Books on Military Organization and Institutions

[sean_m]

What are some of your favourite books and articles with good, old-fashioned research on how all the different kinds of bodyguards related to one another, or how many men were in a taxis, or the relationship between the asthetairoi and the pezhetairoi? That kind of thing can be fun, and if people sometimes have very strong views based on very thin sources, the same is true with other aspects of Alexander's career.

David Karunanithy's book from Pen and Sword is great at collecting evidence and suggesting some new or neglected questions to ask, but I would like to be able to recommend one or two overviews of the kind of research that he is responding too.

Luke Ueda-Sarson's old Slingshot articles are interesting, and I hope he finds time to write them up again in a more academic way (with more "here are the other theories, and the best arguments for them, but nevertheless I think ...")

The community here being what it is, this may digress into a debate about some of those issues. That is OK, as long as we start with suggesting reading.

[Paralus]

Karunanithy's book does indeed assemble a huge amount of evidence. It is worth buying for the collection of Macedonian funerary art which is presented in colour plates. I'm not aware of another book in English that has such - or the chapter devoted to same. His description of the argyraspids as “extravagantly eclectic and non-uniform” wearing “vestiges of their original lavish garb [...] supplemented with whatever was cleaned up along the way” might very well be correct and is an interesting image of the old buggers. Well recommended.

Not strictly a military organisational book, Heckel's Marshalls is indespensible. Much of this is still seminal to its subject mater. His discussion of the organisation of the somatophylakes (the Macedonian "cursus honorum"), paides and the hypaspists and their agema are still the standard work on the subject.

Champion's Antigonos, again not a strictly military book, has some very interesting material on the cost of war: fleets, armies, etc. Of course, Bosworth's Asthetairoi put to rest forever the urge to emend this term out of existence. I'm not so sanguine about Anson's view of this somewhat mysterious term for phalanx units. I'd also add the body of work being added by Graham Wrightson whose PHD was supervised by Waldemar Heckel if I recall correctly. Wrightson's material is both highly interesting and well argued. Another strongly recommended.

[Xenophon]

Probably THE 'basic' handbook on the subject is:

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars 359BC to 146 BC" by Duncan Head,1982 a Wargames Research Group publication.

It used to be hard to get but recently has been reprinted and is now widely available again. My only criticism is that for some reason Duncan was not able to update it or eliminate the errors it contains ( few) in a fully revised edition. Obviously it was simpler to just reprint the original which has stood the test of time well, and is still the best book on the subject, fulfilling all of Sean's requirements.....

Thoroughly recommended.

[sean_m]

There are also chapters on the asthetairoi (and the problem of the Macedonian 'hoplites') and on decimal organization in Elizabeth Carney and Daniel Ogden eds., Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. Oxford University Press: New York, 2010 https://www.amazon.com/Philip-II-Alexan ... 0199738157 They might be fun to bring into something like the thread on Macedonian military numbers, and they seem to have good bibliographies, although I am not sure if they are good introductions (and the price puts it out of reach for many buyers). I really don't know the sources and scholarship well enough to participate in that thread, or have the time required!

Great to hear that one of Duncan Head's books has been reprinted. His Achaemenid book is useful. Citing Graham's thesis would be a good way to 'boost the signal.'

[sean_m]

Is the reprint this one on Lulu? http://www.lulu.com/shop/duncan-head/ar ... 49534.html I see a link from http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/WRG.net/index.html

[Paralus]

Anson's chapter on the asthetairoi was that to which I referred as being not so sanguine about! And, yes, these symposium collections are never inexpensive!

[sean_m]

Anson's chapter on the asthetairoi was that to which I referred as being not so sanguine about! And, yes, these symposium collections are never inexpensive!

Well, that is the thing: I don't know the scholarship in this area to identify things with anything less than author, title (or know who has written five things on a topic and who just one).

The whole topic of the "light-armed" part of a Macedonian phalanx, the Macedonians with rimmed Argive shields instead of rimless Macedonian ones, and the times that the phalanx did not use their sarissas feels like a good area for research. So does the possibility that there were already Macedonian troops in Asia when Alexander crossed. I seem to recall some of the greats dismissing it in a sentence or two, but the evidence looks pretty good to me ...

[Xenophon]

Sean M. wrote:

So does the possibility that there were already Macedonian troops in Asia when Alexander crossed. I seem to recall some of the greats dismissing it in a sentence or two, but the evidence looks pretty good to me ...

...And me I take it that you have Ueda-Sarson's "Macedonian Unit Organisation" paper? For the benefit of those who don't, in summary it sets out the arguments for this, as originally proposed by Brunt.Our sources give roughly two sets of figures for Alexander in Asia - roughly 30,000 infantry and 4,500/5,000 horse, or 40,000 foot and the same number of horse. Now two of the sources who specify 30,000 (Diodorus and Arrian) specifically state that their numbers are for "those that crossed over into Asia with Alexander."
These figures can be reconciled if it is accepted that the 40,000 represents the Infantry total i.e. 30,000 crossing with Alexander, and 10,000 in the advance force, which we know Philip sent under the command of Attalus (Philip's new father-in-law) and Parmenion in the Spring of 336 BC. This is also consistent with Polyainos' figure of 10,000 men for the Advance Force. We can also deduce that this force was largely mercenaries, but certainly included Macedonians, perhaps 1 or 2 Taxeis of 'sarissaphoroi'. We also know of a Macedonian commander called Kallas with a mixed force of Macedonians and mercenaries, outnumbered by Persians, being forced to retreat to a foothold on the coast. ( By this time Attalus had been executed, and Kallas may have been his successor).

...and the times that the phalanx did not use their sarissas feels like a good area for research.

I don't have much time, but will briefly kick this off. The Macedonian infantry prior to Philip's time were peltast-types, like those of their neighbours, and they carried 'pelta' and 'longche', the shortish ( circa 6 ft) spear suitable for either throwing or thrusting.

After Philip's reforms, the infantry carried 'sarissa'/pike and 'pelta' in pitched battle, but on other occasions, when the 'sarissa' wasn't suitable - such as skirmishing, or sieges - reverted to 'longche' and 'pelta'. There are many examples in our sources, but since I'm a bit pushed for time, I'll mention just one.

At Alexander's siege of Thebes in 335/334 BC Diodorus describes the Macedonian assault[XVII.11.3] as follows:


"When the Macedonians approached and each division encountered the opposing force of Thebans, the trumpets blew the call to arms and the troops on both sides raised the battle cry in unison and hurled their missiles[ belon= missiles, thrown weapons]at the enemy. 4) These were soon expended and all turned to the use of the sword at close quarters, and a mighty struggle ensued. The Macedonians exerted a force that could hardly be withstood because of the numbers of their men and the weight of the phalanx, but the Thebans were superior in bodily strength and in their constant training in the gymnasium......"

No mention of 'sarissas', just thrown weapons.......

At Halicarnassus too, while not specifically stated, the clear implication is that both sides used missile weapons before getting to close quarters....

I'm sure those interested will find others.......

[sean_m]

Karunanithy (Macedonian War Machine pp. 27, 28) also talks about a few passages where slingers of no given ethnicity appear. He argues that these could well be heavy infantry who had put aside their spears and taken up the sling like Roman and Assyrian soldiers. Really good slingers like Rhodians or Balearic Islanders were rare, but there seem to have been ways of using anyone who could send stones in the general direction of the enemy.

The Athenian =ephebes= learned =hoplomachia=, archery, javelin-throwing, and catapult-shooting (although it may be that not every recruit studied all four ... I never read the sources directly).

Maybe we are being too quick to dismiss all the references to swords and javelins in Curtius?

[Xenophon]

Sean wrote:

...there seem to have been ways of using anyone who could send stones in the general direction of the enemy.

That's right. Karunanithy may be correct, but I doubt if this occurred in 'pitched battle' situations, because of course the heavy infantry would be formed into their ranks, not to mention encumbered with their 'sarissae', and would hardly be roaming freely as 'skirmishers'. It is just as likely that local shepherds etc including boys could be rounded up for this service just for the occasion, being skilful with slings, or as we frequently hear, camp servants and the like performed this function.....

Different in, say, a siege situation, where they could be usefully employed keeping defenders heads down with slingstones rather than just spectating ( though this would call for a fairly high degree of accuracy - stones sailing over the walls, or thudding into them, would not achieve much.). Giving 'covering fire' to an assault party attacking a breach might be another occasion for showing some skill with slings.

We should not forget also that, though rarely mentioned, hand thrown stones were evidently commonly used when available. At the battle of Baecula in Spain during the Punic wars (208 BC) for example, Livy XXVII.18 says:

"...He [Scipio] himself led the unencumbered men, who the day before had routed the outposts of the enemy, to meet the light-armed standing on the lowest brow of the hill. At first they advanced over rugged ground, hampered only by the footing. [11] Then when they came within range, at first an immense number of missile weapons of every kind was showered upon them. [12] In return they hurled stones which the place affords, strewn broadcast and almost all of them of a size to be thrown, and not only did the soldiers do so, but also the mass of camp-servants mingling with the armed men."

I have walked a number of battlefields, including Baecula, whose features match Livy's description exactly. As I climbed the slope in the footsteps of the Romans, I glanced down, and the ground was littered with fist-sized stones, just as Livy describes.....

It is easy to forget that even the crudest weapons had a place on ancient battlefields.

The Athenian =ephebes= learned =hoplomachia=, archery, javelin-throwing, and catapult-shooting (although it may be that not every recruit studied all four ... I never read the sources directly).

The 'ephebes'/ those about to enter manhood were 18-20 year-olds, and could be seen as trainees, or cadets.'Hoplomachia' may be loosely translated as 'weapon training'.Unortunately the term isn't terribly specific. As one might expect, there was an emphasis on hoplite drill and fighting. In addition, they were taught boxing, wrestling, javelin throwing and possibly archery. By the second quarter of the 4 C BC, training included the working of catapults, for in their second year the 'ephebes' were posted to garrison the border forts where they learned to live in barracks, and carry out patrols and suchlike ['peripoli'/those who wander around].

This type of training, not unique to Athens, does demonstrate that 'heavy infantry' were expected to acquire missile weapon skills and be flexible and versatile, particularly when not in 'pitched battle'.........

[sean_m]

Sean wrote:

...there seem to have been ways of using anyone who could send stones in the general direction of the enemy.

That's right. Karunanithy may be correct, but I doubt if this occurred in 'pitched battle' situations, because of course the heavy infantry would be formed into their ranks, not to mention encumbered with their 'sarissae', and would hardly be roaming freely as 'skirmishers'. It is just as likely that local shepherds etc including boys could be rounded up for this service just for the occasion, being skilful with slings, or as we frequently hear, camp servants and the like performed this function.....

Different in, say, a siege situation, where they could be usefully employed keeping defenders heads down with slingstones rather than just spectating ( though this would call for a fairly high degree of accuracy - stones sailing over the walls, or thudding into them, would not achieve much.). Giving 'covering fire' to an assault party attacking a breach might be another occasion for showing some skill with slings.

We should not forget also that, though rarely mentioned, hand thrown stones were evidently commonly used when available. At the battle of Baecula in Spain during the Punic wars (208 BC) for example, Livy XXVII.18 says:

"...He [Scipio] himself led the unencumbered men, who the day before had routed the outposts of the enemy, to meet the light-armed standing on the lowest brow of the hill. At first they advanced over rugged ground, hampered only by the footing. [11] Then when they came within range, at first an immense number of missile weapons of every kind was showered upon them. [12] In return they hurled stones which the place affords, strewn broadcast and almost all of them of a size to be thrown, and not only did the soldiers do so, but also the mass of camp-servants mingling with the armed men."

I have walked a number of battlefields, including Baecula, whose features match Livy's description exactly. As I climbed the slope in the footsteps of the Romans, I glanced down, and the ground was littered with fist-sized stones, just as Livy describes.....

It is easy to forget that even the crudest weapons had a place on ancient battlefields.

I think there is another anecdote from one of the early Romo-Parthian wars where a Roman general took up positions on a nice rocky hill after recruiting plenty of slingers. This reminds me that I found some new evidence about Polyaenus 2.38.2 on Onomarchus surprising Philip with "stones and stone throwers" and Marsden's decision to translate this as "stone-throwing machines" https://bookandsword.com/2014/02/04/409/

Armed and aggressive servants are one of the things which makes it hard to talk about the size of ancient and medieval armies. I think it was Krentz who noted that if you take 10,000 Athenian and allied hoplites and 20,000 to 30,000 Persian soldiers at Marathon, then add 5-10,000 armed servants in the Athenian army, you can get a picture of the numbers which looks very different from the traditional picture despite accepting all of its assumptions!

The Athenian =ephebes= learned =hoplomachia=, archery, javelin-throwing, and catapult-shooting (although it may be that not every recruit studied all four ... I never read the sources directly).

The 'ephebes'/ those about to enter manhood were 18-20 year-olds, and could be seen as trainees, or cadets.'Hoplomachia' may be loosely translated as 'weapon training'.Unortunately the term isn't terribly specific.

I always understood it as "fighting (μαχία) with a full set of kit (ὅπλα)." In the fourth century, that comprised at least a long spear and a big shield and ideally a helmet and thorax and greaves and sword. That would distinguish it from fighting with a bow, or fighting with just a spear and cloak, or wrestling (but also from learning just how to move your spear and shield through J.K. Anderson's standard postures in formation, or from drill and 'square bashing').

As one might expect, there was an emphasis on hoplite drill and fighting. In addition, they were taught boxing, wrestling, javelin throwing and possibly archery. By the second quarter of the 4 C BC, training included the working of catapults, for in their second year the 'ephebes' were posted to garrison the border forts where they learned to live in barracks, and carry out patrols and suchlike ['peripoli'/those who wander around].

This type of training, not unique to Athens, does demonstrate that 'heavy infantry' were expected to acquire missile weapon skills and be flexible and versatile, particularly when not in 'pitched battle'.........

I would compare the ephebes to old 19th/20th century European conscript armies, which also recruited most young men for a few years of training and service, then sent them home ready to serve again when called up.

Vegetius (citing Cato the Elder) and Maurice both recommend teaching some of the heavy-armed men archery.

[sean_m]

This would definitely be a good project for people to search through their PHI or TLG databases, or a paper index, or even their Loebs and Landmark editions, compile sources, and write up an article. All it takes is patience, a little knowledge of some of the scholarly greats, and a little bit of Latin and Greek. I just can't do it myself ... I have too many projects on my plate which only I can write.

[Xenophon]

Sean wrote:

This reminds me that I found some new evidence about Polyaenus 2.38.2 on Onomarchus surprising Philip with "stones and stone throwers" and Marsden's decision to translate this as "stone-throwing machines" https://bookandsword.com/2014/02/04/409/

Whilst this illustrates your point regarding carefully citing texts very well, it is a shame to raise this hoary old chestnut about the alleged ambiguity of Polyaenus’ text. When you wrote this I see you had an old thread on RAT in mind, for you paraphrase the arguments of the rather pedantic proponent who argued that it could mean throwing stones by hand:

“The oldest manuscripts say that Onomarchus placed stones and stone throwers (petrous kai petrobolous) on the ridge. In Greek as in English, “stone throwers” can be either men or machines, and people interested in ancient artillery have debated which Onomarchus would have used. The general feeling is that this is too early for the leader of a small community to have a large train of stone throwing engines, that hiding catapults would have been difficult, and that ancient catapults had trouble shooting downhill. A famous authority on Greek artillery, Marsden, has been criticized for saying that Polyaenus wrote “stone throwing machines” rather than “stone throwers.”

As in English, when there is a potentially ambiguous word, the context usually makes it clear, as it does in this case. In 404 BC, before the invention of catapults, Xenophon[Hell.II.4] could use the term to mean human stone-throwers:-
“[Street fighting in Athens] ...but they made a line not more than ten hoplites in depth. Behind the hoplites, however, were stationed peltasts/ πελτοφόροι and light javelin-men/ ἀκοντισταί,, and behind them the stone-throwers/ πετροβόλοι . And of these there were many, for they came from that neighbourhood.”
After 399 BC, when catapults were invented in Syracuse, the term became increasingly used to mean ‘stone throwing catapults’ and in the last half of the 4 C BC is found universally in lists and armoury inventories in that sense. Historians such as Polybius and Diodorus also use the word to mean engines, and it also crops up in technical treatises such as that of ‘Athenaeus Mechanicus’ in the 1st C BC. By Polyaenus’ time in the 2nd C AD, it was only used to mean machines in our source literature.

As to the paraphrased arguments of the RAT proponent you refer to, the ‘general feeling’ is that Polyaenus is referring to engines, and it is certainly ‘communis opinio’ among those who know the subject. The RAT proponent is, as far as I am aware, in a minority of one. His arguments are also reminiscent of the shopkeeper’s excuses in the ‘Monty Python parrot sketch’.LOL!

It is not ‘too early’, for Philip’s defeat occurred roughly half a century after catapults had been invented. Furthermore the war came about when in desperation the Phokians seized the treasuries of Delphi to fight off the Thebans – the largest and richest treasure in all Greece. With it they hired tens of thousands of mercenaries, and could easily have afforded as many catapults as they wished. Nor is hiding catapults on a scrubby mountainside ‘difficult’ - they weren't that large. They could have been hidden on the reverse slope if all else failed. To claim that catapults ‘had trouble shooting downhill’ is a preposterous argument. Anyone familiar with the law of gravity and the laws of ballistics knows that artillery must be aimed upward to cover any distance, even when shooting downhill, not to mention that the machines were designed to shoot down from walls and towers!

On the other hand most people cannot throw large stones more than about 25 metres or so, and this would barely clear their own ranks, and would in any case have been outranged by the Macedonian javelins.
Arguments that the stones could have been dropped off cliffs, or rolled down the slope are equally fallacious. ( How did they clear their own ranks?) On one occasion in Thrace, the enemy rolled carts and wagons down a slope at the Macedonian infantry, who were unfazed by this. Those unable to get out of the way lay down huddled together, with locked shields and allowed the wagons to pass over them, so rolled rocks wouldn't have had the effects described !

Common sense also dictates that Polyaenus means machines. On only two occasions was the famously tough Macedonian Army so demoralised that it refused to obey the King and take the field. One was in India, after the first bloody battle against Porus and his elephants. The Army refused to follow Alexander further, with the prospect of facing thousands more elephants. The other occasion was this one, when after being defeated by Onomarchus, the Army refused to take the field next campaigning season. Is it credible that this was as the result of having stones thrown at them by hand, which would not have inflicted many casualties on armoured men, and which were a commonplace on ancient battlefields? It must have taken something new and terrifying, like the elephants, to cause this. Something that delivered “shock and awe”, and that can only realistically be coming under artillery fire for the first time.
Nor can it be co-incidence that in the following years Philip took a keen interest in catapults and having an artillery train. So much so that the Athenians joked about Philip’s ‘catapult obsession’.

There can really be no reasonable doubt that Polyaenus meant stone-throwing machines.

The ‘new evidence’ you refer to is, I take it, the Byzantine “Excerpta’ ?

I always understood it as "fighting (μαχία) with a full set of kit (ὅπλα)." In the fourth century, that comprised at least a long spear and a big shield and ideally a helmet and thorax and greaves and sword. That would distinguish it from fighting with a bow, or fighting with just a spear and cloak, or wrestling (but also from learning just how to move your spear and shield through J.K. Anderson's standard postures in formation, or from drill and 'square bashing').

‘ὅπλα’ is yet another of those generic Greek words. It means ‘equipment’ or ‘implements’, thus one can speak of a ship’s ‘opla’ meaning it’s gear generally. In a military context it means ‘implements of war’ or ‘weapons’, sometimes ‘arms and armour’ hence its association with the heavy infantry (‘hoplites’) and the weapons you refer to.

I would compare the ephebes to old 19th/20th century European conscript armies, which also recruited most young men for a few years of training and service, then sent them home ready to serve again when called up.

....and not just ‘old’ armies either. The Swiss operate this system to this very day. Curiously enough, despite every soldier/citizen having his weapon at home with him, there is very little gun crime in Switzerland......

[sean_m]

Sean wrote:

This reminds me that I found some new evidence about Polyaenus 2.38.2 on Onomarchus surprising Philip with "stones and stone throwers" and Marsden's decision to translate this as "stone-throwing machines" https://bookandsword.com/2014/02/04/409/

Whilst this illustrates your point regarding carefully citing texts very well, it is a shame to raise this hoary old chestnut about the alleged ambiguity of Polyaenus’ text. When you wrote this I see you had an old thread on RAT in mind, for you paraphrase the arguments of the rather pedantic proponent who argued that it could mean throwing stones by hand:

...

As in English, when there is a potentially ambiguous word, the context usually makes it clear, as it does in this case. In 404 BC, before the invention of catapults, Xenophon[Hell.II.4] could use the term to mean human stone-throwers:-
“[Street fighting in Athens] ...but they made a line not more than ten hoplites in depth. Behind the hoplites, however, were stationed peltasts/ πελτοφόροι and light javelin-men/ ἀκοντισταί,, and behind them the stone-throwers/ πετροβόλοι . And of these there were many, for they came from that neighbourhood.”
After 399 BC, when catapults were invented in Syracuse, the term became increasingly used to mean ‘stone throwing catapults’ and in the last half of the 4 C BC is found universally in lists and armoury inventories in that sense. Historians such as Polybius and Diodorus also use the word to mean engines, and it also crops up in technical treatises such as that of ‘Athenaeus Mechanicus’ in the 1st C BC. By Polyaenus’ time in the 2nd C AD, it was only used to mean machines in our source literature.

Well, I don't think that there is any "alleged" about it. Petroboloi "stone throwers/stone-throwing" can be either men or machines, and its hard to explain what stone-throwing engines are doing that early in that context.

If you think that in Polyaenus' day, petroboloi were always machines, you are welcome to show how you worked with sources like the TLG and the Packard Humanities Institute to prove it! (Because you would have to go through every passage using that word or a variant). In any case, Polyaenus is drawing on sources from the fourth century BCE, possibly through intermediaries, so Xenophon is just as relevant as Diodorus. We agree that in classical Greek as a whole, "petroboloi" can be either men or machines. So deciding whether machines or men fit the context is a matter of judgement based upon our understanding of the technical details of ancient warfare.

People who have studied the early history of catapults seem to think that stone-throwing catapults were new in the 330s. There are none in the descriptions of Philip's sieges, and the first sources are from, I believe, Alexander's siege of Tyre about twenty years after this battle (Diodorus 17.42.7, Marsden says there is a passage in Arrian on the siege of Halicarnassus). In the Alexander historians, it is always Alexander who uses them, not his enemies. There was a long process of development between the first small dart-shooting catapults powered by bows and the large, winch-drawn, skein-powered catapults which are more familiar to us today. And for the purpose of this story, the question is whether catapults capable of throwing large stones existed at the time in question.

The fourth century BCE was a period of rapid change in catapult technology, and our sources are very limited and not interested in chronology. Scholars try to find dates for the names in the catapult manuals and hope for the best. The history of catapults before the siege of Motya in Sicily is even more of a blank, but we have traces of other traditions than the one in Diodorus (see, say, Campbell's Besieged pp. 25-29, 50-51). But the last time I checked, the first solid evidence for stone-throwing catapults is stories about the sieges of Alexander.

People are welcome to check their libraries for the evidence that catapults had limited ability to shoot downwards (before reconstructions we had Plutarch, Marcellus, 15.5 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... .html#15.5), or at steep upwards angles (just look at the length of the slider), and the size and concealability of stone-throwing catapults. Marsden's Greek and Roman Artillery, Campbell's Besieged, Kern's Ancient Siege Warfare, and Connolly's Greece and Rome at War are the books I am most familiar with. Here is one modern interpretation of a Hellenistic "three-pounder" at maximum elevation:



So in this case my judgement agrees with that of Duncan B. Campbell, who has been studying the technical details of ancient sieges for thirty years and has published books, peer-reviewed articles, and academic reviews on the subject. Other people have other opinions.

The ‘new evidence’ you refer to is, I take it, the Byzantine “Excerpta’?

The new evidence is that Marsden was almost certainly following the excerpts rather than the main line of manuscripts (he also says "foot-soldiers" like the excerpts instead of "stones" like the main manuscripts). So he was not over-translating, but choosing one of the several versions of this story which come down to us. If someone prefers the version with "foot-soldiers and stone-throwing machines" they can point to one set of manuscripts ... although whether this incident really ocurred, and whether catapults were involved, are other questions. Polyaenus is not interested in source-criticism!

Back to the original topic, this passage is another one where the "Macedonian phalanx" shot (ἠκροβολίσαντο) at its enemies.

[sean_m]

I also agree that if the slope were not too steep, and the catapults opened fire at long range, they might have loosed horizontally or at a slight upwards angle and let the shot drop on their opponents. I had not understood that that was what you meant. Whether that is practical is for experts in catapults to decide, and I am not one.

But your post is a bit of a 'Gish Gallop' and its hard to pick out the arguments which are worth replying to!