Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development

132 Pages·1969·12.036 MB·English

by  E. W. Marsden

GREEK AND ROMAN
ARTILLERY
HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT
i E. W. MARSDEN
r
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1969
flF ""' '
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. i
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
CAPE TOWN SALISBURY IBADAN NAIROBI LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA.
KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE HONG KONG TOKYO
© OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS I969 TO
W. T. M.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN E. V. M.
M. M.
♦
PREFACE
Over a period of about a century, ending in 1929, much work was
done— almost entirely by German and French scholars— on the Greek
arid Latin treatises describing the construction of catapults and on a
wide range of topics relating to ancient artillery. In 1929 General
E. Schramm, in collaboration with A. Rehm, published an edition of
Biton’s handbook on the construction of war machines and artillery,
thus completing more than a quarter of a century of practical and
academic labour in this field. In spite of such an impressive record it
appeared that there was still considerable scope for further explora­
tion of the subject. For instance, Schramm revealed in the preface to
his edition of Biton a certain understandable uneasiness with regard
to his interpretation of a difficult mechanical treatise. More recently
investigations into ancient artillery seem conspicuously absent, al­
though A. G. Drachmann has made one or two small but valuable
contributions.
Discussions with the late Reverend M. P. Gharlesworth, then Presi­
dent of St. John’s College, Cambridge, led me to embark upon a study
of Greek and Roman artillery from the beginning once more, starting
with the ancient technical descriptions of the machines themselves,
their construction, and developments in design. Editions of these
mechanical manuals will appear in another volume (Greek and Roman
Artillery: Technical Treatises). The conclusions reached there are largely
assumed in this present volume, sometimes with relatively brief
explanation. I am most grateful for the advice and encouragement
provided during the period of my early efforts by the Reverend M. P.
Charlesworth, the late Sir Frank Adcock, Professor A. W. Lawrence,
and Mr. R. L. Howland.
I wish to offer my grateful thanks to Mr. G. T. Griffith and to Pro­
fessor F. W. Walbank for their most generous help in many diverse
matters over a considerable number of years, for much constructive
criticism, and for keeping me on as straight a coursc as anyone could
have done. Algp I am indebted to Mr. J. V. H. Eames, with whom I
have had some provocative and inspiring discussions from time to time,
and to Lektor Inge Dahlan who introduced me to some of the treasures
in that splendid Uppsala institution, Carolina, and drew my attention
PREFACE ix
viii PREFACE
fications in South Italy and Sicily, the other contributing to the cost
to various pieces of archaeological evidence. I should like to thank
of the five figures in colour in this volume. My thanks are due to the
especially Dr. W. Barr for suggestions on a wide range of points and
Society of Antiquaries of London for permission to reproduce as Plate 5
for his careful reading of the proofs.
here the skull found at Maiden Castle which is Plate LIIId in R. E. M.
It would have been impossible to study the ancient mechanical
Wheeler, Maiden Castle, Dorset (Reports of the Research Committee
writings seriously without constructing at least a few models. My first
of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. XII, Oxford, 1943).
efforts were small and insignificant, but useful within their obvious
Also I offer my sincere thanks to Walter de Gruyter & Co. of Berlin
limitations. I recall with gratitude the encouragement and financial
for permission to reproduce six illustrations. My Plate 3 is taken from
assistance provided through Mr. Paul Johnstone of the B.B.C. T.V.
Alt. Perg. ii, Taf. 45. 1, and my Plates 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 have been
Talks Department, who prevailed upon me to produce two larger
derived from C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssaule, Tafelband i (Berlin,
models which were used in T.V. programmes. The first was a full-scale
1896), abb. 104-5, i63~4, 165, 166, and 169 respectively.
replies of an arrow-shooting catapult of small calibre, the lesser scorpion
Last but not least I wish to record my appreciative gratitude to the
of the Romans, the three-span catapult of the Greeks (Plate 4). Because
staff of the Clarendon Press for their unfailingly patient, sympathetic,
this machine was constructed in a hurry, the metal washers which allow
and skilful handling of the many problems involved in publishing this
the springs to be tightened are altogether inaccurate, and the arms
book.
require much smoothing and finishing. Basically, however, the model
E. W. MARSDEN
conforms to ancient standards.
Liverpool, 196c,
The second model represented an onager. This was a scale repro­
duction, but was nevertheless quite large and heavy (Plate 14). It
was built for me by Mr. R. G. Milles (of R. M. Milles Ltd., of Bootle),
who interpreted my drawings and explanations with skill and sym­
pathy^ producing an efficient and successful machine. Several difficulties
relating to Heron’s Cheiroballistra were cleared up when Messrs. Norman
and Raymond Cooper of Upminster constructed a splendid full-scale
model in accordance with my interpretation of Heron’s manual
(Plates 6-8). I learned a great deal from my association with these
three practical experts and I am pleased to take this opportunity of
expressing my thanks to them.
The figures in the text which illustrate catapults or components
have not been designed as working drawings. I have Simply tried to
make the construction of various types of catapult as clear as possible.
Sometimes a feature which is shown in, let us say, the side-elevation of
a part|cular machine, and which would be visible in the front-elevation,
has been omitted from the latter for the sake of clarity. I have not
always mentioned such omissions in the captions, but hope that they
will b£ obvious to the reader. The diagrams illustrating fortifications
are based on my own sketches and observations, on my photographs and
those provided by friends, and on drawings and photographs contained
in the works cited in the footnotes to the chapter on fortifications.
I am indebted to the committee of the Liverpool University Research
Fund for two grants of money, one enabling me to study Greek forti-
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS xiii
LIST OF PLATES xv
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY xvi
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES xix
I. INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF
CONSTRUCTIONAL SOURCES i
1. The Earliest Artillery 5
2. Advanced Non-torsion Artillery 13
3. Early Torsion Artillery 16
4. Standard Torsion Artillery and the Formulae for Calibration 24
5. Further Observations on the Calibrating Formulae 33
6. The Theorem of the Two Mean Proportionals 39
7. Modifications introduced between the discovery of the calibrating
formulae and the time of Vitruvius (c. 25 B.C.) 41
II. THE INVENTION OF THE CATAPULT 48
III. THE DIFFUSION OF ARTILLERY 65
1. Early Spread of Non-torsion Artillery 65
2. Athenian Artillery 67
3. Artillery in the Hellenistic World excluding Athens 73
4. The Spread of Artillery in the West 77
5. Early Roman Artillery 83
IV. RANGE AND EFFECTS 86
V. ARTILLERY IN SIEGES 99
1. Analysis of Sieges 99
2. Philon 113
VI. ARTILLERY AND FORTIFICATIONS 116
1. The Siting of Catapults in City Defences 116
2. Towers and Artillery 126
3. Tower Shapes 139
4. More Advanced Artillery Towers 150
5. Diagrams 155
CONTENTS
VII. CATAPULTS IN FIELD CAMPAIGNS AND NAVAL
WARFARE 164
1. Field Artillery 164
2. Artillery in Naval Warfare 169 LIST OF FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS
VIII. ROMAN IM PERIAL ARTILLERY 174
CHAPTER I
APPENDICES
FIGURE I. The gastraphetes 6
I. Modifications in the design of arrow-shooting catapults reflected in
Vitruvius 2. The composite bow 9
199
5. Modifications incorporated in Vitruvius’ ballista 203 3- Composite bow unstrung 9
4. Fitting the bowstring to the gastraphetes 11
TABLES 5- Zopyrus’ gastraphetes facing P- 12
Table illustrating the constructional development of two-armed 6. The stone-thrower of Charon of Magnesia facing p. 13
catapults
43 7- Mark II frame from the front 19
List of dimensions for euthytone, arrow-shooting catapults 44 8. Washers 19
List of dimensions for palintone, stone-throwing engines 46 9- Frame of Mark III arrow-shooting catapult 20
10. Arm movement in Mark III frame 21
11. Arm movement in Mark IIIa frame 21
12. Arm movement in Mark IIIb frame 22
13- Side-elevation of stone-thrower 24
14. Details of frame of a euthytone, arrow-shooting catapult 27
15- Washer according to the Ampurias catapult 29
16. Mark IVa straight-spring arrow-shooting catapult 34
*7- Mark IVb stone-thrower 35
18. Skeleton shape of stone-thrower 36
i9- Graph illustrating experiments 38
20. Geometric application of the theorem of the two mean pro­
portionals 40
21. Mark Va catapult facing P- 42
22. Mark Vb ballista facing p. 43
CHAPTER IV
FIGURE I. Trajectory of stone-shot 90
2. Philon’s ditch-system 9i
Plan of 100-per-cent zone of field gun shooting at a range of
3-
5,000 yards 94
CHAPTER VI
FIGURE I. Shooting from a tower and from the rampart walk 117
2. Sketch-plan of the Euryalus 120
3* Cross-section of ditch outside north wall at Paestum 121
4* Plan of large tower on the acropolis at Lilaea 137
LIST OF FIGURES AND DIAGRAM S
5- Fields of fire for a catapult shooting through a window 140
6. Fields of fire from a rectangular tower 142
7- Field of fire for a catapult shooting through the side window
LIST OF PLATES
of a tower 142
8. Fields of fire from a semicircular tower *43 (At the end)
9- Plan of round tower in the south wall at Paestum *47
10. Fields of fire from a hexagonal tower 148 1. The catapult on Vedennius’ tombstone
11. Fields of fire from a pentagonal tower 149 2. The Cupid Gem
12. Plan of embrasure in lower chamber of tower 18, Heracleia :53 3. Catapult in the balustrade relief at Pergamum
13- Plan of semicircular tower in the north wall at Hipponium 154 4. Full-scale reconstruction of a three-span catapult
5. The skull from Maiden Castle
DIAGRAM 1. Coverage provided by catapults mounted in towers in a
6. Full-scale reconstruction of Heron’s cheiroballistra—front view
straight wall 155
7. Full-scale reconstruction of Heron’s cheiroballistra—side view
2. Perge—Portion of east wall with casemates and rear of one
tower 155 8. Full-scale reconstruction of Heron’s cheiroballistra—from the rear
3. Side—One type of wall with casemates 156 9. Trajan’s Column 104-5
4. Messene, tower of earlier type 156 10. Trajan’s Column 163-4
5. Messene, tower east of Arcadian Gate 157 11. Trajan’s Column 165
6. Simple ballistics 157
12. Trajan’s Column 166
7. Paestum, tower 6 158
13. Trajan’s Column 169
8. Tithorea, tower A 159
14. Small-scale reconstruction of a onager
9. Lilaea, tower H 159
10. Aegosthena, tower A 160
11. Pompeii, tower by Vesuvius Gate 161
12. Tower shapes 162
13. Plan of gate at Mantinea 163
14. Perge, tower in east wall 163
CHAPTER VIII
FIGURIf 1. Heron’s cheiroballistra facing p. 188
APPENDIX I
FIGURE 1. Comparison of euthytone frame of Heron and Philon with
that of Vitruvius 199
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY xvii
Kochly = H. Kochly and W. Riistow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, i. Leipzig, 1853.
Krischen, Herakleia = F. Krischen, Die Befestigungen von Herakleia am Latmos. (Milet,
iii, 2.) Berlin-Leipzig, 1922.
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Krischen, Stadtmauem = F. Krischen, Die Stadtmauem von Pompeji und griechische
Festungsbaukunst in Unteritalien und Sizilien. (Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji, vii.)
Berlin, 1941.
Kromayer, Antike Schlachtfelder = J. Kromayer and G. Veith, Antike Schlachtfelder. 4
Abh. Bay* Akad. — Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phU.-hist.
vols. Berlin, 1903-31.
Abteilung.
Abh. Berlin. Akad. = Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Lanckoronski = K. Lanckoronski, Stddte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. 2 vols. Vienna,
phil.-hist. Klasse. 1890-2.
AJA = American Journal of Archaeology. Launey = M. Launey, Recherches sur les armies hellenistiques. 2 vols. Paris, 1949-50.
AJP = A,meriean Journal of Philology. Lawrence, Greek Architecture = A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture. Penguin, 1957.
Alt. Perg. — Altertiimer von Pergamon. Berlin, 1885-1937. LS = Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Ed. 9. Oxford, 1940.
AM = Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts, athenische Abteilung.
Maier = F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbaidnschriften. 2 vols. Heidelberg, 1961.
Arch. Joum. = Archaeological Journal.
Mansel, Side = A. M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin, 1963.
BCH = Bulletin de correspondance hellenique. Michel = Ch. Michel, Recueil des inscriptions grecques. Brussels, 1900 (supplements,
Bengtson Strategic = H. Bengtson, Die Strategic in der hellenistischen £eit. 3 vols. 1912 and 1927).
Mtinci■ hener Beitrage, vols. 26, 32, and 36. Munich, 1937—52. Mon. Ant. Lincei = Monumenti antichi pubblicati per cur a della R. Accademia dei Lincei.
Blouet == A. Blouet (et ses collaborateurs—A. Ravoisie, A. Poirot, F. Trezel, F. de OCD = Oxford Classical Dictionary.
Go urn;ay), Expedition scientifique de Moree, i. Paris, 1831.
R. P. Oliver, ‘A Note on the De Rebus Bellicis. In CP 50 (1955), 113 ff.
BPhW = Berliner philologische Wochenschrift.
Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow = Sir R. W. F. Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, mediaeval
Cichorius, Romische Studien = C. Cichorius, Romische Studien. Zweite Auflage. Darm­ and modem, military and sporting. Its construction, history and management, with
stadt, 1961. a treatise on the balista and catapult of the ancients and an appendix on the
CIL — Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. catapult, balista and the Turkish bow. Ed. 2. London, 1958.
CIRh = Clara Rhodos. Pohlmann, Untersuchungen = M. Pohlmann, Untersuchungen zur alteren Geschichte des
CP = Classical Philology. antiken Belagervngsgeschutzes. Diss. Erlangen, 19x2.
CQ = Classical Quarterly. Prou, Chirobaliste — V. Prou, ‘La Chirobaliste d’H6ron d’Alexandrie’. In Notices et
Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque nationale et autres bibliotheques, 26, 2 (Paris,
Darembei’g-Saglio — Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaires des antiquite grecques et romaines.
i877)> I-3I9-
Paris, 1877-1919.
Diels, Antike Technik = H. Diels, Antike Technik. Ed. 3. Leipzig, 1924. B. Rathgen, ‘Die Punischen Geschosse des Arsenals von Karthago und die Geschosse
Domaszewski, Rangordmmg = A. von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des romischen von Lambaesis’. In ^eitschrift fur historische Waffenkunde, 5 (Dresden, 1909-11),
Heeres. (Bonner Jahrbiicher, 117.) Bonn, 1908. 236 ff.
A. G. Drachmann, ‘Remarks on the Ancient Catapults’. In Actes du Septieme Congres RE = Pauly—Wissowa’s Real-encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschqft. Stuttgart,
International d'Histoire des Sciences. Jerusalem, 1953. 1893- .
A. G. Drachmann, The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity. Copenhagen, REA — Revue des etudes anciennes.
1963.I RM = Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts, romische Abteilung.
Droysen, Heerwesen = H. Droysen, Heerwesen und Kriegfuhrung der Griechen. (Hermann’s Robert, £t. Anat. = L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes: recherches sur les inscriptions grecques
Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitaten ii, 2.) Freiburg, 1889. de VAsie Mineure. Paris, 1937.
E. von Roder, ‘Die Kaliber der antiken Geschutze’. In £'eitschriftfur historische Waffen­
Ferguson == W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens. London, 1911.
kunde, 5 (Dresden, 1909-11), 311 ff.
FGH = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin-Leiden, 1923- . Ross, Aristotle = W. D. Ross, Aristotle. Ed. 5. London, 1949.
Frazer, Paisanias = J. G. Frazer, Pausanias ’ Description of Greece. 6 vols. London, 1898. RS = A. Rehm and E. Schramm, ‘Bitons Bau von Belagerungsmaschinen und
Geschiitzen’. In Abh. Bay. Akad. 1929.
Gott. Abh. ■= Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen.
Gott. Nachr. = Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. S.-B. Berlin = Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.
Klasse.
IG2 = Inscriptions graecae, editio minor.
Schambach, Bemerkungen = O. Schambach, ‘Einige Bemerkungen iiber die Geschutz-
ILS — Inscriptiones latina/e selectae, ed. H. Dessau. 3 vols. Berlin, 1892—1916.
verwendung bei den Romem besonders zur Zeit Casars’. In Programme von dem
JAI = Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Friedrichs-Gymnasium zu Altenburg, nr. 618 (1883), i ff.
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Schenk, Vegetius = D. Schenk, Flavius Vegetius Renatu s. Die Quellen der Epitoma Rei
Milli taris. (Klio, Beiheft 22.) Leipzig, 1930.
Schlager = H. Schlager, ‘Zu den Bauperioden der Stadtmauer von Paestum’. In
RM 69 (1962), 21 ff.
R. Schneiii der, ‘Herons Cheiroballistra’. In RM 21 (1906), 142 ff. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Schramm,, MovayKwv vnd Onager = E. Schramm, *Movdyxaiv und Onager’. In Gott.
Nachr, 2 (1918), 259 ff.
Schramm, Poliorketik = E. Schramm, ‘Poliorketik’. In J. Kromayer and G. Veith, There is a more detailed discussion of Greek and Roman weights and
Ha ?sen vnd Kriegfiihrung der Griechen und Rimer (Muller—Otto, Handbuch iv. 3, 2; measures so far as they affect artillery in Technical Treatises, Note on Measure­
Munii ch, 1928), 209 ff.
ments and Weights, which is mainly based on the work of F. Hultsch, Grie-
Schramm Saalburg = E. Schramm, Die antiken Geschutze der Saalburg. Berlin, 1918.
chische und Romische Metrologies (Berlin, 1882). A summary here may be helpful.
Schramm, Vitruvius = E. Schramm, ‘Erlauterung der Geschiitzbeschreibung bei
Vitni'v ius x. 10-12’. In S.-B. Berlin (1917), 718 ff. For the weights of stone-shot and calculations based on them Greek
Scranton, Greek Walls = R. L. Scranton, Greek Walls. Cambridge, Mass., 1941. artillerymen probably used as their standard the Attic-Euboic mina which
Syll. = Sylll,oge inscriptionum graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger. Ed. 3. 4 vols. Leipzig, was equivalent to 436-6 grammes or to 0*96 lb. (British) (N.B. 100 drachmae
1915 ■24* = 1 mina: 60 minae = 1 talent). The Roman standard pound (libra) was
Syme, Roitan Revolution = R. Syme, The Roman Revolution. Oxford, i960. equal to 327*5 grammes or to 0-72 lb. (British).
Tam, HMND — W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments. Cambridge, The generally standard Greek foot (•jtovs) measured 308-3 mm. or 12*16
inches:
I93°*
TC — C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traianssaule, Tafelband i. Berlin, 1896.
useful
Thevenot = M. Thevenot (ed.), Veterum mathematicorum Athenaei, Apollodori, Philonis,
approximation
Bitonu, Heronis et altorum opera Graece et La tine ex manuscriptis codicibus Bibliothecae
mm. inches in inc)
Regiae pleraque nunc primum edita. Paris, 1693.
E. A. Thompson, A Roman Reformer and Inventor. Oxford, 1952. 1 dactyl 193 0-76 I
Tod = M.I N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2 vols. Oxford, 1946 (vol. i, ed. 2), 1 palm (4 dactyls) 77*1 3*04 3
1948 (vol. ii). 1 span (12 dactyls) 2312 912 9
1 foot (16 dactyls) 3083 12-16 12
Vors. = H. Diels-W. Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 3 vols. Ed. 6. Berlin, 1951-2. 1 cubit (24 dactyls) 462-4 18-21 18
W = C. V\fescher, La Poliorcetique des Grecs. Paris, 1867. The standard Roman foot (pes) and its subdivisions had the following
Walbank, Polybius = F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, i. Oxford, equivalents:
1957-
mm. inches
Wheeler, Maiden Castle = R. E. M. Wheeler, Maiden Castle, Dorset. (.Reports of the
(British)
Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, xii.) Oxford, 1943.
Winter, Ikria = F. E. Winter, ‘Ikria and katastegasma in the Walls of Athens’. In 1 foot (pes), of 12 unciae or 16 digits: 295*7 11-64
Phoenix, 13, 4 (Toronto, 1959), 161 ff. 1 inch (uncia): 246 0-97
1 palm (palmus), of 3 unciae or 4 digits: 73-9 2-91
Yadin = Y, Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. London, 1963. 1 digit (digitus): 185 0-73
I
INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF
CONSTRUCTIONAL SOURCES
For the present purpose a piece of artillery is to be defined as a relatively
complex engine powered by springs of resilient material, composed of
several mechanical devices, and designed to hurl bolts or shot over the
longest possible range. Such engines could greatly exceed the performance
of the simple machines, the bow and the sling, both in the length or
weight of their missiles and in maximum effective range. Ancient pieces
of artillery, though invented and developed by the Greeks, are perhaps
best known by their Latin names, catapulta and ballista. Catapulta meant
an arrow- or bolt-shooting engine.1 A ballista was a more powerful
machine, primarily designed for discharging stone-shot.2 Occasionally
ballistae hurled extraordinary projectiles. For instance, in a sea battle
between the fleets of Prusias of Bithynia and Eumenes of Pergamum in
184 B.C., Hannibal, Prusias’ commander at the time, apparendy caused
numerous jars full of poisonous snakes to be shot at the Pergamene vessels.
The arrival of the pots created amusement among Eumenes’ sailors,
but this soon turned to consternation when the snakes appeared, and the
Stratagem contributed to Bithynian victory.3 We sometimes find ancient
artificers modifying ballistae in order to project immense bolts over
extreme ranges; but the ballista usually functioned as a stone-thrower.
However, at some time during the period from a.d. 100 to 300,
a change occurred in the system of nomenclature. Thus, in the fourth
century a.d., catapulta indicates a one-armed stone-throwing engine,
while ballista means a piece of artillery which shoots bolts only. But it
must be emphasized that this somewhat astonishing change in terminology
only applies in the later Roman imperial epoch. The reasons for it will be
discussed at the appropriate time.4
1 The Greek term for this type of artillery was KaraireXrrjs 6£vf3e\rjs, though o^i/jSeAifc
occurs very often by itself. The earliest form, however, was icarairdAnjs ogvfioXos. Small
catapultae were generally called scorpions.
2 The Greek equivalent was, in full, KaraireXrqs XiOofioXos or irerpofioXos, though the word
KaraiTeXrqs was normally omitted.
3 Frontin. Strat. iv. 7. 10-11; Nep. Hann. 10. 4—11. 6; Just, xxxii. 4. 6-7; Gal. xiv. 231
(Kuhn). 4 Below, pp. 188 ff.
814268 B