Were there entities like DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Products Agency) in the ancient world?

How did the ancient world come up with advanced weapons of war? Anything from better metallurgy to better armor designs to better weapon designs. Or better siege equipment. Who bothered to invent a catapult and later a trebuchet? Not to mention better ships.

ISTM such weapons do not just appear but needed effort to design. Trebuchets need a lot of math and engineering to work…not something Joe Soldier is likely to stumble upon.

So, did any given ruler have a special weapons division working for him/her?

Off the top of my head, Leonardo da Vinci was commisioned by a ruler to design new, better war machines. Likely, he was far from the first.

A lot of this is from memory, and no cites so my memory could easily be off (or I might have read some things that we now know are complete nonsense).

In the ancient world, you really didn’t have dedicated defense researchers in any sort of organized fashion like DARPA. Weapon design came from weapon smiths, and that was usually a specialized guild. There was a lot of guild knowledge that was passed down from one generation of guild members to the next, and they were always doing their own research of sorts. If you were a really smart dude and could figure all kinds of things out, and you managed to impress someone with your creativity, someone with a lot of money might pay you to work in a room somewhere and create things. It was more like a patronage system than a DARPA type system though.

The flintlock was actually invented in this type of patronage. A talented artist, inventor, gunsmith, and luthier named Marin le Bourgeoys impressed the French royals and was given rooms in the Louvre to experiment in and create art. In the early 1600s he created the flintlock, which ruled over battlefields for the next 200 years, only finally being made obsolete by the percussion lock in the years leading up to the U.S. Civil War.

As for ship building, there weren’t many folks handing out patronages for someone to experiment with ships. However, the folks who knew how to make ships were always looking for ways to improve their ships, so when the local king/emperor/whatever decided he wanted new war ships, they would try to make an improved version based on what worked and what didn’t the last time around. But ships were too expensive to have some guy just constantly building ships to see what worked better and what didn’t.

Siege weapons were often made by carpenters. During peace time, they would build homes or whatever. In war, they would pack up their tools, follow the army to their destination, and start cutting down trees in order to make siege towers, ladders, etc.

The term “engineer” only goes back to maybe the 10th or 12th century or somewhere thereabouts. By this time, you now had dedicated dudes who had specialized knowledge in the creation and operation of siege engines (hence, “engineer”).

There were two very significant exceptions to all of this, the ancient Romans and the ancient Chinese. The ancient Roman engineers were called “architecti” (I think - something like that - it’s related to the modern word “architect”, since engineers and architects weren’t separate things back then). They would do their own research and development of weapons and engineering solutions, and they were much more advanced than anyone else at that time. If the Roman army needed to cross a river, rather than be forced to a choke point at a bridge or a suitably shallow river crossing, the architecti would build a bunch of simple boats, tie them all together, and build a bridge across all of them to make a huge floating bridge.

When the Roman Empire collapsed, much of this specialized engineering knowledge was lost for centuries.

Unfortunately, my knowledge on the Chinese side of things is severely lacking. I know that they also had large and complex siege machines, and they had engineers that figured out how to turn gunpowder into deadly weapons. But beyond that, I really don’t know much about how Chinese engineering knowledge was passed down from generation to generation or how they experimented to discover new weapons or ways to improve existing weapons.

Library of Alexandria?

They had lots of weapons blueprints and such.

Especially when stupid mistakes can have such dire consequences.

Carl Sagan was a great astronomer but a terrible historian. Unfortinatley, he was better celebrity than either.

As pointed out in this reddit thread, no not really.
Carl Sagan, the Library of Alexandria, and ‘The Chart’. So much bad history in this one. : badhistory (reddit.com)

On topic Greek fire led to an escalating arms race between offence and defence.

Archimedes, too. He probably didn’t actually design the “burning glass”, but he did design a bunch of other weapons, sufficient to almost keep the Romans from conquering Syracuse. It’s said that if the Romans found so much as a piece of rope on one of their ships that they didn’t recognize, they’d scream and throw it overboard, for fear that it was one of Archimedes’ infernal devices.

Modern disciplinary boundaries didn’t have any meaning, which made it a great time for polymaths and, in the literal sense, Renaissance men.

Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and a bunch of less well-known blokes developed reputations as problem-solvers, which required a broad competence in engineering and design. While we focus on their art, that was really the vehicle they used to establish patronage, make contacts and gain access to other technical experts and commission work.

Experts travelled extensively and offered their services to competing kings and republics. The militaristic times were probably a good time for both innovation as ‘new’ inventions and engineering principles were appearing all the time, and there was a market for repeated application and improvement. The history of early artillery is essentially a chronicle of experimenting to overcome the limits of inconsistently formulated gunpowder and shitty imprecision metallurgy.

I’ve just watched an interesting documentary on a 14th century military manuscript made by free-range military expert [and another polymath] Hans Tallhofer. His manuscript, written in 1459, is a mix of regular fighting techniques and normal and wacky-looking inventions. The documentary recreates some of these, and they are feasible. I would expect he’d be shopping these around to various princelings who had the cash to turn ideas on paper, give him a job to turn them into reality and, hopefully, win battles.

No DARPA, but warring cashed-up petty states looking for quick wins, and a bunch of smooth-talking instant experts with books filled with cool wicked-looking weaponry.

“You got trouble, my friends! Right here in (looks out window) Agincourt. And that starts with T and that rhymes with E and that stands for the English army.”

I would expect many weapons back in the day were rooted in mundane and common items used by people for everyday tasks, but then someone would get to thinking about how it could be used to butcher the tribe living in the next valley…

“Wow, that metal blade sure slices that meat nice. Let’s make a bigger one for chopping off heads of our ememies!”, or “That is an interesting crossbow design you got there for hunting, but can it shoot arrows farther than a man can throw a spear?”, or “That scow is fine for fishing, but if we’re gonna attack that village across the river with all our men, swords, and crossbows, we’re gonna need a bigger boat!”.

Someone is always thinking of how to weaponize everyday things, but some were better at it than others, I suppose.

Another thing to remember is that the pace of innovation was a lot slower than today. We’re used to thinking of a few years, or decades, to develop from things like the original Wright Flyer, to WWI biplanes, to WWII P-51s and B-17s, to Korea era Sabre jets, to Vietnam era F-4s, to modern F-16s and F-35s.

But compare that to the history of the trebuchet, one of the examples you mentioned. The first, simplest versions appeared in China around 400BC, but the things we consider “proper trebuchets” would not appear until maybe 1100AD in the Middle East, and even then they still evolved further over the next few centuries. So well over a thousand years of development, spread over half the world. Every few hundred years, someone would have an idea, give it a go, and if it worked, the design would gradually spread over the next century or two.

How did they spread? The traveling experts as mentioned by @Banksiaman ?

Probably by observation, and capturing the other sides’ weapons and having a careful look.

Also, books. Take a look at the Wiki page, and there are pictures of various trebuchets over time, which is a big part of how we traced the development of trebuchets over time. You write things down so you son doesn’t have to re-learn everything the next time the Sultan, or whoever, goes to war. At some point, that book gets copied, and copies flow, by whatever means. Trade, theft, looting, whatever works.

From that Wiki link:

The earliest definite mention of the counterweight trebuchet in China was in 1268, when the Mongols laid siege to Fancheng and Xiangyang. After failing to take the twin cities of Fancheng and Xiangyang for several years, collectively known as the siege of Fancheng and Xiangyang, the Mongol army brought in two Persian engineers to build hinged counterweight trebuchets. Known as the Huihui trebuchet (回回砲, where “huihui” is a loose slang referring to any Muslims), or Xiangyang trebuchet (襄陽砲) because they were first encountered in that battle. Ismail and Al-aud-Din travelled to South China from Iraq and built trebuchets for the siege.[83] Chinese and Muslim engineers operated artillery and siege engines for the Mongol armies.[84] By 1283, counterweight trebuchets were also used in Southeast Asia by the Chams against the Yuan dynasty.[85]

That was a very interesting documentary. Thanks for the link. I was impressed at how quickly and flexibly the men in full plate could move. Like a lot of people, I guess, I always thought an armored man moved rather stiffly and slowly.

Consider this post “liked.”

And some advancements probably came by accident. For instance, a trebuchet is actually more efficient if the whole weapon is on wheels, so the frame can “recoil”. This is because most of the weight of the total machine is in the counterweight, and you want the counterweight to be falling as close to straight down as possible, so you’re not wasting energy in horizontal movement of the counterweight. But it was probably discovered when someone put wheels on a trebuchet to make it easier to get it to the site of a battle, and then didn’t bother to take them off before loosing it.

This is the crux of it. Warring lords didn’t usually develop their own war machines; they bought them. Not just weapons inventors, but also generals and often whole armies or navies.