During the last two days I read Tracey Rihll's, The Catapult: A History. This book has been on my "intending" to read list for the last year. Unfortunately, Rihll is not on any of my comps reading lists, was never assigned in a seminar, and I could not quite work it into any of my seminar papers, which explains my delay in reading it. The comprehensive work chronicles the evolution of the tension, torsion, and two-armed torsion catapults (to name a few) from its origins (asdescended from the bow and sling) to its uses through late antiquity. Rihll excellently balances the technical developments of the catapult with the social, political, and cultural implications of it.
My specific interests in the book concern her arguments for the existence of a small hand held catapult originating in the third century B.C. In Chapter 5, after an exhaustive treatment of the archaeological and historical sources, Rihll provides a very compelling argument that glandes were invented for and shot from a catapult and later were used by the slinger (p. 91-92). I will admit that after reading that statement I was very skeptical but after reading Rihll's analysis, my skepticism faded quickly. My only reservation is the ovoid shape of glandes. Glandes fly straight and far by imparting spin, which was achieved by their shape and by the twisting motion of the sling. Unless the small catapult described by Rihll had some type of spirally cut barrel, similar to that of a modern rifle, to impart spin, the glandes would no doubt have lost their aerodynamic advantages. That said I am still pretty convinced by Rihll's argument for a hand held catapult.
