Siegecraft - TerpConnect - University of Maryland

Introduction
teenth-century Vindobonensis phil. gr. 120, and paralleled by another
branch found with more complete text in Paris. suppl. gr. 607 dated to
the second quarter of the tenth century. 14 The Byzantine commentator
indicates that to understand his sources one would need one of the
“engineers” (mhxaniko¤) who composed them. He states that his objective
is to make it possible for siege machines to be constructed “by
anyone” (parå t«n tuxÒntvn), phrasing derived from Apollodorus; he
subsequently describes his potential users as military leaders seeking to
besiege Arab cities (Parangelmata 58). He also indicates (Geodesia 6) that
he has added examples, particularly mathematical examples, for “beginners”
(ofl efisagÒmenoi), referring “the more accomplished” (ofl
§ntel°steroi) to the works of Archimedes and Heron. He thus writes
for a mixed audience, but with the express intent of making his sources’
engineering descriptions accessible to nonengineers. He also provides
generic statements of his own methodological approach to achieve this
objective, an approach that incorporates a new view of how to present
technical material in a format that will lead to practical results. The
anonymous author illustrates his general statements with numerous specific
examples in both treatises.
Textual Changes
The Anon. Byz. describes the core of his method of textual presentation
at two points in the Parangelmata: “Having clarified only the works
of Apollodorus as it were in toto, with additional elaborations and secondary
arguments, we have drawn our conclusions, finding and adding
ourselves numerous concordant . Everything we have
collected here and there from the remaining is easy to
know and apprehend truthfully, “axioms of common intuition” as
Anthemios says, and capable of being comprehended from the problem
alone and the illustration; they require no instruction or interpretation”
(1:25–33); “all writing on siege warfare requires . . . sometimes
also repetitions and reiterations and secondary arguments
(tautologi«n ka‹ §panalÆcevn ka‹ §penyumhmãtvn) for comprehension
of the concepts and operations” (3:4–8). He also indicates (1:33–
14 Dain, Tradition, 19–20, following Wescher, xxxviii.
[ 5 ]