About History: Was underwear worn by ancient Romans?

In a previous Tastes Of History post on How To: Dress as an ancient Roman brief mention was made of underwear. A letter discovered at Vindolanda Roman Fort, tablet 346, sent to a soldier probably from his home in Batavia [1] refers to socks (udones), underpants (subligaria) and sandals (soleae) being dispatched to him. Other tablets preserved from the excavations at the fort also reference underwear so we can be fairly confident that, just like us, Romans wore such clothing. What form this took is a little harder to discern, however. Roman writers left descriptions of clothing, hairstyles, jewellery and the fashion of the wealthy elites but almost nothing about underwear. So, it is uncertain whether Roman underwear was a tailored garment or a more straightforward loin- or breechcloth. Predictably most organic textiles have vanished from the archaeological record, and the few garments and images that do survive present inconclusive evidence. This lack of proof has led to competing interpretations of Roman underwear.

We can be relatively certain that Roman women had something akin to a bra known as a strophium. This was a simple band of cloth wrapped about the bust to provide support. Interestingly Ursula Rothe, professor of Roman archaeology and history at the Open University, suggests that garment speaks volumes about Roman beauty ideals. According to Rothe: “A big bust was considered a bit coarse and barbaric.” It appears that the fuller chest was associated with lower status since elite Roman women typically did not breast feed their own children relying instead on wet nurses. In Roman society it was assumed that a woman with a large bust was breastfeeding her own children. Thus, a tightly wrapped strophium formed part of a wider system of visual cues signalling one’s refinement and social status.

A 4th-century mosaic in the Villa Romana del Casale, Sicily (pictured right) depicts young women exercising wearing subligacula (loincloths) and strophia (breastbands). Yet it is difficult to draw any conclusions about underwear from this one image. It is a late-antique mosaic belonging to a specific decorative tradition which may not represent the underwear worn through the Roman empire’s many centuries of existence or across its geographical expanse. Moreover, from the available evidence it seems these garments may only have been worn in contexts where clothing was shed to undertake strenuous physical activity or, as shown, exercise.

As stated, no identifiable fabric subligacula have survived, but archaeologists have found versions made of more durable leather. One such, identified as belonging to a woman, was excavated from a Roman well discovered in Queen Victoria Street, London. Now in the Museum of London, it consists of thin leather briefs tied at the sides with laces as shown right. This subligaculum remained a unique archaeological discovery for many years until others were found, some of which are richly decorated. Most of these later discoveries have been made in Roman London, with one found in Mainz, Germany. Such garments were likely worn by young female dancers or gymnasts, such as those shown in the Villa Romana del Casale mosaic, and not as daily underwear.

As for Roman men, we have evidence for loincloths from literary sources as described above, but also from images of labourers, athletes and enslaved workers depicted without their outer layers. Gladiators, such as those in the Borghese Villa mosaic pictured above, are shown wearing a subligaculum. This style of garment was a functional and essential part of their attire, offering modesty and freedom of movement in combat. Even so, we cannot be certain that similar underwear was routinely worn beneath tunics. Some Roman literature describes men falling over and accidentally exposing themselves. Such tales imply the absence of underwear, but it is hardly conclusive.

Our lack of knowledge about Roman underwear seems counterintuitive given what we do understand about Roman society with its communal bathing, open latrines, shared sleeping arrangements and household hierarchies where the enslaved routinely witnessed their masters undressed. With such a lack of apparent privacy, perhaps underwear was just not as important to Romans as a marker of modesty or personal privacy as it is for many cultures today. So, did the average Roman wear underwear? It is not entirely clear. Some may have worn undergarments beneath their tunics, but equally many probably did not. Bon appétit!

Reference:

Osborne, J., (March 2026), “We still can’t be sure if the Romans wore underwear”, What we’ve learned this month, History Extra Magazine, London: Immediate Media, p. 18.

Endnote:

1. Batavia is a historical and geographical region in the Netherlands, forming large fertile islands in the river delta formed by the waters of the Rhine (Dutch: Rijn) and Meuse (Dutch: Maas) rivers.

A Brief History of Food: Eels

What’s in a name?

The name “eel” descends from the Old English word ǣl. Famously, the cathedral city of Ely in Cambridgeshire, England, derives its name from a time when eel fishing was a vital local activity in the surrounding fenland waters. Further afield, the large lake of Almere that existed in the early Mediæval Netherlands was also named after the eels that lived in its waters. The Dutch word for eel is aal or ael, so: “ael mere” translates into English as “eel lake”. More recently, the name has been preserved in the new city of Almere in Flevoland which was named in 1984 after the body of water on which the town was built.

Part of the order of Anguilliformes, the humble eel is one of more than 800 species of teleost fishes that are characterised by elongate wormlike bodies. In fact, the order consists of eight suborders, 20 families, 164 genera, and about 1,000 species. With such diversity, the focus of this article is on the common freshwater eel which has been an important food source for millennia.

Eels have a remarkable life cycle. Broadly, it consists of development and early growth in the open ocean through the stages of the planktonic (free-floating) dispersal of eggs and larvae, metamorphosis, juvenile and adult growth, and the migration of maturing adults to an oceanic spawning area. During their juvenile and adult life, most eels are solitary fishes, swimming slowly by means of sinuous lateral movements of the body and median fins. Essentially carnivores, during the several years of growth to maturity, eels feed diversely on free-floating planktonic or bottom-dwelling (benthic) animals. Maturity is reached after about 10 years in the European freshwater eel (Anguilla anguilla) but possibly much earlier in tropical marine species. The process of growth and maturation has been most closely studied in the European freshwater eel. In this species, both sexes pass through successive phases of neutrality, early onset feminization and juvenile hermaphroditism before environmental factors determine whether the eel will be definitively male or female.

All eels apparently undertake either a short or long distance migration at maturity to a spawning area. These are generally located over the continental slope or in ocean basins some distance offshore. Working on massive collections of larvae from 1905 to 1930, a Danish biologist, Johannes Schmidt, established the early life history of the European and American freshwater eels (Anguilla rostrata). He claimed that both species reproduced within the Sargasso Sea before using ocean currents to disperse to their respective freshwater habitats in Europe and North America. Although parts of his work have been questioned, especially the process by which these eels returned to their spawning areas, his description of a western Atlantic spawning and a trans-Atlantic dispersal of the larvae of these eels is still largely accepted. Contemporary studies suggest, however, that adult American and European eels use a combination of chemical, geomagnetic, and geographic cues to return to separate spawning areas east of the Sargasso Sea near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Eels as food

Eel blood is toxic to humans and other mammals so eating eels seems somewhat counterintuitive, but both cooking and the digestive process destroy the toxic protein. This simple expedient means common freshwater eels continue to be mostly eaten in Europe and the United States. Yet high consumption, especially in European countries, has resulted in those eel species becoming critically endangered. 

Up to World War Two jellied eels were a traditional and popular East London food, but post-war demand has significantly declined. Elvers, often fried, were once a cheap dish in the United Kingdom until, during the 1990s, their numbers collapsed across Europe. Since then they have become a delicacy, and the UK’s most expensive fish species.

Eels as currency?

Throughout the Mediæval period and up to the early modern era, eels were used as currency. People in England paid their rent, and sometimes other debts, using eels. With very little hard currency in circulation peasants often had no money and thus landlords collected in-kind rents. Indeed, Domesday Book records numerous instances of rents being paid in grain, honey, eggs and other produce. Eel rents, however, were by far the most common.

At the turn of the 12th-century more than 500,000 eels were due in rent in England each year. Over the course of the century hard currency became more available and in-kind rents disappeared. Eel rents, however, continued in popularity up to the Black Death in the mid-14th-century before slowly disappearing thereafter. The last recorded eel rent was paid from a Norfolk mill in the 1680s.

Most eels paid to landlords were eaten by them, but some were used to pay for other things. For example, in the 11th-century Ramsey Abbey paid Peterborough Abbey 4,000 eels per year for the rights to quarry building stone from Barnack in Cambridgeshire. Payment was to be made to the monks in Peterborough at the beginning of Lent, an ideal time as the eating of meat was prohibited on religious grounds. Unsurprisingly agreements and charters establishing eel rents often demanded they be paid in the spring. Most of these eels were sexually mature adults that were caught in the autumn during their downstream migration to the sea to spawn. Over the winter months these “silver eels”, as they were known, would be salted and then cold-smoked to preserve them for storage. Eventually, the autumn catch would provide landlords with a spring’s worth of church-approved food.

A couple of recipes

Elus Bakyn in Dyshes (“Eels baked in dishes”) is a 15th-century English recipe found in MS Harley 5401 housed in the British Library (Hieatt, 1996, 54-71):

Eles & cowche þam in a dysh, & cast on salt & saferon & powdyre of pepyr, & couer þat dysh with anoþer dysh & set it on þe coles, & turn þe dysh aboute and put in a lityll wyne in þe fyrst tyrne for savyng of þe vessell, & put þe hot coles in a hole in þe erth & so lat it bolyle, & serof it forth.

Eels & lay them in a dish, & cast on salt & saffron & powder of pepper, & cover that dish with another dish & set it on the coals, & turn the dish about and put in a little wine in the first turn for saving of the vessel, & put the hot coals in a hole in the earth & let it boil, & serve it forth.

A modern take on the recipe is reproduced below from the website “Gode Cookery”, a superb resource for anyone wishing to recreate dishes from the Mediæval and Renaissance periods.

From website Fabulous Fusion Food is a classic dish of Elys in Brewet (Eels in Broth). Taken from the 14th-century collection of Mediæval English recipes known as the Forme of Cury, the eels are prepared, sliced and cooked in a wine-based sauce, which is flavoured with spices and thickened with breadcrumbs:

ELYS IN BREWET: Take Crustes of brede and wyne and make a lyour, do þerto oynouns ymynced, powdour. & canel. & a litel water and wyne. loke þat it be stepid, do þerto salt, kerue þin Eelis & seeþ hem wel and serue hem forth.

Eels in Broth: Take breadcrumbs and wine and mix together, then add diced onions, powdered ginger and cinnamon and a little water and wine. Ensure that it is steeped then season with salt. Slice your eels and boil them thoroughly and serve them forth.

Bon appétit!

References:

Hieatt, C.B., (1996), “The Middle English Culinary Recipes in MS Harley 5401: An Edition and Commentary”, Medium Ævum vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 54-71.

Matterer, J. L., (2000) “Elus Bakyn in Dyshes”, from A Boke of Gode Cookery, available online (accessed 19th May 2026). 

Wyatt Green, J, (March 2026), “Is it true that eels were used as currency?”, Q&A, History Extra Magazine, London: Immediate Media, p.63.

About History: Crossbows

Introduction

As its name suggests a crossbow is a bow perpendicularly attached to a stock to form a “cross shape”. One significant advantage of such weapons is that they can be kept in a loaded state without effort from the user. The stock also allows spanning (bending) and releasing of the bow (also called a lath or prod) to be mechanically assisted. All of which results in a powerful and accurate projectile weapon that can be mastered by anyone lacking the skill or physical strength demanded by conventional bows. Crossbows vary according to method of spanning, the material of the bow itself, the release mechanism, the projectile to be shot, and the intended use.

Shooting with a crossbow differs somewhat from that of “conventional” archery. At its simplest, spanning involves drawing the bowstring back by hand until it is held by the nut. Over time improved mechanical aids allowed more powerful bows to be made and used. Fitting a bolt, or quarrel, entailed holding the weapon roughly horizontal, and laying the bolt in the groove cut into the stock for that purpose. The butt of the bolt shaft was placed close to the nut touching the bowstring. A leaf spring was sometimes fitted to hold the bolt in place at any attitude. Crossbows can be aimed like a rifle, at or near the shoulder, and the trigger pressed with minimum disturbance to the aim. Inherently accurate, crossbows could be aimed precisely using the top of the bolt much as the sights on a rifle. Military crossbows typically relied on simple release mechanisms, while greater ingenuity was shown in trying to perfect this mechanism for later target bows.

Compared to an English or Welsh longbow, the crossbow’s rival in 14th- and 15th-century warfare, crossbows were slower to span and shoot. Depending on the source, longbowmen are said to be able to shoot six aimed arrows per minute (or twelve with less accuracy), while a crossbowman using a windlass might only be able to achieve one shot per minute (four if spanning with a belt and claw). Crossbows, however, could outrange longbows. The extreme range of the former was ca. 360 m (380 yds) against the latter’s ca. 255 m (280 yds), although the effective tactical range for both weapons was far less. At said tactical ranges both crossbow bolts and longbow arrows could pierce plate and mail armour with a correctly tempered arrowhead.

It is not clear when the crossbow was invented, but it is believed to have first appeared in China by the 7th-century BC and in Greece around the 5th- or 4th-century BC (the Classical Greek period). In the case of the former, cast bronze trigger mechanisms have been recovered archaeologically in China dating to around 650 BC. As to the latter, the earliest crossbow-like weapon to emerge in Europe was the gast3raphetes which probably appeared around the late 5th-century BC. This particular weapon was described in Belopoeica (Βελοποιικά, “On War Machines”) written by Hero of Alexandria who lived in Roman Egypt. His work, however, draws on an earlier account by Ctesibius (fl. 285–222 BC), a Greek engineer residing in Ptolemaic Egypt. According to Hero, the gastraphetes was the forerunner of the later catapult, thus placing its invention some, as yet unknown, time before 399 BC.

Greek gastraphetes

The gastraphetes (Koine Greek: γαστραφέτης, lit.” belly-releaser”), also called belly bow or belly shooter, was a hand-held crossbow used by the Ancient Greeks. A fairly detailed description and drawing of the gastraphetes appears in the aforementioned Belopoeica. The weapon was powered by a composite bow but unlike later Roman and mediæval crossbows, it was spanned not by drawing back the bowstring.

A dovetailed slider was pushed forward in the lower stock until the two pivoting “fingers” of the trigger mechanism could grasp the bowstring. A trigger bar locked the fingers in place. The weapon was cocked by resting the belly in a concavity at the rear of the stock and bearing down on it using the bowman’s body weight. In this manner the slider would be driven backward spanning the bow. A ratchet and pawl mechanism would prevent unintended discharge. As with other crossbow-like weapons, the projectile is placed against the bowstring in a groove in the slider. Having taken aim, the bowman pulls the trigger bar rearward allowing the fingers to pivot upward releasing the bowstring. The power stroke accelerates the projectile along the slider towards the intended target. The gastraphetes lets considerably more energy to be summoned up than by using only one arm of the archer as in a conventional bow.

According to some authors, the dimensions of the gastraphetes may have involved a prop but there are no surviving images or archaeological finds. Hero’s description is detailed enough however to allow modern reconstructions, one of which is shown above right.

Arcuballista: the Gallo-Roman crossbow

The gastraphetes was superseded by more powerful torsion-driven catapults which, for several centuries, became the standard “artillery” weapons of the Roman legions. In the 4th-century AD the Roman military historian Vegetius makes the sole mention of the arcuballista in his work Epitoma rei militaris [1]. In book II.15, when describing how the ancient legion was drawn up in battle order, he refers to soldiers who shoot bolts with manuballistae and arcuballistae, terms which are typically translated as catapults and crossbows respectively. Yet, as Joseph Needham explains:

“On the textual side, there is almost nothing but passing references in the military historian Vegetius (fl. + 386) to ‘manuballistae’ and ‘arcuballistae’ which he said he must decline to describe as they were so well known. His decision was highly regrettable, as no other author of the time makes any mention of them at all. Perhaps the best supposition is that the crossbow was primarily known in late European antiquity as a hunting weapon and received only local use in certain units of the armies of Theodosius I, with which Vegetius happened to be acquainted.”

In etymological terms, Latin ballista is taken from the Greek βαλλίστρα ‎(ballístra), itself derived from βάλλω (bállō, “I throw”). So, manuballista (the Latin variant of the Greek cheiroballistra) has the sense of “hand projector”. Most scholars [2][3][4][5] seem to agree that this weapon was a torsion-powered bolt-shooter, but debate on its configuration is effectively divided into two camps: those who accept the translation literally and believe the manuballista was hand-held and, conversely, those who see it as a continuation and technological development of earlier stand-mounted catapults as seen, for example, on Trajan’s Column.

As for the arcuballista, its name suggests it incorporated an arcus (“arch”), but whether this refers to the bow of a non-torsion weapon or to the arched-strut (Latin: arcus ferreus) design of torsion weapons from the 2nd-century AD onwards cannot be unequivocally stated.

However, in Book IV of Epitoma Rei Militaris (op. cit. IV.22), while discussing siege and naval warfare, Vegetius continues to make a clear distinction between the weapons “they used to call ‘scorpions’ that are now called manuballistae” and those such as fustibali (“staff-slings”), arcuballistae (“crossbows”) and slings. Rather unfortunately Vegetius does not describe the latter any further assuming that his contemporary readers would be familiar with their form and function. Weapons such as slings and staff-slings are clearly hand-held weapons however and, by implication, so must arcuballistae. Moreover, by repeatedly referring to manuballistae and arcuballistae separately Vegetius, and other authors such as Arrian, seems clear that the latter are different from torsion powered bolt-shooters and stone-throwers. Interestingly Arrian's earlier Ars Tactica, written around AD 136, mentions “missiles shot not from a bow but from a machine”, and that this machine was used on horseback while in full gallop. It is hard not to believe that Arrian was describing some form of crossbow.

So, if arcuballistae are not torsion-powered, then it seems logical that they were very similar to Mediæval crossbows using flexion bows. We turn, therefore, to the crossbows depicted on the Gallo-Roman carved stone reliefs (shown above right) from Solignac and Saint Marcel. These are obviously not a gastraphetes as they lack the distinctive crescent-shaped stomach rests characteristic of such weapons. Nor is there any sign of winching mechanism for spanning the bows. Are these then the elusive arcuballistae?

From a photograph of the Solignac relief in his article [6], Dietwulf Baatz suggests a plausible reconstruction of an arcuballista as shown left.

It is unclear whether the reliefs depict self-bows or composite laths of wood, horn and sinew; both were known and used by the Romans. Any reconstruction of an arcuballista could, quite reasonably, use either. It is unlikely, however, that a steel prod was used as in later medieval crossbows.

No known contemporary spanning devices have been discovered, and none are shown on the surviving French reliefs. To span an arcuballista, a sketch in Baatz shows the arcuballistarius placing a foot on the belly of the bow, either side of the stock, and drawing the bowstring by hand. If correct, the draw weight of the arcuballista cannot be so great that the bow cannot be spanned by hand.

A visual assessment of the Saint Marcel relief suggests the stock was between 600 mm and 700 mm in length using the forearm of the arcuballistarius as a cubit measure; the average cubit being 480 mm (»0.5 m). Likewise, using the same method of measurement, a bow length of c. 1300 mm (tip to tip), as Baatz' suggests, is plausible.

Using the length of the quiver depicted on the relief from Saint Marcel, Baatz assumes that missiles were of similar length to arrows shot from standard bows. Furthermore, with the nut placed toward the end of the stock, Baatz also imagines that the draw length was longer than that of later crossbows, and thus longer arrows could be used rather than shorter bolts.

The Solignac relief depicts a similar hunting crossbow from above. This clearly shows a revolving-nut release for the bowstring, together with a groove for the bolt. It proves the arcuballista is the ancestor of all Mediæval crossbows that use the same revolving nut release mechanism. Finds of objects resembling revolving nuts have been discovered in Britain and dated to the 5th- or 6th-century AD.

Unsurprisingly, these have been attributed to a form of late Roman crossbow. The author’s reconstruction uses a Mediæval-style trigger bar set beneath the stock to release the nut which freely rotates for the bowstring to begin its power stoke along the stock accelerating a bolt toward its target.

Unlike Mediæval crossbows which tend to have a wholly rectilinear stock or “tiller”, the arcuballista has a unique carved handgrip at the rear. Being so distinctive, it has been conjectured that pulling back on this handgrip, if connected to a straight trigger bar, might have been the means to release the revolving nut. Simply pushing the handgrip forward may have engaged said trigger bar into the locking notch cut in the nut. Precisely how this type of mechanism might have operated remains speculative, but one solution is pictured below:

Mediæval

In post-Roman Europe, from the 5th-century until the 10th-century, there are no known surviving images or references to crossbows. However, according to Bishop Guy of Amien’s poem Carmen de Hastinge proclio, which was completed in 1068 and describes the battle of Hastings two years earlier, crossbows were present at the battle but not one is depicted on the Bayeaux Tapestry. William of Poitou also writes that crossbows were carried by Norman soldiers at Hastings (Payne-Gallwey, 2007, 45).

In AD 1098, a mere thirty years later, the ruling class of western Europe petitioned Pope Urban II to ban the use of crossbows because of their “brutality in war”. This apparent dislike of the weapon most likely stemmed from the ease with which the lower classes could be trained to use crossbows and, by extension, kill the nobility. Such actions upset the established mediæval social order and may explain the nobility’s petition. Yet even though the Pope complied, the Papal edict had little impact and certainly did not prevent the merchant guilds in London, Paris, Genoa, and Prague from manufacturing and selling, at a handsome price, thousands of crossbows each year. Once again strongly encouraged by the European nobility, the Church tried to ban the weapon. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council decreed that crossbows were unfit for use by Christians, and that those who used the crossbow against anyone other than infidels (Muslims and heretics) would suffer the penalty of anathema and be eternally damned. The ban was simply ignored and even Pope Gregory IX employed crossbowmen against the Lombard League a year later (1140).

One might argue that the nobility’s fears were vindicated when Richard I, King of England, besieged the tiny, virtually unarmed castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin region of France. On 26th March 1199 Richard was reportedly inspecting the castle’s defences. The King’s apparent over confidence in the face of the enemy, allied with underestimating the threat posed by the defenders, meant he was not wearing armour. A crossbowman, often said to be a young man named Pierre Basile, shot the bolt that struck Richard in his left shoulder near the neck. Despite initial removal attempts, the wound became gangrenous leading to Richard’s death on April 6th some eleven days later. In a historic twist of fate, Richard was renowned for his military prowess and strategic innovations, with one of his most significant contributions being the use of crossbowmen. Before his reign (1189 - 1199), the crossbow was not widely used in English warfare until, it is said, Richard recognised its potential and incorporated it into his military strategy. How ironic that a champion of the crossbow was killed by one?

Crossbows are not mentioned in Byzantine sources until the 11th-century when Anna Komnene (1083–1153) [7] documented that the crossbow was a new weapon associated with barbarians and was not known to the Greeks:

“This cross-bow is a bow of the barbarians quite unknown to the Greeks; and it is not stretched by the right hand pulling the string whilst the left pulls the bow in a contrary direction, but he who stretches this warlike and very far-shooting weapon must lie, one might say, almost on his back and apply both feet strongly against the semi-circle of the bow and with his two hands pull the string with all his might in the contrary direction. In the middle of the string is a socket, a cylindrical kind of cup fitted to the string itself, and about as long as an arrow of considerable size which reaches from the string to the very middle of the bow; and through this arrows of many sorts are shot out. The arrows used with this bow are very short in length, but very thick, fitted in front with a very heavy iron tip. And in discharging them the string shoots them out with enormous violence and force, and whatever these darts chance to hit, they do not fall back, but they pierce through a shield, then cut through a heavy iron corselet and wing their way through and out at the other side. So violent and ineluctable is the discharge of arrows of this kind. Such an arrow has been known to pierce a bronze statue, and if it hits the wall of a very large town, the point of the arrow either protrudes on the inner side or it buries itself in the middle of the wall and is lost. Such then is this monster of a crossbow, and verily a devilish invention. And the wretched man who is struck by it, dies without feeling anything, not even feeling the blow, however strong it be.” Anna Komnene

During the 12th-century the crossbow superseded hand bows in many European armies, except in England where the longbow remained more popular. Archers, however, had to train for many years and from an early age to gain the strength, stamina and skill needed to master the longbow. Crossbow use on the other hand could be learned far quicker and did not require the physicality. Crossbows were the obvious weapon of choice for commonfolk. 

The laths of the first mediæval European crossbows were made of wood, usually yew or olive wood. Composite lath crossbows began to appear around the end of the 12th-century, while crossbows with steel laths (also known as prods) emerged in the 1300s. With much higher draw weights the latter, sometimes referred to as arbalests, required mechanical aids for spanning. In the 13th-century, European crossbows started using winches, and from the 14th-century an assortment of spanning mechanisms such as winch pulleys, cord pulleys, gaffles (such as gaffe levers, goat’s foot levers, and rarer internal lever-action mechanisms), cranequins [8], and even screws. Yet, even for a practised crossbowman, using these tools took time reducing the number of bolts shot to two per minute compared to the six or more arrows of a skilled archer. With spanning taking more time, crossbowmen carried a large shield, characterized by its prominent central ridge, known as a pavise (pavis, pabys, or pavesen). The pavise was primarily used by archers and crossbowmen, especially during sieges, to protect themselves as shown. It was carried by a pavisier, usually an archer or, for the larger versions, by a specialist pavise-bearer. The pavise was either held vertically in place by the pavisier or set in the ground with a spike attached to the bottom edge and braced with a support. While reloading, archers and crossbowmen would crouch behind them taking shelter from incoming missiles (www.metmuseum.org).

Crossbowmen recruited in Genoa and other parts of northern Italy were renowned mercenaries in the pay of many armies throughout mediæval Europe. As professionals such crossbowmen often earned higher pay than other foot soldiers, including equivalent mercenary archers. The extra stipend reflected that longbowmen did not have to pay a team of assistants and that his equipment was cheaper. However, with one crossbow team being more expensive to hire it made sense to engage three longbowmen for the same fee, which may explain why English armies favoured the longbow.

At the battles of Crécy in 1346, at Poitiers ten years later (1356) and again at Agincourt in 1415 French forces employing the composite crossbow were simply outmatched by English longbowmen. After these humbling defeats the use of the crossbow declined sharply in France, and the French authorities made attempts to train longbowmen of their own. The experiment did not last long as the French largely abandoned the use of the longbow after the Hundred Years’ War ended. Subsequently, the military crossbow saw a resurgence in popularity continuing in use in French armies by both infantry and mounted troops until as late as 1520. From that point on however the crossbow would be largely eclipsed by the increasing use and popularity of handgonnes across continental Europe. Even with its widespread demise, Spanish forces in the New World made extensive use of crossbows. That said, crossbowmen participated in Hernán Cortés’ conquest of the Aztec Empire and accompanied Francisco Pizarro on his initial expedition to Peru. However by the time of Pizarro’s conquest of Inca Empire in 1531-1532 he would have only a dozen such men remaining in his service.

Modern applications

From their inception crossbows have played a significant role in military history, particularly during the mediæval and early Renaissance periods. They offered common soldiers a weapon that required less training than longbows. Their mechanical advantage allowed for the spanning and holding of heavy draw weights, resulting in considerable power capable of penetrating armour at shorter ranges. Yet no modern military issues crossbows (or bows) as standard combat weapons. That said a surprising number of armed forces around the world still keep them in their arsenals for specialised tasks. For example a special operations team might use a crossbow for a specific mission requiring absolute silence, such as eliminating a guard dog or deploying a rope across a chasm. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is known to use crossbows as “non-lethal” option in countering public disorder. But these are extremely rare circumstances. Today, in many parts of the world, crossbows are more likely to be used for hunting. They are particularly effective for hunting deer, elk, and other large game animals at shorter ranges. Bon appétit!

References:

Blumberg, A., (2003), “The Medieval Crossbow: Redefining War in the Middle Ages”, Warfare History Network, available online (accessed 26 March 2026).

Payne-Gallwey, R. (2007), “The Crossbow: Its Military and Sporting History, Construction and Use”, Chapter IX, Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Books.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Crossbow (Halbe Rüstung) with Cranequin (Winder)”, available online (accessed 30 March 2026).

Endnotes:

1. Milner, N.P. (1993), “Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science”, Liverpool University Press.

2. Baatz, D. (1978), “Recent finds of ancient artillery”, Britannia 9, pp. 1-17.

3. Gudea, N., and Baatz, D. (1974) “Teile spätrömischer ballisten aus Gornea und Orşova”, Saalburg Jahrbuch 31, pp. 50-72.

4. Marsden, E.W. (1971), “Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises”, Oxford.

5. Wilkins, A. (2003), “Roman Artillery”, Shire.

6. Baatz, D. (1991) “Die Römische Jagdarmbrust”, Archäoligisches Korrospondenzblatt 21, pp. 283-290.

7. Anna Komnene (1 December 1083 – 1153) was a Byzantine Greek princess, scholar and historian. She is the author of the Alexiad, an account of the reign of her father, Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Her work constitutes the most important primary source of Byzantine history of the late 11th- and early 12th-centuries, as well as of the early Crusades.

8. For heavy crossbows the most practical spanning mechanism was the cranequin, consisting of a rack and reduction gear with handle. The gear box is usually almost circular, with a heavy loop of hemp rope attached to the underside. This loop would be slipped over the butt end of the crossbow stock and brought to rest against the transverse pegs to the rear of the release mechanism. The double claw of the rack, in extended position, would be slipped over the bow string, to be pulled back by turning the handle of the gears. The gear ratio of this winder is twelve to one.

About History: Amazing ancient inventions

What follows was inspired by a short piece in BBC History Magazine that drew Tastes Of History’s attention to discovering some of the amazing inventions that seemed far ahead of their time. Some were so advanced in their conception that scholars today doubt whether they could have been realised given the technology of the time. Even so, each of these ancient inventions shows a marvel of human ingenuity and have since inspired modern recreations testing their plausibility. This first outing looks at some of the notable ancient Greek inventions.

Steam-power

In the 4th-century BC, a Greek inventor reportedly built a wooden, steam-propelled flying pigeon. Working in Tarentum (modern Taranto), the mathematician and Pythagorean philosopher Archytas of Tarentum [1] created a bird-shaped machine reputedly able to travel up to 200 metres through the air to the astonishment of his fellow citizens. However, the sole mention of this feat occurs some five centuries after Archytas, when Roman author and grammarian Aulus Gellius reports:

“Archytas made a wooden model of a dove with such mechanical ingenuity and art that it flew; so nicely balanced was it, you see, with weights and moved by a current of air enclosed and hidden within it. About so improbable a story I prefer to give Favorinus’ own words: ‘Archytas the Tarentine, being in other lines also a mechanician, made a flying dove out of wood. Whenever it lit, it did not rise again.’”

Clearly Gellius views the report with much the same scepticism as his mentor Favorinus, but that has not stopped later historians and engineers attempting to recreate Archytus’ mechanical marvel. From the available sources, it is thought the lightweight body of the Flying Pigeon was cylindrical in shape and hollow, with wings projecting to either side and smaller wings, like a tail, to the rear. The front of the Pigeon was pointed like a bird’s beak which, combined with its cylindrical body, produced an aerodynamic form to maximise flying distance and speed. The rear of the Flying Pigeon had an opening leading to an internal bladder. The opening was connected to a water-filled, airtight boiler which when heated generated steam that fed into the bird’s bladder. As the pressure of the steam exceeded the mechanical resistance of the connection, the Flying Pigeon was launched. The opening, now acting as an exhaust, allowed the pressurised steam within the bladder to vented out propelling the Pigeon in flight. Reputedly, the wings of the pigeon would flap, assisting its forward motion and keeping it aloft. In this manner the Flying Pigeon was said to have been capable of steam-powered flight for a considerable distance, between 100 to 200 metres.

Archytas would have faced many challenges when designing the first mechanical bird, not least of which was understanding how birds fly. Combine that with engineering knowledge in its infancy, lightweight metal alloys, plastics, and strong adhesives yet to be invented, and the ancient bird’s durability and flight capability could never compare to modern reproductions. Even so, the Kotsanas Museum of Ancient Greek Technology used the materials technology available to Archytas to create a reconstruction (below) of what the flying pigeon may have looked like.

If the accounts of this invention by Aulus Gellius are correct, then this would have been the world’s first self-propelled flying device. While a remarkable achievement, throughout human history there have been many accounts of amazing inventions attributed to some of the greatest thinkers. The question remains “just how many were actually made or were indeed functional?” It would be a lengthy project to try and cover all the possible examples from all recorded history across the globe. Many of these inventions deserve their own detailed examination, but for now we shall focus on just a few.

From the outset it is worth noting that for an invention to materialise takes three linked requirements: firstly, someone must have the initial idea, then there must be the materials technology available to realise the idea, and finally there must be a need for the invention to be successful. Take human flight as an example of the materials technology challenge. It is highly likely that humans, observing birds in flight, dreamed of copying them. As we have seen with Archytas’ Flying Pigeon, the idea was present but the problem for the longest time was the materials technology to deliver the design.

We need a Hero

Archytas’ attempts to harness steam-power roughly 500 years earlier clearly inspired one Hero (or Heron) of Alexandria ((Ήρων ο Αλεξανδρεύς, ca. AD 10 to AD 70). He was a Greco-Egyptian mathematician and inventor residing in Roman Egypt whose contributions to science and engineering, particularly his pioneering work on pneumatics and mechanics, influenced Islamic engineers during the Golden Age of Islam, as well as Renaissance thinkers who revived and expanded upon ancient Greek scientific knowledge. Hero is credited with inventing at least one automated vending machine and complex automata that used gears, pulleys, and hydraulics to animate figures during theatrical performances. He also harnessed air pressure to create a sophisticated wind-powered organ, created the pantograph, and contrived a steam-powered engine known today as the “aeolipile” or “Hero-Engine”. Recorded simply as invention “number 50”, it was an early steam-powered device that harnessed the principles of jet propulsion centuries ahead of its time.

Reconstructions of the aeolipile usually consist of a spherical or cylindrical vessel with oppositely bent or curved nozzles projecting outwards. Hero described the device as a simple boiler forming part of a stand for the rotating vessel. Water is heated in the boiler to vaporise it into steam that passes through tubes to pressurise the spherical vessel. The steam is expelled out of the opposing nozzles to generate thrust perpendicular to the axis of the vessel’s bearings causing it to spin. Aerodynamic drag and frictional forces in the bearings build quickly with increasing rotational speed (rpm) but this consumes the accelerating torque, eventually cancelling it to achieve a steady state speed.

Although considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine, the aeolipile was neither a practical source of power nor a direct predecessor of the type of steam engine invented during the Industrial Revolution. Heron’s drawing shows a standalone device presumably intended as a “temple wonder” like many of the other inventions described in his work “Pneumatica”. So, despite conceiving the idea, realising it using contemporary materials technology, the aeolipile is a perfect example of the third factor in defining whether an invention will be successful. At the time of its creation, the Hero-engine simply did not solve a contemporary problem or fulfil a specific need.

“Doors to automatic”

It is not known whether Hero’s invention “number 37” was implemented but it was the first to describe temple doors that opened automatically when a alter fire is lit and closed again when the fire is extinguished. As shown in the superb animated graphic by artefacts-berlin.de, heat from a fire burning in an altar in front of the temple would build pressure in the vessel below ground. As the pressure increased, the liquid within the vessel, most likely water, would be forced through a connecting hose or pipe into a second vessel suspended from the ceiling. As the weight of the second vessel increased, ropes attached between it and the doorposts would “magically” pull the temple doors open. By extinguishing the fire, the cooling liquid would be sucked back into the first vessel making the second one lighter such that the counterweight would pull in the other direction to close the doors.

Another temple commission

Hero was also commissioned by an Egyptian temple to make the world’s first coin-operated vending machine to dispense holy water. When a worshiper inserted a coin through a slot in the device, it would fall onto a pan connected to a lever balanced on a guide. The coin’s weight caused the lever to tilt, raising the opposite end and opening a valve to allow a specific amount of holy water to flow from a cistern. The pan continued to move under the weight of the coin until, eventually, the coin slid off into a collection chamber. At that point the lever would return to its initial position closing the valve and stopping the water flow.

Water, water everywhere

Hero was not the only ancient inventor to conceive of water management devices. About 250 years earlier, in 234 BC, the Greek mathematician Archimedes first described a hydraulic device for lifting water during a visit to Egypt. Popularly called the “Archimedes’ screw”, this marvel of ancient engineering traces its roots to Hellenistic Egypt (332 BC to 30 BC) where the original design with spiral tubes wound around a rotating cylinder lifted water from the Nile River into irrigation ditches. Over time, the design was refined, such as incorporating a spiral groove into a solid wooden cylinder, which was then covered with boards or metal to enhance durability and efficiency. Today Archimedean screws are widely employed in irrigation and modern wastewater treatment. The device can also operate in reverse. When water enters from the top, the screw’s rotation can generate mechanical energy, making it suitable for hydroelectric power generation.

Although Archimedes did not claim to have invented the screw, it has become associated with his name from his detailed descriptions and applications of the device. Various other ancient Greek and Roman authors record the use of the Archimedes’ screw for various purposes including draining water, irrigating fields, and even removing bilge water from large ships. In his Bibliotheca Historica, Diodorus [2] describes its use for irrigation in the Nile Delta for nearby military camps and cities, and Vitruvius [3] details a wooden Archimedes’ screw with eight blades in his De Architectura, written between 27 BC and 22 BC. The earliest depiction of the water screw is a fresco at the villa Casa di P. Cornelius Teges in Pompeii dating earlier than AD 79.

The Archimedes’ screw is a simple yet ingenious design. It consists of a helical screw inside a hollow pipe. The bottom end of the screw is submerged in a water source, and when the screw is rotated, water is captured in the helical sections and pushed upward as the screw turns. This process continues until the water exits at a higher elevation. The design can function effectively even if the seal between the screw and the casing is not perfectly watertight. As long as the upward movement of water exceeds any leakage, the device remains efficient. Variants of the design include screws fused with their casings, where both rotate together, and those made of bronze or waterproofed with pitch to prevent leaks.

From its origins in Hellenistic Egypt to its modern applications in renewable energy, wastewater treatment, and industrial machinery, the Archimedes’ screw manifests the timeless principles of simplicity and functionality. The device’s influence and widespread use reflect the exchange of knowledge and technology between ancient civilizations. It exemplifies how ideas can be fostered, shared, adapted, and improved upon across cultures.

Archimedes goes to war

From peaceful purposes Archimedes is also credited with two surprising inventions with which to wage war. During the Siege of Syracuse (214 BC to 212 BC) he was instrumental in the defence of the city. Syracuse was an important city-state on the island of Sicily but, more importantly, it was allied with Carthage against Rome. Thus, during the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), Roman forces, under the command of General Marcus Claudius Marcellus, besieged the city to bring it under Roman control. Archimedes was tasked with devising defensive measures to protect Syracuse from the Roman fleet. His contributions included various war machines and innovations, the Claw of Archimedes being one of the most famous.

The Claw of Archimedes

Also known as the “Iron Hand”, the Claw was reputedly devised to defend the walled city of Syracuse against naval attacks. Its design and precisely how it worked is not fully understood since no contemporary descriptions or drawings have survived. Indeed, most information comes from later historical accounts, such as those by the Roman historians Polybius and Plutarch. They, however, describe the Claw as a large mechanical arm or crane, mounted on the walls of Syracuse, with a grappling hook or claw at one end. When a Roman ship approached, the Claw would be lowered to grab the vessel and the mechanism would then lift the ship partially out of the water, destabilising it and potentially capsizing it. Some accounts suggest that the Claw could also drop the ship suddenly, causing significant damage or even sinking it. Considerable loss was reportedly inflicted on the Roman fleet and, along with other war machines devised by Archimedes, a significant psychological, demoralizing impact was had on the Romans. The ability of these devices to cause unexpected damage and thwart naval attacks instilled fear and uncertainty among the attackers.

Archimedes’ Heat Ray

Archimedes’ “Heat Ray” is the second example of a weapon that he purportedly invented to defend the city of Syracuse. This “Death Ray”, as it is sometimes known, is described as a series of mirrors or polished shields arranged to concentrate sunlight onto a single point. By focusing intense sunlight onto the sails or hulls of enemy ships, the heat generated was supposedly sufficient to ignite the wood and cause the ships to catch fire. However, the device would have required maintaining precise alignment, a clear sunny day to produce intense, directed sunlight, and time to generate enough heat to ignite wood. The practicality of using such a device in a real battle situation, with moving targets and variable weather conditions, is highly questionable. The Syracusans, for example, would have had to adjust the mirrors to maintain focus on the target as the Roman ships approached. These technological challenges raise doubts on the plausibility of the concept.

The earliest mentions of the weapon come from later historical sources, such as the writings of the 2nd-century AD Roman historian Lucian [4], or Anthemius of Tralles who, around AD 500, mentions “burning glasses” as an Archimedean weapon. Significantly, these accounts were written centuries after the events described. Even Archimedes makes no mention of a “Heat Ray” in his surviving works. This lack of contemporary evidence has led many scholars to question the authenticity of later accounts and to doubt whether the “Heat Ray” even existed.

While the historical accuracy and feasibility of Archimedes’ invention are debated, it is still a fascinating example of ancient ingenuity and has, therefore, been a favourite subject of scientific experimentation. During the Renaissance a test was conducted by Comte de Buffon (circa 1747), documented in the paper titled ”Invention De Miroirs Ardens, Pour Brusler a Une Grande Distance”. Just over a century later and a similar experiment by John Scott was documented in an 1867 paper. In more modern times notable attempts have included:

• In 1973 a Greek engineer named Ioannis Sakkas conducted an experiment at the Skaramagas naval base outside Athens that showed the concept could work under ideal conditions. Seventy mirrors, each about 1.5 meters tall and with a copper coating, were held by Greek sailors and aimed at a plywood mock-up of a Roman warship some 50 m (160 ft) distant. When each mirror was aligned correctly, the focused sunlight managed to ignite the target within a few seconds. Sakkas was convinced that Archimedes could have used bronze mirrors to scupper the Roman fleet.

• Archimedes’ Heat Ray has featured three times on the US television show “Mythbusters”. Several experiments were conducted in 2004 for episode 5 of season 2 (“Ancient Death Ray”) to test the heat ray. These tests were unsuccessful, leading the team to classify the heat ray as a myth. A year later, a group of students from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) carried out an experiment using 127 x 30 cm (1 ft) square mirror tiles, focused on a mock-up wooden ship at a range of around 30 m (100 ft). Flames broke out on a patch of the ship, but only after the sky had been cloudless and the ship had remained stationary for around ten minutes. Consequently, it was concluded that the device was a feasible weapon under certain conditions.

• In 2006 the MIT group repeated the experiment in episode 33of MythBusters season 4 (“Archimedes Death Ray”). This time the team used a wooden fishing boat in San Francisco as the target which again resulted in some charring and a small amount of flame. Once more the Heat Ray was placed in the category of “busted” (or failed) because of the length of time and the ideal weather conditions required for combustion to occur. Moreover, as Syracuse faces east towards the sea, for the weapon to have been successful, the Roman fleet could have only been engaged during the morning for the mirrors to gather the optimal sunlight. It is unlikely that any Roman general would have limited their attacks to favour the Syracusan’s defence. Besides conventional weaponry such as flaming arrows or bolts from catapults would have been a far easier way of setting a ship on fire at short distances. In December 2010, MythBusters again looked at the heat ray in episode 17 of season 8 (“President's Challenge”). Several more experiments were carried out, including a large-scale test with 500 schoolchildren aiming mirrors at a mock-up of a Roman sailing ship 120 m (400 ft) away. In all tests, the ship’s sail failed to reach the 210°C (410°F) temperature required to catch fire, and the verdict was again “busted”. The show concluded that a more likely effect of the mirrors would have been to blind, dazzle or distract a ship’s crew.

The Claw of Archimedes and the Heat Ray represent some of Archimedes’ many remarkable achievements in science, technology, and warfare in ancient times. Despite the lack of detailed contemporary records, the accounts of the Claw's effectiveness during the siege of Syracuse have contributed to the enduring legacy of Archimedes as a pioneering engineer and inventor. The Heat Ray remains a subject of fascination and debate, and whether it existed or not, it symbolises the blend of science and myth that characterises much of our understanding of ancient technology. The concept demonstrates an advanced understanding of optics and engineering in ancient Greece. Moreover, modern experiments suggest that, under ideal conditions, a heat ray could potentially work, although its practical application in ancient warfare is highly dubious. Even so, Archimedes’ work extended beyond military engineering. He made significant contributions to mathematics, physics, and engineering, including the principles of buoyancy (Archimedes’ principle), the concept of levers and, as we have seen, the Archimedean screw.

Antikythera mechanism

The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient Greek hand-powered, mechanical orrery (model of the Solar System). It is believed to be the oldest known example of an analogue computer possibly used to calculate and display information about astronomical phenomena. So far, the exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains hypothetical, although the 37 meshing bronze gears identified in radiographic images speak of the object’s significance. No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later. Moreover, it is not known whether the bronze-geared technology and the advanced mechanical design skills involved in its construction were used for other applications within the Greco-Roman world. Regardless, the Antikythera mechanism remains unique in having the first known set of scientific dials or scales ever discovered.

The remains of this ancient “computer” are now on display in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. They were recovered in 1901 from the wreck of a trading ship that sank in the first half of the 1st-century BC near the island of Antikythera in the Mediterranean Sea. Its manufacture is currently dated to 100 BC, give or take 30 years, while its quality and complexity suggest it must have had as yet undiscovered antecedents during the Hellenistic period. Its construction relied on theories of astronomy and mathematics developed by Greek astronomers during the 2nd-century BC. In 2008, research by the Antikythera Mechanism Research Project suggested the concept for the mechanism may have originated in the colonies of Corinth and, since Syracuse was a colony of Corinth, implied a connection with the school of Archimedes. This was clearly the premise of the 2023 film “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”.

The Antikythera mechanism was fabricated out of bronze sheet, and originally it would have been protected in a case about the size of a shoebox. The doors of the case and the faces of the mechanism are covered with Greek inscriptions, enough of which survive to indicate much of the device’s astronomical, or calendrical, purpose. It is believed that a hand-turned shaft (now lost) was connected by a crown gear to the main gear wheel (pictured right) that drove the further gear trains, with each revolution of the main gear wheel corresponding to one solar year. These 37 meshing bronze gears enable the mechanism to follow the movements of the Moon and the Sun through the zodiac, to predict eclipses and to model the irregular orbit of the Moon. Indeed, the drive train for the lunar position is extremely sophisticated, involving epicyclic gearing and a slot-and-pin mechanism to mimic subtle variations (known as the “first anomaly”) in the Moon’s motion across the sky. This motion was studied in the 2nd-century BC by astronomer Hipparchus of Rhodes, who may have been consulted in the machine’s construction.

On the front of the mechanism is a large dial with pointers for showing the position of the Sun and the Moon in the zodiac and a half-silvered ball for displaying lunar phases. Inscriptions imply that there may originally have been a display of the five classical planetary positions, most likely on the front face, but nearly all the relevant parts are missing. The inscriptions were further deciphered in 2016, revealing numbers connected with the synodic cycles of Venus and Saturn. A subsidiary four-year dial showed when the various Panhellenic games should take place, including the ancient Olympic Games. The large lower dial has a four-turn spiral with symbols to show months in which there was a likelihood of a solar or lunar eclipse, based on the 18.2 year astronomical cycle known to the Greeks from Babylonian sources.

Water clocks

Water clocks are some of the oldest inventions by which time can be measured by the regulated flow of liquid into (inflow type) or out from (outflow type) a vessel where the amount of liquid can then be measured. The simplest form of water clock, with a bowl-shaped outflow, existed in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia around the 16th-century BC. Other regions of the world, including India and China, also provide early evidence of water clocks, but the earliest dates are less certain. Water clocks known as klepsýdres (κλεψύδρες, sing. κλεψύδρα klepsýdra) were used in ancient Greece and in ancient Rome. The word comes from the Greek κλέπτω (kléptō, “steal”) +‎ ὕδωρ (húdōr, “water”), so “klepsýdra” translates literally as “water thief”.

A commonly used design was the simple outflow klepsýdra consisting of a small earthenware vessel with a hole in its side near the base. When unstopped, water drains out of the vessel at a rate determined by the hole diameter. Markings inside the container were used to indicate the passage of time. As the water leaves the vessel, an observer can see where the water is level in keeping with the lines and thus tell how much time has passed. Both the ancient Greeks and Romans used this type of klepsýdra to allocate periods of time to speakers in their courts. In important cases, such as when a person's life was at stake, it was filled completely, but for more minor cases, only partially. If proceedings were interrupted for any reason, for example to examine documents, the hole in the klepsýdra was stopped with wax until the speaker was able to resume his pleading. Given human nature, it would come as no surprise, as some scholars suspect, that klepsýdres may have been used to impose time limits on those visiting Athenian brothels. In Alexandria of the early 3rd-century BC, the Greek physician Herophilos employed a portable klepsýdra on his house visits to measure a patient’s pulse. As one of the earliest anatomists, from his knowledge through dissections of bodies Herophilus was able to deduce that veins carried only blood and, after studying blood flow, he was able to differentiate between arteries and veins. He also noticed the rhythmically pulsing of blood as it flowed through the arteries. He devised standards for measuring a patient’s pulse and used them as an aid in diagnosing sickness or disease. To measure said pulse, Herophilos is said to have made use of a water clock.

Between 270 BC and AD 500, Greek (Ctesibius, Hero of Alexandria, Archimedes) and Roman horologists and astronomers  developed ever more elaborate mechanised water clocks. The Greeks, for example, tackled the problem of the diminishing flow by introducing several types of the inflow klepsýdra. Alexandrian inventor and mathematician Ctesibius is credited as the first to incorporate gears and a dial indicator to automatically show the time. Not an easy feat as the duration of a day changed throughout the year according to the varying length of time between sunrise and sunset. Other innovative designs opened doors and windows to reveal figurines of people, and the 1st-century BC Roman engineer Vitruvius described early alarm clocks with bells, gongs or trumpets.

Summary

From Archytas to Hero and Archimedes, the ancient Greeks’ quest for knowledge was only limited by the materials technology of the day. They understood and harnessed the power of steam centuries before Thomas Savery invented a steam engine in 1648 that would evolve to power Britain’s Industrial Revolution. The ancients Greeks inventors were some of the first to conceive of vending machines, alarm clocks and water management systems that are still used today but which we, perhaps, take for granted. As Tastes Of History researched the topic it became quickly apparent that there were a multitude of other ancient and more modern devices, ideas and machines worthy of mention. We shall undoubtedly return to subject in the future. Bon appétit!

References:

Edwards, M. (2026), “Antikythera mechanism: ancient Greek mechanical device”, Britannica, available online (accessed 13 February 2026).

Greece High Definition, (2025), “The World’s First Coin-Operated Vending Machine: A Greek Marvel of Engineering”, greekhighdefinition.com, available online (accessed 4 February 2026).

Rennison, N. (2023), ‘Q&A: Bird-brained idea’, BBC History Magazine February 2023, p.43.

World History Edu (2024), “Archimedes’ Screw: History and Major Facts”, worldhistoryedu.com, available online (accessed 11 February 2026).

Endnotes:

1. Archytas was an ancient Greek philosopher, who was born in 428 BC in Tarentum, Magna Graecia, now southern Italy. In addition to being a philosopher, he was also a mathematician, astronomer, statesman, and strategos (“general”) for seven consecutive years defending Tarentum.

2. Diodorus Siculus (or Diodorus of Sicily) was an ancient Greek historian from Sicily in the 1st-century BC. He is known for writing the monumental universal history Bibliotheca Historica, in forty books, fifteen of which survive intact, between 60 BC and 30 BC.

3. Vitruvius (born c.  80–70 BC, died after c. 15 BC) was a Roman architect and engineer during the 1st-century BC, known for his multi-volume work titled De architectura.

4. Lucian of Samosata (Λουκιανὸς ὁ Σαμοσατεύς, c. AD 125 – after AD 180) was a Hellenized Syrian satirist, rhetorician and pamphleteer best known for his characteristic tongue-in-cheek style. This he frequently used to ridicule superstition, religious practices, and belief in the paranormal.