medieval-tech-msg - 2/22/11 Medieval technology. References. NOTE: See also the files: med-machinry-lnks, timeline-art, ovens-msg, clocks-msg, Med-Lighting-lnks. ************************************************************************ NOTICE - This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday. This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter. The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors. Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s). Thank you, Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous Stefan at florilegium.org ************************************************************************ From: danny at orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (Danny) Subject: Book Review - The Medieval Machine Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 09:04:19 GMT [ note followup ] The Medieval Machine - The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages Jean Gimpel Pimlico 1992 (2nd edition, first published 1988) (translated from the French) pp. 294 (+preface, +chronology, index) [ history of technology, economic history ] Economic history has a reputation for extreme dryness, and probably conjures up visions of statistical compilations in most people's minds. On the other hand works on the history of technology are few and far between. Gimpel's _The Medieval Machine_ is an unusual mixture of the two, being an extremely readable work aimed at a popular audience. It presents a potpourri of information about the technological successes and achievements of the Middle Ages, and should do much to correct the still stereotypical view of the Middle Ages as backward, superstition- ridden and technologically primitive. The basic idea is that in the two centuries from around 1050 Western Europe went through a kind of industrial revolution that was as significant as that of the nineteenth century. (The evidence Gimpel presents is drawn largely from France and England, but Italy and Germany and to a lesser extent other countries also get a mention.) This is fitted into a thesis of wider scope, which I discuss at the end of this review. The first three chapters deal with medieval "primary industry" - with energy sources, agriculture and mining. The first chapter describes the crucial importance to the economy of different sources of energy - river, wind and tidal. Their most important use was in mills for grinding corn, but they were also used to drive machinery for many other purposes, including fulling cloth and pressing olives. The role of the Cistercian monasteries and the social factors leading to a more general acceptance of machines than in classical times are discussed. An interesting snippet is a brief history of the worlds first joint stock company - a French mill owners organisation formed in the late 14th Century that survived until nationalised after World War II. The next chapter looks at the agricultural revolution. The introduction of the modern harness (making horses more effective than oxen in plowing and pulling loads), the three year fallow system, the heavy wheeled plough and other innovations contributed to a large increase in food production. The effects of this on the diet and living standards of people were considerable, with records showing that students at a Paris school had diets that are almost impeccable when subjected to modern nutritional analysis. Another effect was a large population increase throughout the period. Gimpel is also concerned to demonstrate that medieval agriculture was to a large extent, with treatises on the subject being extremely popular. Stone quarrying and iron were the most important mining industries in medieval Europe, but tin, lead and of course silver and gold were also very important. Again the Cistercian monasteries played a critical role. German miners attained a particular reputation for excellence and moved throughout Europe (apparently this is reflected in the large proportion of words of German origin in mining vocabulary). The importance of mining was reflected in the prevalence of Crown rights over mineral wealth throughout much of Europe. The next two chapters deal with the broader social aspects of medieval technology: one on environmental issues and one on working conditions in medieval industries. I was intrigued to discover that pollution and resulting concern about the quality of the environment are not modern phenomena - England had national anti-pollution laws as early as 1388! Working conditions differed drastically between industries. Miners and mining communities were granted exceptional privileges while workers in the textile industry were under the tight control of financial and commercial interests, with working conditions foreshadowing those of the later industrial revolution. Working conditions in the building industry were better in the medieval period than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Strikes in the latter two industries were not uncommon. Then there are chapters on two more specific aspects of medieval technology: one on the role of the great architect-engineers (focusing on Villard de Honnecourt) and their construction of the cathedrals that were the pinnacle of medieval achievement, and another on the development of the clock. The final chapter looks at medieval science and its relationship with medieval technology. Here Gimpel is concerned to point out that Leonardo and the other Renaissance humanists drew many of their ideas from earlier writers, who have got a bad press from history. The general effect of all this is pretty convincing, but due to the selective and anecdotal nature of the account it is hard to tell what bias there may have been in the selection of facts. So I am a little wary about basing any generalisations on the content. However a more "objective" and statistically rigorous approach would certainly have detracted from the book's readability, so I can't really complain about this. The last chapter is particularly controversial, as it is here Gimpel goes further and argues that the medieval "industrial revolution" was followed by a setback in the progress of technology. It is worrying that much of the evidence he presents in the other chapters for the forward-looking and progressive nature of medieval technology in fact dates to within the period he wants to describe as an "era of decay" (this can be seen by internal analysis - Gimpel isn't falsifying the evidence). It is also unclear how much bias there may have been in the selective use of statistical materials. The book contains many graphs showing wages, prices, etc. varying in a fashion consistent with Gimpel's thesis, but perhaps there are others that could have been included that would suggest otherwise. If the final chapter is controversial, the meta-narrative (contained in the preface and the chapter-length epilogue) is even more adventurous (one might even say wildly speculative). Gimpel's central idea is that the modern United States is going through a similar cycle to medieval France and is now in process of decay. In so far as this is based on a theory of history as driven by two fundamental underlying properties of society (namely "technological evolution" and "psychological drive") and in so far as specific dates are given as the changeover points between phases, this seems massively oversimplistic to me. Some parts of the comparison, however, are quite interesting, and the bulk of the book can be read and appreciated even if one disagrees completely with the more general theory. At any rate, while _The Medieval Machine_ did manage to make me rethink my conception of medieval Europe, the most impressive thing about it was how much fun it was to read. I can heartily recommend it to anyone interested either in medieval history or in the history of technology, but it is the sort of book that will also be enjoyed by people who have no interest in either. As well as being clearly written, it is nicely illustrated with black and white photographs and makes good use of line drawings and graphs. Danny Yee (danny at cs.su.oz.au) 23/7/93 From: phefner200 at aol.com (PHefner200) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: medieval science listserver Date: 23 Jul 1996 14:26:54 -0400 Calling all medieval science enthusiasts! There is a medieval science listserver. It's at listserv at brown.edu. Write "subscribe" (without the quotation marks) MEDSCI-L (your name) and you'll be signed on! ---Isabelle From: LIB_IMC at centum.utulsa.EDU Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: The Economics of the Middle Ages (Long) Date: 27 Jul 1996 18:37:37 -0400 >Relative cost/time to produce various types of armour and weapons, >compared to cost of bread/income from an acre of land? Somehow, I suspect that "A LOT" isn't going to be good enough. The A&E program on the Crusades said that the average suit of chain for the Second Crusade cost about as much as we would spend buying a house today (relatively speaking), although they didn't give any source for this comment. This may take some time to work up. >How hard would it be to melt-down or otherwise reuse old weapons >and metalic armour? Remember when reading this, that metal working is NOT my area of expertise. All I know is based on observation and some reading, and any decent smith's apprentice should know more than I do. I think it depends on how hot your furnace can get. Finished steel requires higher temperatures than raw ore to melt. (I believe that you could break down the older metal bits, get them to lose their temper, and gradually become easier to melt, over time.) The furnaces needed to make large scale molten iron weren't developed until the 1350s in Germany. >How late did the technology for making wire cheaply get developed? >It is my understanding that this greatly reduced the cost of mail. >Any thoughts on why it didn't get developed earlier? Before the 10th century, wire was made by forging, hammering out long, thin pieces of metal. In the 10th c. the Draw Plate was developed, a plate made with progressively smaller holes with hot cast iron pulled through the plate by a man with tongs. They began to apply waterpower to add more power to the wire-pulling early in the 14th century. As for why they didn't develop these techniques any earlier, they didn't for the same reason that they didn't develop the hand gun in Rome even though they had the materials readily available, or why the desktop PC wasn't invented in WWII. Invention is really an evolutionary process, step by step, building upon the developments, the work of those that were there before. As a rule, people don't make wild leaps of invention, often combining many technologies into something new and different. They tend to make those changes that they need in order to make something they know work better. Sometimes, the changes that are required aren't going to be available because of a failure of some other technology, or because of the expense involved. In which case, a development will not catch on. For example, in Henry VIII's armory, there are examples of many firearms. Among them are breechloaders and revolvers similar to the 19th century Colt Patent. Why did they wait for the 19th century to be reinvented? In the case of the revolver, it was the metalurgy that was insufficient. I'm not sure why the breechloader muskets didn't catch on, but I suspect that it was because of the expense. >Is iron in demand in the Middle-ages? Yes. >Weapons Swords, Axe heads, mace heads, and so forth. >horseshoes Also ox-shoes >?plows? The iron Plowshare really became widespread during the Roman era. The major development in the plow which made farming far more efficient came in the 11th century with the moulding board (to push the dirt aside), but those were most often of wood. As long as you are at it, bladed farming equipment (scythes, adzes), shears, iron cutting edges on shovels (not a regular thing, but some were made), knives, awls, files, saws, etc. are made of iron. >What were bags, tents and tarps made of? >Wasn't cotton expensive/nonexistant? Linen/flax, hemp. Linen, btw, is actually stronger and more durable than cotton. It's just cheaper to produce and dye today. Flax is also grown for its seeds, which are used to make Linseed Oil (which some people claim can be used as a cooking oil, although we tend today to use it as a varnish. Until about 1300, Egyptian linen was the best, with Spanish linen a near second. In the 14th century, the Dutch invented a method for cheaply and efficiently breaking up the plant, and soon they became a center for linen production. Wool was a very common cloth, coming in different grades, for different uses. Note that some course English wools were at times called "cottons". Cotton manufacture was imported into Spain by the Moors in the 8th century, and from there spread by the 12th century to Italy and France, and by the 14th into Germany, and by the 15th even to England. However, cotton was, at this time, more expensive to produce, and the European grades were really inferior to those grown elsewhere. >What is homespun? (I know it is cloth spun at home! What would >it typically be spun OF?) Or is homespun a term from early Col. >America? I don't know when the term came to be used, but essentially Homespun is cloth that was spun and made at home, rather then produced by professional spinners and weavers. Since (in theory) amateur spinners can't maintain the control over the quality of the threads they spin that professionals can, the term is used to refer to cloth of an uneven manufacture quality. I suspect that the term is post-Medieval, however many people made their own cloth during the Middle Ages. >What do peasants wear during the summer? This is a complicated question since you are covering a large area of land and time. However, the laborer's costume (in fact, most men's costume) consists of the basic pieces of leather boots; two wool hosen (each a separate leg covering) each tied to a belt (these are sometimes worn untied and pushed down); a pair of linen drawers (These are very long early on, and get shorter as the tunic length gets shorter. In the 12th C, they were about knee length, and tied around the knees like knickers); a long shirt, and a tunic/cote over that. The tunic/cote could be (and usually was) for doing hard work. Sometimes, we see "Peasants" shown barelegged and/or barefooted. [You might try looking for a book called "The Common Man through the Centuries" by Max Barsis]. >Did peasants typically live in town or on "their" land? >(given hostilites most would live in town in this MUD but some may >be moving out) Let me see if I can do this. A Peasant simply means that they are a non-noble worker of the land, a countryman, a rustic. A Serf is a Semi-free peasant who works his lord's demesne and pays him certain dues in return for the use of land, the possession (not ownership) of which is heritable. These dues, usually called corvee, are almost in the form of labor on the lord's land. Generally this averages to three days a week. Generally subdivided into classes called Cottagers, small holders, or villeins although the later originally meant a free peasant who was burdened with additional rents and services. During the Middle Ages, I believe the percentages are about 75 to 80% of the people lived in the country to those who lived in towns. >Was the near-property-like situation of serfs pervasive throughout >Europe? By "Serf", in this case, I believe you are using the definition of Serf as "un-free" property, i.e, "Servile". They not only don't own the land they work, but they are effectively *owned* as slaves by the landowner. This was not a universal condition throughout the whole period you refer to, but was pervasive enough, and was "enforced" by economic conditions, legal juggling by lawyers ossifying aspects of the law, and so forth, that it can appear that the people who remain on the land are trapped there. >Things that would effect the price of weapons and armour: >near past war and growing adventurer pop. would increase/maintain >the # of weaponsmiths. You might look at the wars of the Swiss and Burgundians in the 1400s as a model. >Availability of oil for boiled leather Not Oil, Not Wax. Cuir Bouilli is made with water, and simply refers to the heating of wet leather, which polymerizes it into a much harder, thinner form. >Availability of tanning agents for leather (oil? vegatable) The most difficult to find ingrediant in leather tanning, I believe, is time. >Ring armour requires fairly low metal working skills I assume you are referring to rings sewn or studded onto a quilted padding or leather backing? I am not sure that this was common, if it was done at all. >Raids on trading routes would reduce imports (raw materials and >finished goods) Or it would just make the merchants take different routes. >Armour Padded was quite popular, particularly for the lower classes. >preserving food: Drying it is cheaper than salt. >Paper: Linen rags were useful for making paper. >Cups, tableware, food storage Not tin. Wood, earthenware, glazed pottery, horn (not drinking horns, mind you, although those were sometimes used). >Banker "Bankers" as such were not really all that common in the Middle Ages. They were more of a Rennaisance development. Some Sources used for this: Baris. The Common Man Through the Ages. Embleton and Howe. The Medieval Soldier. Morgan. The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Oxford English Dictionary, 2d Ed. Singer, Holmyard, Hall and Williams. A History of Technology (v.2) I. Marc Carlson, Reference Technician |Sometimes known as: McFarlin Library, University of Tulsa | Diarmuit Ui Dhuinn 2933 E. 6th St., Tulsa, OK 74104-3123 | University of Northkeep LIB_IMC at CENTUM.UTULSA.EDU (918) 631-3794| Northkeepshire, Ansteorra Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 12:25:27 PST From: "Alderton, Philippa" Subject: SC - Fw: [Mid] Greek Fire (Stolen from the Arabs) Hey, folks, this looks like an interesting resource. Anybody on Cooks checked it out? I'd be interested in finding out if it has anything interesting on early ovens. phlip at morganco.net : To learn more about little known technology of earlier times, please : check out _Ancient Inventions_ by Peter James and Nick Thorpe (1994) : ISBN 0-345-40102-6. It is cram-packed with information about devices : and techniques from many cultures, including: : plastic surgery (nose reconstruction)--India, last few centuries BCE; : primitive lodestone compass--China, 2000 BCE; : the Baghdad battery--Parthia, 250 BCE-250 CE; : pregnancy test--Babylon, 700 BCE; : lunar calendars--France, 13,000-11,000 BCE : : Rest assured that this is no Von Danken clone book. Thorpe is a : lecturer at King Alfred's College, Winchester, and James is a : professional writer specializing in ancient history and archeology. : : The book itself is written for the general public. It is divided into : chapters on such divers subjects as food, drink and drugs, urban life, : high tech, etc. There are plenty of eye-opening pictures (b/w) and line : drawings. This is a must for anyone interested in the history of : science and technology. : : --Kyle of Tara, AOA, CSO, CW Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:45:32 -0600 From: "John E. St.Lawrence III" Subject: Re: SC - Fw: [Mid] Greek Fire (Stolen from the Arabs) Hey, folks, I know this is off-topic, but as for Greek Fire being stolen from the Arabs, check out Lewis, Bernard. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1982. Judging from what the Arabs themselves *wrote* about their first encounters with Greek Fire, cited in this work, I'd say it was pretty new to them! Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:06:24 -0600 From: "Decker, Terry D." Subject: RE: SC - Fw: [Mid] Greek Fire (Stolen from the Arabs) > Hey, folks, this looks like an interesting resource. Anybody on Cooks > checked it out? I'd be interested in finding out if it has anything > interesting on early ovens. > > phlip at morganco.net > > : To learn more about little known technology of earlier times, please > : check out _Ancient Inventions_ by Peter James and Nick Thorpe (1994) > : ISBN 0-345-40102-6. You might also try Gies, Frances & Joseph, Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel; Harper Collins, New York, 1994. ISBN 0-06-016590-1. It covers technical innovation and technology transfer in the Middle Ages. Popular, but good. The bibliography points to more scholarly works. Unfortunately, nothing about ovens. Bear Date: Fri, 22 May 98 09:22:23 MST From: rmhowe Subject: Another interesting idea from Magnus To: stefan at texas.net Leonardo Da Vinci's Drophammers: I suspect some folks would be interested in trying this: HTTP://renaissance-faire.com/shop/Ancient-Circles.htm Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:20:05 -0400 From: Melanie Wilson To: LIST SCA arts Subject: Forbes Info Here is the info on the volumes I have Studies in Ancient Technology by R Forbes Volume I Bitumen, Petroleum, Alchemy and Water. Volume II Irrigation,Drainage, Power, Land transport, and Road Building. Volume III Paints and Pigments Volume IV Fibres and Fabrics. Volume V Leather and Glass. Volume VI Fuel Volume VII Mining and Quarrying, Geology. Volume VIII Metallurgy, Tools, the Smith, Gold, Silver, Lead,Zinc & Brass Volume IX Copper, Tin, Iron, Bronze, Antimony, Arsenic Mel Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:18:11 -0500 From: "Gray, Heather" To: "'sca-arts at raven.cc.ukans.edu'" Subject: Medieval Dreams at Medieval Technology Centre, Copenhagen http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/projectindex.htm The Medieval Technolgy Centre is a living history museum, located in Nyk=F8bing F (south of Copenhagen). Their main web site is mostly an advertissement of the activities and goals of the museum, but they have a news section, which currently is featuring something called Medieval Dreams. The focus is on a working diving suit, made with medieval technology and materials, based on drawings and writings from the middle age and renaissance. They're not saying that diving suits actually existed, but their challenge is to review these ideas and see which ones could have been done at the time. Here's a short excerpt from one of the pages about the diving suit (link name for this page in the TOC is Hose from Surface): "The first depiction of a diver with a hose from the surface is that which appears in an engineering and military treatise of circa 1425 - 1430. known as the Anonymous of the Hussite Wars ( Codex latinus monacencis 197 part 1) Bayerishe Staatsbibliothek MYnchen. The coloured drawing (fol. 14r1) is well executed however it unfortunately has no accompanying text. The rest of the manuscript features a number of drawings of carefully thought out mechanical devices, gearing systems, lifting machines and siege warfare equipment - even buoyancy aids equipped with inflation valves, for both man and horse which would enable a fully armored knight to safely cross a moat! The degree of detail which is apparent in these illustrations would suggest that the diving dress design is also carefully considered. The diver is clearly engaged in the salvage of sunken goods, perhaps from a shipwreck." Elwynne Heather Gray Heather at quodata.com Fiat Lux To: meridies_metalsmiths at egroups.com Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:08:24 -0600 From: "Jason Duffey" Subject: Article on steel making in the 5-6th century from the New Scientist I saw this on the Armour Archive, and thought you might be interested. Conal New Findings on Old Foundries Foundry Fathers Dark Age blacksmiths forged their own Industrial Revolution Mick Hamer (in New Scientist for December 23/30, 2000) It took the industrial steel makers of Sheffield a thousand years to catch up with the Saxons of Southampton, says archaeologist Gerry McDonnell of the University of Bradford. Saxon blacksmiths in the Dark Ages developed the same sort of high-quality steel that made Sheffield famous during the Industrial Revolution. The finding "turns the conventional idea about early iron-making on its head", he says. In the 1740s, Benjamin Huntsman found that he could purify steel by melting it and allowing the slag to rise to the surface so it could be skimmed off. The resulting high-quality steel, an alloy of iron with about 2 per cent carbon, was perfect for making watch springs, which was Huntsman's profession. But the discovery of small steel ingots and steel-edged knives in Hamwic, a Saxon port buried under Southampton, proves that blacksmiths made "Sheffield" steel in the middle of the Dark Ages. McDonnell believes that the Saxon smiths used a two-stage process to make the steel. First they dropped iron ore and charcoal into a small "bloomery", a clay furnace about 1.5 meters high. Heating this mixture produced cast iron - a compound with about 4 per cent carbon. Secondly, the smiths heated the cast iron on a hearth, using bellows to pump air over the iron. The iron melts at 1100 C but as the temperature continues to climb, the air from the bellows oxidizes the carbon, which escapes as carbon dioxide. When the molten metal has reached 1200 C, and its carbon content has fallen to 2 per cent, it suddenly solidifies. This is because the decrease in carbon raises the metal's melting temperature. The result was a blob of steel "about the size of a currant bun", says McDonnell, which could then be worked into knives or other tools. The ancient world did have other ways of making steel but none of these produced a homogeneous lump of steel of this quality, says McDonnell. Analyses carried out at Bradford show that the steel from Hamwic is two to three times as hard as steel made by other techniques of the time. Some archaeologists doubt the Saxons had the technology to reach temperatures high enough to melt iron and produce high-quality steel. The blast furnace was not introduced to Europe until the 15th century. When solidified lumps of molten iron were found at other ancient sites, researchers dismissed them as mistakes or more recent contamination. Hamwic was only occupied in the 8th and 9th centuries, so later contamination can be ruled out. Paul Craddock, a metallurgist at the British Museum in London, says: "It's not impossible. There are big advances being made in our understanding of iron and steel in the Roman and early medieval period." So why was the secret of modern steel lost for a thousand years? The most likely answer, says McDonnell, is that it was only made in small quantities and was very expensive. When the demand for steel increased in the Middle Ages, mass production of poor-quality metal forced out the higher-quality product. (more at: Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society, vol 34, p 87 Subject: ANST-Announce - The Medieval Technology Pages Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:31:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Ashlin Chrystal To: Bjornsborg at yahoogroups.com, ansteorra-announce at ansteorra.org, ravensfort at ansteorra.org, bryn-gwlad at ansteorra.org Something interesting I thought I'd forward. Lady Ashlin > This is a great history site shared by a chemistry professor. > > Medieval Technology Pages > http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/technology.html > > The Medieval Technology Pages are an attempt to provide accurate, > referenced information on technological innovation and related subjects in > western Europe during the Middle Ages. There are several ways to access > this information. The most direct method is through the Subject Index > http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpages/Subjects.html > which provides direct access to all the technology pages. Many of the articles > are also present in a historical Timeline > http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpages/Timeline.html > And material can be found by examining the References > http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpages/Refs.html > which back-reference all articles through the sources used. > > Try the subject index at > From: Theron Bretz [tbretz at montroseclinic.org] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 10:12 AM To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] SCA slang > I agree with everyone on this. It is wonderful to try to recreate as > accurately as possible. But, four hundred years ago +, people didn't really > understand science and physics and many times explained away normal phenomena > with magic and witchcraft. When I hear terms such as magic time pieces, it > makes some sense to me. The mechanical clock was introduced to Europe in the 11th century. A clock with a face on it was called a watch in period (the earliest clocks simply tolled the hours). When they got small enough to put on your wrist in the 20th century, they were dubbed 'wristwatches'. Medieval people (not necessarily the villeins in the fields, but certainly those of the middle and upper classes, the ones we choose to portray) were a good deal smarter than you credit them. Medieval European hydrologists were probably the best ever produced (they used water to power things in much the same way the Victorians later used steam). Did idiots build Notre Dame or Chartres? Did people with no concept of engineering other than "magic" build 2000+ foot long bridges that still stand today? Of course not. Take a gander at Gies and Gies, _Cathedral, Waterwheel, and Forge_, it's very accessible and gives a tremendous look at how sophisticated our medieval forebears truly were. The problem is that our Victorian forebears were so ardent about seeing the medieval period as Dark Age that much of their accomplishments were wrongly attributed to the Romans (great adaptors, lousy innovators), or the Renaissance (accomplished folks in their own right, but they built on what was already present). The problem is that the knowledge of medieval man is largely apparent only through his works. Engineers didn't have manuals because they had an uninterrupted line for transmission of information through their guilds and apprenticing methods. When written works do appear, they are masterful. Look at Agricola's De Re Metallica (Basel, 1550), still considered an important work in the field of mining and it's 452 years old. Certainly, in some areas, there was ignorance (medicine and the life sciences in general), but these people had practical knowledge that could tell you the what, if not the why of their work. Was their superstition in the middle ages? Certainly, but by and large, it was either a case of the same level of superstitions we see today, or (in the case of witch trials and the Inquisition) educated people preying on provicial superstition to achieve their own ends. In either case, to use medieval belief to justify calling a wrist watch "a magic time-piece", or cars "dragons", is pure sophistry. Luciano Malatesta From: "spider" Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval Subject: Interesting site... Date: 8 Jul 2006 10:20:15 -0700 Just doing some reading on Da Vinci and his inventions, etc. Ran across a website that has downloadable version of his notebooks, about 1100 page's worth, according to the website. Sounds as if it might be worth a look, who knows?? URL is http://www.davincinotebooks.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:13:41 +0800 (WST) From: jtstewart at westnet.com.au Subject: Re: [Lochac] Milling was Knockers, was Grinding Balls in Australia To: "The Shambles: the SCA Lochac mailing list" Some basic researching latter it appears that the first patent for a mill with cast iron balls went to Issac Wilkingson in Italy in 1753. More efficient ball mills were created about the mid 19th century for use in the cement and gold mining industries using steel balls. Autogenus mills use the ore by itself to grind itself. There is mention of pebble mills which are longer than ball mills for the same output and may use non-metalic balls of porcelain, flint or small rocks to avoid iron contamination of the material being ground. So probably not period. However roller mills are period from very early on as they were the big stone wheels (known as edge rollers) being pulled around a circular trough by a donkey, usually to crush grain or cinnabar. By the 16th century they were being used to crush silver ore in South America. Also the conical stone mills of Pompeii for turning grain into flour. In Sicily 1449 Pietro Speciale developed a 3 roller mill to crush sugar cane. The wooden rollers were mounted on vertical axes. In 1558 Giovanni Turriano developed a very efficient conical roller with spiral grooves cut into it. The roller rotated in a grooved cone and was hand powered and small enough to fit in a monk's sleeve. (Ramelli 1588) That is probably more than you really wanted to know about mills. Cheers John of the hills Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:39:52 +1100 From: Ian Whitchurch Subject: Re: [Lochac] Milling was Knockers, was Grinding Balls in Australia To: "The Shambles: the SCA Lochac mailing list" On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Stefan li Rous wrote: <<< One of the big changes in the Middle Ages from Roman times was the substitution of animal, water and wind power for slave muscle power. The Romans knew of water power but had plenty of cheap slave power so felt no need to develop it. >>> On the other hand, the Roman use of water mills is clearly shown by this series of archeological excavations outlining physical evidence http://users.ox.ac.uk/~corp0057/JaniculumMills.html Next, as far as documentary evidence is concerned Cato the Elder (*) recommends this for a small olive yard in his On Agriculture. Quo modo oletum agri iugera CCXL instruere oporteat. Vilicum, vilicam, operarios quinque, bubulcos III, asinarium I, subulcum I, opilionem I, summa homines XIII; boves trinos, asinos ornatos clitellarios qui stercus vectent tris, asinum molarium9 I, oves C; If your Latin isnt too good, this is the translation Bill Thayer provides This is the proper equipment for an oliveyard of 240 iugera: 27An overseer, a housekeeper, 5 labourers, 3 teamsters, 1 muleteer, 1 swineherd, 1 shepherd ? a total of 13 persons; 3 yoke of oxen, 3 pack-asses to carry manure, 1 ass for the mill, and 100 sheep; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/A*.html http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/A*.html Again. Cato the Elder tells you to get yourself an asinum molarium. Anton de Stoc At Southron Gard XXIX Januarie b+l (*) The guy who once arrested a Senator for kissing his own wife in public. Cartago Delanda. *That* Cato the Elder. Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:49:16 +0800 (WST) From: jtstewart at westnet.com.au Subject: Re: [Lochac] Milling was Knockers, was Grinding Balls in Australia To: "The Shambles: the SCA Lochac mailing list" Alas the whole idea of the Romans having cheap slave power and not developing other power sources is an urban myth. Or rather it is much more complicated than that. Slaves are not cheap. You have to buy them, house, clothe and feed them and bury them when they die. So if a cheaper more economical alternative was available they would have and did use them. There are donkey powered rotary grain mills found in Pompeii and I believe that even a donkey or two were discovered still harnessed to these mills. There was an export industry of grinding stones because of the easy to carve rock found at Pompeii. The Romans are well known for their aquaducts, sewers and the movement of water so it should come as no surprise that they used its power in other ways. Water wheels were used throughout the Roman Empire. Both undershot and overshot water wheels and even the remains of a water turbine have been discovered. The largest water wheel complex discovered so far is in Barbegal in France consisting of a complex of 16 overshot water wheels grinding enough flour to feed 12,500 people in the 4th cent AD. Two other smaller multiple water mills are now known (Tunisia and Israel) but as the largest was only found last century in a heavily populated area of France there are certainly more to be discovered. There is also evidence of water powered vertical pounding mills for fulling, grain hulling and ore crushing. Also water powered saw milling of marble blocks. Water wheels were used for pumping water out of mines. Ox powered (oxen being shorter than donkeys or people and so less rock mined to install them) bucket chains were also used for draining mines and moving water for irrigation. There are carvings and writings about donkey powered stripper harvesting machines developed in Gaul during the 1st cent AD and were used until Gaul was invaded by the Huns some 3 to 4 centuries latter. These harvesting machines greatly increased the productivity of the farms as they not only took more heads of grain in a given time but also made winnowing easier too. Roman seagoing vessels used sails to take advantage of the wind. I hope that these examples show that the Romans did indeed know how to substitute animal, water and wind power for slave muscle power. The search for Roman technology continues and more is found or recognised all the time. John of the Hills From: Terrell Alderman Date: February 11, 2011 6:40:09 PM CST To: the-triskele-tavern at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: {TheTriskeleTavern} Water Raising Machines 2011/2/11 christopher chastain ‪‬ said: <<< Water Raising Machines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyXMnTpggdI Pomestnik Dmitrii Ivanov >>> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:47:31 -0400 From: "Garth G. Groff" To: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org, isenfir at virginia.edu Subject: [MR] New Book: Da Vinci's Giant Crossbow Just received at the UVA library: LEONARDO DA VINCI'S GIANT CROSSBOW by Matthew Landrus (ISBN 9783540689157; our call # T40 .L46 L36 2010). Wow! Talk about cool! Many of you have probably seen Da Vinci's drawings for his giant crossbow, which are often reproduced in books and magazines. Was it for real, or just the mad scribblings of a frustrated engineer looking for a job? The author, who assisted with the design on a near-full-scale replica for an ITN/PBS television program, certainly thinks Da Vinci was serious. He makes the case that the design is carefully based on Euclidian and Archamedian geometric principals, and was intended to be a working plan. The author also examines Da Vinci's design from a modern engineering standpoint, and from the techniques and materials of the time. Along the way he compares Da Vinci's work to contemporary crossbows and ballistas, as well as other seige machines. While technical, the text is well within the reach of a lay reader. The book is lavishly illustrated with many drawings, including geometric overlays on top of Da Vinci's original, as well as views of other Renaissance machines. Truly a fascinating book, and extremely useful for any Scadian seige weapon engineer. Lord Mungo Napier, Who Would Love to Make a Ballista Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:32:23 +0000 From: John Gahrmann To: , , Subject: Re: [MR] New Book: Da Vinci's Giant Crossbow Just for fun check out this link to Da Vinci's "resume" http://www.cenedella.com/job-search/leonardo-da-vincis-resume/ Johann VR From: gottskrieger at GMAIL.COM Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Period engines, was Re: [CALONTIR] Silk Banners Date: September 16, 2011 8:08:15 PM CDT To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Mathurin Kerbusso wrote: >Nor can you argue that *any* reciprocating engines, including steam >engines are plausibly Period. There are fundamental concepts that they did >not have, and would not discover, until post-Period. Less than a century >post-Period, but post-Period nonetheless. In 1106, a Muslim by the name of Al-Jaziri published a tome of 1000 mechanical devises. Included in this book was a water wheel driven water pump for moving water from the river to the irrigation ditches in the field. (Unfortunately, I haven't found an english translation of the original arabic) This pump had several innovative features. First, it actually used a vacumn draw, pulling the water into the cylinder from above the water level. This was thru an effective "piston in cylinder" design with adequate ring seals to actually have a water/air tight unit. Second, it connected two such pistons to opposite ends of the same rod, creating a system where the draw stroke of one cylinder created the compression stroke of the other. IOW, a "reciprocating piston". Third, it was the first application where a circular motion was effectively transfered into a lateral motion, thru the use of a rocker arm with a slide slot for a pin on the wheel to travel thru as the wheel spun. The ONLY reason this cannot be considered a reciprocating engin is the wheel drove pistons rather than the other way around. Since the science of steam power, valves and cams had been understood by the greeks, had anyone put two and two together, reversed the process, the technology was there to have an effective reciprocating piston steam engine. They just never reversed their thinking from the water wheel being the driver to being the driven. So, in the interest of academic debate, what other "fundemental concepts" are you thinking is required? Franz From: mathurin at GLADIUSINFRACTUS.COM Subject: Re: [CALONTIR] Period engines, was Re: [CALONTIR] Silk Banners Date: September 17, 2011 8:20:39 AM CDT To: CALONTIR at listserv.unl.edu <<< Third, it was the first application where a circular motion was effectively transfered into a lateral motion, thru the use of a rocker arm with a slide slot for a pin on the wheel to travel thru as the wheel spun. >>> Exactly. The fundamental principles involved here -- the piston, the valve, and the crank -- were just being discovered, or rather rediscovered, in the 12th C. <<< The ONLY reason this cannot be considered a reciprocating engin is the wheel drove pistons rather than the other way around >>> That is a necessary and sufficient reason :-) <<< had anyone put two and two together, reversed the process, the technology was there to have an effective reciprocating piston steam engine. They just never reversed their thinking from the water wheel being the driver to being the driven. >>> That was the biggest fundamental concept they didn't have, that they could turn the system around. Other things are technical, in that dealing with steam is a whole lot different than dealing with water. <<< So, in the interest of academic debate, what other "fundemental concepts" are you thinking is required? >>> Some others are dealing with the explosive and corrosive natures of gases at high temperatures and pressures, the ability to machine metals capable of withstanding those forces to close enough tolerances to be effective, at a cost that was not prohibitive. It was a long and discouraging list. -- Mathurin