tormentum

tormentum, i, n. [torqueo, an instrument with which any thing is turned or twisted].

• An engine for hurling missiles.
• • A Lit.: tormenta telorum, Cic. Tusc. 2, 24, 57: tormentis Mutinam verberavit, id. Phil. 8, 7, 20; Caes. B. G. 2, 8; 4, 25; id. B. C. 1, 17; Hirt. B. G. 8, 14, 5: machinator bellicorum tormentorum, Liv. 24, 34, 2; Sil. 6, 279; Tac. A. 2, 81; id. H. 3, 20; 4, 23; Curt. 4, 3, 13.—
  • B Transf., a missile, shot thrown by the engine: quod unum genus tegumenti nullo telo neque tormento transici posse, Caes. B. C. 2, 9; telum tormentumve missum, id. ib. 3, 51; 3, 56; Plin. 8, 23, 35, § 85; Stat. Th. 9, 145; Curt. 4, 2, 9.—
• II A (twisted) cord, rope: praesectis crinibus tormenta effecerunt, Caes. B. C. 3, 9: falces tormentis introrsus reducebant, id. B. G. 7, 22, 2: laxare, Quint. Decl. 19, 15; Grat. Cyn. 26; Auct. Priap. 6: stuppeum, Ap. Apol. p. 276, 14: ferreum, i.e. fetters, Plaut. Curc. 2, 1, 12 (227); cf.: sine tormentorum injuriā, Petr. 102, 13.—
• III An instrument of torture, a rack.
• • A Lit.: verberibus ac tormentis quaestionem habere, Cic. Phil. 11, 2, 5; 11, 4, 8; 13, 9, 21: quaerere de aliquo tormentis, id. Deiot. 1, 3; id. Clu. 63, 176 sq.; id. Mil. 21, 57; 22, 58; id. Sull. 28, 78; id. Off. 3, 9, 39; id. Part. Or. 14, 50; id. Tusc. 5, 28, 80; Caes. B. G. 6, 18; Quint. 2, 20, 10; 3, 5, 10; Suet. Tib. 19; 58; 62 al.: tu lene tormentum ingenio admoves, a rack of a mild sort, Hor. C. 3, 21, 13.—
  • B Transf., in gen., torture, anguish, pain, torment, etc.: cruciatus et tormenta pati, Plin. Ep. 1, 12, 6; cf.: tormento liberari, Col. 6, 7, 1; so of the torture or pain of sickness, Cels. 7, 11; Plin. 19, 8, 44, § 155; 20, 4, 13, § 27; 22, 22, 37, § 79: tormenta fortunae, Cic. Tusc. 5, 1, 1: caecae suspitionis, Caecin. ap. Cic. Fam. 6, 7, 4: invidiā Siculi non invenere tyranni Majus tormentum, Hor. Ep. 1, 2, 59; Juv. 2, 137: esse in tormentis, Plin. Ep. 8, 23, 9: incredibiles cruciatus et indignissima tormenta pati, id. ib. 1, 12, 6: tormentum sibi injungere, id. Pan. 86, 1: bene tormentis secubituque coli, Ov. Am. 3, 10, 16; so of the pain of love, Mart. 7, 29, 1: tormentis gaudet amantis, Juv. 6, 209: animi tormenta latentis in aegro Corpore, id. 9, 18.—
• IV A clothes-press, mangle, Sen. Tranq. 1, 3.

tormentum, ī, n. (torqueo), I) ein Werkzeug zum Drehen, Winden, Pressen, und zwar: 1) die Winde, praesectis omnium mulierum crinibus tormenta effecerunt, Caes. b.c. 3, 9, 3; vgl. Lact. 1, 20, 27: falces tormentis introrsus reducebant, Caes. b.G. 7, 22, 2. – 2) der Strick, das Seil, tormento tensior, Priap. 6 (5), 5: quadruplices tormento astringere limbos, Gratt. cyn. 26. – 3) die Fessel, ferreum, Plaut. Curc. 227: tormentorum iniuria, Petron. 102, 13: tormenta, laxare, Ps. Quint. decl. 19, 15. – 4) ein Marterwerkzeug, die Folter, a) eig.: cruciatus (Plur.) tormentorum, Folterqualen, Tac.: tormenta adhibere, Cic.: dare se in tormenta, mit auf die Folter gehen, Cic.: dedere alqm tormentis, Cic.: ementiri (falsch aussagen) in tormentis, Cic.: excruciari tormentis, Caes.: tormentis exprimere confessionem cogitati facinoris, Suet.: minitari omnibus bonis cruces ac tormenta, Cic.: quaestiones servorum ac tormenta accusator minitatur, Cic.: neque tormentis neque supplicio cuiusquam parcere, Suet.: de servo in dominum ne tormentis quidem quaeri licet, Cic.: quo magis necessarium habui ex duabus ancillis quid esset veri et per tormenta quaerere, Plin. ep.: verberibus ac tormentis quaestionem habere pecuniae publicae, Cic.: tormenta non recusare, Curt. – b) übtr.: α) die Folter = der Zwang, lene tormentum admovere ingenio, einen sanften Zw. auf den G. ausüben, Hor. carm. 3, 21, 13. – β) die Marter, Plage, tormenta vulvae, Plin.: vesicae et exulcerati ventris tormenta, Sen.: stomachi tormenta tolerare, Sen.: incredibiles cruciatus et indignissima tormenta pati, v. Podagristen, Plin. ep. – tormenta suspicionis, Cic.: tormenta fortunae, die vom Schicksal auferlegten Leiden, Cic.: tormenta verborum, Min. Fel. – est tormentum m. Infin., est tormentum carere divitiis, Sen. contr. 1, 6, 5. – 5) ein Druckwerk, beim Wasser, Sen. nat. qu. 2, 9, 2. Tert. de anim. 14. – 6) tormenta tibiarum, die Druckwerke, Plin. 10, 82. – II) ein Werkzeug zum Fortschleudern, die Schleuder-, Wurfmaschine, das Geschütz, a) eig.: bellica tormenta, Varro: bellica tormenta operaque, Liv.: balistae lapidum et reliqua tormenta, Cic.: ibi tormenta collocavit, Caes. – b) meton., das daraus abgeschleuderte Geschoß, telum tormentumve missum, Caes.: t. missile, Plin.: fenestrae ad tormenta mittenda, Caes. – ➳ Sen. de tranqu. anim. 1, 5 sind mille tormenta tausend Foltern.

1 tormentum v. tomentum

2 tormentum [CL] 1 engine worked by torsion for hurling projectiles, ballista or sim.. b ballistic weapon fired by gunpowder, gun. in eminus positos ‥ quicquid ad manum venisset vice ~i rotare W. Malm. GP V 261; tormenta furore tepescunt / et tenues ictus vix dare fessa queunt L. Durh. Dial. I 295; s1304 immensa ‥ ~a ictu unius lapidis duos antiparietes ‥ perforarunt Flor. Hist. III 319; machinae et ~a ‥ contra muros erecta terrorem ‥ intulissent obsessis Liv. Hen. V f. 4a.  b 1550 ~a et ‥ machinae bellicae cum ‥ suo apparatu sc. pulverum, boulletorum, mortariorum (DipDocE) Foed. XV 213b; 1552 tres anates ‥ cum uno ~o vocat' a handegune ‥ occiderunt Pat 849 m. 30; 1554 armis, viz. gladiis ‥ galeis ferreis ~is sive vibrellis vulgariter vocatis canons (Pat) Foed. XV 360b; subito unum ex ~is aeneis rumpitur P. Verg. XXIII p. 505; 1573 cum ‥ ~is sive bombardis vulgariter vocatis handgonnes Pat 1105 m. 7; 1575 farcivit ~um suum cum pulvere facticio ‥ alias dict' he chardged his handgonne with gonnepowder Ib. 1126 m. 24. 2 (act or condition of) torture, torment, (also transf.) instrument that inflicts torture or torment. infernus, de cujus ~is intolerabilibus narrari ‥ audivi Bede HE V 12 p. 305; qui pro delictorum suorum ~o [AS: pinunga] vitam suam amittit (Ps.-Egb. Pen. II 5) Conc. I 129; frustulum salutiferi ~i [sc. clavi crucifixi] Gosc. Edith 74; deprehendit vulneratum ligneumque vidit in ore ~um T. Mon. Will. I 11; c1175 antequam ad ~a ducantur, per ‥ penitentiam spiritualiter puniuntur P. Blois Ep. 73; ineffabilibus ignis et aque variique generis ~is ‥ affligitur Gir. TH II 5; 1316 quendam vallettum posuerat in carcere et ~is et ‥ vallettus ‥ privacionem genitalium incurrebat RGasc IV 1628; leges ‥ deficiente testium copia ‥ veritatem ‥ extorquent ~is Fortescue LLA 22.

tormentum, (8) ī, n. (torqueo), ¶ 1 machine de guerre à lancer les traits, reposant sur le principe de détente de cordes préalablement enroulées autour dʼun cylindre : Cæs. G. 2, 30, 3 ; 4, 25, 2, etc. ; Cic. Phil. 8, 20 ; Tusc. 2, 57 ; Liv. 24, 34, 2 || projectile [lancé par la machine] : Cæs. C. 2, 9, 9 ; 3, 51, 7 ; 3, 56, 1 ; Plin. 8, 85 ¶ 2 treuil, cabestan : Cæs. G. 7, 22, 2 ; C. 3, 9, 3 ¶ 3 machine à refouler lʼeau : Sen. Nat. 2, 9, 2 ¶ 4 cordage : ferreum Pl. Curc. 227, cordage de fer, chaîne de fer, tormenta seul = liens : Petr. 102, 13 ; Ps. Quint. Decl. 10, 15 ¶ 5 instrument de torture, torture : Cic. Phil. 11, 5 ; 11, 8 ; 13, 21 ; Dej. 3 ; Clu. 176 ; Mil. 57, etc.; Cæs. G. 6, 19, 3 || [fig.] tourments, souffrance : tormenta fortunæ Cic. Tusc. 5, 1, les tourments quʼenvoie la fortune ; invidia Siculi non invenere tyranni majus tormentum Hor. Ep. 1, 2, 59, lʼenvie surpasse tous les tourments inventés par les tyrans de Sicile ; tormentum sibi injungere Plin. Min. Pan. 86, 1, se causer du tourment.

tormentum , i. n.
抛石之砲。轟之鎗。刑罰。疼痛。Adactae tormentis ardentes hastae 以砲轟之火鎗。De servo in dominum ne tormemis quidem quaeri licet 因主罪而以刑拷僕亦所不可。 Adhibere tormenta 加刑。Perferre tormenta 受加刑。

Suggest a Translation
See an image

tormentum ī, n

• TARC-, an engine for hurling: tormentis Mutinam verberavit: tormenta, arma, omnis apparatus belli, L.: telum tormento missum, Cs.—A twisted cord, sling: praesectis mulierum crinibus tormenta effecerunt, Cs.—A missile, shot: quod genus tegumenti nullo telo neque tormento transici posse, Cs.: tormenta e navibus procul excussa, Cu.—An instrument of torture, rack: verberibus ac tormentis quaestionem habere.—Fig., torture, anguish, pain, torment: iracundiae tormenta: Invidiā Siculi non invenere tyranni Maius tormentum, H.: animi tormenta latentis in aegro Corpore, Iu.: Tu lene tormentum ingenio admoves, gentle compulsion, H.

TORMENTUM

TORMENTUM(βάσανος), torture.

Greek

In the articles APOTYMPANISMOSand CRUXit has been argued that the Greeks of pre-Macedonian times were far more humane in their modes of inflicting death than has been generally thought. The modes of capital punishment are enumerated by Pollux (8.71: ὁ δὲ παραλαμβάνων τοὺς ἀναιρουμένους καλεῖται δήμιος, δημόκοινος, ὁ πρὸς τῷ ὀρύγματι καὶ τὰ ἐργαλεῖα αὐτοῦ ξίφος, βρόχος, τύμπανον, φάρμακον, κώνειον): of these the only wantonly cruel one, the τύμπανον, has been shown to have been extremely rare. Vague allusions to burning, impalement, and crucifixion, as recognised modes of execution, are still to be found in works of authority, though no instances can be alleged; the fact being that to the Greeks of the best period such punishments were known only as practised by barbarians or tyrants, and formed no part of legal procedure. In this respect they stood far above the Romans in their dealings with all but the privileged classes, and above the practice of most Christian nations until the present century. Almost the only writer who, to our knowledge, has drawn the just and clear distinction between the excesses of irresponsible persons, whether mobs or individuals, and the mind of the people as expressed in its laws, is Westermann (ap. Pauly, s. v. Supplicium), whose words have been already quoted (Vol. 1. p. 567a). Some further illustrations of our previous argument may here be given. The earliest crucifixion recorded to have taken place in Greece is that of the leaders of an insurrection at Sicyon by a Macedonian princess, Cratesicleia, the widow of Alexander, son of Polysperchon, B.C. 314 (Diod. 19.67). In the previous year Apollonides, an officer of Cassander, had burnt the prytaneum at Argos with 500 political opponents shut up in it (Id. ib. 63). No such deeds as these disfigure the annals of free Greece; they follow rapidly on the incursion of Macedonian barbarism. The treatment of servile insurrections affords another contrast. We know how the Romans struck terror on such occasions, not merely into slaves, but into free provincials. The Spartans were in mortal dread of their Helots, and privately made away with those whom they thought likely to prove dangerous [CRYPTEIA]; Greek feeling prevented their resorting to wholesale executions by cruel methods. At Athens, also, we hear of insurrections among the mining slaves [SERVUSp. 659], but there are no records of atrocious and unusual punishments.

Judicial torture, employed to extract evidence, was likewise confined at Athens and among the Greeks generally within narrower limits, both as regards the persons on whom it was inflicted and the modes of infliction, than in those European countries which had adopted it from the later Roman law. In particular, the Athenian feeling against barbarity showed itself in very early times (see under CRUXVol. 1. p. 566 a, b). By a decree in the archonship of Scamandrius, of unknown but probably of early date, it was ordained that no free Athenian could be put to the torture (Andoc. de Myst. § 43); and what is more to the purpose, the restriction was fully maintained in practice: Athenian citizens stood in no fear of it (Lys. c. Agorat. § 27). Even in the worst times of panic or exasperation, as in the case of the mutilated Hermae, the power to override the law by a special psephisma, though often demanded, was never really acted upon (see the narrative in Grote, ch. 58, and especially the note at 5.175; other instances in [Dem.] de Synt. p. 170.114, Plut. Phoc. 35). The best authorities are agreed that we have no example of the torture of an Athenian citizen (Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. p. 29, n. 2; Lipsius, Att. Process, p. 896, n. 372). Free aliens, whether ξένοι or μέτοικοι, stood in general upon the same footing; the masters of emancipated slaves (ἀπελεύθεροι) retained the right of giving them up for torture, but Demosthenes expressly says that it would be impious to do so (οὐδ' ὅσιον παραδοῦναι, c. Aphob. 3. p. 856.39, cf. c. Timoth. p. 1200.55), though non-compliance with an opponent's challenge might prejudice the jury against one's case. Some apparent exceptions are discussed by Boeckh (P. E. p. 185 = Sthh.3 1.227 f.): the torture of a free man at Mytilene, who held out when a slave confessed (Antiph. de caed. Her. § § 29, 49, cf. Mahaffy, p. 241), may have been under Lesbian and not Attic law, or the Athenians may have been less scrupulous when their subject-allies were concerned: the case in Lysias (c. Simon. § 33) is of a Plataean youth, who, as such, was not necessarily an Athenian citizen, and who after all was not put to the torture: the orator only argues that he might have been. Even under the Thirty it is admitted by their bitterest enemy that there was no torture of citizens, though the aliens who were the chief victims of murder and confiscation did not escape it (Lys. c. Agorat. § § 54, 59, 61). But under regular governments freemen, not being citizens, were sometimes tortured at moments of panic, e. g. the barber who first spread the news of the Sicilian disaster (Plut. Nicias, 30); Antiphon, an Athenian who had lost his rights (ἀποφηφισθείς, apparently by a διαφήφισις, Dem. de Cor. p. 271.133), and who was accused of a plot to burn the dockyard in Philip's interest. In this case Boeckh (l. c.) thinks that the torture was in aggravation of the punishment; the words στρεβλώσαντες ἀπεκτείνατε, however, do not mean put to death by torture, but put to death after torture: streblo/w, akin to στρέφω, is always used of torture employed to wring out confession, not of vindictive cruelty, for which the word is αἰκίζεσθαι. So of the female prisoner, who was probably not a free woman, in Antiphon (de Venef. § 20); the words τῷ γὰρ δημοκοίνῳ τροχισθῆναι παρεδ όθη do not imply that she was racked to death, as δημόκοινος is applied to a torturer as well as an executioner. These remarks, it may be repeated, apply only to the free ages of Greece: the record of later times in Polybius and Diodorus is naturally very different, and after two centuries of degeneracy we need not be surprised at the statement of Cicero (Part. Orat. 34.118, de institutis Atheniensium, Rhodiorum . . . apud quos liberi civesque torquentur).

It was in taking the evidence of slaves, whose willing testimony was not accepted, that the torture was most commonly employed: for the rule which prevailed on this subject see MARTYRIAp. 128 b, 129 a; SERVUSp. 658 b. The argument often recurs in the orators, that evidence thus extorted was of more value than that of freemen: this was partly, no doubt, owing to the low standard of veracity among the Greeks, but much of it is mere rhetorical artifice; it is to persuade the jury that the other side refuse to tender their slaves for examination, not from humanity, but from the consciousness of a bad case; and we always find it employed when the demand to give them up has been refused (Antiph. Tetral. i. 2.7, de Choreut. § 25; Isae. Or. 8 [Ciron.], § 12;--Dem. c. Aphob. 3. p. 848.13; c. Onet. 1. p. 874.37;--Lycurg. c. Leocr. § § 29, 30). There is good reason to think, as has been seen under SERVUSthat the contemporaries of Demosthenes were more humane in this respect than those of Antiphon. Either party might offer his own slave to be examined by torture, or demand that of his adversary, and the offer or demand was equally called πρόκλησις εἰς βάσανον. This πρόκλησις was usually in writing, and specified the particular allegations to be substantiated, the terms of the torture (καθ' ὅ τι ἔσται ἡ βάσανος, Dem. c. Steph. 1. p. 1120.61; cf. c. Pantaen. p. 978.40). We do not think that these words mean what kind of torture was to be inflicted: it appears both from the orators and the grammarians that only one mode of torture was in general use in the Attic courts, the rack (τροχός: τροχίζειν: ἀναβιβάζειν ἐπὶ τὸν τρόχον: cf. ECULEUS). There seem to have been exceptions: a comic passage of course proves nothing (Aristoph. Ran. 618 ff.), but cf. Antiph. de Choreut. § 23, βασανίζειν τρόπῳ ὁποίῳ βούλοιτο: Isocr. Trapez. § 15, μαστιγοῦν τὸν ἐκδοθέντα καὶ στρεβλοῦν. The suitor who put an opponent's slave to the torture was liable for damages for any loss of time or bodily hurt resulting from it (Dem. c. Pantaen. l. c.; Aristoph. Ran. 624); a proviso which must have gone some way to check the excesses of cruelty. The state-torturer, a slave, was called δήμιος or δημόκοινος (Poll. l. c.; cf. Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. p. 124, n. 8); the parties might themselves agree to act as βασανισταί, or choose certain persons for this purpose (Antiph. de Venef. § 10; Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 978, § § 40, 42); but we find an agreement repudiated when private βασανισταὶ had presented themselves instead of δημόκοινοι: the former could not venture to carry out the torture on their own responsibility, and the plaintiff's case broke down (Isocr. Trapez. § 15). The torture was usually administered in private: instances occur of its infliction in open court (Aeschin. de F. L. § 126; [Dem.] c. Everg. et Mnes. p. 1144.17), but these are exceptional (βασανίζειν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν, Dem. c. Steph. 1. p. 1106.16). The general practice was to read at the trial the depositions of the slaves, which were called βάσανοι (Hyperid. ap. Harpocrat., Suid. s. v.; Dem. c. Nicostr. p. 1254.24), and to confirm them by the evidence of those who had been present at the torture. (Att. Process, pp. 889-897, Lipsius; Becker-Göll, Charikles, p. 37 ff.; Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, ed. 3, pp. 240-243.)

2. Roman

During the time of the Republic, freemen were never put to the torture, at least. by lawful authority; the cruelties inflicted on two military tribunes by Pleminius at Locri were the acts of a madman (Liv. 29.9). The rule as to slaves' evidence was the same at Rome as in Greece; their voluntary statements were not received except under special circumstances, as when they gave information of conspiracies against the state; they were tortured to make them confess what it was sought to prove. Slaves, however, could not be tortured to prove the guilt of their own master, except in the case of incestus, which was a crime against the gods,. or unless the senate made a special exception, as was done in the Catilinarian conspiracy (Cic. pro Mil. 22, § 59; pro Deiot. 1.3; Partit. Orat. 34.118). Under Augustus the law was so far modified that, when the emperor suspected conspiracy against his government, he could demand the compulsory sale of slaves to the state or to himself, in order that they might be tortured; this did not pass without a protest (Dio Cass.; Tac. Ann. 2.30, 3.67-Z2). The suspicious tyrants who immediately followed Augustus extended the law of majestas to the torture of free persons [MAJESTAS]; and we read of cases in which senators and equites were exposed to it (Suet. Tib. 58, Cal. 27 ff.). Claudius began his reign by abolishing the law of majestas, and is said never to have punished any one under it (Dio Cass.); but his wives and freedmen abused his authority, and the practice was revived (Id. ib. 15). It remained the general law of imperial times that only freemen of low degree (humiliores) could be tortured in prosecutions for majestas: slaves might be compelled to bear witness against their masters in cases of majestas (Cod. 9, 8, 6, 7) and adultery (Dig. 48, 18, 17; Cod. 9, 9, § § 3, 6, 32). Ammianus takes, perhaps, a malicious pleasure in recording the cruelties inflicted upon free citizens by the Christian emperors Constantius, Valentinian, and Valens (Ammian. 14.5, 15.3-Z2, 16.8-Z2, 18.3-Z2, 19.12-Z2, 21.16-Z2, 26.10-Z2, 28.1-Z2, 29.1-Z2, 2).

As to the modes of torture, see ECULEUS, FIDICULA, and FLAGELLUM, in Vol. I. Cicero mentions some atrocious cases: ignes candentesque laminae ceterique cruciatus admovebantur (in Verr. 5.63.163: cf. pro Cluent. 63.177; 66.187); but in general we get few details. The hooks (unci) with which the bodies of criminals were dragged after execution (Juven. 10.66, with Mayor's note) were likewise employed to lacerate the living (Ammian. 14.5; sulcatis lateribus, Id. 26.10). The torturers,. (tortores, carnifices) were probably public slaves (CARNIFEX; cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. i.2 313). On the torture of slaves by their masters, see Marquardt, Pricatl. 180: on the whole subject, Dig. 48, 18, de Quaestionibus; Walter, Gesch. des römischen Rechts, ed. 1, p. 875 ff.; Rein, Criminalrecht, p. 542.

[W.S] [W.W]

TORMENTUM

TORMENTUMwas a general name for artillery among the ancients.

I. DESCRIPTIVE. --The two main classes of tormenta are those which discharged their missiles (1) horizontally (εὐθύτονα), or practically so; (2) at an angle (παλίντονα) with the ground. But these are technical terms. The ordinary names of the engines, both in authors (Diod. 16.74) and in inscriptions (C. I. A. 2.250; 471, 46; 733 B), were ὀξυβελεῖς and liqobo/loi. The former shot arrows, hence their name ὀξυβελεῖς, sc. καταπάλται (not καταπέλται: cf. C. I. G. 2360, 25), and were called catapultae by the Romans: the latter discharged stones (πετροβόλοι, λιθοβόλοι), and were called in Latin ballistae. The arrow discharged from catapults is sometimes called catapulta (Plant. Pers. 1.1, 28; Nonius, p. 552); and the stone discharged from ballistae called ballista (Plant. Trin. 3.2, 42). The terms catapultae and ballistae were probably obtained from the Sicilians; and they are used by historians as the two chief classes of engines (Tac. Ann. 12.56; Gell. 7.3). It must, however, be remembered that catapulta was also used as a generic term embracing both classes (Caes. Bell. Civ. 2.9, 3; App. Bell. Mithr. 34; Sidon. Apoll. Carm. 22, 123).

The structure of both the engines is in the main principles the same: both, as the name tormentum points out, deriving their force from torsion, not from the elasticity of a bent body like a bow. We shall first attempt to describe a εὐθύτονον or catapulta (in the narrow sense), and afterwards set forth the points of difference between it and a παλίντονον. The two chief ancient authorities who supply materials are Heron's Βελοποιϊκά, and Philon's fourth book Περὶ βελοποιϊκῶν. Both writers flourished about 250 B.C. according to Rüstow and Küchly; about 100 B.C. according to Graux (Rév. de Philol., N. S. 3.92).

1. Catapulta, also apparently called scorpio in Caes. B. G. 7.25, 2; Bell. Afr. 29, 4; Vitr. 10.10, 15; Sall. ap. Non. p. 553: cf. Heron, § 3. This engine consisted of three parts, which we may call the Frame (πλινθίον, capitulum), the Pipe (σύριγξ), and the Support (βάσις). See Fig. 1.

(a) The Frame consisted of two strong horizontal beams, a, b, into which four other vertical beams were morticed, c, d (called παραστάται), e, f (called μεσοστάται, medianae). The beams, a, b, were called περίτρητα, paralleli, peritreti, because into the top and bottom of those beams in the centres of the two outside compartments, g, were bored circular holes (τρήματα, foramina), into which were placed the strings (τόνοι, funes) which gave the force which projected the missile. These strings seem to be called vincla in Tac. Hist. 3.23. The diameter of these holes was 1/9 of the length of the arrow, and formed the standard measurement according to which all the other parts of the engine were proportioned. Into these holes were placed nuts, h (σώληνες), sometimes wooden, sometimes of metal, which were circular at the bottom so as to fit into the holes, rectangular in the middle m, and again circular at the top, of the same diameter as the standard. The nuts were rectangular in the middle partly to prevent them slipping down through the holes, partly that when required they could be turned round by a wrench, and so the strings tightened; hence this rectangular part got the name of τριβίς, from its friction against the frame. Across the middle of the top of the nut ran an iron bar, n (ἐπιζυγίς, cuneolus ferreus), round which the strings of the engine were stretched. The strings were generally prepared from the sinews of animals, and hence these engines are called νευρότονοι (C. I. A. 733 B), though sometimes we hear of women's hair being used (App. Pun. 93; Hero, § § 26 ff.; Philo, § 12).

The instrument (Fig. 2) used for stretching the strings was called ἐντόνιον, and consisted of a large wooden frame with a windlass (ὀνίσκος, sucula) at each end, two beams d d as strengtheners, and a centre compartment just the size of the frame of the catapult. Into this centre compartment the frame, duly provided with its nuts, was fixed and firmly wedged, k k k k. The end of the string was fastened to one of the iron bars of the nut at n (Fig. 1), drawn through the other nut and fastened round one of the windlasses (suppose b). This string was then stretched till it became 2 of its original diameter, and fastened by a clamp (περιστομὶς) to the bar opposite to the one to which it had been originally fixed. Then it was loosed from the windlass, drawn round the bar through the opposite nut, and again strained by the windlass c, fastened by another cramp, and so on passing from windlass to windlass till the whole available hollow portion of the nuts was filled with layers (δόμοι) of the string. The number of layers was generally about 10. When that was completed, the end of the string was fastened by a very strong clamp. Vitruvius says that each string should be stretched till it gave the same note (10.18 (12), 2; cf. 1.1, 8. Compare Hero, § 28; Philo, § 17).

Through these masses of string from the side turned towards the enemy the thinner ends of two long pieces A, A (Fig. 1) of nonelastic wood, which formed the arms (ἀγκῶνες) of the bow, were thrust, so that when the engine was not being worked the thicker ends (πτέρνα) rested on the outer side of the μεσοστάται against an iron-plated knob (ὑπόπτερνις). On the other side of the frame, the arms rested about at their centre or two-thirds of the way from the point γ, against a curve q (κοίλη, curvatura) in the παραστάται, which latter had a bulge on the outer side, so that they should not be wanting in strength. To the ends of the arms γ γ was fixed a very strong string (τοξῖτις), called apparently libramentum in Tac. Hist. 3.23, which was the string by which the arrow was shot (Hero, § 30).

(b) Now we come to the Pipe, which projected backwards from the centre compartment of the frame. It consisted of two parts: (1) the pipe proper (σύριγξ in the narrow sense, canaliculus) and (2) what we may call the projector (διώστρα). The pipe proper was a long narrow trough-like construction of wood, open at the end towards the enemy. At its other end it had a windlass for stretching the string, worked by hand-spikes (σκυτάλαι). Running in the pipe, which was dovetailed for about two-thirds of its length, and fitting into this dovetail, was another smaller trough-like construction called the projector (διώστρα), into which the arrow was placed. The trough in the case of this διώστρα was concave, and not angular. At the end of the διώστρα was a hook (χείρ, epitoxis), of which a horizontal and a vertical section are given herewith (Fig. 3). It moved on an axle (λ λ) working through a specially inserted frame, θ θ (στήματα). The hook, axle, and frame taken together appear to have been called χελώνιον. The hook consisted of two horizontal prongs with vertical ends; and a hindmost part (ν) very much heavier than the fore part; so much so that, in order to keep the fore part down, the hinder part had to be prized up and supported by a handle, φ (σχαστηρία, manucla), which revolved horizontally on a vertical axis, π (called περόνη). On the hinder part of the projector was a ring, ξ, through which one end of a strong cord (ὅπλον, καταγωγὶς) was fastened, the other end being fixed to a windlass. (Hero, § § 5 ff.; cf. Philo, § § 52 ff.)

Now, when the engine was to be used, the projector was pushed forwards till the hook, prized up by the handle (σχαστηρία), could catch the projecting string (τοξῖτις). Resting against this string, and in the trough of the projector, was placed the arrow. The projector was then along with the string drawn back by means of the καταγωγὶς and the windlasses as far as was required, and the windlass made fast. so that the projector could not move. A. Müller in Baumeister's Denkmäler, p. 547, and Droysen, Gr. Eriegsalt. p. 196, suppose that the pipe had a series of teeth, so that the projector could be fixed at any given point, as we shall see was the case in the γαστραφέτης (see below, § 3). This. is probable enough à priori, but we do not know the evidence for their opinion, and there was not the same necessity for the teeth in the larger engines as there was in the hand-strung γαστραφέτης. When all was now ready for the shot, the handle was pushed violently from under the heavy side of the hook, which must have been very heavy indeed, for it appears. that this side fell down by its own weight, and so released the string, which shot forward the arrow with great velocity. This appears to be what Hero ( § 6) means by they let the hook loose by tearing away the handle (ἀπέσχαζον τὴν χεῖρα σπαράξαντες τὴν σχαστηρίαν); other-wise we should suppose that the use of the handle was only to prevent accidental discharge while the string was being drawn back, and that, after it was loosed, as a general rule a blow of a hammer on the hinder part of the hook or something of the kind would have been necessary to release the string.

(c) The Base of the catapult, which is described by Rüstow and Köchly, and of which they give their principal illustration (op. cit. fig. 106), consisted of two supports. Such were required only in the case of very heavy engines, and were not much used, among other reasons because the limits of elevation within which they could be discharged were very circumscribed; they were confined to that allowed by the height of a pin which fixed the frame to the foremost support, and this would not allow a change of elevation of more than a few degrees. The ordinary catapult and that principally described by the ancients had only one support, as, in the subjoined illustration, taken from Baumeister, of a catapult built according to the ancient authorities by the Heidelberger Philologen-Versammlung. The base consisted of a beam, q (ὀρθοστάτης, columella), supported on four feet s, by four stays, r. In the top of this beam was a long circular pivot, u, which passed through two horizontal sides of a wooden frame, t, whose vertical sides projected considerably beyond its upper horizontal side. Through the vertical sides above the horizontal sides and parallel with them ran a round iron bar on which the pipe rested; and while the whole upper part of the engine could revolve horizontally on the pivot u, it could be lowered and elevated vertically by revolving on this bar. At. the end of the pipe was a stay, v (ἀναπαυστηρία), which could move up and down on the support w (ἀντερειδίς), which latter was attached by a ring to the main beam, q. The limits of change of elevation of such an engine must have been at all events 8°.

The length of the arrow gave the technical name to the size of the engine: so that catapults were classed as three-span (τρισπίθαμος), two-ell (δίπηχος) = four-span, five-span (πεντεσπίθαμος), three-ell (τρίπηχος)=six span; that is, 27 inch, 36, 45, 54. This gave the diameter of the τρήματα in the frame as about 3, 4, 5,

6 inches. Let us call this diameter x; then we can fix the rest of the measurements of the machine, e. g. height of the frame 5.5 x, depth 2 to 1.5 x, breadth 6.5 x, length of pipe 16 x, of ἀγκῶνες 7 x each, thickness of each of the νεῦρα 1/3 to 2/9 x; minimum breadth for working 13 x, height 18 x, depth 20 x. The weight of a τρισπίθαμος was about 85 lbs., and its arrow about 1/2 lb., and it required two or three men to work it; the weight of a τρίπηχος was about 5 1/4 cwt., its arrow over 4 lbs., and it required five men to work it. The three-span catapult of Agesistratus shot 3 1/2 stadia = 2210 feet (Athen. de Mech. p. 8 Wescher), but that was considered something very marvellous. At 1000 feet an arrow from a three-span catapult would be driven 2 inches into a board (Rüstow and Köchly, Kriegsschriftst. 1. p. 330, note m): so that, on the whole, we may take the ordinary effective range at about 1200 feet, the actual distance the arrow would reach being somewhat over this (ib. 328, note h). The price of a two-ell catapult they estimate at about 480 drachmas, about £20, reckoning the drachma as a franc.

2. The Ballista (παλίντονον): cf. generally Hero, § 32; Philo, § 6.--The principle of this engine was precisely the same as that of the catapult, the only essential differences being (1) that the hinder part of the pipe rested on the ground to which the pipe itself was inclined at an angle of 45°; (2) that the wooden arms (ἄγκωνες) in the position of rest were not parallel with the ground as in the case of the εὐθύτονα, but inclined at an angle of 30°, hence the term παλίντονον ( strung at an angle). The frame consisted of two smaller frames (ἑνατόνια, ἡμιτόνια), A A and B B, each of which held one of the sets of strings; these frames were bound together by two strong beams (κανόνες), a a and b b: indeed the whole engine was much larger and in all its parts stronger than the catapults. It was used to discharge beams or stones; accordingly it is the weight of the stone which gives the diameter of the τρήματα in this case. Along the pipe, C C, which had no continuous bottom, but had its sides (σκέλη), c d, bound together by pegs (διαπήγματα), extending longwise were narrow bars of wood (πτερύγια), which formed the support for the δίωστρα to run on. Chiefly, as it seems, on account of the ladder-like appearance the διαπήγματα presented, the pipe in this engine was called κλιμακίς. The string (τοξῖτις) extending from the ends of the ἀγκῶνες was twisted like a rope, and had at its centre a ring (not represented in the plate) which was caught by the χείρ.

It would be tedious to give in detail all the various measurements of the parts of a ballista suffice to say, that the diameter x of the τρήματα in dactyls (1 dactyl = about 3/4 inch) was estimated by the formula x = 11/10 3√100 w, where w is the weight of the missile in minae (1 mina = about 1 1/2 lb.); that the length of the arms was 6 x each, of the τοξῖτις 12.6 x, of the κλίμαξ 16 x; and that the space required for the engine was at least 20 x in depth, 13 x in breadth, and 17 x in height. The size of the engine varied according as the missile was 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 60 minae: the latter (= 1 talent) was the heaviest missile that was ordinarily used: engines larger than this, as that of Demetrius (Diod. 20.48) or of Archimedes (Athen. Deipnos. 208 c), which threw three talents, were quite exceptions and of little practical use. The average range was probably about 400 yards or a little more, but a large 60 minae ballista appears to have been barely able to throw 220 yards (Droysen, op. cit. p. 204). The price of a 10 minae ballista Rüstow and Köchly reckon at 4000 drachmas = £160. That the ballistae cannot have been much used in the field may be proved from their weight; so that they always appear in considerably less numbers than the catapults. At New Carthage we read that Scipio had 120 large catapults and 23 large ballistae (Liv. 26.47, 5)--numbers which probably in themselves are very much exaggerated: at Jerusalem the Jews had 300 catapults and 40 ballistae (B. J. 5.9, 2). Examples of the working of ballistae are given in Bell. Hisp. 13, 8, and Joseph. B. J. 3.7, 23; it appears that very considerable precision of aim could be acquired by the scorpiones (Bell. Afr. 29, 4; Caes. B. G. 7.25, 2).

Philo ( § § 17 ff.) mentions a great many points in which these tormenta were difficult to work and liable to break down. The frame was often broken in stretching the strings,--itself no easy task, taking considerably over an hour, and requiring the ἐντόνιον, which was not always at hand: the bars round which the strings were fastened used to cut the strings: the tension of the strings used to get loosened and could only be conveniently tightened by screwing the nuts round horizontally with a wrench--a very temporary help, as the elasticity of the strings soon got exhausted thereby; and so on. Philo invented a means of tightening the strings by a frame which could be narrowed by means of wedges; but it does not appear to have been much used. Ctesibius (Phil. § 14) replaced the strings by metal wires (χαλκέντονον); and also we are told that as one of his improvements he used compressed air (ἀερότονον), but there is no clear account of the exact nature of this latter device. The description of the so-called ballista in Amm. Marc. xxiii 4, 1, if it can be explained at all and is not pure bombastische Confusion, as Rüstow and Köchly (Kriegsschriftsteller, 1.414) call it, is certainly not of such a nature as to lead to any essential alteration of the description given above from such capable writers as Hero and Philo.

3. The γαστραφέτης or stomach-bow (cf. Hero, § § 3 ff.; Bito, p. 61 Wescher) derived its name because it had to be pressed against the stomach and the ground or a wall, when it was being strung. The accompanying cut gives an idea of it. It was not strictly a tormentum, as its force was got from the elasticity of a bow: it was in fact a cross-bow, with a διώστρα virtually like that of the catapult. The novel feature of it was that the sides of the σύριγξ had a series of teeth, into which two little prongs (κατακλεῖδες) on each side fitted, so as to hold the δίωστρα at just the point required, and to do so with as little loss of time as possible. It was probably the same as the arcuballista of Vegetius (2.15, 4.22). Droysen (l. c.) says it was called σκόρπιος. The so-called βαλίστρα mentioned by Procopius (Bell. Goth. 1.21) was a bow, or most probably from the description a species of γαστραφέτης: and similar in principle, but on a very large scale and worked by windlasses, was the ballista fulminalis of the treatise De rebus bellicis, 8, 10, attached to the Notitia (cf. Marquardt, op. cit. 524, note 2; and Rüstow and Köchly, Kriegsschriftsteller, p. 410). The four-wheeled ballista (ib.; cf. p. 418) is said to have shot its arrows not by strings but by rigid bars (non funibus sed radis). This riddle, as Rüstow and Köchly call it, still awaits solution.

4. The onager (cf. Amm. Marc. xxiii, 4, 4, who calls it scorpio).--This appears to have been a Roman construction, and we only hear of it in post-Constantinian times. It may be described as a horizontal one-armed ballista, which shot small stones. The name is said to have been derived from the fact that the wild ass in its flight dashed back stones with its hoofs on its pursuers. The strings which supplied the force were stretched horizontally, and the arm (ἀγκὼν) inserted vertically into them. When the engine was used, this arm, by a string attached to a point near the top, was pulled down by a windlass till it was horizontal, and then secured by a hook, the missiles being hung in a bag at the extremity. Then the hook was struck away with a hammer and the missiles discharged. The arm struck against a bag full of some soft substance attached to the front part of the machine, reaching about 2/3 of the way up the arm. This would have been a rather hard instrument to aim with, if it were not that it threw a number of stones.

II. HISTORICAL. --Pliny (Plin. Nat.7.56) attributes the invention of catapults to the Syrophoenicians; but there is no corroboration of this statement. The passage in 2 Chronicles 26.14, 15, where it is said that Uzziah prepared slings to cast stones, probably dates from not earlier than the fourth century. In the Hellenic world tormenta first appear in the great preparations made by Dionysius against Carthage in 399 B.C. (Diod. 14.42, 43), and in the next year they were used in the siege of Motye (ib. 50). It was from Sicily that they came into Greece proper (Plut. Apophtheg. 219=2.191). The first mention of them there is in a list of articles contained in the Chalcothêcê in Athens (C. I. A. 2.61, 37), of date between 356 and 348. In 340 we read that the Perinthians borrowed artillery from the Byzantines (Diod. 16.74), and the siege of Byzantium in the same year by Philip of Macedon is the first occasion we hear of the use of artillery in Greece in any extensive form. Athenaeus, the writer on artillery (p. 10, Wescher), notices the reign of Dionysius in Sicily and the siege of Byzantium as marking epochs in the use of siege-engines, Polyeidus of Thessaly being one of the most celebrated engineers (cf. Grote, 11.262). On this occasion we hear only of καταπάλται ὀξυβελεῖς (Diod. l. c.); the first mention of λιθοβόλοι appears to be at the siege of Halicarnassus by Alexander in 334 (Arrian, 1.22, 2).

During the period of the Diadochi artillery reached its highest perfection among the ancients. The engines are repeatedly mentioned (Diod. 18.12, 51, 70, 71;--C. I. A. 2.807 b, 129 ff.; 808 d, 53 ff.;--Plb. 4.56, 3; 5.88-Z2, 7; 99, 7); and artillery practice (καταπαλταφεσία) became a regular part of the military training of the ephebi (C. I. G. 2360, 25). The Romans did not make any decided improvement or invention in military engines till late in the Empire. Caesar was quite inferior to the Massiliotes in artillery (Bell. Civ. 2.2, 5), and after the battle of Pharsalia had to get engines from Greece and Asia to besiege Alexandria (Bell. Alex. 1, 1). It was in siege-work, both attack and defence, but particularly defence, that these engines were employed (Liv. 26.6, 4; 27.15-Z2, 5;--Plb. 8.7, 6). They were altogether too heavy and cumbersome to be used very extensively in the field; if they were used in the field, it was only for the attack or defence of some strong position (Caes. B. G. 2.8, 4; 8.14, 5; B.C. 3.56, 1; B. Afr. 31, 6), or protecting some movement such as crossing a river (cf. Arrian, 1.7, 8; 4.4, 4). During the Roman Empire each legion (Tac. Hist. 3.23; Dio Cass.), and perhaps each praetorian cohort (Tac. Ann. 12.56), had its own engines; and in the time of Vegetius (l. c.) each century of the legion had a carroballista, a large engine drawn by mules and requiring eleven men to work it, and each cohort an onager.

Into all the minutiae of the construction of these engines it would be impossible here to enter. For them readers must be referred to Rüstow and Köchly, Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens, 1852, pp. 378-405; to their edition of the Griechische Kriegsschrifsteller, 1853, vol. i., containing Hero's and Philo's Βελοποιϊκά, pp. 187-346, and Vitruvius, x. chaps. 15-18 (10-12), with a valuable translation and notes; to Wescher's Poliorcétique des Grecs, 1867, for Athenaeus and Bito (pp. 1-68); to A. Müller's article on Festungskrieg und Belagerungswesen in Baumeister's Denkmäler, 1.525 ff.; and to Droysen's Die griechischen Kriegsalterthümer, chap. ix. pp. 187-204.

[L.C.P]

Tormentum

(βάσανος). Torture. (1) Greek. —By a decree of Scamandrius of uncertain date it was ordained that no free Athenian could be put to the torture (Andoc. De Myst. 43), and this appears to have been the general rule. The evidence of slaves was, however, always taken with torture, and their testimony was not otherwise received. From this circumstance their testimony appears to have been considered of more value than that of freemen. Any person might offer his own slave to be examined by torture, or demand that of his adversary, and the offer or demand was equally called πρόκλησις εἰς βάσανον, “challenge to torture.” The parties interested either superintended the torture themselves, or chose certain persons for this purpose, hence called βασανισταί, who took the evidence of the slaves. The official torturer was called δήμιος or δημόκοινος.

(2) Roman.— During the time of the Republic, freemen were never put to the torture, and slaves only were exposed to this punishment, which might be by scourging, laceration with hooks, or burning. Slaves, however, could not be tortured to prove the guilt of their own master, except in the case of incestum, which was a crime against the gods, or unless the Senate made an exception in some special instance. At a later time, slaves might be tortured to bear witness against their masters in cases of maiestas and adultery. (See adulterium.) Under the emperors even free persons were put to the torture to extract evidence from them in cases of maiestas; and although this indignity was confined for the most part to persons in humble circumstances, we read of cases in which even Roman senators and knights were exposed to it. The torture was inflicted by the public slaves known as tortores and carnifices.

See Becker-Göll, Charikles, pp. 37 foll.; Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, 3d ed. pp. 240 foll.; Rein, Criminalrecht der Römer, p. 542; and the articles crux; eculeus; fidicula; flagrum; maiestas; servus.

Tormentum

A military engine for hurling missiles of any kind. All the missiles used in war, except those thrown from the sling (see funda), were projected either by the hand alone or with the aid of elastic substances. Of elastic instruments, the bow (see arcus) was used by all ancient nations. The tormentum was so called from the twisting (torquendo) of hairs, thongs, and vegetable fibres; and the word is often used by itself to denote engines of various kinds; often, also, these engines are specified separately under the names of ballistae and catapultae, which names, however, most commonly occur together in the accounts of sieges and other military operations, because the two kinds of engines denoted by them were almost always used in conjunction. (See helepolis.) The ballista (πετροβόλος) was used to shoot stones, the catapulta (καταπέλτης, καταπελτική) to project darts, especially the falarica (q. v.), and a kind of missile four and a half feet long, called trifax. While, in besieging a city, the ram (see aries) was employed in destroying the lower part of the wall, the ballista was used to overthrow the battlements (propugnacula), and the catapult to shoot any of the besieged who appeared between them. The forms of these machines being adapted to the objects which they were intended to throw, the catapult was long, the ballista nearly square, which explains the following humorous enumeration by Plautus (Capt. iv. 2, 16) of the three μηχαναί, the application of which has just been explained: “Meus est ballista pugnus, cubitus catapulta est mihi, Humerus aries.”

In the same armament the number of catapults was commonly much greater than the number of ballistae. Also, these two classes of machines were both of them distinguished into the greater and the less, the number of “the less” being much more considerable than the number of “the greater.” When Carthago Nova, which had served the Carthaginians for an arsenal, was taken by the Romans, the following were found in it: 120 large and 281 small catapults; 23 large and 52 small ballistae. Three sizes of the ballista are mentioned by historians, (a) that which threw stones weighing half a hundredweight (τριακονταμναίους λίθους), (b) a whole hundredweight (ballista centenaria, λιθοβόλος ταλαντιαίος), and (c) three hundredweight (πετροβόλος τριτάλαντος). Besides these, Vitruvius (x. 11) mentions many other sizes, even down to the ballista which threw a stone of only two pounds' weight. In like manner, catapults were classified according to the length of the arrows shot from them. According to Iosephus, who gives some remarkable instances of the destructive force of the ballista, it threw stones to the distance of a quarter of a mile (Bell. Iud. iii. 7, 19-23). Neither from the best-known authors nor from the figures on the Column of Trajan are we able to form a very exact idea of the construction of these engines. Still less are we informed on the subject of the scorpio or onager, which was also a tormentum. The best notion of ancient artillery is to be gathered from the treatise of Hero (Βελοποιϊκά), and that of Philo (Περὶ Βελοποιϊκῶν), both written in the second or third century B.C.

The various kinds of tormenta appear to have been invented shortly before the time of Alexander the Great. When horsehair and other materials failed, the women in several instances cut off their own hair, and twisted it into ropes for the engines. (See Punic Wars.) These machines, with those who had the management of them, and who were called ballistarii and ἀφεταί, were drawn up in the rear of an advancing army, so as to throw over the heads of the front ranks. In order to attack a maritime city, they were carried on the decks of vessels constructed for the purpose (Diod. Sic. xx. 83-86).

Both of the chief varieties of tormenta were based upon the principle of the crossbow; but the elasticity of the bow was exchanged for elasticity in the twist of the cord. Consequently, as explained above, all pieces of heavy artillery were called by the Romans tormenta. The machine consisted of three parts: the stand, the groove for the shot, and the apparatus representing the bow. This consisted of a frame in three divisions, through the midmost of which passed the groove for the shot. In each of the lateral divisions was stretched, in a vertical direction, a set of strong elastic cords, made of the sinews of animals, or the long hair of animals or of women. These were stretched tight, and between each of them was fixed a straight unelastic arm of wood. The arms were joined by a cord, which was pulled back by a winch applied at the end of the groove. On letting this go, the arms, and with them the string and the object in front of it, were driven forward by the twisting of the vertical cords. The effectiveness of the engine thus depended on the power and twist of the cords, which may be said roughly to express its calibre. The engines were divided into two kinds, (1) catapultae, or scorpiones. In these the groove for the shot was horizontal, and they projected missiles of length and thickness varying according to the calibre;

(2) ballistae, which shot stones, beams, or balls up to 162 lbs. weight, at an angle of 50 degrees. The calibre of the ballista was at least three times as great as that of the catapult. The average range of the catapult was about 383 yards, that of the ballista from about 295 to 503 yards.

After Constantine we hear no more of catapults, but only of ballistae and the onager. The ballista now shot arrows, and is described either as a huge cross-bow with an elastic bow of iron, or as virtually identical with the old catapult. The onager, also called scorpio, was a sling for stones, consisting of a frame in which was fastened a sort of wooden arm with a sling at one end.

As a rule, the heavy artillery was employed only in sieges; but artillery accompanied armies in the field for purposes of conquest or defence. The legions and the cohorts of the Praetorian Guard had their own artillery, and at the end of the fourth century every centuria in the legion had a ballista of the later kind drawn on wheels by mules (carroballista), and served by eleven men. Every cohort had an onager, carried on a cart drawn by two oxen. See the article by A. Müller in Baumeister's Denkmäler, s. v. “Festungskrieg und Belagerungswesen,” i. pp. 525 foll.; Droysen, Die griechischen Kriegsalterthümer, pp. 187-204; Wescher, Poliorcétique des Grecs (1867); and Rüstow and Köchly, Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens (1852).