Tanks in Middle Ages??
Curt Emanuel
Gabriel Ataya wrote:
>
> I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
> know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
> it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
> with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
> had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
>
> These would obviously have revolutionised warfare if they were fast
> enough.
>
> Gabriel
There were quite a few visionaries late in the Middle Ages. Leonardo Da
Vinci is the most famous, but he had wuite a few contemporaries and
predecessors.
I've not seen the tank you describe, but Roberto Valturio's sketch of a
windmill-driven tank is pretty interesting.
Curt Emanuel
Paul J. Gans
Gabriel Ataya (gab...@ncs.co.nz) wrote:
>I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
>know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
>it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
>with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
>had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
>These would obviously have revolutionised warfare if they were fast
>enough.
I recall two instances. One is a drawing by Leonardo, which,
as far as I know, was never built. The other were the
wagon-forts used by the Hussites in the late Middle Ages.
In a sense, those *did* revolutionize warfare. They did
not fight from them in motion, but used them in a group
as a kind of fortress which was portable.
And yes, they mounted cannon in them.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
D. Spencer Hines
1. There are many heart-wrenching and brain-draining steps between the
drawing of a casual "sketch" of a new weapons system and the development of
a prototype configuration.
2. There are many other excruciating steps from the prototype to production
models, actually delivered to operational troops.
3. This is an area where Milk Dud warriors and other amateurs really look
simple-minded and stupid. They see a sketch and say, "Hey Dude, let's go
with it!"
4. Winston Churchill had a major hand in developing the "tank" [his
coverword for the new armored vehicle] and 381 of them were successfully
employed at the Battle of Cambrai in 1917. They were first used on the
Somme on 15 Sep 1916, with indifferent results. Winston referred to them as
his "land battleships" --- but within the Admiralty, they were referred to
as "Winston's Folly" ---- and you certainly would not want to fight in one
of them.
5. The "tank" was never a realistic medieval weapons system. --- Just as we
should not be misled by, nor wax rhapsodic over, tapestries, statuary or
inscriptions on coins, as historical evidence --- so should we not pay much
credence to the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci, as practical guides on these
technical matters.
6. There are some very naive folks who are fond of saying that Leonardo da
Vinci "invented the parachute." But you would never want to jump in one of
his "realized sketches."
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Leo Tolstoy On Firmly Held Beliefs and Resultant Mental
Gridlock ---
"I know that most men --- not only those considered clever, but even those
who really are clever and capable of understanding the most difficult
scientific, mathematical or philosophic problems, can seldom discern even
the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit
the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with great
difficulty --- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught
to others, and on which they have built their lives."
Leo Tolstoy [1896] --- Source: "What Is Art?" --- Leo Tolstoy, Translated
by Aylmer Maude, in Tolstoy's Collected Works, Charles Scribner's Sons,
(1902), Volume 19, p. 468
Curt Emanuel wrote in message <34B426...@accs.net>...
>Gabriel Ataya wrote:
>>
>> I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
>> know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
>> it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
>> with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
>> had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
>>
>> These would obviously have revolutionised warfare if they were fast
>> enough.
>>
Gabriel Ataya
Gadfly
In article <34B426...@accs.net>, Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote:
>> I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
>> know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
>> it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
>> with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
>> had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
>Vinci is the most famous, but he had wuite a few contemporaries and
>predecessors.
There may have been battles fought with what I heard called "a precursor of
the tank". Jan Zizka mobilized Hussite peasants against Polish armies two
and three times the size of his own, and won, not once but four times in a
row, after which Church-allied forces left Bohemia alone for a good two
centuries. At the town museum in Tabor, Czech Rep., they exhibit a
reconstruction of an armored battle wagon from which the Hussites are said
to have successfully fought.
The wagon looks like a large horse or ox-drawn cart, about 10 feet long.
The cart's sides are very high, about 4 ft., and reinforced with
about 2-inch-thick wooden planks that run the length of the sides.
Also exhibited were apparently period wood-cuts of a dozen or so Hussite
soldiers inside such a wagon wielding mere farm implements against a much
larger professional-looking force. It was not clear whether the wagons
were used as fixed battlements or whether they were actually moved (by
humans or animals) around the battlefield during combat.
Anyway, the Czechs I met there were very proud to volunteer Zizka as
the originator of tank warfare. Zizka cuts a legendary figure--large,
gruff, a patch over one eye in most iconography and statuary. Which is
to say, I think Hines's warnings about taking the propaganda--both period
and modern--literally are very sound. However Zizka managed it, though,
his battlefield success is historical fact.
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** ***** Bell Labs / Lucent Technologies
****** ****** 07 Jan 98 [18 Nivose An CCVI]
***** ***** gad...@bell-labs.com
** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Jan Frelin
Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
> Gabriel Ataya (gab...@ncs.co.nz) wrote:
> >I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
> >know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
> >it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
> >with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
> >had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
>
> >enough.
>
> as far as I know, was never built. The other were the
> wagon-forts used by the Hussites in the late Middle Ages.
> In a sense, those *did* revolutionize warfare. They did
> not fight from them in motion, but used them in a group
> as a kind of fortress which was portable.
>
> And yes, they mounted cannon in them.
For a description, see: Christopher Gravett: German Medieval Armies
1300-1500.
Cheers,
========================================================================
Jan Frelin Stockholm, Sweden
jan.f...@wineasy.se
John M. Atkinson
gad...@ctcgp1.ih.lucent.com (Gadfly) wrote:
>Also exhibited were apparently period wood-cuts of a dozen or so Hussite
>soldiers inside such a wagon wielding mere farm implements against a much
A Hussite wagon would include a variety of troops, including a light
cannon, a pair of crossbowmen, and flailmen. Not 'mere farm
implements'.
>Anyway, the Czechs I met there were very proud to volunteer Zizka as
>the originator of tank warfare. Zizka cuts a legendary figure--large,
Not by a long shot. The Hussite wagon forts were essentially
defensive in nature-circle the wagons and let the dumb Poles and
Germans beat themselves senseless beating themselves against the
military equivelant of a brick wall. Tanks are offensive weapons,
heavily armored, mobile (this term is relative) and armed with heavy
direct-fire weaponry. If the definition of 'tank warfare' were
twisted to include all fighting from vehicles, we'd have to credit the
Hittites, who rode chariots into battle. Tanks don't existed until
the invention of the internal combustion engine.
John M. Atkinson
"Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate
it as at least a misdemeanor."
--L. Long
Alex Milman
Gabriel Ataya wrote:
>
> I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
> know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
> it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
> with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
> had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
>
> These would obviously have revolutionised warfare if they were fast
> enough.
>
Description looks pretty much like one of the Leonardo's sketches.
There was also a drawing of the interior: horse had been used as
an "engine" (running inside the tank).
Paul J. Gans
>>Also exhibited were apparently period wood-cuts of a dozen or so Hussite
>>soldiers inside such a wagon wielding mere farm implements against a much
>A Hussite wagon would include a variety of troops, including a light
>cannon, a pair of crossbowmen, and flailmen. Not 'mere farm
>implements'.
>>Anyway, the Czechs I met there were very proud to volunteer Zizka as
>>the originator of tank warfare. Zizka cuts a legendary figure--large,
>Not by a long shot. The Hussite wagon forts were essentially
>defensive in nature-circle the wagons and let the dumb Poles and
>Germans beat themselves senseless beating themselves against the
>military equivelant of a brick wall. Tanks are offensive weapons,
>heavily armored, mobile (this term is relative) and armed with heavy
>direct-fire weaponry. If the definition of 'tank warfare' were
>twisted to include all fighting from vehicles, we'd have to credit the
>Hittites, who rode chariots into battle. Tanks don't existed until
>the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Hmmm. Even Delbruck, whom everybody knows is my all-time
*favorite* source, talks about the offensive use of the
wagon forts. As he says on page 484 of Volume III, after
discussing how the forts were set up defensively, he says:
"The horses remained close to the wagons so that at any moment
they could be hitched up again, since the Hussites liked to
move suddenly from the defense into the attack."
But I would agree that they were most useful on the defense.
And, of course, nobody is talking about a modern tank in
medieval times. What I assumed we were talking about was
the medieval equivalent, a mobile armed fortress from which
soldiers could fight. Since the Hussite wagons included
infantry, archers, and canon (not all at the same time) and
were "armored" with wooden planks to protect those in the
wagons *and* to protect the wheels (nice touch, that), they
seem to me to be arguably "medieval tanks".
--------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Gabriel Ataya
Any idea of whether these were used or not? I have seen the leonardo
sketches, but I also saw a picture depicting some in battle.
Gabriel
John M. Atkinson
Gabriel Ataya <gab...@ncs.co.nz> wrote:
>Any idea of whether these were used or not? I have seen the leonardo
>sketches, but I also saw a picture depicting some in battle.
Not only never used, never built, even in prototype.
Alex Milman
Gabriel Ataya wrote:
>
> Alex Milman wrote:
> >
> > Gabriel Ataya wrote:
> > >
> > > I saw this book with a sketch of a "tank" from the middle ages. I dont
> > > know if they were ever made or if they were made in great numbers, but
> > > it consisted of basically a cart base. (4 wheels and a tray) covered
> > > with what looked like the roof of a circular house made of iron and it
> > > had cannons protruding from it all around at 2 levels.
> > >
> > > These would obviously have revolutionised warfare if they were fast
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > Gabriel
> >
> > Description looks pretty much like one of the Leonardo's sketches.
> > There was also a drawing of the interior: horse had been used as
> > an "engine" (running inside the tank).
>
> sketches, but I also saw a picture depicting some in battle.
>
If we are talking about the same pictures, there is nothing strange.
Quite often Leonardo not only draw the device itself but also it's
possible applications (eg, "practical" use of the bombs and, presumably,
shrapnel, both construction and use of a parachute, etc.). AFAIK,
this tank never had been implemented. Absence of an adequate engine
would make it impractical. Probably Leonardo himself understood this
problem very well because, being a military ingeener of Caesar Bordgia
he would probably had enough resources to try.
I'd like to notice the conic shape of tank's "turret": obviously
Leonardo had a good understanding of a ballistics, among many other
things.
Richardweb
Paul Gans wrote:
> Since the Hussite wagons included
>infantry, archers, and canon [sic--yeah, I know
just a typo, but bear with me]
...which reminds me. We've heard Morillo quoted as a historian many times on
this newsgroup. Is everyone aware that he's also a gifted cartoonist? His comic
strip, Armand Armadillo, which he did for the New Orleans Gambit, is legendary.
Anyhow...back in his New Orleans cartooning days, Morillo did some freelance
cartooning for the editor of the Ricardian Register, Carole Rike, who also runs
a graphic design/printing business. She conceived of, and he illustrated, a
marvelous cartoon of a "loose canon on deck." If enough folks are interested,
I'll e-mail Rike and see if we can post it on the R3 site.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
richa...@aol.com
Sfz
> If we are talking about the
>same pictures, there is nothing strange. Quite often Leonardo not only draw
>the device itself but also it's possible applications (eg, "practical" use of
>the bombs and, presumably, shrapnel, both construction and use of a
>parachute, etc.). AFAIK, this tank never had been implemented. Absence of an
>adequate engine would make it impractical. Probably Leonardo himself
>understood this problem very well because, being a military ingeener of
>Caesar Bordgia he would probably had enough resources to try. I'd like to
>notice the conic shape of tank's "turret": obviously Leonardo had a good
>understanding of a ballistics, among many other things.
Some issues about Leonardo. AFAIK:
1) In his 67 years, he had only one job where he could be described as
a general engineer, and that was for Cesare Borgia. His job title was
"architect
and general engineer", not "military engineer". His few other employments
in engineering were as canal/irrigation engineer.
2) In working for Borgia, Leonardo's job was to travel around the cities that
Cesare had his aggressive eye on, to bring back diagrams of their defenses
using his apparently excellent memory, and the same for fortresses that were
currently under Borgia - since Borgia was expecting revolts. Some have said
he was to improve fortifications, and perhaps that is true, but there is no
evidence that Borgia ever got or acted on any such advice.
3) Prior to his brief (6-8 month) employment with Borgia, Leonardo had jobs
including:
a) 1495-1501: court painter and engineer for Lodovico Sforza, Duke of Milan.
Duties included decorating some rooms of the palace (a ceiling, done in
vines, for example), working on float decorations for ducal parades, working
on the canal/irrigation system for the Duke's experimental farm, and working
on the Duke's commemorative statue, as well as general painting and
entertaining (He was an excellent Lutist and story-teller.)
b) When the French captured Milan, Leonardo apparently offered to sell a map
of Florence's fortifications to a French Officer. He was apparently rejected.
c) Shortly after, he left Milan towards Venice. Leonardo tried to get
employment
as an engineer for Serenissima, which feared another assault from the Turks.
Leonardo proposed a plan for flooding their plain, but they did not accept
his proposal.
d) Leonardo competed in Venice (1501) for a set of prizes to be awarded
to engineers who came up with good ideas for stopping the Ottoman Turks.
Leonardo may have proposed a submarine - based on a model developed
by Milanese engineers and actually tried in the moat of Milan about 1495.
He also modified ideas borrowed from accounts of pearl diving in India, to
propose underwater divers armed with screw jacks to pry apart Turkish
ship bottoms. Again, he was rejected.
e) Leonardo sent a letter to the Turking ruler (AKA "the Enemy of All
Christendom") proposing to give the "secret" of windmills and cylinder pumps
and particularly to build a huge bridge over the Bosphorus, connecting Asia
and Europe. By the way, such a bridge was apparently built in antiquity,
and an account of that construction might have been known to Leonardo.
4) Leonardo borrowed his ideas on fortifications from several current sources,
most importantly fron Francesco di Giorgio Martini's "Treatise on Architecture,
Engineering and Military Art", written about 1485, and has already been
mentioned, Valturio.
5) Leonardo created an extremely good map of Imola. Imola was
a military target for Borgia, because of the revolt of Borgia's Captains.
Imola
had been captured by Borgia after it revolted against taxes required from the
Borgian Pope. Cesare may have been concerned that Imola would join the
Captains' revolt against him. There may have been other city maps besides
this surviving map of Imola.
6) Leonardo also did a reasonable map of the Arno Basin and surrounding
areas.
7) Leonardo proposed draining marshes at Piombino, one of Cesare's
stronghold towns.
8) After leaving Borgia (who's father would die and leave Borgia without
support only a few months later), Leonardo was in Florence. In 1503 he
received a commision from the Florentine government to advise and probably
oversee work on a canal to divert the Arno river from around Pisa. His
notebooks
show "utopian" estimates of the effort required for this job, understating the
true effort "by at least five times". Work went on , under Machiavelli's
supervision, for over a year, when it was cancelled: the project was
overnbudget,
behind schedule, and when a part was flooded it collapsed. It is not clear
exactly what role Leonardo played in this failure.
9) In 1504, Leonardo apparently returned to Piombino to obtain work on
their fortifications or canals. There is no clear evidence of what he did in
the
6-7 weeks he was there, but he took money out of his Florence account
before he left, so he was probably not paid.
10) Of all the enginnes and machines in Leonardo's notebooks, there is no
evidence that any were constructed by him or by others working at his
direction. There is evidence in many cases that he was drawing machines
which existed in his day. His work should perhaps be examined more as
a glimpse of current technology of his day than as a visionary in new
ideas. This includes the "tank", which was borrowed from Valturio and
others.
11) He was a really, really good artist. But he hated "being" an artist.
Comments welcome. (Not just horsing around :)
Steve Zeigler
D. Spencer Hines
1. You wrote a very interesting and fun to read post. Thanks.
2. Leonardo da Vinci [1452-1519] was a genius and a polymath and we should
all have great respect for him and his talents.
3. Leonardo did not, however, invent the parachute, the tank or the
submarine any more than George Lucas invented the spaceship or the space
battleship. I realize you did not say that he did.
Alex Milman
Sfz wrote:
[deleted]
> 10) Of all the enginnes and machines in Leonardo's notebooks, there is no
> evidence that any were constructed by him or by others working at his
> direction. There is evidence in many cases that he was drawing machines
> which existed in his day.
Ok, probably you can point to the first drawings of a parachute or
ball bearing which existed before Leonardo.
OTOH, if you are talking about his artillery drawings, there is no
question that he did not invent a gun.
> His work should perhaps be examined more as
> a glimpse of current technology of his day than as a visionary in new
> ideas.
I do not think that helicopter reflected XVI's century current
technology (or even that it was a common idea).
>This includes the "tank", which was borrowed from Valturio and
> others.
>
> 11) He was a really, really good artist. But he hated "being" an artist.
Did he tell you so?
Zachi Evenor
The knight were the "tank" in the Middle-Ages, don't you think so?
You heard about the "Mobile-Tower" , it was a tool to break forts but it
activated as a tank: armored, with firepower, wheel-mobile.
Those are the fathers of the modern-tank (together with Leonardo's
sketch, the charriot and the Israeli ark.
Zachi Evenor
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> 1. You wrote a very interesting and fun to read post. Thanks.
>
> 2. Leonardo da Vinci [1452-1519] was a genius and a polymath and we should
> all have great respect for him and his talents.
>
> 3. Leonardo did not, however, invent the parachute, the tank or the
> submarine any more than George Lucas invented the spaceship or the space
> battleship. I realize you did not say that he did.
Spencer, you are wrong. Leonardo's notebooks contain a drawing of
a parachute and explanation of it's use (picture of a man jumping
with a parachute from the tower). It's quite different from the
modern ones: has a rigid octagonal frame made of some planks.
OTOH, a contemporary jet is quite different from the first planes :-)
I'm not aware of the earlier prototypes but corrections will be
gladly accepted.
Tank and submarine are quite different issues. As I understand,
Leonardo did not went beyond the vague, rather fantastic drawings.
Regarding submarines he wrote something to the effect that he found
the way to travel under water but would not disclose a secret because
of the potential misuse. I don't think that he could foresee Doentiz
and Co or even that he really found a feasible way to built submarine
in XVI. OTOH, some of his less complicated devices became practical
only recently, like skis for walking on the water (AFAIK, the first
practical model had been produced in 80's). In some cases his
inventions had been "reinvented" centuries later, like ball bearings.
In some cases they are probably just fantasies.
Best wishes
Alex
Robert Elliot
Zachi Evenor wrote:
> The knight were the "tank" in the Middle-Ages, don't you think so?
No; the whole point of a tank is it takes serious obstacles to stop it, not
infantry. Put 50 infantry men in a schiltron in front of a knight, and he's
buggered - horse won't charge home. Put them in front of a tank, and you get
a nasty squelching sound.... ;-)
Rob
Sfz
> I do not think that helicopter reflected XVI's century current technology
>(or even that it was a common idea).
There was, at the time, a child's toy - more like a propeller - that flew up
in the air when its string was pulled, or its shaft was rapidly rotated between
one's hands. The toy had originated in China and had come back with the
trade that expanded in the 1400's. It is not clear whether anyone else thought
of lifting anything with such a propeller, though of course there were extreme
practical problems that would prevent it from being more than a daydream
at that time.
This toy has a modern descendent. It's fun.
Regards,
Steve Zeigler
Sfz
=>
=> 11) He was a really, really good artist. But he hated "being" an artist.
=Did he tell you so?
Sorry, it was conjecture. But I think there are ample grounds.
1) He started few and finished fewer paintings (thirteen are known, and of
those
most seem to have been completed by someone other than Leonardo,
working after his exit.
2) He worked very hard to obtain employment in other fields: lute playing
and engineering being his two favorites, it appears
3) much of his notebooks were written with an eye towards publication; the
printing press was still new and business was hopping
4) when he was recognized, after painting the Last Supper, as the greatest
artisit known at that time (an honor usually conferred posthumously), he
did not leap to capitalize on it, but instead used it to get a job working
on canals
5) he didn't work hard on painting when he did have the chance. He dragged
out his efforts until he was fired in most cases.
6) he didn't do painting in his spare time.
But no, he didn't tell me.
Regards
Steve Zeigler
ti...@rehame.com
In article <34B66F...@gte.com>,
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> Sfz wrote:
>
> [deleted]
> > 10) Of all the enginnes and machines in Leonardo's notebooks, there is no
> > evidence that any were constructed by him or by others working at his
> > direction. There is evidence in many cases that he was drawing machines
> > which existed in his day.
>
> ball bearing which existed before Leonardo.
Actually Alex, there is a marginal illumination/doodle from
a fourteenth century Italian (?) manuscript which shows a
man jumping (or falling) holding a canopy rather like
Leonardo's parachute over his head. I think I read about
it in Jean Gimpel's 'The Medieval Machine', though I came
across it when I was doing some research into medieval
technology and I may have read about it elsewhere. I
thought it was interesting, as there is this idea that
Da Vinci was somehow not a man of his time and it was
one indication that there were others before him who
thought along the same lines. The tenth century English
monk who built and launched a glider, flying from the
roof of his monestery's church before crashing into
a tree and breaking his legs, also shows some of them
got past the doodles on parchment stage.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
D. Spencer Hines
1. Once more unto the breach.
2. Drawing a picture of something [as well as putting it on film] or
describing a conceptual model for a new device is not *inventing* it. Even
"explaining its use" will not do the trick. No joy at the U. S. Patent
Office.
3. If it were, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg would go down in the
History books for inventing all sorts of marvelous devices --- including
spaceships, space battleships and alien life forms.
4. How many folks out there are ready to jump off, say Half Dome, in
Yosemite National Park, with the Leonardo da Vinci, Mark 1 Mod 0
"parachute?" It's a good starter jump, with a vertical face of about 2,000
feet.
Sfz
> Spencer, you are wrong. Leonardo's notebooks contain a drawing of a
>parachute and explanation of it's use (picture of a man jumping with a
>parachute from the tower). It's quite different from the modern ones: has a
>rigid octagonal frame made of some planks. OTOH, a contemporary jet is quite
>different from the first planes :-) I'm not aware of the earlier prototypes
>but corrections will be gladly accepted.
>Tank and submarine are quite
>different issues. As I understand, Leonardo did not went beyond the vague,
>rather fantastic drawings. Regarding submarines he wrote something to the
>effect that he found the way to travel under water but would not disclose a
>secret because of the potential misuse. I don't think that he could foresee
>Doentiz and Co or even that he really found a feasible way to built
>submarine in XVI. OTOH, some of his less complicated devices became
>practical only recently, like skis for walking on the water (AFAIK, the
>first practical model had been produced in 80's). In some cases
>his inventions had been "reinvented" centuries later, like ball bearings. In
>some cases they are probably just fantasies.
This quote from Roger Bacon writing about 1250, may help me on "water ski
issues" and the like. He may be speaking of writings of Greek/Roman
scientists,
since those were in the process of rediscovery at the time, and since much of
what he describes was contemplated by Greek/Roman scientists. But in
any case, he was writing well before Leonardo. BTW, I think bearings were
invented before 550, although perhaps not "ball" bearings.
1250(approx): Roger Bacon: "it's possible to build vessels for navigating
without oarsmen so that very big river and maritime boats can travel guided by
a single helmsman much more sawiftly than they would if they were full of men.
It's also possible to build wagons which move witout horses by means of a
miraculous force. And I think that the reaping chariots that were used in
battlr must have been made like this. It's alsp possible to construct machines
for flight built so that a man in the middle of one can manuvet it using dome
kind of device that makes specially built wings beat the air the way that birds
do when they fly. And similarly it's also possible to build a small winch
capable of raising and lowering infitely heavy weights... it's also possible
to build devices or walking onn seas and rivers and for touching their bottoms
without risk. And Alexander the Great doubtlessly used these instruments to
explore the ocean floor as the astronomer Etico narrates. In fact there is no
doubt tat such instruments had already been built in ancient times and are
still being used today, except for the flying machine which neither I nor
anyone I know has ever seen. However, I do know a scholar who tried to build
this instrument as well. It's possible to build an infinite number of bridges
which, for example, can be stretched across rivers without using any kind of
pillars or supports, and of unheard of machines and inventions." [Cia]
[Cia] Cianchi, Mario. Leonardo da Vinci's Machines. Becocci Editore. Vinci,
approx 1985.
Regards,
Steve Zeigler
kidego
food for thought:
Didnt the roman army have a formation called a "turtle".. kinda like a tank
Robert Elliot <robert...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<34B681BD...@dial.pipex.com>...
Wolfie
All I know is that Leonardo Da Vinci invented a lot of things that were not
of his time. He also designed something like a helicopter, I also saw a
sketch of a
huge crossbow on wheels.
Most of these inventions were never made!
Not because they didn't wanted to make them, but because they didn't know
how.
The didn't have the equipment and materials for it.
I assume that the tanks you mentione never existed. Only on paper.
Wolfie
( wolf...@hotmail.com )
Gabriel Ataya wrote in message <34B3E2...@ncs.co.nz>...
Alex Milman
And any details?
> And similarly it's also possible to build a small winch
> capable of raising and lowering infitely heavy weights... it's also possible
> to build devices or walking onn seas and rivers and for touching their bottoms
> without risk.
Again, no details, just very vague discussions of a "possibility".
> And Alexander the Great doubtlessly used these instruments to
> explore the ocean floor as the astronomer Etico narrates.
OK, nothing new here. Stories about Alexander are simply medieval
fantasies. If you saw any medieval pictures of Alexander and
Aristotle traveling under water, you would not have any questions
about their practicality. BTW, the very reference to Alexander
demonstrate the level of a seriousness. In Bacon'e time Aristotle
had been considered as almost absolute scientific authority and
all kinds of miracles and inventions had been attributed to his
name (without a shred of proof). One of the most popular medieval
legends was that Aristotle demonstrated Alexander (his student)
all types of the earth's miracles including travel to the bottom of
the sea.
Bacon just repeated some old legends without producing any workable
design or any scientific foundation.
> In fact there is no
> doubt
Rather, there is not proof.
>tat such instruments had already been built in ancient times
AFAIK, there is no evidience that these "instruments" ever had
been implemented or even designed.
The major difference between most of these fantasies and Leonardo's
designs is that he was trying to produce a workable solution.
While medieval "submarine" attributed to Alexander/Aristotle is an
absolute fantasy, Leonardo's design of the diving gear is quite
practical: it includes goggles (which look very contemporary), tube
for the air supply (with the measures to compensate the water pressure)
and a face mask with 2 valves to provide a normal breathing.
While Bacon's mentioning of the device for walking over the water may
mean anything or absolutely nothing besides an overdeveloped
imagination, Leonardo provided a comprehensive description with the
picture.
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> 1. Once more unto the breach.
Do you pursue the same goals Henry V did? AFAIK, I'm not a fortified
city :-)
>
> 2. Drawing a picture of something [as well as putting it on film] or
> describing a conceptual model for a new device is not *inventing* it. Even
> "explaining its use" will not do the trick. No joy at the U. S. Patent
> Office.
Spencer, as you well aware of, Leonardo did not work in US and US patent
office had been opened slightly later. :-)
AFAIK, inventions of the time had not been patented at all so there
was no demand to follow the rules you mentioned. BTW, some US patents
I had read described a _concept_ and the descriptions were not much
better than ones made by Leonardo (but much less readable due to
the absolutely horrible language US Patent Office is using :-) ).
In most cases invention was not even a way to make money because
nobody would pay inventor royalties. As far as Leonardo's devices are
involved, they were mostly part of his studies in a particular area.
He was not interested in their publishing.
Alex Milman
Sfz wrote:
>
> In article <34B66F...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>
> =>
> => 11) He was a really, really good artist. But he hated "being" an artist.
>
> =Did he tell you so?
>
> Sorry, it was conjecture. But I think there are ample grounds.
> 1) He started few and finished fewer paintings (thirteen are known, and of
> those
> most seem to have been completed by someone other than Leonardo,
Which exactly and by whom?
> working after his exit.
Most of this legend stemed from Vasary's book. Being a Mickelangelo's
admirer, Vasary did not even pretended to be objective.
> 2) He worked very hard to obtain employment in other fields: lute playing
> and engineering being his two favorites, it appears
Nothing original here. Durer, Micelangelo, Chellini, etc. worked in
more than one field, including fortification, jewelry making, gunnery,
etc.
> 3) much of his notebooks were written with an eye towards publication; the
> printing press was still new and business was hopping
And how many of them did he published? BTW, if true, why would it be
bad or non-artistic? At least some of materials are related to the
art problems and architecture.
> 4) when he was recognized, after painting the Last Supper, as the greatest
> artisit known at that time (an honor usually conferred posthumously), he
> did not leap to capitalize on it,
Well, well. It was always assumed that an artist must be indifferent
to money and follow only his inspiration...
What you are saying is that a real painter must be greedy.
>but instead used it to get a job working
> on canals
> 5) he didn't work hard on painting when he did have the chance.
>He dragged
> out his efforts until he was fired in most cases.
Actually the problem was that he worked too hard in an attempt to
achieve a perfection.
Is this necessary for a painter to work like a printing machine?
> 6) he didn't do painting in his spare time.
>
But he did a lot of drawings. A lot of the later artists spent
a lot of time in this area (some, like Picasso, even managed to get
very good money for their drawings :-) ).
> But no, he didn't tell me.
So you actually don't know.
Alex Milman
> >
> > Sfz wrote:
> >
> > [deleted]
> > > 10) Of all the enginnes and machines in Leonardo's notebooks, there is no
> > > evidence that any were constructed by him or by others working at his
> > > direction. There is evidence in many cases that he was drawing machines
> > > which existed in his day.
> >
> > ball bearing which existed before Leonardo.
>
> Actually Alex, there is a marginal illumination/doodle from
> a fourteenth century Italian (?) manuscript which shows a
> man jumping (or falling) holding a canopy rather like
> Leonardo's parachute over his head. I think I read about
> it in Jean Gimpel's 'The Medieval Machine', though I came
> across it when I was doing some research into medieval
> technology and I may have read about it elsewhere. I
> thought it was interesting, as there is this idea that
> Da Vinci was somehow not a man of his time
I disagree with this idea. IMHO, Leonardo was pretty much
man of his time. Extremely talented one.
> and it was
> one indication that there were others before him who
> thought along the same lines.
Almost definitely there were. As it was already mentioned earlier
in this thread the "tank" had been copied from am earlier tractat
on the art of war.
And there is nothing original in the _idea_ of flying because
birds were everywhere.
The tenth century English
> monk who built and launched a glider, flying from the
> roof of his monestery's church before crashing into
> a tree and breaking his legs, also shows some of them
> got past the doodles on parchment stage.
The similar tales (legends) you can find, for example, in Russia.
People's minds work along approximately the same lines, as you
correctly noticed.
But most of Leonardo's fame comes from the wide range of the areas
in which he made research and from the productivity of this research.
Those inventions look rather like a side effect on which he did not
pay too much attention.
D. Spencer Hines
1. Alex, they are not "inventions" in the sense of "a device, contrivance
or process originated after study and experiment." Perhaps you using other
meanings of the word, such as "a product of the imagination, especially a
false conception." They are just Leonardo's drawings. Fascinating, far
ahead of their time, to be sure, but not "inventions" --- in any concrete or
practical sense of the word.
2. Admiral Hyman Rickover [who was subjected to vicious Anti-Semitism
throughout many phases of his career] had a great deal more to do with the
invention of the true submarine than Leonardo da Vinci. Before the
invention of the nuclear submarine, we had "submersible boats" [yes, I know
they were called "submarines"] that had to surface frequently and charge
their storage batteries.
2. George Lucas did not "invent" intergalactic space battleships either.
S noviym godom.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is directed
to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa
Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Alex Milman wrote in message <34BA2A...@gte.com>...
>ti...@rehame.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <34B66F...@gte.com>,
>> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sfz wrote:
>> >
>> > [deleted]
>> > > 10) Of all the enginnes and machines in Leonardo's notebooks, there
is no
>> > > evidence that any were constructed by him or by others working at his
>> > > direction. There is evidence in many cases that he was drawing
machines
>> > > which existed in his day.
>> >
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> 1. Alex, they are not "inventions" in the sense of "a device, contrivance
> or process originated after study
Most of Leonardo's "inventions" had been result of a study in the
relevant area.
>and experiment."
This is not a demand even as far as US patent law goes. They
should be original, implementable (in a framework of a current
technology) and have some commercial value.
>Perhaps you using other
> meanings of the word, such as "a product of the imagination, especially a
> false conception." They are just Leonardo's drawings.
In this I disagree. The difference between "just drawings" (as something
being a pure product of an imagination without any practical foundation)
and many (not all) Leonardo's drawings is that later came as a result
of a serious research and, quite often, are absolutely practical, like
a conic screw for a breech-loaded cannon, diving gear and some other
devices.
>Fascinating, far
> ahead of their time, to be sure, but not "inventions" --- in any concrete or
> practical sense of the word.
Some of them are quite practical, e.g., camera obscura.
BTW, IIRC, a lot of Edison's inventions (patented) never had been
used practically. Still, they are considered inventions.
>
> 2. Admiral Hyman Rickover [who was subjected to vicious Anti-Semitism
> throughout many phases of his career] had a great deal more to do with the
> invention of the true submarine than Leonardo da Vinci.
Leonardo never claimed that he invented submarine of any kind. As I
said before, he wrote that he found a way to stay under water for a
long period of time ("as long as man can stay without the food") but
this was written about the diving costume, not about the submarine.
> Before the
> invention of the nuclear submarine, we had "submersible boats" [yes, I know
> they were called "submarines"] that had to surface frequently and charge
> their storage batteries.
>
> 2. George Lucas did not "invent" intergalactic space battleships either.
First of all, Lucas did not invent a _concept_ of the space
battleship. It had been introduced decades before the "Star Wars" as
well as an idea of the robots (first in "RUR" by Chapek). In the form
they appear in the movie, battleships are the pure fantasy: you can't
answer any question about their construction, principle of the
operation, etc. More, their existence contradicts to the known facts
of physics (superlight speed). So, I don't think that your example,
while being correct (Lukas did not invent intergalactic space
battleships in any meaning of the word), is not applicable :-)
Best wishes
Alex
D. Spencer Hines
1. I should have known better than to argue with a Russian about
"inventions." You guys "invented" everything didn't you --- including the
airplane?
2. Seriously, there are persistent reports in various venues that a Russian
woman holds the all-time World Record for giving birth to the most
children --- 69. She was supposedly presented to the Tsar as a superior
example of Russian Motherhood.
3. She allegedly had 16 sets of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four
sets of quadruplets in 27 successful pregnancies. Almost all of the
children allegedly survived.
4. Can you validate this report and give us some details? When and where
in Russia did she and her husband reportedly perform these marvelous feats.
5. Alex, did the Russians also invent children? :)
Za mir i druzhbu.
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> 1. I should have known better than to argue with a Russian about
> "inventions." You guys "invented" everything didn't you --- including the
> airplane?
Personally, I did not. And, AFAIK, Leonardo was not one of the "great
Russian scientists".
> 2. Seriously, there are persistent reports in various venues that a Russian
> woman holds the all-time World Record for giving birth to the most
> children --- 69. She was supposedly presented to the Tsar as a superior
> example of Russian Motherhood.
>
> 3. She allegedly had 16 sets of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four
> sets of quadruplets in 27 successful pregnancies. Almost all of the
> children allegedly survived.
>
> 4. Can you validate this report and give us some details? When and where
> in Russia did she and her husband reportedly perform these marvelous feats.
Sure. Actually it was a result of a Russian-American marriage.
Father's name was "Spencer" and, after producing all these children he
left in a hurry, presumably not to pay the alimonies. Last time he had
been seen swimming across Pacific in a direction of Hawaii (no offense
intended) :-)
>
> 5. Alex, did the Russians also invent children? :)
>
Not being an ethnic Russian I can't tell for sure but probably they
did. The only thing a definitely know of is that "Russia is a motherland
of the elephants". There was also an obscene joke with a conclusion that
Ivan the Terrible invented X-rays. Hopefully, this will satisfy your
scientific curiosity :-)
D. Spencer Hines
I was quite serious about the 69 children in 27 pregnancies, by the Russian
couple.
I would never stoop to making something like that up. More power to them!
Was it Medieval or just Fun in Any Era [FAE]?
Jon
Alex Milman wrote in message <34BA74...@gte.com>...
>> 2. George Lucas did not "invent" intergalactic space battleships either.
>
>First of all, Lucas did not invent a _concept_ of the space
>battleship. It had been introduced decades before the "Star Wars" as
>well as an idea of the robots (first in "RUR" by Chapek). In the form
>they appear in the movie, battleships are the pure fantasy: you can't
>answer any question about their construction, principle of the
>operation, etc. More, their existence contradicts to the known facts
>of physics (superlight speed). So, I don't think that your example,
>while being correct (Lukas did not invent intergalactic space
>battleships in any meaning of the word), is not applicable :-)
>
>Best wishes
> Alex
The "flip phone" cell phone was modeled after Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek
communicator (original series). He by no means invented the flip phone, but
credit is given to him for the inspiration. Perhaps in the future credit
will be given to George Lucas for robots and superlight speed space ships.
Leonardo at least provided inspiration for the modern parachute. Whether we
credit him with inventing it, imagining it, or simply inspiring it is
missing the larger point: he was brilliant and ahead of his time.
jon
Paul J. Gans
Jon (j...@no.spam) wrote:
Please forgive me. You are all so young. Robots have been
around since the 1920's or '30's. As Alex Milman pointed
out, the word was invented by Karl Capek in RUR, which
stands for Rossem's Universal Robots. As for space ships,
superlight and all that, they too go back a long long time.
Science Fiction was using them back in the '20's. George
Lucas had, I'm sorry to say, nothing to do with it. His
movies, which I love, are totally derivative of earlier
writers such as E. E. Smith.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
John M. Atkinson
"kidego" <kid...@inficad.com> wrote:
>food for thought:
>Didnt the roman army have a formation called a "turtle".. kinda like a tank
Not really, as it was simply infantrymen in a modified shield wall,
including a roof, intended for seige usage, not battlefield.
John M. Atkinson
"Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate
it as at least a misdemeanor."
--L. Long
John M. Atkinson
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>Spencer, you are wrong. Leonardo's notebooks contain a drawing of
>a parachute and explanation of it's use (picture of a man jumping
>with a parachute from the tower). It's quite different from the
Sure. However, 1)Leonardo never produced such an item, and 2)Had he
done so, and then jumbed from a tower, he would have killed himself,
as the "parachute" would not work. If we credit Mr. Da Vinci with the
parachute, then we must not insist on withholding credit for the
airplane until the Wright brothers actually lift off, instead handing
it out to the first Victorian crackpot who came up with a contraption
which was billed as being an airplane. As the possibly apochryphyl
tale told by Mr. Lincoln points out, simply calling a tail a leg, does
not make it so.
John M. Atkinson
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>they appear in the movie, battleships are the pure fantasy: you can't
>answer any question about their construction, principle of the
>operation, etc. More, their existence contradicts to the known facts
I respectfully suggest that you have never had a serious discussion
with the more fanatical of the afficianados of the film, who will
endeavor to explain the contruction and principle of operation of
Imperial Star Destroyers, at great length and in excruciating detail.
None of it is real, but this will not stop the dedicated fan.
;)
Sfz
I was quoting a gentleman named Roger Bacon. Unfortunately, he didn't
apparently realize that you were going to question him, so he neglected to
provide answers to your questions, complete with drawings and quotes.
In article <34BA1...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>
=>Sfz wrote:
[snipped previous stuff]
=> 1250(approx): Roger Bacon: "it's possible to build vessels for navigating
=> without oarsmen so that very big river and maritime boats can travel guided
by
=> a single helmsman much more sawiftly than they would if they were full of
men.
=> It's also possible to build wagons which move witout horses by means of a
=> miraculous force. And I think that the reaping chariots that were used in
=> battlr must have been made like this. It's alsp possible to construct
machines
=> for flight built so that a man in the middle of one can manuvet it using
dome
=> kind of device that makes specially built wings beat the air the way that
birds
=> do when they fly.
>And any details?
No, Roger forgot to support his comments. However, other posters might
be familiar with experiments in flight done in Roger's time and before.
=> And similarly it's also possible to build a small winch
=> capable of raising and lowering infitely heavy weights... it's also
possible
=> to build devices or walking onn seas and rivers and for touching their
bottoms
=> without risk.
>Again, no details, just very vague discussions of a "possibility".
That Roger Bacon just isn't worthy.
=> And Alexander the Great doubtlessly used these instruments to
=> explore the ocean floor as the astronomer Etico narrates.
>OK, nothing new here. Stories about Alexander are simply
>medieval fantasies. If you saw any medieval pictures of Alexander
>and Aristotle traveling under water, you would not have any questions
>about their practicality. BTW, the very reference to Alexander demonstrate the
>level of a seriousness. In Bacon'e time Aristotle had been considered as
>almost absolute scientific authority and all kinds of miracles and inventions
>had been attributed to his name (without a shred of proof). One of the most
>popular medieval legends was that Aristotle demonstrated Alexander (his
>student) all types of the earth's miracles including travel to the bottom
>of the sea.
>Bacon just repeated some old legends without producing any workable
>design or any scientific foundation.
If I saw some contemporary pictures of Romans underwater, I might be
impressed with their success. On the other hand, if I saw a medieval
drawing of someone's idea of what Aristotle might have looked like, that
probably wouldn't mean as much one way or the other.
=> In fact there is no doubt
>Rather, there is not proof.
=>that such instruments had already been built
=>in ancient times
>AFAIK, there is no evidience that these "instruments" ever had
>been implemented or even designed.
It is very unfortunate that Bacon did not write down any description of
his source material. He may have had access to documents that have
not survived for us. Bacon mentions specifically:
1) boats without oars: it was known that the ancients developed
paddlewheel-powered boats, although it is unlikely that with animal
power there could have been much speed; it is possible that such boats
were used only in very limited circumstances, such as to impress people
in magic or religion shows, or as "torpedos" in warfare. A torsion spring
or weight might provide enough energy to move a small boat, loaded with
burning material, out amongst the enemy.
2) wagons that move by miraculous force:I believe that small vehicles
powered by springs were built to amaze the unwary at magic/religion shows.
It is possible that such small vehicles were armed with spinning blades,
to be released at a nearby enemy. Both a automatic boat and a cart
would be within the capabilities of the makers of the Antikythera device,
for example.
3) machines for flight: It is recorded in a far western province of Chine
(i.e.,
closest to Rome), that in 556 AD, and Emperor caused a fleet of gliders
to be created, took a group of perhaps thirty condemned prisoners, strapped
each into a glider and sent them off one by one to see what would happen.
Apparently many survived and a couple even flew a considerable distance,
as in hundreds of yards. There is no record of earlier or later activities,
although
man-flying kites had been around. It is possible that one or more escapees
from
the Roman empire's death brought such knowledge with them. Regardless, it
shows that even in 556 people were building gliders.
>The major difference between most of these fantasies and Leonardo's
>designs is that he was trying to produce a workable solution.
>While medieval "submarine" attributed to Alexander/Aristotle is an
>absolute fantasy, Leonardo's design of the diving gear is quite
>practical: it includes goggles (which look very contemporary), tube
>for the air supply (with the measures to compensate the water pressure)
>and a face mask with 2 valves to provide a normal breathing.
>While Bacon's mentioning of the device for walking over the water may
>mean anything or absolutely nothing besides an overdeveloped
>imagination, Leonardo provided a comprehensive description with the
>picture.
Leonardo seems to have had good data on things like diving apparatus
primarily because he was not inventing them, he was describing what had
already been invented by others. In the case of diving apparatus, I believe
such apparati had already been used by Roman-era divers in trying to
bring up shipwrecks. Even if Leonardo did not know about the ancient
efforts, he may well have known about the pearl divers off India by that
time. His writings correspond to a time when Venice was trying to acquire
new technologies to help her against the Turks. It is likely that underwater
techniques would have been of interest, especially since Leonardo was trying
(unsuccessfully) to win appointment at Venice as an engineer.
Leonardo's drawings are not always workable. For example, in some drawings
the gearing is reversed. This is the kind of error it is easy to make if you
are
an artist copying an existing device, especially from memory (even when your
memory is very good.) Other than that, it is precisely that so many of
Leonardo's
devices are fully-elaborated, sorted out designs that make it extremely
unlikely
that he was inventing them himself.
Instruments like the elipsograph or parabolograph, for drawing elipses or
parabolas, have been shown to exist in Arab times and likely existed in
ancient times. Of course, that has become known only recently, so that
in 1900 when the Leonardo legend was growing, no one knew that his devices
were borrowed.
The segmented arch bridge, attributed by Needham to the Chinese, again
in the 550-600 period just after the fall of the Empire, was thought in 1900
to be a design by Leonardo. Segmented arch briges are now known to have
been a Roman-era invention.
He did a lot of drawings for a lot of machines. I've leafed randomly into the
book "The Unknown Leonardo" (Ladislao Reti, 1974) to present some examples.
Perhaps you can describe some inventions for which you think Leonardo should
be personally credited.
Comments expected
Steve Zeigler
Sfz
In article <34BA2...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
Sfz wrote:
>=> 11) He was a really, really good artist. But he hated "being" an artist.
>Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> =Did he tell you so?
>
> Sorry, it was conjecture. But I think
>there are ample grounds.
> 1) He started few and finished fewer paintings (thirteen are known, and of
> those most seem to have been completed by someone other than Leonardo,
> working after his exit.
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>Most of this legend stemed from Vasary's book. Being a
>Mickelangelo's admirer, Vasary did not even pretended to be objective.
I have done some research for you. I did not use Vasari, but did use the
Corbis/Bill Gates CD (which is fun) and:
Reti, Ladislao (ed.). The Unknown Leonardo. Abrams, New York, 1974.
Leonardo's (possible) paintings:
1473-5: Annunciation: probably his first, delivered
1473-5: Madonna with Flower: unknown disposition
1473-5: Baptism of Christ: Leonardo paints angel on left, some background
1476-8: Annunciation (commissioned to Verrochio), painted with others
1478?: Benois Madonna: probably finished, possibly not delivered
1478-80: Portrait of Ginevra Benci: delivered!
1480: St. Jerome: unfinished, left behind by Leonardo
1481: Adoration of the Magi: abandoned
1482: Madonna Litta: abandoned
1483-6: Virgin of the Rocks: in conjunction with de Predis brothers, never
installed
1483: Second Virgin of the Rocks; Leonardo with helpers, never completed
1484-8: Lady with an Ermine: delivered!
1490: Portrait of a Musician: no background painted
1495: Portrait of a Lady: Possibly done by Leonardo, but with others
1495-8: Last Supper: arguments over contract, probably finished by Leonardo
under duress as another painter was commissioned to finish it.
1501: Madonna with Yarnwinder; "probably a collaborative project"
1503-6: Battle of Anghiari: abandoned in mid-execution
1504-5: Mona Lisa: never delivered by Leonardo
1509-10: St. Anne: delivered!
1513-6: St. John the Baptist: no background painted
1513-14: two paintings, now lost, for G. Branconi
The tallies: Leonardo completed and delivered five paintings working alone.
He delivered five more paintings working as part of a team. He is known to
have abandoned six paintings - sometimes ignoring the contracts. Six other
paintings were probably not completed and remain of unknown status. In
three of his delivered paintings, Leonardo left the background black. This was
a surprise to at least some of his clients, who had to be persuaded to
accept what they may have tought were incomplete portraits. Leonardo
argued that the black background enhanced the focus, and many agree
with him.
The decision on who painted what and what comprised "finished" was
by experts, not me. However, they did not consult Vasari.
=>
=>2) He worked very hard to obtain employment in other fields: lute playing
=> and engineering being his two favorites, it appears
>Nothing original here.
>Durer, Micelangelo, Chellini, etc. worked in more than one field, including
>fortification, jewelry making, gunnery, etc.
Each of the above spent a great deal of time on their art. When they went
away from art it was to other paid occupations. Leonardo simply did not
paint often, and even when he had a contract to do so, he often dragged his
feet until the patron went to legal or other alternatives. Is this true of
your other great artists?
=> 3) much of his notebooks were written with an eye towards publication; the
=> printing press was still new and business was hopping
>And how many of them did he published? BTW, if
>true, why would it be bad or non-artistic? At least some of materials are
>related to the art problems and architecture.
Yes, he had book ideas in several areas, including a treatise on
painting. However, the painting manuscript did not materialize.
=> 4) when he was recognized, after painting the Last Supper, as the greatest
=> artisit known at that time (an honor usually conferred posthumously), he
=> did not leap to capitalize on it,
>Well, well. It was always assumed that an artist must be indifferent to
>money and follow only his inspiration... What you are saying is that a real
>painter must be greedy.
People were willing to give him a pretty free hand after the Last Supper.
Greed is when you are willing to do something you don't (or shouldn't)
like for money that you don't need. Leonardo certainly was not rich or even
modestly well off, and patrons would have let him paint pretty much whatever
he wanted, and even on whatever timeline he wanted.
>but instead used it to get a job working on canals.
I concluded that canal building was what Leonardo wanted to do.
> 5) he didn't work hard on painting when he did have the chance.
> He dragged out his efforts until he was fired in most cases.
>Actually the problem was that he worked too hard in an attempt to
>achieve a perfection. Is this necessary for a painter to work like a printing
>machine?
It is possible that Leonardo did want perfection, and that is what kept him
from working intensely on paintings.
> 6) he didn't do painting in his spare time.
>
>But he did a lot of drawings. A lot of the later artists spent
>a lot of time in this area (some, like Picasso, even managed to get
>very good money for their drawings :-) ).
But drawing is not painting. Leonardo clearly did not hate drawing.
=> But no, he didn't tell me.
>So you actually don't know.
That's why it's a conjecture.
Regards
Steve Zeigler
David C. Pugh
Paul J. Gans
(Lucas & Roddenberry snipped)
>Please forgive me. You are all so young. Robots have been
>around since the 1920's or '30's.
Much longer than that: remember the golem of Prague?
And wasn't Gerbert of Aurillac said to have a personal computer, aka a brass
head that answered questions - or am I thinking of Bacon? And space flight
goes back through Cyrano, Holberg, and Wilkes to Lucan..... Generally for
purposes of satire or moralising, just as in much modern SF.
I think what we are talking about here is dreams of unlimited power and
prowess - not to mention free and obedient labour - that have been with us
since the dawn of man. As Alex said, you only need birds to make you yearn
for flight.
I don't see any difference in principle between the dreams of Bacon and
Lucas, or between a romance about enchanted swords and a romance about
"nanotech" (the latest way to have a free lunch). Some of these notions
actually get invented, patented, manufactured and (mis)used. So there isn't
an absolute boundary between dream and reality either, more a continuous
spectrum. Leonardo is a bit further along that road than Cyrano, say.
David
Alex Milman
Jon wrote:
>
> Alex Milman wrote in message <34BA74...@gte.com>...
>
> >> 2. George Lucas did not "invent" intergalactic space battleships either.
> >
> >First of all, Lucas did not invent a _concept_ of the space
> >battleship. It had been introduced decades before the "Star Wars" as
> >well as an idea of the robots (first in "RUR" by Chapek). In the form
> >answer any question about their construction, principle of the
> >operation, etc. More, their existence contradicts to the known facts
> >while being correct (Lukas did not invent intergalactic space
> >battleships in any meaning of the word), is not applicable :-)
> >
> >Best wishes
> > Alex
>
> The "flip phone" cell phone was modeled after Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek
> communicator (original series). He by no means invented the flip phone, but
> credit is given to him for the inspiration. Perhaps in the future credit
> will be given to George Lucas for robots
It will not because, as I wrote before, robots had been "invented"
by Karel Chapek, not by Lucas or Asimov. :-)
>and superlight speed space ships.
Hardly, unless Einstein was wrong.
> Leonardo at least provided inspiration for the modern parachute. Whether we
> credit him with inventing it, imagining it, or simply inspiring it is
> missing the larger point: he was brilliant and ahead of his time.
>
> jon
Alex Milman
David C. Pugh wrote:
>
> Paul J. Gans
>
> (Lucas & Roddenberry snipped)
>
> >Please forgive me. You are all so young. Robots have been
> >around since the 1920's or '30's.
>
> Much longer than that: remember the golem of Prague?
>
Idea of an artificial man had been around for quite a while. But the
word "robot" had been invented by Chapek. Initially Chapek considered
"labordgy" but rejected it as "too English".
Alex Milman
John M. Atkinson wrote:
>
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >they appear in the movie, battleships are the pure fantasy: you can't
> >answer any question about their construction, principle of the
> >operation, etc. More, their existence contradicts to the known facts
>
> with the more fanatical of the afficianados of the film,
You are absolutely right here.
Alex Milman
Sfz wrote:
>
> I was quoting a gentleman named Roger Bacon. Unfortunately, he didn't
> apparently realize that you were going to question him,
Why shouldn't I?
>so he neglected to
> provide answers to your questions, complete with drawings and quotes.
>
You can believe whatever you want but don't ask other people to take
seriously fantasies written in XIII century.
>
> It is very unfortunate that Bacon did not write down any description of
> his source material. He may have had access to documents that have
> not survived for us. Bacon mentions specifically:
> 1) boats without oars: it was known that the ancients developed
> paddlewheel-powered boats,
Which had been used where and by whom?
>although it is unlikely that with animal
> power there could have been much speed; it is possible that such boats
> were used only in very limited circumstances, such as to impress people
> in magic or religion shows, or as "torpedos" in warfare.
Any reliable references to their use? BTW, a normal rowing galley
would have a much higher speed than this "torpedo" of yours.
And the whole idea of torpedo is a concentrated explosion against the
underwater part of a vessel. Without explosives it's usual ramming.
Why slower paddleboat would be more effective in ramming?
> A torsion spring
> or weight might provide enough energy to move a small boat,
On which distance? You forgot that water has a relatively high
resistance to the movement. Your boat would loose speed after a
few yards.
>loaded with
> burning material, out amongst the enemy.
Branders had been quite effective (in a real life) without any
springs or hidden weights. Crew set the sails, closed to the enemy and
than abandoned the vessel.
> 2) wagons that move by miraculous force:I believe that small vehicles
> powered by springs were built to amaze the unwary at magic/religion >shows.
And of what practical use these vechicles would be?
> It is possible that such small vehicles were armed with spinning blades,
> to be released at a nearby enemy.
The only possible casualities would be enemy's soldoers who died
laughing.
Blades had been sometimes mounted on the chariots but their
effectiveness was questionable (did not help Perces against Alexander).
Still, an idea was popular during the Middle Ages and even Rennaissance
(you can see devices of the kind in Leonardo's notebooks but they are
usually driven by horse; still not effective but at least practical).
> Both a automatic boat and a cart
> would be within the capabilities of the makers of the Antikythera device,
> for example.
Sure, sure. They also constructed a nuclear bomb.
Unfortunately, this weapon perished with the inventor. :-)
> 3) machines for flight: It is recorded in a far western province of Chine
> (i.e.,
> closest to Rome), that in 556 AD, and Emperor caused a fleet of gliders
> to be created, took a group of perhaps thirty condemned prisoners, strapped
> each into a glider and sent them off one by one to see what would happen.
> Apparently many survived and a couple even flew a considerable distance,
> as in hundreds of yards. There is no record of earlier or later activities,
What a pity. A thought that they had been happily flying even after.
> although
> man-flying kites had been around.
Around what?
It is possible that one or more escapees
> from
> the Roman empire's death brought such knowledge with them.
And where in the Roman Empire these flying devices had been used?
>Regardless, it
> shows that even in 556 people were building gliders.
It does not shows anything besides your lively imagination.
>
> >The major difference between most of these fantasies and Leonardo's
> >designs is that he was trying to produce a workable solution.
> >While medieval "submarine" attributed to Alexander/Aristotle is an
> >absolute fantasy, Leonardo's design of the diving gear is quite
> >practical: it includes goggles (which look very contemporary), tube
> >for the air supply (with the measures to compensate the water pressure)
> >and a face mask with 2 valves to provide a normal breathing.
>
> >While Bacon's mentioning of the device for walking over the water may
> >mean anything or absolutely nothing besides an overdeveloped
> >imagination, Leonardo provided a comprehensive description with the
> >picture.
>
> Leonardo seems to have had good data on things like diving apparatus
> primarily because he was not inventing them, he was describing what had
> already been invented by others.
The only question is how come that in many cases he was a single
person with an access to such a knowledge? Contemporaries had been
quite impressed which means that information was not easily available.
>In the case of diving apparatus, I believe
> such apparati had already been used by Roman-era divers in trying to
> bring up shipwrecks.
Can you produce a reliable description of such a gear?
>Even if Leonardo did not know about the ancient
> efforts, he may well have known about the pearl divers off India by that
> time.
Which did not use anything like his apparatus. And Leonardo would
not be the most likely person to have this knowledge. Portugese had
a monopoly on Indian trade and, AFAIK, Leonardo was not a Portugese.
> His writings correspond to a time when Venice was trying to acquire
> new technologies to help her against the Turks.
> It is likely that underwater
> techniques would have been of interest, especially since Leonardo was trying
> (unsuccessfully) to win appointment at Venice as an engineer.
And his studies in anatomy had been of interest to ...
>
> Leonardo's drawings are not always workable.
Of course. Even most of the successful inventions pass through the
series of the redesigns before they became practical.
>For example, in some drawings
> the gearing is reversed. This is the kind of error it is easy to make if you
> are
> an artist copying an existing device, especially from memory (even when your
> memory is very good.) Other than that, it is precisely that so many of
> Leonardo's
> devices are fully-elaborated, sorted out designs that make it extremely
> unlikely
> that he was inventing them himself.
Sure. And Edison did not invent an electric bulb based on the fact
that his final design was fully-elaborated and sorted out.
Alex Milman
Sfz wrote:
>
> In article <34BA2...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>
> Sfz wrote:
> >=> 11) He was a really, really good artist. But he hated "being" an artist.
>
> >Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> > =Did he tell you so?
> >
> > Sorry, it was conjecture. But I think
> >there are ample grounds.
> > 1) He started few and finished fewer paintings (thirteen are known,
>and of
> > those most seem to have been completed by someone other than Leonardo,
> > working after his exit.
>
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> >Most of this legend stemed from Vasary's book. Being a
> >Mickelangelo's admirer, Vasary did not even pretended to be objective.
>
> I have done some research for you. I did not use Vasari,
Why? While being a biassed source, it's still a very valuable book.
>but did use the
> Corbis/Bill Gates CD (which is fun) and:
Judging by the money Gates paid for Leonardo's notebook, he has a
higher opinion about his mental (and other) abilities than you do.
> Reti, Ladislao (ed.). The Unknown Leonardo. Abrams, New York, 1974.
>
> Leonardo's (possible) paintings:
> 1473-5: Annunciation: probably his first, delivered
> 1473-5: Madonna with Flower: unknown disposition
> 1473-5: Baptism of Christ: Leonardo paints angel on left, some background
> 1476-8: Annunciation (commissioned to Verrochio), painted with others
> 1478?: Benois Madonna: probably finished,
Definitely finished. Did you see the picture? Probably not,otherwise
you would not have a question.
>possibly not delivered
> 1478-80: Portrait of Ginevra Benci: delivered!
> 1480: St. Jerome: unfinished, left behind by Leonardo
> 1481: Adoration of the Magi: abandoned
> 1482: Madonna Litta: abandoned
Again, you did not see the picture (I did).
> 1483-6: Virgin of the Rocks: in conjunction with de Predis brothers, never
> installed
> 1483: Second Virgin of the Rocks; Leonardo with helpers, never completed
> 1484-8: Lady with an Ermine: delivered!
> 1490: Portrait of a Musician: no background painted
> 1495: Portrait of a Lady: Possibly done by Leonardo, but with others
> 1495-8: Last Supper: arguments over contract, probably finished by Leonardo
> under duress as another painter was commissioned to finish it.
> 1501: Madonna with Yarnwinder; "probably a collaborative project"
> 1503-6: Battle of Anghiari: abandoned in mid-execution
According to Vasari.
> 1504-5: Mona Lisa: never delivered by Leonardo
Was it finished?
> 1509-10: St. Anne: delivered!
> 1513-6: St. John the Baptist: no background painted
> 1513-14: two paintings, now lost, for G. Branconi
>
> The tallies: Leonardo completed and delivered five paintings working alone.
> He delivered five more paintings working as part of a team. He is known to
> have abandoned six paintings - sometimes ignoring the contracts. Six other
> paintings were probably not completed and remain of unknown status.
In
> three of his delivered paintings, Leonardo left the background black. This was
> a surprise to at least some of his clients, who had to be persuaded to
> accept what they may have tought were incomplete portraits. Leonardo
> argued that the black background enhanced the focus, and many agree
> with him.
Which answers your question about St John. BTW, a completely
black or almost black background had been later widely used by
Rembrandt and Goya. I don't know if Leonardo was the first to
introduce this techinque but, even judging by your quotation, it
was a surprise in his time.
>
> The decision on who painted what and what comprised "finished" was
> by experts, not me. However, they did not consult Vasari.
First, you don't know _that_. Second, your list does not prove or
tell anything besides the fact that Leonardo spent a lot of time
working on his pictures. Sometimes too long to satisfy his customers.
So what? Not everybody would or could paint with the speed of
Mickelandgelo.
A participation of the other painters was nothing new or original.
Rubens created a moneymaking (sorry, picturemaking) factory out of
his school. In many cases he just added few strokes here and there.
AFAIK, Goya had a helper to paint horses and some other unimportant
parts of the portraits, etc.
>
> =>
> =>2) He worked very hard to obtain employment in other fields: lute >playing
Rather constructing. When he arrived to Milan he had been accompanied
by his friend (lute player) who played an instrument constructed by
Leonardo.
BTW, music had been an important part of the Renaissance culture and
a courtier should be proficient in this area.
> => and engineering being his two favorites,
A greater demand. Lodovico Moro definitely had been interested in
an engineer, both for the military and entertaining purposes. Vacation
had been open for an engineering position, not for a painter.
Caesar Bordgia also had quite practical purposes: supervision of the
defences of his cities and maps of his and adjacent territories.
King of France had been alledgedly very pleased by a mechanic lion but
soldiers on French service used a model of the Sforza monument as a
target practice.
>it appears
>
> >Nothing original here.
> >Durer, Micelangelo, Chellini, etc. worked in more than one field, including
> >fortification, jewelry making, gunnery, etc.
>
> Each of the above spent a great deal of time on their art.
As well as Leonardo
><When they went
> away from art it was to other paid occupations.
And so did Leonardo. In his case it was even more understandable:
he painted slowly with a lot of corrections. Living off the pictures
would be difficult and very troublesome. Service as an engineer
provided a stable source of an income.
>Leonardo simply did not
> paint often,
Does it make him an inferior painter?
He had multiple interests and some of his side occupations brought
him means to exist.
This was his personal style which reflects pretty much his general
attitude to everything. What's wrong with it?
>and even when he had a contract to do so, he often dragged his
> feet until the patron went to legal or other alternatives. Is this true of
> your other great artists?
Rembrandt had quite a few legal problems but this is not the point.
Are you trying to tell us that you have some valid definition of
the painter's behavior which is fit to everybody?
Don't you think that you are simply not qualified to make judgements
of such a magnitude?
>
> => 3) much of his notebooks were written with an eye towards publication; the
> => printing press was still new and business was hopping
>
> >And how many of them did he published? BTW, if
> >true, why would it be bad or non-artistic? At least some of materials are
> >related to the art problems and architecture.
>
> Yes, he had book ideas in several areas, including a treatise on
> painting. However, the painting manuscript did not materialize.
You avoiding answering the question. Your initial post implied that
Leonardo had an intention to get rich off his publications. Besides
the fact that there is nothing wrong with this intention, based on
which facts did you make your statement? How many his manuscripts
had been published during his lifetime?
>
> => 4) when he was recognized, after painting the Last Supper, as the greatest
> => artisit known at that time (an honor usually conferred posthumously), he
> => did not leap to capitalize on it,
>
> >Well, well. It was always assumed that an artist must be indifferent to
> >money and follow only his inspiration... What you are saying is that a real
> >painter must be greedy.
>
> People were willing to give him a pretty free hand after the Last Supper.
> Greed is when you are willing to do something you don't (or shouldn't)
> like for money that you don't need.
Greed - "acquisitive or selfish desire beyond reason"
Eg., Bill Gates almost definitely likes software development.
>Leonardo certainly was not rich or even
> modestly well off, and patrons would have let him paint pretty much whatever
> he wanted, and even on whatever timeline he wanted.
Probably it did not come to your mind that Leonardo may not want to
paint for money unless he was forced to.
>
> >but instead used it to get a job working on canals.
>
> I concluded that canal building was what Leonardo wanted to do.
Yes, among other things, including painting.
>
> > 5) he didn't work hard on painting when he did have the chance.
> > He dragged out his efforts until he was fired in most cases.
>
> >Actually the problem was that he worked too hard in an attempt to
> >achieve a perfection. Is this necessary for a painter to work like a printing
> >machine?
>
> It is possible that Leonardo did want perfection, and that is what kept him
> from working intensely on paintings.
Please, your definition of "working intensely".
Could he stop and think about what he wanted to do as a next step?
Some artists, like Mickelangelo have a very clear idea of what they
are going to do and how exactly they are going to do it. Some, like
Leonardo, need a lot of time to think about what and how and this
process does not stop when works starts. The same applies not only
to the painting but also to the literature, music and, probably to
the any intellectual activity.
>
> > 6) he didn't do painting in his spare time.
> >
>
> >But he did a lot of drawings. A lot of the later artists spent
> >a lot of time in this area (some, like Picasso, even managed to get
> >very good money for their drawings :-) ).
>
> But drawing is not painting. Leonardo clearly did not hate drawing.
If leonardo "hated" painting, he would probably did not do any painting
at all. He could comfortably survive as an engineer or court
entertainer.
>
> => But no, he didn't tell me.
>
> >So you actually don't know.
>
> That's why it's a conjecture.
Rather unconvincing one.
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> I was quite serious about the 69 children in 27 pregnancies, by the Russian
> couple.
>
happen?
> I would never stoop to making something like that up. More power to them!
And hopefully you don't have any doubts regarding Russia being a
motherland of the elefants?
>
> Was it Medieval or just Fun in Any Era [FAE]?
We can only rely on our personal experience, don't we? :-)
>
John M. Atkinson
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
Wandering just a _wee_ bit off topic. . .
>(Lucas & Roddenberry snipped)
>>Please forgive me. You are all so young. Robots have been
>>around since the 1920's or '30's.
>Much longer than that: remember the golem of Prague?
The Good Doctor[1] makes a differentiation due to the fact that the
golem of Prague was animated by due to religious spells, while a robot
is an artificial human being animated by mechanical and electronic
principles. The difference between science fiction and fantasy/
>And wasn't Gerbert of Aurillac said to have a personal computer, aka a brass
>head that answered questions - or am I thinking of Bacon? And space flight
>goes back through Cyrano, Holberg, and Wilkes to Lucan..... Generally for
>purposes of satire or moralising, just as in much modern SF.
Again, the difference between science fiction and fantasy.
> I don't see any difference in principle between the dreams of Bacon and
>Lucas, or between a romance about enchanted swords and a romance about
>"nanotech" (the latest way to have a free lunch). Some of these notions
>actually get invented, patented, manufactured and (mis)used. So there isn't
I'd differ. Borrowing again from the Good Doctor, the difference
between science fiction and fantasy is that the surreal background of
the story in science fiction could, conceivably, be derived from our
own by appropriate changes in the level of science and technology.
The change could represent an adavance, or a retreat. By a liberal
interpretation of what science advances we can make, we could include
such not-likely items as time travel, FTL, and so on. Note that
nanotech is rather a case of an engineering problem, right now, and is
likely to be rather common in twenty or so years.
Fantasy, on the other hand, portrays surreal backgrounds that cannot
reasonably be supposed to be derived from our own by any change in the
level of science and technology.
Given this definition of science fiction, we can see the field can
scarcely have existed in its true sense until the time came when the
concept of social change through alterations in the level of science
and technology had been evolved in the first place. IOW, Cyrano,
Lucan, or Bacon could not have written science fiction if they wanted
to, as the concept just didn't exist.
>an absolute boundary between dream and reality either, more a continuous
>spectrum. Leonardo is a bit further along that road than Cyrano, say.
Only an academic. If it's been built, it exists. If not, it doesn't.
A spectrum of reality is a bit of a weasel word.
[1]For the Mundanes among us, Dr. Asimov
Sfz
Sfz wrote:
=> Bacon mentions specifically:
=> 1) boats without oars: it was known that the ancients developed
=> paddlewheel-powered boats, although it is unlikely that with animal
=> power there could have been much speed; it is possible that such boats
=> were used only in very limited circumstances, such as to impress people
=> in magic or religion shows, or as "torpedos" in warfare. A torsion spring
=> or weight might provide enough energy to move a small boat,
=>loaded with burning material, out amongst the enemy.
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>Which had been used where and by whom?
I use the word "possible" to indicate that I have no source that says exactly
what was used. In this case we have Roger Bacon testifying that he believed,
on the basis of evidence which is unknown to us", that such a boat was known.
On the other hand, we have a description written in the 300's of a boat powered
by undershot waterwheels driven by oxen. See Landels, J. G. Engineering in
the Ancient World. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981. As Landels
points out, and I relate, there appear to be practicle problems with oxen-
paddlewheel drives. Further, Procopius describes how mills were quickly
rebuilt for use on boats, indicating that paddlewheels on boats was itself not
a
fantasy.
Since the vast majority of life in the Empire is unknown except by such
snippets of writings and a small slice from archaeology, we'll have to
believe what we want.
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>Any reliable references to their use?
> BTW, a normal rowing galley would have a much higher speed than
>this "torpedo" of yours. And the whole idea of torpedo is a concentrated
>explosion against the underwater part of a vessel. Without explosives it's
>usual ramming. Why slower paddleboat would be more effective in ramming?
The idea of today's torpedo is to explode. The idea in ancient times might
have
been to run near a boat enough to throw off its oars - even a small change in
oar
power on one side of a boat would keep a ramming boat from a direct hit,
as needed to obtain a penetration. On the other hand, burning material might
cause actual damage. But as you say, believe what you want.
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>On which distance? You forgot that water has a relatively high resistance
>to the movement. Your boat would loose speed after a few yards.
>Branders had been quite
>effective (in a real life) without any springs or hidden weights. Crew set
>the sails, closed to the enemy and than abandoned the vessel.
This was a liomited, costly and dangerous exercise. IMO it is likely that
ancient engineers would have worked to develop a cheaper and more effective
solution that could be used without wind in the right quarter. But as you
say, believe what you want.
=> 2) wagons that move by miraculous force:I believe that small vehicles
=> powered by springs were built to amaze the unwary at magic/religion >shows.
>And of what practical use these vechicles would be?
A number of "temple devices" were used to impress potential believers. Some
of these devices have been described, such as jars that seem to turn water
into wine. Apparently such things could make big impressions. A vehicle,
even a small one, that could move without apparent power might have
been used in this way. See Hero's book on "the Making of Automata".
Again, you can believe what you want.
=> It is possible that such small vehicles were armed with spinning blades,
=> to be released at a nearby enemy.
>The only possible casualities would be enemy's soldoers who died laughing.
> Blades had been sometimes mounted on the chariots but their effectiveness
>was questionable (did not help Perces against Alexander). Still, an idea was
>popular during the Middle Ages and even Rennaissance (you can see devices of
>the kind in Leonardo's notebooks but they are usually driven by horse; still
>not effective but at least practical).
I'm not sure that the ancients were confined by your notions of practical. You
seem to be thinking of the use of a "whirl blade cart" in an open battlefield.
Have you considered the effect of such a cart released in the entryway of
a fortress? At the very least it would give attackers something to think
about other than arrows from above. Again, you can believe what you
want.
=> Both a automatic boat and a cart
=> would be within the capabilities of the makers of the Antikythera device,
=>for example.
>Sure, sure. They also constructed a nuclear bomb.
>Unfortunately, this weapon perished with the inventor. :-)
Believe what you want, but there is evidence that the long straight roads
of the Romans was apparently to accommodate linear accelerators. :-)
=> 3) machines for flight: It is recorded in a far western province of Chine
=>(i.e., closest to Rome), that in 556 AD, and Emperor caused a fleet of
=>gliders to be created, took a group of perhaps thirty condemned prisoners,
=>strapped each into a glider and sent them off one by one to see what would
=>happen. Apparently many survived and a couple even flew a considerable
=>distance, as in hundreds of yards. There is no record of earlier or later
=>activities,
>What a pity. A thought that they had been happily flying even after.
=> although man-flying kites had been around.
>Around what?
See:
[Chi] Temple, Robert. "The Genius of China". Simon & Schuster, New York,
1986.
[Nee] Needham, Joseph. "Science and Civilization in China". Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1965.
=>It is possible that one or more escapees from
=> the Roman empire's death brought such knowledge with them.
>And where in the Roman Empire these flying devices had been used?
Again, when I use the word "possible" it means that I have no source.
=>Regardless, it shows that even in 556 people were building gliders.
>It does not shows anything besides your lively imagination.
While I appreciate what you no doubt meant to be a compliment, I will
ask readers less astitute than yourself to note that when I use the word
"possible" it means "capable of happening or existing". If I have sources
then I will use a stronger word, such as with Needham's gliders, where
Chinese sources have been shown quite reliable. See:
[Chi] Temple, Robert. "The Genius of China". Simon & Schuster, New York,
1986.
[Nee] Needham, Joseph. "Science and Civilization in China". Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1965.
>= >The major difference between most of these fantasies and Leonardo's
> =>designs is that he was trying to produce a workable solution.
>=>While medieval "submarine" attributed to Alexander/Aristotle is an
>=>absolute fantasy, Leonardo's design of the diving gear is quite
>=>practical: it includes goggles (which look very contemporary), tube
>= >for the air supply (with the measures to compensate the water pressure)
>= >and a face mask with 2 valves to provide a normal breathing.
>
>= >While Bacon's mentioning of the device for walking over the water may
>= >mean anything or absolutely nothing besides an overdeveloped
>= >imagination, Leonardo provided a comprehensive description with the
>= >picture.
=> Leonardo seems to have had good data on things like diving apparatus
=> primarily because he was not inventing them, he was describing what had
=> already been invented by others.
>The only question is how come that in many cases he was a single person
>with an access to such a knowledge? Contemporaries had been quite impressed
>which means that information was not easily available.
After ending his apprenticeship, Leonardo had few steady jobs. He could spend
most of his time investigating. When he did have jobs, they were often
tangential with engineers. For example, his job building "mechanized displays"
(which, by the way, are not unlike Roman clocks, the Antikethera Device, and
the
automatic boats and carts we discussed earlier), he was allowed access to
clockworks. When he had a job illustrating the weapons and combat book
for Martini he had access to weapons developers. When he illustrated a
mathematics book for Luca Paccioli he had access to geometric techniques.
His own training in Verrocchio's studio gave him training in metalurgy. He
seems
to have had job in illustrating a book by Toscanelli on anatomy.
When you say "contemporaries had been quite impressed" can you provide
a reference, please? I was under the impression that Leonardo was respected
as a painter and artist, but not as an engineer in his lifetime.
=>In the case of diving apparatus, I believe
=> such apparati had already been used by Roman-era divers in trying to
=> bring up shipwrecks.
>Can you produce a reliable description of such a gear?
My belief was based on History Channel presentation. Perhaps someone
in netland can help on this.
=>Even if Leonardo did not know about the ancient
=> efforts, he may well have known about the pearl divers off India by that
=> time.
>Which did not use anything like his apparatus. And
>Leonardo would not be the most likely person to have this knowledge.
>Portugese had a monopoly on Indian trade and, AFAIK, Leonardo was not a
>Portugese.
I'm not sure that a monopoly on trade was absolute, nor would it cover the
transmission of ideas. When Venice announced a prize for inventive weaponry
it might have brought out ideas even from Portugese. But again, you can
believe what you want.
=> His writings correspond to a time when Venice was trying to acquire
=> new technologies to help her against the Turks. It is likely
=>that underwater techniques would have been of interest, especially since
=>Leonardo was trying (unsuccessfully) to win appointment at Venice as an
=>engineer.
>And his studies in anatomy had been of interest to ...
The emminent Florentine physician Toscanelli, for one.
=>Leonardo's drawings are not always workable.
>Of course. Even most of the successful inventions pass through the
>series of the redesigns before they became practical.
Yes, then please show examples of where Leonardo developed a series of
such redesigns, perhaps correcting such mistakes as reversed gearing.
=>For example, in some drawings the gearing is reversed.
=>This is the kind of error it is easy to make if you are
=> an artist copying an existing device, especially from memory (even when your
=> memory is very good.) Other than that, it is precisely that so many of
=> Leonardo's devices are fully-elaborated, sorted out designs that make it
=> extremely unlikely that he was inventing them himself.
>Sure. And Edison did not invent an electric bulb based on the fact
>that his final design was fully-elaborated and sorted out.
I think you'll find ample evidence of Edison's many, many trials for
lightbulbs.
This is, in fact, an excellent example of how a real inventor works.
Steve Zeigler
Alex Milman
Sfz wrote:
>
> Sfz wrote:
> => Bacon mentions specifically:
> => 1) boats without oars: it was known that the ancients developed
> => paddlewheel-powered boats, although it is unlikely that with animal
> => power there could have been much speed; it is possible that such boats
> => were used only in very limited circumstances, such as to impress people
> => in magic or religion shows, or as "torpedos" in warfare. A torsion spring
> => or weight might provide enough energy to move a small boat,
> =>loaded with burning material, out amongst the enemy.
>
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> >Which had been used where and by whom?
>
> I use the word "possible" to indicate that I have no source that says exactly
> what was used. In this case we have Roger Bacon testifying that he believed,
> on the basis of evidence which is unknown to us", that such a boat was known.
>
Let's put things straight. Bacon wrote what he believed without
providing any evidience or explanation whatsoever. On the top of
this you constructed your own explanations which are not in any
way related to Bacon and do not fit known facts. Your "boat" is a
total noncense. Construction like this can be used only in the
child toys. Even with the existing technology it would be extremely
difficult to create a spring which would propel a sizeable boat on
any practical distance.
> On the other hand, we have a description written in the 300's of a boat powered
> by undershot waterwheels driven by oxen.
So now it's an oxen instead of a spring. Are you trying to tell that
anybody in the ancient word had been using oxen-propelled branders?
> See Landels, J. G. Engineering in
> the Ancient World. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981. As Landels
> points out, and I relate, there appear to be practicle problems with oxen-
> paddlewheel drives.
Sure. And nobody would use these contraptions for the military
purposes as you initially described.
>Further, Procopius describes how mills were quickly
> rebuilt for use on boats, indicating that paddlewheels on boats was itself not
> a
> fantasy.
All this is well and nice but it has nothing to do with the Bacon's
writings (at least with the piece that you quoted) because he wrote
about "boat without oars". You are guessing, without any proof, that
he _may_ mean a paddleboat (driven by either oxen or a spring ?)
which, in turn, also had was not implemented in practice.
But he may mean a completely different thing (practical or not
practical, we don't have any clue).
>
> Since the vast majority of life in the Empire is unknown except by such
> snippets of writings and a small slice from archaeology, we'll have to
> believe what we want.
You can also believe that they had the jet fighters and machine guns.
But, please, don't try to push your believes on other people unless
you have some reasonable explanation.
>
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> >Any reliable references to their use?
> > BTW, a normal rowing galley would have a much higher speed than
> >this "torpedo" of yours. And the whole idea of torpedo is a concentrated
> >explosion against the underwater part of a vessel. Without explosives it's
> >usual ramming. Why slower paddleboat would be more effective in ramming?
>
> The idea of today's torpedo is to explode. The idea in ancient times might
> have
> been to run near a boat enough to throw off its oars - even a small change in
> oar
> power on one side of a boat would keep a ramming boat from a direct hit,
> as needed to obtain a penetration.
As I said before, there was nothing misterious in branders and they
worked perfectly well without any hidden springs. OTOH, I simply
don't know if they had been used in an ancient word.
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> >On which distance? You forgot that water has a relatively high resistance
> >to the movement. Your boat would loose speed after a few yards.
> >Branders had been quite
> >effective (in a real life) without any springs or hidden weights. Crew set
> >the sails, closed to the enemy and than abandoned the vessel.
>
> This was a liomited, costly and dangerous exercise.
Much cheaper than your fantastic springs. And you could create
brander on ad hoc basis. It definitely was dangerous.
> IMO it is likely that
> ancient engineers would have worked to develop a cheaper
Cheaper than use of the sails?
>and more effective
As I said before, except on the tiny models, you need a considerable
source of energy to propell a big boat on any practical distance.
OTOH, sails provide this energy cheap and effectively.
> solution that could be used without wind in the right quarter.
Sure. And paddleboats had been a common place in the ancient world.
Caesar used them to cross the Channel and Cleopatra's galley had been
a paddleboat. You can also believe in the small green people without
ears.
> But as you
> say, believe what you want.
>
I definitely don't believe in the nonsense you wrote.
> => 2) wagons that move by miraculous force:I believe that small vehicles
> => powered by springs were built to amaze the unwary at magic/religion >shows.
>
> >And of what practical use these vechicles would be?
>
> A number of "temple devices" were used to impress potential believers.
In which religion? The most active in recruiting the new believers
were Christianity and Mithraism. Which one of the first Popes of Rome
had been famous for using carts without the horses?
Or which exactly religion used them on any noticeable (and documented)
scale.
BTW, as with the boats, unless those vechicles were toys, you need a
very strong propellant to move them on any considerable distance.
> Some
> of these devices have been described, such as jars that seem to turn water
> into wine.
Unless you mean an apparatus for a moonshining, it was a
circus trick. As far as modern chemistry goes, vine can be converted
to a vinegar but water can not be converted into the vine.
>Apparently such things could make big impressions. A vehicle,
> even a small one, that could move without apparent power might have
> been used in this way. See Hero's book on "the Making of Automata".
> Again, you can believe what you want.
Automats are a completely different story. There was nothing
misterious about them and their abilities to move (unless an
inventor was a crook at put somebody inside) had been quite limited.
BTW, what this has to do with Leonardo (besides the fact that
he alledgedly constructed few such contraptions for amusement of
his employers)
>
> => It is possible that such small vehicles were armed with spinning blades,
> => to be released at a nearby enemy.
>
> >The only possible casualities would be enemy's soldoers who died laughing.
> > Blades had been sometimes mounted on the chariots but their effectiveness
> >was questionable (did not help Perces against Alexander). Still, an idea was
> >popular during the Middle Ages and even Rennaissance (you can see devices of
> >the kind in Leonardo's notebooks but they are usually driven by horse; still
> >not effective but at least practical).
>
> I'm not sure that the ancients were confined by your notions of practical. You
> seem to be thinking of the use of a "whirl blade cart" in an open battlefield.
> Have you considered the effect of such a cart released in the entryway of
> a fortress?
Especially if attacker goes across the wall and not through the
gates ...
You can fantasize whatever you want. _Documented_ use of these devices
was in a battle.
[snip]
> Again, when I use the word "possible" it means that I have no source.
It means that all this stuff is a product of a fantasy.
[snip]
> >The only question is how come that in many cases he was a single person
> >with an access to such a knowledge? Contemporaries had been quite impressed
> >which means that information was not easily available.
>
> After ending his apprenticeship, Leonardo had few steady jobs. He could spend
> most of his time investigating.
Which was a standard occupation of all people without a steady job...
>When he did have jobs, they were often
> tangential with engineers.
And why would this happen if he had been educated as an artist.
Are you trying to say that engineering job does not require a
special knowledge?
>For example, his job building "mechanized displays"
> (which, by the way, are not unlike Roman clocks, the Antikethera Device, and
> the
> automatic boats and carts we discussed earlier), he was allowed access to
> clockworks. When he had a job illustrating the weapons and combat book
> for Martini he had access to weapons developers. When he illustrated a
> mathematics book for Luca Paccioli he had access to geometric techniques.
> His own training in Verrocchio's studio gave him training in metalurgy. He
> seems
"Seems". It looks like you have visions like a Joan of Arc.
> to have had job in illustrating a book by Toscanelli on anatomy.
>
In other words, according to you Leonardo was a nincompop who did
not know anything and simply went on copying other people works
without any contribution of his own.
Interesting theory. Did he also stole anything from you personally?
> When you say "contemporaries had been quite impressed" can you provide
> a reference, please?
Sure. Read Vassary and Chellini.
>I was under the impression that Leonardo was respected
> as a painter and artist, but not as an engineer in his lifetime.
If you read anything about Renessaince, you should know that at this
time there was no strict distinction between artists and engineers.
Painter often worked as an architect or a civil or military engineer
(Micelangelo, Durer, Rafael).
Leonardo personally was famous because of his knowledge in the
multiple areas which makes him different from, say Micelangelo and
Rafael who were working mainly as painters and architects.
>
> =>In the case of diving apparatus, I believe
> => such apparati had already been used by Roman-era divers in trying to
> => bring up shipwrecks.
>
> >Can you produce a reliable description of such a gear?
>
> My belief was based on History Channel presentation.
This explains it. Their programs, while definitely entertaining,
often contain an unproved or simply wrong material.
>
> >Which did not use anything like his apparatus. And
> >Leonardo would not be the most likely person to have this knowledge.
> >Portugese had a monopoly on Indian trade and, AFAIK, Leonardo was not a
> >Portugese.
>
> I'm not sure that a monopoly on trade was absolute,
Trade monopoly was absolute. Why, in your opinion, both Columbus and
Magellan went in the Western direction? Eastern had been a Portugese
domain.
>nor would it cover the
> transmission of ideas. When Venice announced a prize for inventive weaponry
> it might have brought out ideas even from Portugese.
And we did not find this invention anywhere in Portugal or anywhere
in Venice. But somehow it ended up in the notebooks of Leonardo who
was not even on Venetian service.
> But again, you can
> believe what you want.
I believe that your case does not hold a water.
Alex Milman
John M. Atkinson wrote:
>
> "David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
> Wandering just a _wee_ bit off topic. . .
>
> >(Lucas & Roddenberry snipped)
>
> >>Please forgive me. You are all so young. Robots have been
> >>around since the 1920's or '30's.
>
> >Much longer than that: remember the golem of Prague?
>
> The Good Doctor[1] makes a differentiation due to the fact that the
> golem of Prague was animated by due to religious spells, while a robot
> is an artificial human being animated by mechanical and electronic
> principles. The difference between science fiction and fantasy/
If we are talking about "proprietary rights" on the word "robot"
Chapeck's robots had not been animated by mechanical or electronic
principles. They are built by copying human biological processes and
eventually evolve into the real human beings which
is slightly difficult if you have wheels and circuits inside :-)
His play RUR was rather a political satire in a form of the science
fiction than a pure science fiction.
But later authors definitely converted them into the mechanical
(or electronic) devices.
D. Spencer Hines
1. Well, I don't know for sure Alex. But there are rumours that the Mother
was the wife of a peasant who lived in Shuya --- not too far from Moskva?
2. Her record of 69 live births was allegedly reported to Moskva in about
1782.
3. Was this yet another Soviet invention?
4. Russia, Motherland of Elephants?
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is directed
to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa
Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
Alex Milman wrote in message <34BB76...@gte.com>...
Joe Pinegar
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message <69gmlc$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>1. Well, I don't know for sure Alex. But there are rumours that the
Mother
>was the wife of a peasant who lived in Shuya --- not too far from Moskva?
Perhaps you could contact someone in Moscow, thereby sparing the rest of us
the details of your prurient interests? I'll be happy to look up a
telephone number for you.
Ellen Pinegar
Brian M. Scott
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 07:24:58 -0500, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Idea of an artificial man had been around for quite a while. But the
>word "robot" had been invented by Chapek. Initially Chapek considered
>"labordgy" but rejected it as "too English".
Related to Russian <rabota>?
Brian M. Scott
D. Spencer Hines
1. There's nothing in the least prurient about it.
2. The woman [as well as her husband] was heroic, in my opinion --- if the
rumour is confirmed as fact.
3. This certainly beats reading about some bloke drinking a beer in Dublin
or another tirade from "Tasmanian Devil."
4. Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci was involved by his invention of a secret
fertility potion --- along with the parachute, the tank and the submarine.
5. You must really have a dirty [and itchy] mind.
Richardweb
Alex Milman wrote:
>
>Which answers your question about St John. BTW, a completely
>black or almost black background had been later widely used by
>Rembrandt and Goya. I don't know if Leonardo was the first to
>introduce this techinque but, even judging by your quotation, it
>was a surprise in his time.
>
>
dramatic. Rogier van der Weyden did a large diptych of the crucifixion; it's
one of the treasures of the medieval collection of the Philadelphia Museum of
Art. The Museum did a significant overhaul of its medieval collections
(galleries reopened October 1993), and conservation of this work was part of
the project. The three figures (Christ on the cross, St. John, and the virgin)
are portrayed against a low stone wall, which in turn was portrayed against a
gold-leaf background. When they began the work on the painting, conservators
discovered, much to their surprise, a midnight-blue background -- very stark,
very compelling. The diptych is of some considerable size. If you come to
Philadelphia, it's worth going to the Museum to see it. I think the date for it
is third quarter of the fifteenth century. If anyone really wants specifics,
let me know and I'll go dig them out.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
richa...@aol.com
John M. Atkinson
>[snip]
Dr. Asimov, in the essay I have quoted elsewhere, gives it as being
derives from the Czech word "robota" meaning one engaged in
involuntary servitude.
Alex Milman
Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 07:24:58 -0500, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Idea of an artificial man had been around for quite a while. But the
> >word "robot" had been invented by Chapek. Initially Chapek considered
> >"labordgy" but rejected it as "too English".
>
> Related to Russian <rabota>?
>
He was Csech but, AFAIK, it sounds approximately the same on Csech and
has the same meaning. His robots were (biological) automats supposed
to free mankind from all hard work.
Alex
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> 1. Well, I don't know for sure Alex. But there are rumours that the Mother
> was the wife of a peasant who lived in Shuya --- not too far from Moskva?
>
> 1782.
>
> 3. Was this yet another Soviet invention?
>
> 4. Russia, Motherland of Elephants?
It was an old joke. UN offered each country to write a book about
the elefants. Each country wrote according to it's national character.
Soviets wrote "Russia - motherland of elefants". Bulgaria -
"Bulgarian elefant - a junior brother of the Russian elefant".
rad...@at.ibm.com
In article <69hbn7$l...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Jatk...@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com (John M. Atkinson) wrote:
>
> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>
> >Related to Russian <rabota>?
Yes, the words are related.
> Dr. Asimov, in the essay I have quoted elsewhere, gives it as being
> derives from the Czech word "robota" meaning one engaged in
> involuntary servitude.
He is not quite right. Robota is the servitude itself, but not just any
servitude. It only refers to the specific feudal obligation of a serf to
work on his lord's domain for a given number of days each year. Robot is
a neologism. It never meant a person engaged in robota, as one might
expect.
Radek
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> > Sfz wrote:
> > => Bacon mentions specifically:
> > => 1) boats without oars: it was known that the ancients developed
> > => paddlewheel-powered boats, although it is unlikely that with animal
> > => power there could have been much speed; it is possible that such boats
> > => were used only in very limited circumstances, such as to impress people
> > => in magic or religion shows, or as "torpedos" in warfare. A torsion
> > => spring or weight might provide enough energy to move a small boat,
> > =>loaded with burning material, out amongst the enemy.
> >
> > Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> > >Which had been used where and by whom?
> >
> > I use the word "possible" to indicate that I have no source that says
> > exactly what was used. In this case we have Roger Bacon testifying that
> > he believed, on the basis of evidence which is unknown to us", that such a
> > boat was known.
> >
>
> Let's put things straight. Bacon wrote what he believed without
> providing any evidience or explanation whatsoever. On the top of
> this you constructed your own explanations which are not in any
> way related to Bacon and do not fit known facts. Your "boat" is a
> total noncense. Construction like this can be used only in the
> child toys. Even with the existing technology it would be extremely
> difficult to create a spring which would propel a sizeable boat on
> any practical distance.
No nonsense. It depends on "sizeable". A small dinky like has good
changes perhaps for an "show boat". But for an larger Brander I
assume the speed of 1 km to slow to be of much use.
The key is the energy/weight ratio of the power source. Here the
torsion gun energy storage is unequaled at least untill the steam
pressure boiler made of steel. It is very different to any other
weapon devices of its time. Because it needs a high pre-tension.
It contains much more power then it will release in shoot.
> > On the other hand, we have a description written in the 300's of a boat
> > powered by undershot waterwheels driven by oxen.
>
> So now it's an oxen instead of a spring. Are you trying to tell that
> anybody in the ancient word had been using oxen-propelled branders?
No, but for low speed rivers like the Rhein of ancient times.
Its not known wether it was actualy build or about its sucess.
It mainly depends on the flow speed of the river.
> > Since the vast majority of life in the Empire is unknown except by such
> > snippets of writings and a small slice from archaeology, we'll have to
> > believe what we want.
>
>
> You can also believe that they had the jet fighters and machine guns.
Indeed they (Heron of Alexandria) used the jet principle by steam on
toy like devices. And the Greek navy had a self loading, rapid shooting
"machine gun" for naval warfare (single point defense against boarding)
available too. But without explosives, of course.
>
> > => 2) wagons that move by miraculous force:I believe that small vehicles
> > => powered by springs were built to amaze the unwary at magic/religion
> > => >shows.
> >
> > >And of what practical use these vechicles would be?
> >
> > A number of "temple devices" were used to impress potential believers.
>
> In which religion? The most active in recruiting the new believers
> were Christianity and Mithraism. Which one of the first Popes of Rome
> had been famous for using carts without the horses?
>
> Or which exactly religion used them on any noticeable (and documented)
> scale.
In the pagan times the term "religion" was not like today. What Steve
is talking about is the "Temple of Virtue" or the "Museion" like
places. Its was very like a modern museum on technical and natural
history. Heron of Alexandria was working for such a institution.
It was nothing like priests who try to decept naive people. It
was a show on the ability of men and the frontiers of nature.
All devices of Heron were clearly mechanical toys and no magic
in any way. He even had an animated diorama were small figures
of craftsmen were "building" a ship. One moved a saw, an other
drilling a holes and such like. As the Romans invaded Syrakus
they got two planetariums devices build by Archimedes. The
comanding Roman general put one in his own home and the
other as gift to the Roman "Temple of Virtue". So told by
Cicero, who 100 years later searched for the grave of
Archimedes. Such types of Temples were public and usually
had libraries too. The most famous was the Library of Alexandria
conected to the Museion. The Museion contained "modern instruments"
(astrolabe?, clocks?, certainly astronomical analog calculators
like the Antikythera device and a planetarium), a collection of
rare animales (alive or dead, dont know) and a Star Observatory too.
Now guess what "religion" it was. Hint: nearly extincted during
the Dark Ages, very low in MA and rising again in modern times.
Greetings
SENECA
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
David Bofinger
Robert Elliot wrote:
> Zachi Evenor wrote:
> No; the whole point of a tank is it takes serious obstacles to stop it,
> not infantry. Put 50 infantry men in a schiltron in front of a knight,
> and he's buggered - horse won't charge home. Put them in front of a
> tank, and you get a nasty squelching sound.... ;-)
If the fifty infantry had anti-tank weapons maybe the driver would
refuse
to charge home as well. :-) Seriously, I don't think this is the
critical
feature that makes a tank useful: interposing bodies to slow the enemy
down isn't a tactic used against infantry either, at least not today.
I think the key elements of the tank are
1. Largely proof against the standard infantry weapon.
2. Doesn't need to stop to fight effectively. (Unlike infantry today,
whose main protection is taking cover and so fall off dramatically
in effectiveness when they try to keep moving forward.)
The second element is what makes tanks good at attacking. It also
applies
to knights, who could charge without losing their formation (whereas
most
infantry lost cohesion if they moved at much more than a shuffle). So
I'd
say the knight is a conceptual ancestor of the tank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger
David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger
If this has been handled and dismissed then my apologies:
A recent _Scientific American_ argues Leonardo invented the Wheellock
gun. Perhaps more impressively, they argue that in the process of doing
this he invented the rotary cutter.
dkpi...@cts.com
David Bofinger wrote in article <34C45D9E...@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
> If this has been handled and dismissed then my apologies:
>
> A recent _Scientific American_ argues Leonardo invented the Wheellock
> gun. Perhaps more impressively, they argue that in the process of doing
> this he invented the rotary cutter.
>
Greetings,
Would you happen to recall which edition that article was in? I would love
to read it.
Thank you,
K
John M. Atkinson
David Bofinger <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>If the fifty infantry had anti-tank weapons maybe the driver would
>refuse >to charge home as well. :-) Seriously, I don't think this is the
If used correctly, the first clue the treadhead had we were there
would be that puff of smoke accompanying the missle launch. . .
>I think the key elements of the tank are
> 1. Largely proof against the standard infantry weapon.
> 2. Doesn't need to stop to fight effectively. (Unlike infantry today,
> whose main protection is taking cover and so fall off dramatically
> in effectiveness when they try to keep moving forward.)
In which case we could not count the Panther, T-34, or Sherman as a
tank, as none of them had stabilization enough to fight on the move
[1]. A tank is a tracked, armored fighting vehicle with a turret
containing a relatively large caliber direct fire weapon. And I can
personall attest that infantry can attack. It's called bounding. Pop
on over to sci.military.moderated and ask for a definition of this
term. Damned if I'm gonna waste time explaining modern infantry
tactics, especially as it's just a wee bit off topic.
>The second element is what makes tanks good at attacking. It also
>applies >to knights, who could charge without losing their formation (whereas
>most >infantry lost cohesion if they moved at much more than a shuffle). So
>I'd >say the knight is a conceptual ancestor of the tank.
I think the Swiss would disagree about infantry not being able to
attack in formation. As would the Swedes of Gustavus Adolphus and a
host of other both before and after the time period covered by this
NG. (Lord, save me from chronological specialists. . . ) But you are
essentially correct in that the knight (in the Continental sense of an
armored lancer, not the later English heavy mounted infantryman) did
fill the tactical role filled by modern tanks, i.e. the heavily
armored striking power of most armies.
[1]Yes, I know the Sherman had a crude gyrostabilizer. I also know it
was generally disconnected by the crews, and wasn't worth much when it
was connected.
John M. Atkinson
David Bofinger <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>If this has been handled and dismissed then my apologies:
>A recent _Scientific American_ argues Leonardo invented the Wheellock
>gun. Perhaps more impressively, they argue that in the process of doing
>this he invented the rotary cutter.
[Un] Scientific American doesn't rate much as source. . .
Paul J. Gans
John M. Atkinson (Jatk...@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>David Bofinger <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>>If this has been handled and dismissed then my apologies:
>>A recent _Scientific American_ argues Leonardo invented the Wheellock
>>gun. Perhaps more impressively, they argue that in the process of doing
>>this he invented the rotary cutter.
>[Un] Scientific American doesn't rate much as source. . .
Let's not leap to conclusions. Not all of its articles
are of equal quality, but most are written by experts
in the field.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
John M. Atkinson
ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>[Un] Scientific American doesn't rate much as source. . .
>Let's not leap to conclusions. Not all of its articles
>are of equal quality, but most are written by experts
>in the field.
I mainly have looked at it's military science articles, which rate
right up there with the supermarket tabloids for reliability. If you
say it's historical articles are better. . . Well, I havn't read the
one in question.
Pete Barrett
On 20 Jan 1998 19:33:23 -0500, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>John M. Atkinson (Jatk...@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>David Bofinger <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>
>>>If this has been handled and dismissed then my apologies:
>
>>>A recent _Scientific American_ argues Leonardo invented the Wheellock
>>>gun. Perhaps more impressively, they argue that in the process of doing
>>>this he invented the rotary cutter.
>
>>[Un] Scientific American doesn't rate much as source. . .
>
>Let's not leap to conclusions. Not all of its articles
>are of equal quality, but most are written by experts
>in the field.
>
Interestingly, I've just been reading about this in a book on the history of
firearms (quite old - 1978). It seems that an attempt was made to actually build
Leonardo's design, and it didn't work (details not given). It's suggested the
device was a tinder-igniter (alias cigarette lighter - clearly tobacco had been
introduced much earlier than we thought <g>).
Pete Barrett
Gadfly
In article <34c73340...@news.compuserve.com>,
Pete Barrett <10171...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Leonardo's design, and it didn't work (details not given). It's suggested the
>introduced much earlier than we thought <g>).
Which raises a separate question: When did Europeans start smoking?
The 3-part "Fumeux fume par fumée" in the mid-14th C. Chantilly Codex
suggests the inhalation of something well before the importation of
tobacco, but this reference has also been attributed to the (then
contemporary) Parisian "Societ\151e des Fumeurs" of Eustace Deschamps,
which organization maintained the existence of a fifth humor--smoke--
responsible for wit.
Some performers of medieval music maintain that smoking pipes existed in
Europe before the 15th C., and therefore the Fumeurs may well have
been engaged in actual smoking (with the implication from the lazy chro-
matacism of that piece that it was cannabis). The contrary opinion is that
although smoke was occasionally used medicinally in Europe and Asia, it
was produced with open fires, and that the idea of drawing smoke into
one's mouth through a tube was unique to American Indians until Europeans
met them. (And thus Asians picked up the practice from Europeans.)
This topic has been discussed in rec.music.early (the "Fumeux" piece is
so bizarre you do wonder what they were smoking), but I was wondering
if any folks in this newsgroup had any information on it, especially
when the earliest pipes in the Old World might be dated.
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** ***** Bell Labs / Lucent Technologies
****** ****** 22 Jan 98 [3 Pluviose An CCVI]
***** ***** gad...@bell-labs.com
** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
gad...@ctcgp1.ih.lucent.com (Gadfly) writes:
>Pete Barrett <10171...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>Leonardo's design, and it didn't work (details not given). It's suggested the
>>device was a tinder-igniter (alias cigarette lighter--clearly tobacco had been
>>introduced much earlier than we thought <g>).
>Which raises a separate question: When did Europeans start smoking?
>The 3-part "Fumeux fume par fumée" in the mid-14th C. Chantilly Codex
>suggests the inhalation of something well before the importation of
>tobacco, but this reference has also been attributed to the (then
>contemporary) Parisian "Societ\151e des Fumeurs" of Eustace Deschamps,
>which organization maintained the existence of a fifth humor--smoke--
>responsible for wit.
To the best of my knowledge the accepted explanation for that name
is that they "fumed" at each other...
From a post of mine on another related topic
====
Tobacco was not generally introduced to Europe until the mid 1500s
and was a very fringe product in England until 1586 by which time the
clay pipe has been (recently) invented. Cigarettes are dated to 1614
http://www.tobacco.org/History/Tobacco_History.html
"This Smoking World" (1927)
The European Experience With Native American Tobacco (BD)
====
I think the url above talks about the invention of the pipe and
about the Fumeurs.
Robert
Joseph Askew
John M. Atkinson (Jatk...@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >A recent _Scientific American_ argues Leonardo invented the Wheellock
: >gun. Perhaps more impressively, they argue that in the process of doing
: >this he invented the rotary cutter.
: [Un] Scientific American doesn't rate much as source. . .
Well how do you feel about _The New Scientist_ which recently
ran claims that Leonardo did not invent the bicycle. In fact
it would seem that a bored Italian monk cateloging the papers
doodled on the back of one of them. Now I find it hard to
believe myself but if _The New Scientists_ says so...
Joseph
--
I Learnt Everything I Ever Needed To Know From Hawaii Five-0
Abercjohn
A more recent study of smoking tobacco is 'Tobacco in history: the cultures of
dependence' Jordan Goodman, Routledge, 1993. But he does not consider other
forms of smoking.
How about hemp? Other things were certainly smoked in the 19th century.
Dandelion, I think? And opium, of course.
abercjohn