenty of food stuffs to maintain the community, with good roads or else convenient rivers or seaports affording easy means of transport to the city, the next thing to do is to lay the foundations for the towers and walls. Dig down to solid bottom, if it can be found, and lay them therein, going as deep as the magnitude of the proposed work seems to require. They should be much thicker than the part of the walls that will appear above ground, and their structure should be as solid as it can possibly be laid.

2. The towers must be projected beyond the line of wall, so that an enemy wishing to approach the wall to carry it by assault may be exposed to the fire of missiles on his open flank from the towers on his right and left. Special pains should be taken that there be no easy avenue by which to storm the wall. The roads should be encompassed at steep points, and planned so as to approach the gates, not in a straight line, but from the right to the left; for as a result of this, the right hand side of the assailants, unprotected by their shields, will be next the wall. Towns should be laid out not as an exact square nor with salient angles, but in circular form, to give a view of the enemy from many points. Defense is difficult where there are salient angles, because the angle protects the enemy rather than the inhabitants.

8. The thickness of the wall should, in my opinion, be such that armed men meeting on top of it may pass one another without interference. In the thickness there should be set a very close succession of ties made of charred olive wood, binding the two faces of the wall together like pins, to give it lasting endurance. For that is a material which neither decay, nor the weather, nor time can harm, but even though buried in the earth or set in the water it keeps sound and useful forever. And so not only city walls but substructures in general and all walls that require a thickness like that of a city wall, will be long in falling to decay if tied in this manner.

4. The towers should be set at intervals of not more than a bowshot apart, so that in case of an assault upon any one of them, the enemy may be repulsed with scorpiones and other means of hurling missiles from the towers to the right and left. Opposite the inner side of every tower the wall should be interrupted for a space the width of the tower, and have only a wooden flooring across, leading to the interior of the tower but not firmly nailed. This is to be cut away by the defenders in case the enemy gets possession of any portion of the wall; and if the work is quickly done, the enemy will not be able to make his way to the other towers and the rest of the wall unless he is ready to face a fall.

5. The towers themselves must be either round or polygonal. Square towers are sooner shattered by military engines, for the battering rams pound their angles to pieces; but in the case of round towers they can do no harm, being engaged, as it were, in driving wedges to their centre. The system of fortification by wall and towers may be made safest by the addition of earthen ramparts, for neither rams, nor mining, nor other engineering devices can do them any harm.

6. The rampart form of defense, however, is not required in all places, but only where outside the wall there is high ground from which an assault on the fortifications may be made over a level space lying between. En places of this kind we must first make very wide, deep ditches; next sink foundations for a wall in the bed of the ditch and build them thick enough to support an earthwork with ease.

7. Then within this substructure lay a second foundation, far enough inside the first to leave ample room for cohorts in line of battle to take position on the broad top of the rampart for its defense. Having laid these two foundations at this distance from one another, build cross walls between them, uniting the outer and inner foundation, in a comb-like arrangement, set like the teeth of a saw. With this form of construction, the enormous burden of earth will be distributed into small bodies, and will not lie with all its weight in one crushing mass so as to thrust out the substructures.

8. With regard to the material of which the actual wall should be constructed or finished, there can be no definite prescription, because we cannot obtain in all places the supplies that we desire. Dimension stone, flint, rubble, burnt or unburnt brick, - use them as you find them. For it is not every neighbourhood or particular locality that can have a wall built of burnt brick like that at Babylon, where there was plenty of asphalt to take the place of lime and sand, and yet possibly each may be provided with materials of equal usefulness so that out of them a faultless wall may be built to last forever.

CHAPTER 6

THE DIRECTIONS OF THE STREETS; WITH REMARKS ON THE WINDS

1. The town being fortified, the next step is the apportionment of house lots within the wall and the laying out of streets and alleys with regard to climatic conditions. They will be properly laid out if foresight is employed to exclude the winds from the alleys. Cold winds are disagreeable, hot winds enervating, moist winds unhealthy. We must, therefore, avoid mistakes in this matter and beware of the common experience of many communities. For example, Mytilene in the island of Lesbos is a town built with magnificence and good taste, but its position shows a lack of foresight. In that community when the wind is south, the people fall ill; when it is northwest, it sets them coughing; with a north wind they do indeed recover but cannot stand about in the alleys and streets, owing to the severe cold.

2. Wind is a flowing wave of air, moving hither and thither indefinitely. It is produced when heat meets moisture, the rush of heat generating a mighty current of air. That this is the fact we may learn from bronze eolipiles, and thus by means of a scientific invention discover a divine truth lurking in the laws of the heavens. Eolipiles are hollow bronze balls, with a very small opening through which water is poured into them. Set before a fire, not a breath issues from them before they get warm; but as soon as they begin to boil, out comes a strong blast due to the fire. Thus from this slight and very short experiment we may understand and judge of the mighty and wonderful laws of the heavens and the nature of winds.

3. By shutting out the winds from our dwellings, therefore, we shall not only make the place healthful for people who are well, but also in the case of diseases due perhaps to unfavourable situations elsewhere, the patients, who in other healthy places might be cured by a different form of treatment, will here be more quickly cured by the mildness that comes from the shutting out of the winds. The diseases which are hard to cure in neighbourhoods such as those to which I have referred above are catarrh, hoarseness, coughs, pleurisy, consumption, spitting of blood, and all others that are cured not by lowering the system but by building it up. They are hard to cure, first, because they are originally due to chills; secondly, because the patient’s system being already exhausted by disease, the air there, which is in constant agitation owing to winds and therefore deteriorated, takes all the sap of life out of their diseased bodies and leaves them more meagre every day. On the other hand, a mild, thick air, without draughts and not constantly blowing back and forth, builds up their frames by its unwavering steadiness, and so strengthens and restores people who are afflicted with these diseases.

4. Some have held that there are only four winds: Solanus from due east; Auster from the south; Favonius from due west; Septentrio from the north. But more careful investigators tell us that there are eight. Chief among such was Andronicus of Cyrrhus who in proof built the marble octagonal tower in Athens. On the several sides of the octagon he executed reliefs representing the several winds, each facing the point from which it blows; and on top of the tower he set a conical shaped piece of marble and on this a bronze Triton with a rod outstretched in its right band. It was so contrived as to go round with the wind, always stopping to face the breeze and holding its rod as a pointer directly over the representation of the wind that was blowing.

5. Thus Eurus is placed to the southeast between Solanus and Auster: Africus to the southwest between Auster and Favonius; Caurus, or, as many call it, Corus, between Favonius and Septentrio; and Aquilo between Septentrio and Solanus. Such, then, appears to have been his device, including the numbers and names of the wind and indicating the directions from which particular winds blow. These facts being thus determined, to find the directions and quarters of the winds your method of procedure should be as follows.

6. In the middle of the city place a marble amussium, laying it true by the level, or else let the spot be made so true by means of rule and level that no amussium is necessary. In the very centre of that spot set up a bronze gnomon or "shadow tracker". At about the fifth hour in the morning, take the end of the shadow cast by this gnomon, and mark it with a point. Then, opening your compasses to this point which marks the length of the gnomon’s shadow, describe a circle from the centre. In the afternoon watch the shadow of your gnomon as it lengthens, and when it once more touches the circumference of this circle and the shadow in the afternoon is equal in length to that of the morning, mark it with a point.

7. From these two points describe with your compasses intersecting arcs, and through their intersection and the centre let a line be drawn to the circumference of the circle to give us the quarters of south and north. Then, using a sixteenth part of the entire circumference of the circle as a diameter, describe a circle with its centre on the line to the south, at the point where it crosses the circumference, and put points to the right and left on the circumference on the south side, repeating the process on the north side. From the four points thus obtained draw lines intersecting the centre from one side of the circumference to the other. Thus we shall have an eighth part of the circumference set out for Auster and another for Septentrio. The rest of the entire circumference is then to be divided into three equal parts on each side, and thus we have designed a figure equally apportioned among the eight winds. Then let the directions of your streets and alleys be laid down on the lines of division between the quarters of two winds.

8. On this principle of arrangement the disagreeable force of the winds will be shut out from dwellings and lines of houses. For if the streets run full in the face of the winds, their constant blasts rushing in from the open country, and then confined by narrow alleys, will sweep through them with great violence. The lines of houses must therefore be directed away from the quarters from which the winds blow, so that as they come in they may strike against the angles of the blocks and their force thus be broken and dispersed.

9. Those who know names for very many winds will perhaps be surprised at our setting forth that there are only eight. Remembering, however, that Eratosthenes of Cyrene, employing mathematical theories and geometrical methods, discovered from the course of the sun, the shadows cast by an equinoctial gnomon, and the inclination of the heaven that the circumference of the earth is two hundred and fifty-two thousand stadia, that is, thirty-one million five hundred thousand paces, and observing that an eighth part of this, occupied by a wind, is three million nine hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred paces, they should not be surprised to find that a single wind, ranging over so wide a field, is subject to shifts this way and that, leading to a variety of breezes.

10. So we often have Leuconotus and Altanus blowing respectively to the right and left of Auster; Libonotus and Subvesperus to the right and left of Africus; Argestes, and at certain periods the Etesiae, on either side of Favonius; Circias and Corus on the sides of Caurus; Thracias and Gallicus on either side of Septentrio; Supernas and Caecias to the right and left of Aquilo; Carbas, and at a certain period the Ornithiae, on either side of Solanus; while Eurocircias and Volturnus blow on the flanks of Eurus which is between them. There are also many other names for winds derived from localities or from the squalls which sweep from rivers or down mountains.

11. Then, too, there are the breezes of early morning; for the sun on emerging from beneath the earth strikes humid air as he returns, and as he goes climbing up the sky he spreads it out before him, extracting breezes from the vapour that was there before the dawn. Those that still blow on after sunrise are classed with Eurus, and hence appears to come the Greek name for the child of the breezes, and the word for "to-morrow," named from the early morning breezes. Some people do indeed I say that Eratosthenes could not have inferred the true measure of the earth. Whether true or untrue, it cannot affect the truth of what I have written on the fixing of the quarters from which the different winds blow.

12. If he was wrong, the only result will be that the individual winds may blow, not with the scope expected from his measurement, but with powers either more or less widely extended. For the readier understanding of these topics, since I have treated them with brevity, it has seemed best to me to give two figures, at the end of this book: one designed to show the precise quarters from which the winds arise; the other, how by turning the directions of the rows of houses and the streets away from their full force, we may avoid unhealthy blasts. Let A be the centre of a plane surface, and B the point to which the shadow of the gnomon reaches in the morning. Taking A as the centre, open the compasses to the point B, which marks the shadow, and describe a circle. Put the gnomon back where it was before and wait for the shadow to lessen and grow again until in the afternoon it is equal to its length in the morning, touching the circumference at the point C. Then from the points B and C describe with the compasses two arcs intersecting at D. Next draw a line from the point of intersection D through the centre of the circle to the circumference and call it E F. This line will show where the south and north lie.

18. Then find with the compasses a sixteenth part of the entire circumference; then centre the compasses on the point E where the line to the south touches the circumference, and set off the points G and H to the right and left of E. Likewise on the north side, centre the compasses on the circumference at the point F on the line to the north, and set off the points I and K to the right and left; then draw lines through the centre from G to K and from H to I. Thus the space from G to H will belong to Auster and the south, and the space from I to K will be that of Septentrio. The rest of the circumference is to be divided equally into three parts on the right and three on the left, those to the east at the points L and M, those to the west at the points N and 0.

Finally, intersecting lines are to be drawn from M to 0 and from L to N. Thus we shall have the circumference divided into eight equal spaces for the winds. The figure being finished, we shall have at the eight different divisions, beginning at the south, the letter G between Eurus and Auster, H between Auster and Africus, N between Africus and Favonius, 0 between Favonius and Caurus, K between Caurus and Septentrio, I between Septentrio and Aquilo, L between Aquilo and Solanus, and M between Solanus and Eurus. This done, apply a gnomon to these eight divisions and thus fix the directions of the different alleys.

CHAPTER 7

THE SITES FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS

1. Having laid out the alleys and determined the streets, we have next to treat of the choice of building sites for temples, the forum, and all other public places, with a view to general convenience and utility. If the city is on the sea, we should choose ground close to the harbor as the place where the forum is to be built; but if inland, in the middle of the town. For the temples, the sites for those of the gods under whose particular protection the state is thought to rest and for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, should be on the very highest point commanding a view of the greater part of the city. Mercury should be in the forum, or, like Isis and Serapis, in the emporium: Apollo and Father Bacchus near the theatre: Hercules at the circus in communities which have no gymnasia nor amphitheatres; Mars outside the city but at the training ground, and so Venus, but at the harbor. It is moreover shown by the Etruscan diviners in treatises on their science that the fanes of Venus, Vulcan, and Mars should be situated outside the walls, in order that the young men and married women may not become habituated in the city to the temptations incident to the worship of Venus, and that buildings may be free from the terror of fires through the religious rites and sacrifices which call the power of Vulcan beyond the walls. As for Mars, when that divinity is enshrined outside the walls, the citizens will never take up arms against each other, and he will defend the city from its enemies and save it from danger in war.

2. Ceres also should be outside the city in a place to which people need never go except for the purpose of sacrifice. That place should be under the protection of religion, purity, and good morals. Proper sites should be set apart for the precincts of the other gods according to the nature of the sacrifices offered to them.

The principle governing the actual construction of temples and their symmetry I shall explain in my third and fourth books. In the second I have thought it best to give an account of the materials used in buildings with their good qualities and advantages, and then in the succeeding books to describe and explain the proportions of buildings, their arrangements, and the different forms of symmetry.

Excerpt from Book 5 Chapter 10

COLONNADES AND WALKS

5. The space in the middle, between the colonnades and open to the sky, ought to be embellished with green things; for walking in the open air is very healthy, particularly for the eyes, since the refined and rarefied air that comes from green things, finding its way in because of the physical exercise, gives a clean-cut image, and, by clearing away the gross humours from the eyes, leaves the sight keen and the image distinct. Besides, as the body gets warm with exercise in walking, this air, by sucking out the bumours from the frame, diminishes their superabundance, and disperses and thus reduces that superfluity which is more than the body can bear.

6. That this is so may be seen from the fact that misty vapours never arise from springs of water which are under cover, nor even from watery marshes which are underground; but in uncovered places which are open to the sky, when the rising sun begins to act upon the world with its heat, it brings out the vapour from damp and watery spots, and rolls it in masses upwards. Therefore, if it appears that in places open to the sky the more noxious humours are sucked out of the body by the air, as they obviously are from the earth in the form of mists, I think there is no doubt that cities should be provided with the roomiest and most ornamented walks, laid out under the free and open sky.

7. That they may be always dry and not muddy, the following is to be done. Let them be dug down and cleared out to the lowest possible depth. At the right and left construct covered drains, and in their walls, which are directed towards the walks, lay earthen pipes with their lower ends inclined into the drains. Having finished these, fill up the place with charcoal, and then strew sand over the walks and level them off. Hence, on account of the porous nature of the charcoal and the insertion of the pipes into the drains, quantities of water will be conducted away, and the walks will thus be rendered perfectly dry and without moisture.

8. Furthermore, our ancestors in establishing these works provided cities with storehouses for an indispensable material. The fact is that in sieges everything else is easier to procure than is wood. Salt can easily be brought in beforehand; corn can be got together quickly by the State or by individuals, and if it gives out, the defence may be maintained on cabbage, meat, or beans; water can be had by digging wells, or when there are sudden falls of rain, by collecting it from the tiles. But a stock of wood, which is absolutely necessary for cooking food, is a difficult and troublesome thing to provide; for it is slow to gather and a good deal is consumed.

9. On such occasions, therefore, these walks are thrown open, and a definite allowance granted to each inhabitant according to tribes. Thus these uncovered walks insure two excellent things: first, health in time of peace; secondly, safety in time of war. Hence, walks that are developed on these principles, and built not only behind the "scaena" of theatres, but also at the temples of all the gods, will be capable of being of great use to cities.

Excerpt from Book 5 Chapter 11

THE PALAESTRA

4. This kind of colonnade is called among the Greeks xystus because athletes during the winter season exercise in covered running tracks. Next to this xystus and to the double colonnade should be laid out the uncovered walks into which, in fair weather during the winter, the athletes come out from the xystus for exercise. The xysta ought to be so constructed that there may be plantations between the two colonnades, or groves of plane trees, with walks laid out in them among the trees and resting places there, made of "opus signinum." Behind the xystus a stadium, so designed that great numbers of people may have plenty of room to look on at the contests between the athletes.

I have now described all that seemed necessary for the proper arrangement of things within the city walls [Note this includes most aspects of the 'built environment', because cities had to be fortified]

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Cities/AlexanderAlexandria.jpg


Alexander laying out the city of Alexandria by Andre Castaigne 1898/99

Comments and Quotations


For the Greeks were renowned for their successful endeavours in the area of city planning because they sought out locations which were naturally beautiful Strabo, Geography

Meton of Athens (Μέτων ο Αθηναίος ), Astronomer and Geometer. He appears in one comedy of Aristophanes, The birds:
PITHETAERUS In the name of the gods, who are you?
METON Who am I? Meton, known throughout Greece and at Colonus.
PITHETAERUS What are these things?
METON Tools for measuring the air. In truth, the spaces in the air have precisely the form of a furnace. With this bent ruler I draw a line from top to bottom; from one of its points I describe a circle with the compass. Do you understand?
PITHETAERUS Not in the least.
METON With the straight ruler I set to work to inscribe a square within this circle; in its centre will be the market-place, into which all the straight streets will lead, converging to this centre like a star, which, although only orbicular, sends forth its rays in a straight line from all sides.

Literally, “destroyer of cities;” the name given to an engine invented by Demetrius Poliorcetes for besieging fortified places, consisting of a square tower placed upon wheels, and run up to the height of nine stories, each of which was furnished with machines for battering and discharging projectiles of enormous size and weight ( Diod. Sic.xx. 48Diod. Sic., 91; Vitruv. x. 22; Ammian.xxiii. 4Ammian., 10). From Perseus site


http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/images/Poliorcetes.gif


Demetrius Poliorcetes (The Besieger) (Δημήτριος ο Πολιορκητής) son of Antigonus was a general of Alexander the Great. Demetrius was skilled in directing catapults and battering rams to crush city walls. Demetrius's tortoise-like armored battering rams were 180 feet long and manned by one thousand men, and his giant catapults threw 180-pound stone balls a quarter of a mile.

Probably his most fearsome device was an enormous wheeled fortified tower called Helepolis (the "Taker of Cities"). This tower was 50 feet square at its base, more than 100 feet tall, and was armed with its own banks of catapults and sling throwers.

...Poliorcetes, prepared to wage war against the Rhodians, and brought in his train Epimachus (Επίμαχος ο Αθηναίος), a celebrated architect of Athens. This person prepared an helepolis of prodigious expense and of ingenious and laborious construction, whose height was one hundred and twenty-five feet, and its width sixty feet: he secured it, moreover, with hair-cloths and raw hides, so that it might securely withstand the shock of a stone of three hundred and sixty pounds weight, thrown from a balista. The whole machine weighted three hundred and sixty thousand pounds.
Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, de Architectura

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/images/Helepolis.jpg


The Helepolis at Rhodes (Epimachus 304 BC). Picture from Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry, copyright 1980 Salamander Books. At the base around 23 m x 23 m , height around 45 meter. Eight massive iron covered wheels. Interior: divided in 9 floors, twin staircases.

At the siege of Rhodes Demetrius employed an Helepolis of still greater dimensions and more complicated construction. Besides wheels it had casters antistrepta, so as to admit of being moved laterally as well as directly. Its form was pyramidal. The three sides which were exposed to attack, were rendered fire-proof by being covered with iron plates. In front each story had port-holes, which were adapted to the several kinds of missiles, and were furnished with shutters that could be opened or closed at pleasure, and were made of skins stuffed with wool. Each story had two broad flights of steps, the one for ascending, the other for descending (Diod. xx.91; cf. Vitruv. x.22). This helepolis was constructed by Epimachus the Athenian; and a much esteemed description of it was written by Dioeclides of Abdera (Athen. v. p206d). It was no doubt the greatest and most remarkable engine of the kind that was ever erected.

The tower on wheels also were called “tortoise” as it looked with its protections like a giant tortoise.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/images/korax.gif

The “Korax” drilling holes through walls.

Demetrius also used 25 m long portable drills (korax) to bore holes through city walls. Another known “besieger” is Diades of Pella.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/BRGPOD/147605.jpg



Tower of Demetrius Poliorcetes During The Siege of Rhodes in 305 Bc
Reibisch, Friedrich Martin Von
Buy this Giclee Print at AllPosters.com




Diades of Pella (Διάδης ο Πελλαίος) (The Besieger)

A student of Polyides (or Polydus) of Thessaly invented many siege engines for Alexander cited by Athenaeus and Vitruvius.

He constructed movable towers, battering rams, scaling engines used to scale walls, boarding bridges to board on enemy ships during naval operations as described by Vito and Athenaeus the Peripatic. He also constructed the battering crane a kind of wrecking ball used for the destruction of walls.

His battering ram used pulleys for the battering ram. A central groove within an upright frame of 23.1 m length and 0.5 m height with small cylinders lining the groove that made it easy to speed up or slow down the action of the iron head ram.

Artemon Periphoretos

Ephorus the historian tells us besides, that Pericles made use of engines of battery in this siege, being much taken with the curiousness of the invention, with the aid and presence of Artemon himself, the engineer, who, being lame, used to be carried about in a litter, where the works required his attendance, and for that reason was called Periphoretus. But Heraclides Ponticus disproves this out of Anacreon’s poems, where mention is made of this Artemon Periphoretus several ages before the Samian war, or any of these occurrences. And he says that Artemon, being a man who loved his ease, and had a great apprehension of danger, for the most part kept close within doors, having two of his servants to hold a brazen shield over his head, that nothing might fall upon him from above; and if he were at any time forced upon necessity to go abroad, that he was carried about in a little hanging bed, close to the very ground, and that for this reason he was called Periphoretus. Plutarch, Pericles


Marcus Vitruvius Pollio: de Architectura



Chapter 13

1. I have said as much as I could on these matters; it now remains for me to treat of those things relating to attacks, namely, of those machines with which generals take and defend cities. The first engine for attack was the ram, whose origin is said to have been as follows. The Carthaginians encamped in order to besiege Cadiz, and having first got possession of one of the towers, they endeavoured to demolish it, but having no machines fit for the purpose, they took a beam, and suspending it in their hands, repeatedly battered the top of the wall with the end of it, and having first thrown down the upper courses, by degrees they destroyed the whole fortress.
2. After that, a certain workman of Tyre, of the name of Pephasmenos, turning his attention to the subject, fixed up a pole and suspended a cross piece therefrom after the method of a steelyard, and thus swinging it backwards and forwards, levelled with heavy blows the walls of Cadiz. Cetras the Chalcedonian, was the first who added a base to it of timber moveable on wheels, and covered it with a roof on upright and cross pieces: on this he suspended the ram, covering it with bulls’ hides, so that those who were employed therein battering the walls might be secure from danger. And inasmuch as the machine moved but slowly, they called it the tortoise of the ram. Such was the origin of this species of machines.
3. But afterwards, when Philip, the son of Amintas, besieged Byzantium, Polydus the Thessalian used it in many and simple forms, and by him were instructed Diades and Chæreas who fought under Alexander. Diades has shown in his writings that he was the inventor of ambulatory towers, which he caused to be carried from one place to another by the army, in pieces, as also of the auger and the scaling machine, by which one may step on to a wall; as also the grappling hook, which some call the crane (grus).
4. He also used a ram on wheels, of which he has left a description in writing. He says that no tower should be built less than sixty cubits high, nor than seventeen wide, and that its diminution at top should be one fifth of the width of the base: that the upright pieces of the tower should be one foot and three quarters at bottom, and half a foot at top: that it should contain ten floors, with windows on each side.
5. That the greatest tower that is constructed may be one hundred and twenty cubits high, and twenty-three and a half wide, diminishing at the top one fifth of its base; the upright piece one foot at bottom, and half a foot at top. The large tower is made with twenty floors, and to each floor there is a parapet of three cubits, covered with raw hides to protect it from the arrows.
6. The construction of the tortoise ram is similar: it was thirty cubits wide, and, exclusive of the roof, sixteen high. The height of the roof from the eaves to the ridge, seven cubits. On the top thereof in the centre rose a small tower, not less than twelve cubits wide: it was raised with four stories, on the upper of which the scorpions and catapultæ were placed, and in those below was kept a large store of water, to extinguish the flames in case it should be fired. In it was placed the machine for the ram, which the Greeks called kriodovkh, wherein was the round smooth roller on which the ram worked backwards and forwards by means of ropes, and produced great effect. This, like the tower, was covered with raw hides.
7. He describes the auger (terebra ) thus: the machine is made like a tortoise, as in those for the reception of the catapultæ and balistæ, and in the middle thereof is a channel on the pilasters fifty cubits long, one high, and across it an axle. In front, on the right and left, are two pulleys, by means of which is moved a beam with an iron point at its end, which works in the channel. Under the channel are rollers, which give it an easier and stronger motion. Above the beam an arch is turned to cover the channel, and receive the raw hides with which the machine is covered.
8. I do not describe the grappling machine, because I consider it of very little use. I perceive that he only promises to explain, which however he does not do, the construction of the ladder called ejpibavqra by the Greeks, and the other marine machines for boarding ships. Having described the construction of the machines as Diades directs, I shall now explain it in a way that I think will be useful, and as taught me by my masters.

Chapter 14

1. The tortoise contrived for filling up ditches, which also affords an access to the walls, is thus made. A base, called by the Greeks escavra, is prepared twenty-five feet square, with four cross pieces. These are tied in by two other pieces, one twelfth high, and one half wide, distant from each other about a foot and a half, and under each of their intervals are placed the naves of wheels, called in Greek aJmaxovpodeV, within which the axles of the wheels turn in iron hoops. The naves are so made that they have holes in their heads, in which the handspikes being received, are made to turn them. The naves thus revolving, it may be moved forward or backward, to the right or left, or diagonally, as wanted.
2. Above the base are placed two beams, projecting six feet on each side; round the projections of which two other beams are fixed in front, seven feet long, and their width and thickness as described for the base. Upon this frame which is to be morticed, posts are placed, nine feet high, exclusive of their tenons, one foot and a palm square, and a foot and a half distant from each other. These are tied in at top by means of morticed beams. Above these beams are braces, with tenons, the end of one being let into the next to the height of nine feet, and over the braces is a square piece of timber, by which they are connected.
3. They also are kept together by side pieces, and are covered with planks of palm, in preference to other wood: if those are not to be procured, by other wood of a strong nature, pine and ash, however, excepted; for they are weak and easily ignited. About the planking are placed gratings, made of slender twigs recently cut, and closely interwoven; and then the whole machine is covered with raw hides, as fresh as can be procured, doubled and stuffed with seaweed or straw steeped in vinegar, in order that it may resist the strokes of the balistæ and the attacks of fire.


Chapter 15

1. There is another species of tortoise, which is just the same as that above described, except in respect of the braces. This has a parapet and battlements of boarding, and above, an inclined pent-house round it, tied in at top with planks and hides firmly fastened. Over these is a layer of clay with hair, of such thickness as to prevent the machine taking fire. These machines may be made with eight wheels, if need be, and if the nature of the place require it. The tortoises made for undermining, called by the Greeks o[rugeV, are similar to those already described; but their fonts are formed on a triangular plan, so that the weapons from the wall may not fall direct on the faces, but gliding off from them, the excavators within may be secure from danger.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/images/Hegetor01.jpg

Tortoise of Hegetor or Agetor of Byzantium

2. It does not appear to me foreign to our purpose to explain the proportions and constructions of the tortoise made by Agetor (or Hegetor) the Byzantine. Its base was sixty feet long, its width eighteen. The upright pieces which rose above the framing, were four in number; they were in two lengths, joined, each thirty-six feet high, one foot and one palm in thickness, and in width one foot and a half. The base had eight wheels, on which it was moved; their height was six feet and three quarters, their thickness three feet, composed of three pieces of wood dove-tailed together, and tied with plates of cold wrought iron.
3. These turned on naves, or hamaxopodes, as they are called. Above the surface of the cross pieces which were on the base, upright posts were erected, eighteen feet and a quarter high, three quarters wide, and three-twelfths thick, and one and three quarters apart. Above them were beams all round, which tied the machine together, they were one foot and a quarter wide, and three quarters thick. Over these the braces were placed, and were twelve feet high. Above the braces was a beam which united the framing. They had also side pieces fixed transversely, on which a floor, running round them, covered the parts below.
4. There was also a middle floor above the small beams, where the scorpions and catapultæ were placed. Two upright pieces were also raised, joined together, thirty-five feet long, a foot and a half thick, and two feet wide, united at their heads, dove-tailed into a cross beam, and by another in the middle, morticed between two shafts and tied with iron hooping, above which were alternate beams between the uprights and the cross piece, firmly held in by the cheeks and angle pieces. Into the framing were fixed two round and smooth axles, to which were fastened the ropes that held the ram.
5. Over the heads of those who worked the ram was a pent-house, formed after the manner of a turret, where two soldiers could stand secure from danger, and give directions for annoying the enemy. The ram was one hundred and six feet long, a foot and a palm wide at the butt, a foot thick, tapering towards the head to a foot in width, and five-eighths in thickness.
6. It was furnished with a hard iron beak like those fixed on galleys, from which went out four iron prongs about fifteen feet long, to fix it to the beam. Moreover, distributed between the foot and the head of the beam, four stout ropes were stretched eight inches thick, made fast like those which retain the mast of a ship between the poop and the prow. To these were slung others diagonally, which suspended the ram at the distance of a palm and a foot from each other. The whole of the ram was covered with raw hides. At the further end of the ropes, towards the head, were four iron chains, also covered with raw hides,
7. and it had a projection from each floor, framed with much skill, which was kept in its place by means of large stretched ropes, the roughness of which preventing the feet from slipping, made it easy to get thence on to the wall. The machine could be moved in six directions, straight forward, to the right and left, and from its extent it could be used on the ascending and descending slope of a hill. It could, moreover, be so raised as to throw down a wall one hundred feet in height: so, also, when moved to the right and left, it reached not less than one hundred feet. It was worked by one hundred men, and its weight was four thousand talents, or four hundred and eighty thousand pounds.

Image of Hegetor's Ram and Tortoise

Chapter 16




1. I have explained what I thought most requisite respecting scorpions, catapultæ, balistæ, no less than tortoises and towers, who invented them, and in what manner they ought to be made. It did not seem necessary to write on ladders, cranes, and other things of simpler construction; these the soldiers of themselves easily make. Neither are they useful in all places, nor of the same proportions, inasmuch as the defences and fortifications of different cities are not similar: for machines constructed to assault the bold and impetuous, should be differently contrived to those for attacking the crafty, and still dissimilar, where the parties are timid.
2. Whoever, therefore, attends to these precepts, will be able to select from the variety mentioned, and design safely, without further aid, such new schemes as the nature of the places and other circumstances may require. For the defence of a place or army, one cannot give precepts in writing, since the machines which the enemy prepares may not be in consonance with our rules; whence oftentimes their contrivances are foiled by some ready ingenious plan, without the assistance of machines, as was the case with the Rhodians.
3. Diognetus was a Rhodian architect, who, to his honour, on account of his great skill, had an annual fixed salary. At that period, an architect of Aradus, whose name was Callias, came to Rhodes, obtained an audience, and exhibited a model of a wall, whereon was a revolving crane, by means whereof he could suspend an Helepolis near the spot, and swing it within the walls. The wondering Rhodians, when they saw it, took away the salary from Diognetus, and conferred it on Callias.
4. Immediately after this, king Demetrius, who, from his resolution, was surnamed Poliorcetes, prepared to wage war against the Rhodians, and brought in his train Epimachus, a celebrated architect of Athens. This person prepared an helepolis of prodigious expense and of ingenious and laborious construction, whose height was one hundred and twenty-five feet, and its width sixty feet: he secured it, moreover, with hair-cloths and raw hides, so that it might securely withstand the shock of a stone of three hundred and sixty pounds weight, thrown from a balista. The whole machine weighed three hundred and sixty thousand pounds. Callias being now requested by the Rhodians to prepare his machine against the helepolis, and to swing it within the wall, as had promised, confessed he was unable.
5. For the same principles do not answer in all cases. In some machines the principles are of equal effect on a large and on a small scale; others cannot be judged of by models. Some there are whose effects in models seem to approach the truth, but vanish when executed on a larger scale, as we have just seen. With an auger, a hole of half an inch, of an inch, or even an inch and a half, may be easily bored; but by the same instrument it would be impossible to bore one of a palm in diameter; and no one would think of attempting in this way to bore one of half a foot, or larger.
6. Thus that which may be effected on a small or a moderately large scale, cannot be executed beyond certain limits of size. When the Rhodians perceived their error, and how shamefully they had wronged Diognetus; when, also, they perceived the enemy was determined to invest them, and the machine approaching to assault the city, fearing the miseries of slavery and the sacking of the city, they humbled themselves before Diognetus, and requested his aid in behalf of his country.
7. He at first refused to listen to their entreaties; but when afterwards the comely virgins and youths, accompanied by the priests, came to solicit his aid, he consented, on condition that if he succeeded in taking the machine, it should be his own property. This being agreed to, he ordered a hole to be made in that part of the wall opposite to the machine, and gave general as well as particular notices to the inhabitants, to throw on the other side of the hole, through channels made for the purpose, all the water, filth, and mud, that could be procured. These being, during the night, discharged through the hole in great abundance, on the following day, when the helepolis was advanced towards the wall, it sunk in the quagmire thus created: and Demetrius, finding himself overreached by the sagacity of Diognetus, drew off his army.
8. The Rhodians, freed from war by the ingenuity of Diognetus, gave him thanks publicly, and loaded him with honours and ornaments of distinction. Diognetus afterwards removed the helepolis within the walls, placed it in a public situation, and inscribed it thus: “DIOGNETUS PRESENTED THIS TO THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE SPOILS OF WAR.” Hence, in defensive operations, ingenuity is of more avail than machines.
9. A similar circumstance occurred at Chios, where the enemy had got ready sambucæ on board their ships; the Chians, during the night, threw into the sea, at the foot of their wall, earth, sand, and stones; so that when the enemy, on the following day, endeavoured to approach it, the ships got aground on the heaps thus created under water, without being able to approach the wall or to recede; in which situation they were assailed with lighted missiles, and burnt. When, also, the city of Apollonia was besieged, and the enemy was in hopes, by undermining, to penetrate the fortress unperceived; the spies communicated this intelligence to the Apollonians, who were dismayed, and, through fear, knew not how to act, because they were not aware at what time, nor in what precise spot, the enemy would make his appearance.
10. Trypho, of Alexandria, who was the architect to the city, made several excavations within the wall, and, digging through, advanced an arrow’s flight beyond the walls. In these excavations he suspended brazen vessels. In one of them, near the place where the enemy was forming his mine, the brazen vessels began to ring, from the blows of the mining tools which were working. From this he found the direction in which they were endeavouring to penetrate, and then prepared vessels of boiling water and pitch, human dung, and heated sand, for the purpose of pouring on their heads. In the night he bored a great many holes, through which he suddenly poured the mixture, and destroyed those of the enemy that were engaged in this operation.
11. Similarly when Marseilles was besieged, and the enemy had made more than thirty mines; the Marseillois suspecting it, lowered the depth of the ditch which encompassed the wall, so that the apertures of all the mines were discovered. In those places, however, where there is not a ditch, they excavate a large space within the walls, of great length and breadth, opposite to the direction of the mine, which they fill with water from wells and from the sea; so that when the mouths of the mine open to the city, the water rushes in with great violence, and throws down the struts, overwhelming all those within it with the quantity of water introduced, and the falling in of the mine.
12. When a rampart composed of the trunks of trees is raised opposite to a wall, it may be consumed by discharging red hot iron bars against it from the balistæ. When, also, a tortoise is brought up to batter a wall with a ram, a rope with a noose in it may be lowered to lay hold of the ram, which being then raised by means of a wheel and axle above, keeps the head suspended, so that it cannot be worked against the wall: lastly, with burning arrows, and with discharges from the balistæ, the whole machine may be destroyed. Thus all these cities are saved and preserve their freedom, not by machines, but by expedients which are suggested through the ready ingenuity of their architects. I have, in this book, to the best of my ability, described the construction of those machines most useful in peace and war. In the preceding nine I treated of the other branches of Architecture, so that the whole subject is contained in ten books.

See

Ten Books on Architecture, by Vitruvius. Book 10



(Technology Museum of Thessaloniki )

Image of a Bronze battering-ram. The only surviving besieging instrument of its kind from Antiquity.





It is interesting that almost 1000 years later, in the tenth century, the Byzantine Empire was very interested in ancient Greek war technology. Heron Byzantinus ( Ήρων ο Βυζαντινός ), a name given to an anonymous author who wrote about Poliercetics based on the work of Philon of Byzantium , Heron of Alexandria , Apollodorus of Damascus and other ancient Greek engineers, made some mistakes in the description of various devices. “In addition to occasional and serious misinterpretations of the sources, the Byzantine author also makes some errors in mathematics and in his “astronomical” methodology. In the first category, for example, W. Sackur observed that the Anon. Byz. Misinterprets the method of diminishing the size of each upward story of the portable siege tower of Diades as one based on area rather than on width (Parangelmata 30), with resulting errors in his description of Apollodorus’ tower. In the second category the Byzantine author (Geodesia 8) incorrectly computes the surface area of a cone, apparently due to his misinterpretation of Archimedes. ...Sackur’s general characterization (Vitruv, 106) seems not unfair: “Der Anonymus Byzantinus ist ein sehr gewissenhafter Arbeiter . . . aber ein eigentlich technisches Denken . . . dürfen wir bei ihm nicht erwarten.” (In other words he tried his best but we cannot expect a technical knowledge from the author).

...

The Anon. Byz. specifically indicates that he is working from classical sources, and thus his work is obviously heavily derivative; he also tells us that he will add material. The author’s description of the classical material should, however, be set in the context of his modernization of the method of presentation discussed above, by which both textually and pictorially he seeks to make the classical material more accessible. Further, as Dagron notes, evolution of military technology was not radical, a point that can be substantiated by specific references in tenth-century texts. SIEGECRAFT Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by “Heron of Byzantium” Denis F. Sullivan (PDF File)


Anti Tower Mines

One of the earliest antivehicle "mines" was described by military engineer Philo of Byzantium around 120 B.C., when he recommended that "in front of the advanced walls (of a city) empty earthenware jars should be buried. These are placed in an upright position with their mouths upward, stopped up with seaweed or imperishable grass, and covered with earth. Troops may then pass over the jars with impunity, (but) the engines and timber towers brought up by the enemy will sink into them." Major William C. Schneck The Origins of Military Mines: Part II


See also

Ancient Greek Artillery Technology

Dionysius Repeating Catapult (The Polybolo)

Catapults (Scientific American)

Archimedes burning mirrors; Theory and Practice

Ancient Greek Armour

From the Pentekonter to the Trireme ship (A change of war tactic)

Giant warships with more