«Тахиййат»: Сборник статей в честь Н. Н. Дьякова

m 144 n John Masson Smith, Jr. shoot such a catapult 167 yards; others ranged to180 and 233 yards, at the limit or beyond of useful archery 1 . No crew sizes are given for these latter; and al- though no missile weights are given 2 , later Chinese records, contemporary illus- trations, and modern replicas, show that they could reach 250–300 lbs 3 . These weapons could thus operate in relative safety and hurl an irresistible missile. The Mongols probably acquired this Chinese counterweighted catapult as they were completing their conquest of North China 4 . They were used at Lo- Yang against the Mongols in 1232 5 . Chinggis took a tümen of artillerists to Central Asia in 1219–1223 6 . Juvaini describes the use of their catapults at the siege of Bukhara: 1 Franke H. Siege and Defense of Towns in Medieval China, in Chinese Ways in Warfare, F. A. Kierman, Jr. and J. K. Fairbank eds. (Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 1974), 167–69. 2 Benson, 338 provides this information from the Russian Patriarchal Chronicle, Year 6748 and 10 Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei 115–17: “The battle at Chernigov [1240] was fierce ... [the Mongols] hurled at [the defenses] with stones of one and a half shotweight: stones requiring four strong men to lift”. The “Medieval Siege” catapults (see next) used 250–300 lb stones; one of 250 lbs is shown being carried by two men 3 Needham J. Science and Civilization in China , section 30, vol. 5, part 6: Military Technol- ogy: Missiles and Sieges (Cambridge UP, 1994), 217. “Secrets of Lost Empires: Medieval Siege”, a Nova video (available from WGBH Boston) filmed modern craftsmen using medi- eval techniques to build two large catapults, one similar to Mongol catapults of Rashid 1309, 52–3, 146–7, 156–7; and Legacy , 36, fig 33, cat. no. 24. Both of these “modern medieval” catapults, from 200 yards, with 250-lb stone balls, broke through a replica of a medieval for- tress wall. The counterweights, one fixed and one — the Mongol type — pivoting, weighed, respectively, 6 and 6.5 tons. Forty craftsmen, after obtaining the materials, including single tree-trunks for the poles (weighing one ton on the fixed-counterweight engine) worked for about two weeks (Hülegü’s larger work force worked much faster). The poles of the Mongol catapults depicted in Rashid 1309, 52–3 and Legacy, fig. 33, unlike the replicas’, were compos- ites of several shafts bound together, simplifying procurement, fabrication and transportation. 4 The common impression that the Mongols adopted the counterweighted catapult in the Middle East (see Thomas T. Allsen, “The Circulation of Military Technology in the Mon- golian Empire”, Warfare in Inner Asian History (500–1800) (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 265–93, esp p. 267–69; also Needham (1994), 218–20), derives from Qubilai’s importation in the 1270s of Arab engineers to design catapults for his Song China campaigns, mentioned by RaD, II, 450. The Arabs’ contribution, rather than the pivoting counterweight, was more likely the metal bushings and axles used in the Ilkhans’ catapults, especially well depicted in Rashid 1309, 52–3, 146–47 and 156–57. In Chinese catapults, wooden axles turned in sockets or notches in the supporting wooden scaffold. The bearings of the Iranian catapults would have turned more smoothly and suffered less wear from the tremendous forces ex- erted upon them (by a counterweight of perhaps 6,5 tons to swing a beam of perhaps a ton) and would therefore have shot more reliably, more accurately, and farther than their Chinese counterparts. 5 Needham (1994), 218. Clearly a counterweighted catapult from its small crew, but still short ranged. 6 Usman Juzjani, Tabaqat-i Nasiri , H. G. Raverty trans. (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1881), two vols., II, 1074–77.