When did the Turks Get Acquainted with the Technology of Siege Engines?

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 40 - 51, 24.06.2019

Erkan Göksu

Öz

The need to fight that emerged with the rise of mankind led man to invent appropriate devices to gain advantages in their struggle against various animals and natural forces first, and then against fellow creatures, for one of the most important requirements of surpassing in a fight is weapons and equipment. Thus, weapon can be defined simply as “the devices developed by man in order to defend themselves against the nature and the enemies.”

As the product of maintaining self-existence and struggle for this scope, weapon is a natural feature for animals and plants. Special features of animals like trunk or teeth of elephant, horns of bull, quill of hedgehog or of plants like the leaves of the Venus flytrap can be seen as the weapons being used by them in order to survive. In fact, man seems to be inspired by these features of animals and plants in the first place whilst producing the first weapons. Man, always seeking facilitative and reassuring tools in order to overcome the difficulties exceeding his physical power, first have used natural materials such as stone, bones and wood, but soon tried to imitate the natural weapons of animals and plants. Poisoned arrows in the size of hedgehog spines used by primitive tribes, wild animal traps resembling the Venus flytrap, battering-rams used to shake down gates of medieval castles etc. are the most obvious examples of this inspiration.

It is very hard to determine where and when the Turks used the technology of siege engines first time. The stereotype opinion in that topic is that, as a nation having nomadic life, Turks kept away from siege engines that slowed down nomadic life and limited freedom of activity because of production, carrying and usage these weapons. Really the sources giving information about early Turkish history did not say anything about siege methods and weapons which the Turks used. However, it is known that Turks had political, military and commercial relations with China that was the center of the technology of siege engines and as a consequence of relations, there had been a process of civilized and cultural interaction between the two societies. It is certain that this interaction was experienced intensively in the area of the technology of war. So it cannot be thought that Turks were not aware of the technology of siege engines developing in China. Moreover, it is seen that Turkish states which were founded outside the Central Asia used artillery weapons and siege engines when needed during their advances into Europe and Middle East. In this regard it can be said that Turks had a great role in transferring of the technology of siege engines developing in China towards Europe and Middle East. Because Turks had left Central Asia and advanced towards west and shaped the political, social and cultural character of Europe and Middle East by setting up political organizations. In this study we will evaluate the interest of Turks in the technology of siege engines and their role in transferring of the technology between the East and the West.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Siege engines, technology of siege engines, catapult/trebuchet, Turks

Türkler Kuşatma Araç-Gereçleri Teknolojisiyle Ne Zaman Tanıştı?

Öz

Türklerin kuşatma araç-gereçleri teknolojisiyle ilk defa
nerede ve ne zaman kullandıklarını tespit etmek oldukça güçtür. Bu konudaki
yaygın kanaat, göçebe/konargöçer bir hayat süren Türklerin, gerek yapımı,
gerekse taşıma ve kullanımı bakımından göçebe/konargöçer hayatı
“ağırlaştıracak”, hareket serbestliğini sınırlayacak ağır silahlardan uzak
durdukları şeklindedir. Gerçekten de erken dönem Türk tarihi hakkında bilgi
veren kaynaklar Türklerin uyguladıkları muhasara usullerinden ve kullandıkları
muhasara silahlarından hiç bahsetmemiştir. Bununla birlikte Türklerin ağır
silah teknolojisinin menbaı olarak kabul edilen Çin’le siyasî, askerî ve ticarî
ilişkiler içerisinde bulundukları, bu ilişkiler neticesinde iki toplum arasında
medenî ve kültürel bakımdan bir etkileşim sürecinin yaşandığı malumdur. Bu
etkileşimin harp teknolojisi alanında da çok yoğun bir şekilde yaşandığı
muhakkaktır. Dolayısıyla Türklerin Çin’de gelişen ağır silah teknolojisinden
haberdar olmadıkları düşünülemez. Üstelik Orta Asya dışında kurulan Türk
devletlerinin, Avrupa ve Ön Asya’daki ilerleyişleri sırasında ihtiyaç halinde
ağır silahlardan, kuşatma araç gereçlerinden istifade ettikleri de
görülmektedir. Bu bakımdan Çin’de gelişen ağır silah teknolojisinin Ön Asya ve
Avrupa’ya taşınmasında, Orta Asya’dan çıkıp batıya doğru ilerleyen ve bu
bölgelerde kurdukları siyasî teşekküllerle Ön Asya ve Avrupa’nın siyasî, sosyal
ve kültürel yapısını şekillendiren Türk şubelerinin büyük rolü olduğu
söylenebilir. Bu çalışmada Türklerin ağır silah teknolojisiyle ilişkileri ile
doğu ve batı arasındaki teknoloji transferindeki rolleri değerlendirilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kuşatma araç gereçleri, ağır silah teknolojisi, mancınık, Türkler

Kaynakça

• Ahmetbeyoğlu, A. (1995). Grek Seyyahı Priskos (V.asır)’a Göre Avrupa Hunları, İstanbul.
• Ahmetbeyoğlu, A. (2001). Avrupa Hun İmparatorluğu, TTK Yay, Ankara.
• Baştav, Ş. (2005). Sabir Türkleri, Makaleler, I, (Yay. Haz. E. S. Yalçın-E. Erdoğan), Berikan Yay., Ankara.
• Bıyıktay, Ö.H. (1935). Mete’nin (Tatun-Fu) Çin Sındığı Savaşı, Askeri Matbaa, İstanbul.
• Bradbury, J. (1992). The Medieval Siege, (Boydell & Brewer), New York.
• Bradbury, J. (2004). The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, New York.
• Campbell, B. (1994). The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook, (Routledge Press), New York.
• Campbell, D.B. (2003). Greek and Roman Siege Machinery 399 BC-AD 363, (Osprey Publishing), Oxford.
• Chevedden, P. E. (1995). Les Eigenbrod, Vernard Foley and Werner Soedel, “The Science of War: Weapons ‘The Trebuchet’”, Scientific American, July. 2-5.
• Chevedden, P. E. (1999a). Artillery in the Late Antiquity: Prelude to the Middle Ages, The Medieval City Under Siege, (Ed. I. A. Corfis and M. Wolfe), (Boydell Press), New York. 131-177.
• Chevedden, P. E. (1999b). Fortifications and the Development of Defensive Planning During the Crusader Period, The Circle of War in the Middle Ages, (Ed. D. J. Kagay - L. J. A. Villalon), (Boydell Press), New York. 33-43.
• Chevedden, P. E. (2000). The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 54. 71-116.
• Cummings, L. V. (2004). Alexander the Great, (Grove Press), New York.
• Dennis, G. T. (1998). Byzantine Heavy Artillery: The Helepolis, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 39. 99-114.
• Erkoç, H.İ, (2006). Askerî Târîh Açısından Köl Tigin, GÜ Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26/1. 203-226.
• Giraud, R. (1999). Göktürk İmparatorluğu, (çev. İ. Mangaltepe), Ötüken Neşriyat, İstanbul.
• Golden, P. B. (2002). Türk Halkları Tarihine Giriş, (çev. Osman Karatay), Ankara.
• Göksu, E. (2008). Türk Kültüründe Silah, Ötüken Neşriyat, İstanbul.
• Graff, D. A. (2002). Medieval Chinese Warfare: 300-900, Routledge, London. 22-23.
• Grousset, R. (1999). Bozkır İmparatorluğu, (çev. M. R. Uzmen), Ötüken Neşriyat, İstanbul.
• Gumilëv, L. N. (2002). Hazar Çevresinde Bin Yıl, (çev. D. A. Batur), Selenge Yay, İstanbul.
• Gumilëv, L. N. (2003). Eski Türkler, (çev. A. Batur), Selenge Yay, İstanbul.
• Gumilëv, L. N. (2005). Hunlar, (çev. A. Batur), Selenge Yay, İstanbul.
• Hacker, B. C. (1968). Greek Catapults and Catapult Technology: Science Technology, and War in the Ancient World, Technology and Culture, IX/1. 34-50.
• Hamilton, J. R. (1974). Alexander the Great, (University of Pittsburgh Press), Pittsburgh.
• Han Hanedanlığı Tarihi (2004). Hsiung-Nu (Hun) Monografisi, (Açıklamalı Metin Neşri), Haz. A. Onat, S. Orsoy, K. Ercilasun, TTK Yay., Ankara.
• Heebert, W. (1838). Attila, King of the Huns, London.
• Hüseyin Namık. (1933). Attila ve Oğulları, Remzi Kitaphanesi, İstanbul.
• Jieming, L. (2006). Chinese Siege Warfare: Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity, (An Illustrated History).
• Kaegi, W. E. (2003). Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, Cambridge University Press), Cambridge.
• Kafesoğlu, İ. (1998). Türk Millî Kültürü, İstanbul.
• Kurat, A. N. (1992). IV-XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Karadeniz’in Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri, Ankara.
• Ligeti, L. (1982). “Asya Hunları”, Attila ve Hunları, (Ed. G. Németh, Tercüme Eden. Şerif Baştav), DTCF. Yay., Ankara.
• Marco Polo Seyahatnamesi, (ty) (Yayına Haz. Filiz Dokuman), II, Terc. 1001 Temel Eser, İstanbul.
• Marsden, E. W. (1969). Greek and Roman Artillery. Historical Development, (Clarendon Press), Oxford.
• McCotter, S. (2014). Byzantines, Avars and the Introduction of the Trebuchet, [http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/mccotter1.htm.]
• Needham, J. (1076). China’s Trebuchets, Manned and Counterweighted, On Pre-Modern Technology and Science: A Volume of Studies in Honor of Lynn White, Jr., (Ed. B. S. Hall-D. C. West), (Undena Publications), Malibu. 107-145.
• Needham, J.-Yates, R.D.S. (1954). Science and Civilisation in China, V, (Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 6, Military Technology: Missiles and Sieges), (Cambridge Univesty Press), Cambridge. 184-413.
• Nicolle, D. (2002a). Medieval Siege Weapons (1) Western Europe AD 585-1385, (Osprey Publishing), Oxford.
• Nicolle, D. (2002b). Medieval Siege Weapons (2) Byzantium, the Islamic World & India AD 476-1526, (Osprey Publishing), Oxford.
• Rohrbacher, D. (2002). The Historians of Late Antiquity, New York.
• Sage, M. M. (1996). Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook, (Routledge Press) New York.
• Smith, W. (1875). A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, (J. Murray, Aldemarle Street), London.
• Taşağıl, A. (2003). Gök-Türkler, I, Ankara.
• Taşağıl, A. (2004). Göktürkler, III, Ankara.
• Taşağıl, A. (2015). Kök Tengri’nin Çocukları, İstanbul.
• Taşağıl, A. (2016). Ergenekon’dan Kağanlığa Türk Model Devleti Gök Türkler. İstanbul.
• Thompson, E. A. (1996). The Huns, Blackwell Published.
• Treadgold, W. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society, (Stanford Universty Press.), Stanford.
• Váczy, P. (1982). Hunlar Avrupa’da, Attila ve Hunları, (Ed. G. Németh, Terc. Ş. Baştav), DTCF. Yay., Ankara.
• Whitby, M. (1925a). Armies and Society in the Later Roman World, The Cambridge Ancient History, XIV, (Late Antiquity: Empire and successors, A.D. 425-600), Cambridge.
• Whitby, M. (1925b). The Army 420-602, The Cambridge Ancient History, XIV (Late Antiquity: Empire and successors, A.D. 425-600), Cambridge.
• White, L.T.M. (1962). Medieval Technology and Social Change, (Oxford University Press), Oxford.
• Williams, S.-Gerard F. (1999). The Rome that Did Not Fall: The Survival of the East in the Fifth Century, London.