Talk:Trebuchet/Archive 1

Which is it?
At first the article states that the trebuchet was developed from the Roman onager. Later however, it says that the trebuchet is thought to have been invented in China, between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC (which, according to the article on the Roman Empire lasted between from 31. BC to 476 AD). I may be incorrect, but I don't believe China has ever produced a time machine :) Even if we skip the problem of time, I find it hard to believe that the Chineese imported a Roman onager, improved on it, and then exported the idea seven centuries later. Niffux 17:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, first off, Rome itself was founded in 753 BC, and the monarchy lasted from this time to 509 BC, when the republic began. from 509 to 31 this part lasted, and THEN it is officially called the "empire", though rome is much older. No time travel necessary. Additionally, the onager is a similar tool to the Chinese (and greek) hand versions. Eventually, ideas merge, and the trebuchet is born.

And yes, I know I'm responding to a 7 year old question, but it is an important one which was never answered.Kaimason1 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Range
A quarter of a mile throwing range seems rather excessive .Maybe somewhere between 150-250 meters is beter, but I don't have good facts on this.

The new record for Pumpkin Chuckin set 2005-10-08 in Burlington, WA is 1670 feet.

If a trebuchet from the Middle Ages were to throw pumpkins, yes they might get them half a mile, but generally they threw rocks ranging from 200-400lbs. Same sources state they could throw rocks weighing up to a ton.

Anywhere from 150-300m is a reasonable distance, although it is generally said that English longbows could outrange trebuchets, and the longest range I have heard for a longbow is about 250m.

are you sure that, that is not just a saying? i have always been of the impression that a trebuchet had a longer rang, more in the area of 400m. though i could be mistaken.--Manwithbrisk 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC) It depends on what it was throwing, ie. stones would go father that lead bales and Greek fire in wood barrals would go farther than both.-- Lee Tru.  00:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Range calculation of half mile is correct
The weight of the projectile has a a great effect on the range, as can be seen by throwing a beach ball and basketball at the same initial speed.

Assuming the weight of the projectile is negligable compared to that of the counterweight, the initial velocity of the projectile would be the same regardless of the projectile weight.

Assuming a 10cm diameter pumpkin of 4 lbs (I assume they pick pumpkins that would go the farthest), and accounting for air drag in a ballistic simulator (online java versions are available) it would need to leave at 98 mph at 40 degrees to go 1670 ft (pumpkin record)

Now increase the mass to 15 lbs (a stone or cannonball as they would have thrown) with a 98 mph release the projectile will then reach 2520 ft = 0.48 miles 71.37.57.89 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The large-scale competitors broke the 2,000 ft mark: http://www.supertrebs.com/index.html These guys are serious about trebs! Chrishibbard7 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Angle
Question: The text states "The perfect release angle is when the missile will fly at roughly 45 degrees, because this optimizes range.", but from physics we know that the optimal ballistic release angle is actually 40 degrees, in order to counter wind resistance (by having a larger horizontal velocity vector when launched). Should the text be updated to allow for this fact, or is it too much of a nuance?
 * You seem to know more about this than I do. If you feel the text is currently inaccurate, then by all means edit it. -- EagleOne 20:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, trebuchets are know to shoot at most 1,350ft with an excellent shot, but a quarter mile to half mile is indefinitly wrong. In the Punkin chunkin contest, a trebuchet set a world record of 1394ft using todays technology. -- Mat Walter March 11, 2005

Can an English-Longbow really shoot three-hundred-yards? Truman Thompson 04/15/06

Can somebody please do the math? Pumpkin chunkin records of 1600 plus ft easily puts it in the range 1/4 to 1/2 half mile (440 to 880 yards, with 3ft per yard). Theoretical maximum range depends in part on the mass of the projectile, so a 15kg cannoball will go further than a rotting pig. Remember we are only playing with these machines today, whereas the Medieval engineers had centuries of arcane knowledge at their disposal and real lives were at stake; imagine what the Pentagon could do with this technology. Yes, an English longbow can really shoot 300+ yards, and at close range has the power to penetrate shields and armour - see great 100 Years War battles such as Crecy, Poitiers and of course Agincourt. The Count 21/04/06

Again, throughing a pumpkin, or even a 15kg cannon ball at a castle will not do much. You may get it to go half a mile, but the best you can hope for is that it hits someone in the head.

There is historical evidence that Edward 1 of England made the effort to transport a large one and used it on the Scottish castles to great effect. A few years ago a replica was made as part of a TV program. If my memory is correct it easily demolished a thick stone wall target. It was also found that it could be aimed quite well both in direction and distance e.g it could hit the same spot thus inflicting repeated damage. One thing found in the experiments was that the design of the sling is critical, I think a long one was found to work best. --Dionysious 09:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) don't forget, a lead ball or a stone or even a barral of Greek fire/snakes, would not go as far as a pumpkin.-- Lee Tru.  00:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Catapult
Shouldn't there be a reference (with a link) to the catapult? On catapult's page it says that trebuchet is the most sophisticated catapult...


 * The trebuchet isn't a catapult, it's a slingshot... -- ChrisO 10:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the trebuchet is more of a combination of the two. It has the arm and counterweight of the catapult, as well as the sling from the slingshot attached at the end.  The trebuchet article ought to explain this and link to both articles, the catapult and the slingshot. --Ash211 03:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if you are suggesting that a catapult is the long wooden arm with a cup on the end, and the arm is bent back to provide force, then I am sorry to say you are mistaken. the closest thing to the hollywood catapult is the roman onager, which had a sling, like trebuchets do, and the onager, nor the hoolywood catapult had counterwieghts. If anything, a trebuchet should be called a gravity-powered catapult.

I i agree with Ash211 that a trebuchet is a combination. it is a variation or advancement on the catapaults used in the past just as catapaults have changed in desing and gradualy got better with every model made Mr Gerkin 09:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Mr Gerkin

From the research I've done, a "catapult" is a generic term for any medieval siege weapon, Trebuchet being one. Like the unsigned paragraph (or is it Mr. Gerkins?) above, a Trebuchet is best described as a gravity powered catapult, but it's still a catapult. Also, an Onagar is the closest thing to the modern day concept of a catapult. Gumguts (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. There's the most accurate breakdown between a catapult and a treb' --Wildgriffin (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The self-destructing trebuchet
I seem to recall reading somewhere about Napoleon constructing a trebuchet during some campaign (Egypt?) more for his own amusement than any practical use. I can't quite remember the details, but what struck me after reading about Cortés' usage at Tenochtitlan of it was the exact same tragic outcome; the hook that realeased the sling was not angled properly, the contraption was fired once and the result was the projectile firing straight up and crashing back down on the wretched thing and destroying it.

Now am I the only one who finds this to seriously smack of historical myth? That two seperate generals on two separate occasions managed the extremely unlikely feat of managing to get a trebuchet, a contraption that was hardly acclaimed for it's accuracy, to fire a projectile in a straight vertical arc, making it come down in the same exact spot does not seem plauible. On the first try no less! It wasn't until I read the story of Cortés that I got to thinking that this might just be a tall tale of trebuchet lore that probably has been attributed to more military leaders and other occasions.

I'm not 100% sure about my own memory of Napoleon and his trebuchet, but I think the feat of just firing a trebuchet so accurately is just too unlikely on it's own. I'm gonna dispute the article 'til someone finds som credible evidence for that (albeit amusing) andectode. - karmosin 04:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the evidence you guys have been looking for:

Legion XXIV states "The last recorded use of a large siege trebuchet was in 1521; when the Spanish "conquistador" Hernando Cortez besieged Tenochtitlan, now Mexico City, in his campaign to subjugate the Aztec Empire."

The Grey Company Trebuchet Page quotes a book (Bernal Diaz, "The Conquest of New Spain" from Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044123-9 Translated and introduced by J M Cohen) that has a first-person acccount of Cortes's treb.

Hern%E1n_Cort%E9s also confirms that Tenochtitlan was destroyed in 1521. --Ash211 06:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources, Ash, but as one those links points out, it seems to leave uncertainty about what the contraption actually was. Trebuchet or catapult? That the machine destroyed itself is completely plausible, but in the manner described in the article here? Doesn't fit with the text.


 * "So they placed a suitable stone in the sling, but all it did was to rise to the height of the catapult and fall back to its original place."


 * The article text makes it sound as if flew up in high arc and came back down. The text seems to imply that the catapult, or whatever it was, didn't have enough power to shoot the stone and simply collapsed backwards or something. How about rephrasing? --karmosin 09:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Rephrasing seems like the thing to do. I'll change it. Ash211 15:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I took the sign down, but I also added two sentences about the nature of the device. I might've read the sources wrong, but it just didn't seem as if it actually was a trebuchet or not. Do edit it back if I've simply missed the reference somewhere. --Peter Isotalo 09:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

trebuchet
--169.204.222.249 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Bold textYou guys need to put more information on the website like how far they can throw or the weight they can handle. We need more facts!!!

-Any one know why the size of the article was cut in half around October 29th? Nathan24601 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Big Bucket"
I thought there was a (humorous) mistranslation of the word Trebuchet. When spelled "Tres Bucket" the meaning shifts to "big bucket," referring to the Trebuchet's large counter-weight.

History or Anachronology?
The article says that the Chinese invented it in the 5th century BC. But then says that it was a defense against the Mongols, and used the word "huihui" which refered to Muslims. Yes the Mongols were Muslims(muslims are sly dog humpers coz they are protesting way too much)!!, but isn't this off by 1200-1700 years? Someone more knowledgeable should look into this and find some citable sources. JesseRafe 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree there are big problems with the history here. For a start, no distinction is made between the traction trebuchet and the, erm, actual trebuchet. Secondly other early dates are proposed which are completely ambiguous about the form of artillery used e.g. siege of Paris: so far as I know, De belle Parisiato only mentions war machines, and provides little description to hint what type they were (most scholars seem to think that they were mangonels). My take, unfortunately, is based largely on the non-academic "the Grey Company Trebuchet Page" which is, however, the best resource on the history of the subject I've seen anywhere (and is supported by Chinese Siege Warfare: Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity). It suggests:
 * The device the Chinese invented in the 3rd to 5th century BC is undoubtedly a traction trebuchet. They continued to use them and improve them into at least the 11th century (developing several subtypes), but never invented the true trebuchet. (Curiously, there seems to be no further technical development of advanced Chinese traction trebuchets between the early 11th century, and true trebuchets being introduced by the Mongols' Persian engineers in the late thirteenth.)
 * Knowledge of the traction trebuchet appears to have arrived in the Byzantine Empire with the siege of Thessalonika by the Avars in 597 AD, but there are few European records before the 12th century.
 * Sometime in the late 12th century, Europeans started making "augmented" trebuchets which were traction trebuchets plus a small counterweight to increase the power.
 * The trebuchet arms race took off at the siege of Acre in 1189 - 1191, making larger and larger augmented traction trebuchets and finishing up with large pure trebuchets. (It is not clear whether the Crusaders or Muslims were the first to go fully counterweight powered.)
 * The idea spread very rapidly from there, westward with returning Crusaders (first used in England by the French to attack Dover Castle in 1216) and eastward with the Muslims (Persian engineers building them at the Battle of Xiangyang 1268 - 1273).
 * However traction trebuchets remained in use alongside trebuchets until late in thirteenth century at least.
 * --Securiger 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, if anyone wants to try to track down St. Abbo's book, I believe the proper name is Bella Parisiacae Urbis. Latin, of course; a French translation was made in 1824. A copy of the French translation is available on-line from the Bibliothèque nationale de France at http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?O=NUMM-91454 My French is rather rusty but I am working my way through it; the only relvant part so far seems to be page 11, which says:
 * ''De toutes parts les traits volent, le sang ruisselle; de haut des airs, les frondes et les pierriers déchirans mêlent leurs coups aux javelots. On ne voit rien autre chose que des traits et des pierres voler entre le ciel et la terre. Les dards percent et font gémir la tour, enfant de la nuit, car, comme je l'ai dit plus haut, c'est la nuit qui lui donna naissance. ....
 * Ceux-ci tâchent de couper le mur à l'aide de la sape [machine sous laquelle les sapeurs travaillaient à couvert], mais lui les inonde d'huile, de cire, de poix; mêlées ensemble, elles coulent en torrens d'un feu liquide, dévorent, brûlent et enlèvent les cheveux de la tête des Danois, en tuent plusiers, et en forcent d'autres à chercher un secours dans les ondes du fleuve. Les nôtres alors s'écrient totu d'une voix: "Malheureux brûlés, courez vers les flots de la Seine; tâchez qu'ils vous fassent repousser une autre chevelure mieux peignée." Le vaillant Eudes extermina un grand nombre de ces barbares.
 * (There are some later references to war machines, but only rams and such like, not artillery.) Here's my attempt at translation:
 * ''Everywhere the [traits?] fly and the blood pours; high in the air, the slings and the [pierriers déchirans] mix their blows with the javelins. One sees nothing but [traits?] and stones flying between the sky and the ground. The darts bore into and made to groan the tower, "Child of the Night", (as I mentioned above, it is the night which gave it birth). ....
 * They tried to cut the wall with the help of a sap [a machine below which the sappers worked under cover], but they flooded them with oil, wax, and pitch; mixed together, they ran in torrents of liquid fire, devouring, burning and stripping the hair from the heads of the Danes, killing many, and forcing others to seek safety in the waves of the river. Our side all then exclaimed in one voice: "Unhappy burned, run towards the floods of the Seine; try to see if they will make you regrow another, better combed head of hair." The valiant Odo exterminated a great number of these barbarians.
 * The tower was being called "Child of the Night" because the defenders heavily reinforced the incomplete stone tower with timbers during the night. Now, I'm not sure what a pierriers déchirans is, (a plain old pierrier is a drain!), but the name suggest a stone thrower; on the other hand, it is listed alongside ordinary slings, while the machien which made the tower "groan" was a dart thrower. At any rate, while it is certainly a ripping yarn there is not a skerrick to suggest a trebuchet. -- Securiger 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a problem with the article; considering that Islam did not even exist in the 5th century BC, and that 'huihui pao' was the name of the counterweight trebuchet in China.

Spring trebuchet vid
I've just chopped a link to this for the second time. Sorry guys, but it's just not "encyclopedic content"--Snori 07:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

pop culture
in the treb pop culture section it lists the treb apearance in the lord of the rings: the return of the king on the same builet point it then goes on to say that the mounting of trebs on top of towers as shown in the movie was a common practice in medieval warfair quote: "Trebuchets were in fact used in this way as their recoil is less than that of a comparably sized torsion weapon."

when i was younger i took a great interest into castle building and also seige weapons, in my research i found, as i recall, that trebs could not be placed on top of towers as shown in the movie, and stated in the article, because they created too much vibration and would shake the tower to peices after several volleys, and that the only real weapon of this type that could be placed in such a way was the mangonel if it was properly braced to the tower and not too large.

as far as i know trebs on towers did not exist or were very rare, trebs in a courtyard throwing over the defenders wall towards the attackers, yes

can anyone cite a source other than the movie that threbs were on castle towers? again, as always, i maybe wrong which is why i am asking the comunity thanks--Manwithbrisk 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the swinging counterweight, and especially the wheels, reduced the vibrations enough to not shake apart the tower. (Although Minas Tirith is supposed to appear as if it's 'carved out of stone', so maybe its towers are exceptionally strong anyway.) Nathan24601 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the swinging counter weight helps the treb to throw farther by allowing the weight to drop as close to straight down as possible, it would have done relatively little to change the vibration. the addition of wheels to a treb would allow the weapon to do something with the vibrations it creates, whihc in theory could make it more viable to place on top of a tower, but a number of factors would make these an unattractive alternative. first, if the tower was now perfectly level the treb would be prone to roll in that direction more so than any other, this would change firing angles, could prove hazardus to the firing crew who would be working in very close quarters with the weapon from atop this tower, and could cause the treb to butt up into the battlements which after a second firing in that position would cause it to fall, break the weapon, break the battlement or more probably all three. secondly this would greatly limit the size of the treb seeing as if it were too large it would most likely have a movement wavelength that is larger than the tower is wide, creating problems similar to the last part above. and as to the tower itself, it really wouldn't matter if the tower was made of stone and mortor, or if it they were carved out of a single block of stone, niether structure would hold up to that kind of heavy vibration, stone and mortor would shake to peaces, while the carved out of stone method would most likely crack during construction, but asuming that it survived to completion, it would be strong and last longer but ston does not sway well, and without it's internal structure holding it together the vibrations of the treb would cause it to crack and bring the whole tower down. but then again, i wasn't alive back then, and i don't know everything, so if you find something that proves me wrong, then i will humbly bow to it, or if you build a tower to their specs, and then put a treb on top to their specs and fire it a few times and nothing bad happens, then i will send you and e-beer and call this one quits--Manwithbrisk 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you go to the Grey Company Trebuchet page (http://members.iinet.net.au/~rmine/gctrebs.html), you will see a number medieval pictures showing trebuchet clearly mounted on towers and the walls. While many of these may of been traction trebuchet, some of the pictures do look like counterweight trebuchets.  These trebuchet may have been small enought not to create a vibration problem.  After all, a trebuchet on a tower wasn't trying to batter down a wall, but only knocked down besiegers and their equipment, like other trebuchets, and so didn't need to be as large.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture references removed
Removal of a whole lot of unneeded cruft (and one ad). What is left is a dramatization of a historical figure, a popular myth and an anual event, a docu on NOVA and a show/movie (no idea) that replicates actual midevil tactics. I hope this is good enough to please everybody. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Multi-rotational Trebuchet
The article describes a multi-rotational trebuchet as "less efficient than a floating arm trebuchet, but more efficient than a traditional trebuchet[citation needed]. Its arm makes one or more full rotations before launching the projectile." However, this description is vague and the comparison is very difficult to prove correct. This brings up two questions: what are multi-rotational trebuchet and are they really less efficient than floating arm trebuchets?

What is a multi-rotational trebuchet? After seeing them at Science Olympiad contests when I was in High School, I would describe one as trebuchet whose short throwing arm is rotated by a small wheel which is pulled by a falling counterweigh on a rope. In this configuration, the arm can rotate multiple times and the ball is kept in the device by centripetal acceleration. Often these devices have slings that move about freely during rotation.

Are multi-rotational trebuchets less efficient than floating arm trebuchets? The question is actually very difficult to answer. In floating arm trebuchets, both the sling and the path of the arm transfer most of the energy from the counterweight to the projectile, creating point where the counterweight stalls. In terms of energy, this is the most efficient release point, but it often occurs at a much greater angle than 45 degrees. The most efficient multi-rotational trebuchets have similar stall points, but these are created by the sling alone. This allows a trebuchet builder to choose a stall point at any location, regardless of the angle of the arm, by adjusting the length of the sling. Thus, unlike a floating arm trebuchet, a multi-rotational trebuchet can have its most efficient throw at the best angle. However, this does not necessarily mean that multi-rotational trebuchets are more efficient. At the Solon Science Olympiad Invitational in 2006, a multi-rotational trebuchet placed second after the first place floating arm trebuchet, but beat many other floating arm trebuchets. Rather than illustrating the superiority of either design, it suggests that the two designs have similar efficiencies.Durkinms 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it trebucket or are you supposed to soften the ch? 65.94.39.200 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've entered the pronunciations in the lede per AHD4. "A trebuchet (sometimes spelled trebucket and pronounced ) is a siege engine" […] For those who prefer a more intuitive transcription, that's trebuchet (trĕb-yuh-SHĔT) or trebucket (trĕb-uh-KĔT). — ¾-10 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is P in the diagrams?
What are the two strings marked P connecting the sling pouch to the lever arm? Could it be a release mechanism different from the sling-end-slips-from-the-hook type?

The absence of a hook and a second sling end seem to support this idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.181.90.131 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, in those diagrams the strings P are in fact part of the release mechanism. See diagram http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Trebuchet4.png on how it's supposed to work. I managed to build a trebuchet using this kind of release mechanism, but haven't yet gotten around to shoot enough shots to determine if it's more accurate than the hook type. 194.29.198.121 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)porky

Color
GaylordBumBum 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Can someone change the color of the arms in the animated pictures? They don't show up well on a color monitor. Nathan24601 11 Sept 2007


 * Does anybody know why the pictures themselves were removed from Wikimedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan24601 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Either dead images or they were spam (advertised a website on the image). Notes on removal are not clear in the history. --statsone 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, there was a mix-up with copyright info. All fixed.  (Now just to put them back in the article...) -Nathan24601 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Trebuchet_swinging_move.gif
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Trebuchet_wheels_animation.gif --Nathan24601 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the second one, with the wheels, better. -- Statsone  02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

weights error
when casting weights up to 750 pounds (60 kg) ... which one is wrong? per google calculator: "750 pounds in kg" is: 340.194277 kilograms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.0.99.141 (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Traction Trebuchet
The first paragraph of this article includes a link to a 'Traction Trebuchet' which seems to be unavailable at the moment. Anyone know what's wrong? --//Blake D. Hawkins 03:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Petrary
Hi. I found the article entitled Petrary and thought you guys might be interested in it. Best regards 195.137.96.79 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph: "It is sometimes called a “counterweight trebuchet” or "counterpoise trebuchet" in order to distinguish it from an earlier weapon that has come to be called the “traction trebuchet”, though this is redundant."

I'm confused: what is redundant here? the traction trebuchet? the distinction? The whole paragraph? Please clarify... 203.83.193.114 (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope the new wording helps. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambig link
For the for template on this page linking to an article on a font, someone has decided to be cute and code the tag in that font. Is this acceptable per the Manual of Style? -- saberwyn 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving and Firing
This section seems suspiciously like a reference to pop culture to me (i.e. Age of Empires). I'm not a regular editor around here, so I thought I would throw that out there for the community. =Mellor


 * I've noticed that too. I think, where is no need in this section here. Any suggestions? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, trebuchets were normally constructed on-site for longer sieges. They were not used as semi-mobile weaponry like in Age of Empires II, in which the trebuchets are "unpacked" to fire and "packed" to travel, with a small waiting period in between the packing and unpacking.--Dragonsscout 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Models Section
I've slightly updated the models section to imply that people can buy and construct there own models. Edit if you feel I wasn't detailed enough or phrased it wrong. Gumguts (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

half a mile bs
Please don't replace the false claim about throwing things half a mile. It was put there months ago by a vandalism-only account with the edit summary "lol". Rracecarr (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Also Section
I've added three links to the See Also section, The 'Catapult,' 'Medieval War,' and 'Siege Engine.' I think those relate enough to a trebuchet, regardless of whether it is a form of a catapult or not, it's still related. They're in alphabetical order. Also, I deleted the small descriptions, I couldn't find any rule or guideline on that on the Wiki Guide to Style, but from the articles I've seen, it seems out of the norm. Please feel free to change it back and prove me wrong, :) Gumguts (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Updating the Wiki
Hi, I'm in a physics class and will be constructing a fairly large Trebuchet. Would it be alright if I slowly morphed this wiki to include the phyics of how a trebuchet works and the phyics behind it? This is my first wiki, and I'm not sure how large it will be, as I don't know a whole lot about the topic yet. I will be, of course, citing my sources and following the rules. Anybody mind or anything?

Also, I noticed this is under the 'Military History Project' I don't really know what that is... Should I go there and ask? I'd really appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction.

Thanks, Gumguts (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a member of the miltary history project and I replied on your talkpage. We honor every help we can get to improve the articles within our scope. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has been cited :-)
Just a quick note to let this article's editors know that it's been used as a source for this amusing parody news story: People Turning to Medieval Technologies to Save on Gas. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, better than beaming. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

protected
What in the world is going on with all the vandalism? Could people be attacking an obscurer article? Protected for now. kwami (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article should be semi-protected. It baffles me why people would chose to vandalize an article about a siege weapon! --173.50.247.207 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted some more vandalism. This article needs protection. Why someone would attack such an obscure article, I have no idea. (talk) 10:33, 27 JAN 11 (UTC)

models
I think that this section is plain advertising and should be removed. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad Neighbour and God's Own Stone-Thrower
The source for these names seems to be a document called "Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi," and they seem to have been built by Phillip II of France rather than Richard I of England (who turned up later and built some better ones without silly names). So I'm going to change this, and cite a better page than the one from "Neatorama". 81.131.1.82 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one of my students this morning by accident deleted most of the information about the trebuchet in this article. Can it be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.181.32.133 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ripcord Links
I think they're all broken. Do they work for anyone else? 43?9enter (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Trabucco
The range is proportional to the weight of the projectile and the varied from the trabuchets that were non-standard The venetian trabuchets can to throw until 15q some were truly gigantic used only for very long siege indeed they were very expensive and hardly defensible.

About China, the chinese engineers that worked for Mongols did not know the trebuchet, indeed they Mongols called tecnicals from west (Persia) to built trebuchets for Xiangyang siege (1267-1273).

The Trabuchet (Trabucco) in italy is simply a machine with a counterweight, not necessarily used for the war, indeed there are trebuchets for fishing (used also today in Adriatic sea or in Po river). Counterweigh is used to lift the nets. Counterweight machines surely were also used in the arenas as fast elevator see Colosseo or in building activities but the this tecnology was widespread in mediterranean sea at least from hellenistic period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.76.197 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

History406 Critique
The article is well-written and logically ordered. Text is interspersed with authoritative quotations and follows a logical progression of the weapon’s technological progression from the ancient sling to modern day “pumpkin chunker.” However, I would make several minor changes to the history section. The section on the hand-trebuchet is very brief and relies completely on one source. If additional information can not be found to expand this section, merging it with the traction trebuchet seems fitting. The counterweight trebuchet is the technology most readily associated with the term “trebuchet” so it is logical that this section stands alone. Furthermore, more quotations from both medieval and modern authorities would give the article even more authenticity. For the most part, the sources listed in the notes and bibliography sections are scholarly. There are archeological, historical, and military journals, books, and university websites, mostly published in the 1990’s or 2000’s. However, there are also some less-authoritative sources sited, including Historynet.com. Furthermore, much of the article relies on one article, The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion by Paul Chevedden. While this source is credible, it would increase the Wikipedia page’s authoritativeness to have a greater variety of sources used. This entry contains several fitting illustrations. They combine medieval illustrations and photographs of modern reconstructions of the trebuchet. The pictures come from a variety of sources and regions, giving a better-rounded picture of the trebuchet throughout history. The discussion page for the trebuchet is very developed. There is a large section discussing possible anachronism within the article, which will be very useful in analyzing the content against my own research. This discussion gives me some assurance that the information within the article is, in fact, accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-11 110069911 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

FCW HCW AROW AROC FAT
I've just trimmed all this out. It's not clear that there's ever been an historical fixed weight machine, the supposed "AROW" and "AROC" are poorly described - and the FAT is a modern design - so deserves to be covered there. Snori (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Trebuchets at Hastings?
The text below has been removed from the article I've not read any account of the Battle of Hastings that featured the use of trebuchet on the battlefield and I don't think any exist.

"At the Battle of Hastings in 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, the Norman-French army of Duke William II used Trebuchets on many occasions. In one notable instance, having depleted their supply of suitable projectiles, William resorted to recruiting the smallest, most gullible members of his force. Only too late did they realize the dire nature of their one-way volunteer mission."

Graham1973 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Counterweight has to be closer than payload
The section "Trebuchets versus torsion" says a trebuchet uses a counterweight, usually much closer to the fulcrum than the payload for mechanical advantage, though this is not necessary. First, mechanical advantage is the factor by which an applied force or torque is multiplied, whereas a trebuchet is designed to multiply speed. So it's set up to minimize mechanical advantage. Second, this arrangement is necessary if the trebuchet is to be effective. With equal arm lengths, the payload would accelerate only at g (less, to the extent that its mass is a non-negligible fraction of that of the counterweight), so it could only be thrown as high as the distance the counterweight falls. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

King Arthur trebuchet
"The King Arthur is often regarded as the most efficient trebuchet design, invented by Chris Gerow in 2001 in his efforts to compete in the Pumpkin Chunking championship. In this design, a counter-weight is not attached directly to the throwing arm. Instead, the counter-weight is fixed to the end of a lever, or hanger, that in turn is attached to the throwing arm at a rotating pin. In the cocked position, the throwing arm points nearly straight down, and the hanger points nearly up. When the the trigger is pulled, the hanger rotates on the pin, building up energy through its swing. The throwing arm, however, remains motionless until the hanger has reach an optimal point in its travel, at which point it's released, and the projectile is thrown. The advantage of this arrangement is in its efficiency; the hangar is allowed to build substantial kinetic energy before the throwing arm is released, resulting in increased acceleration.

A further refinement of this design combines the floating axle with the two-piece throwing arm and hanger."

I've removed the above from the article as quite why this particular example has been singled out is unclear. The source (a website by the people who built the trebuchet) don't explicitly make the claim about the design being efficient, and in any case that it is "often regarded as the most efficient ... design" needs to be sourced from a third party. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OED pronunciation
Trebuchet. )

I took a minute to write the pronunciation up with reference, I see it's not needed as pronunciation is at the bottom which I didn't notice at first, but so I didn't completely waste my time, I'll paste it here in case me or someone else wants to use it or look at it later. Not that they will. Reference can only be seen in edit mode.  Carl wev   19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Manajaniq vs Manjaniq
I am informed by a person reading Arabic that المنجنيshould be Latinized as manjaniq (with one a) instead of manajaniq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Chronology order
In this article, traction trebuchet were used by Chinese as early as 4th century BC, used by Byzantiumc and Muslim in the late 6th century. Then this article claims hand-trebuchet was first used in around 965 AD. Someone insist hand-trebuchet is in front of traction trebuchet by "chronology". I wonder in what kind of "chronology" the event happened around 965 AD will be earlier than events happened in 4th century BC and 6th century. Moreover, the section of hand-trebuchet cited sources. Even in these source, the traction trebuchet used in 4th century BC was in the leading paragraph and the source also firstly introduces the traction trebuchet. We should edited based on the source cited not some personal ideas from editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.242.67 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed the "somebody" must have been confused, or sleep deprived - mea culpa. Snori (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mozi
I'm trying to add to the page in a careful tone that Mozi is a highly unreliable text. So much has been added to it over the centuries, that it's full of physical impossibilities (just have a quick look and try to add up some of the numbers menionted).

In this article though, Mozi is put forward as the proof of the trebuchet being in China centuries BC, without mentioning the serious doubts one must have reading it. On top of that, centuries of 'trebuchet silence' follow Mozi. Then comes the flurry of mentions of some kind of cataput in the T'ang dynasty, but AFAIK without illustrations. Only in the 11th C we see the Chinese trebuchet illustrations.

That's why I propose to make this clear in the text: the questionable nature of Mozi and the absence of clear explanations and illustrations until the 11th centruy AD.

I was surprised my edit was undone within 10 minutes, like someone is hugging this page. Undone without explanation btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.151.232.114 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Couillard
It is essentially a smaller version of a trebuchet. User:SmartyPantsKid 17:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree to the merge. There's a single line in the article about Couillard already.  I think just add the weight/range/rate-of-fire info from Couillard, and we're done.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also agree on a merge, there's not enough information in the main article for the Couillard for it to have its own article. I do, though, believe it should be in the history section with the other versions of the Trebuchet, or be elaborated on in the basic design section. - Awesomefriends56 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree. A smaller version of a trebuchet. is still a trebuchet. - AngryBear423

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Trebuchet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102003919/http://philipmcgaw.com/medieval-siege-society/trebuchet-demonstration/ to http://philipmcgaw.com/medieval-siege-society/trebuchet-demonstration/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Information here a meme?
This diff shows a change to this page which brings the information (which was probably previously accurate) in line with the measurements used in a common meme (example). I think it should be changed back, but I don't want to bother doing it. Also, this ip is a VPN, so it should probably be blocked. 49.213.19.131 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Someone

Design evolution
Although this section has been here a while, I've removed it because it was poorly worded unreferenced speculation - which took away from the "Basic design" section. Snori (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Non sequitur
Near the top of the Trebuchet page, I see this phrase: "...making it vastly superior to the catapult."

By simply reading Wikipedia's page on "Catapult", it's clear that the above phrase is nonsense. "Catapult" is a very broad term for many implementions of the concept, including mangonels, onagers, and even primitive early crossbows. One of those types is the trebuchet.

In other words, a trebuchet is not "superior to a catapult" -- a trebuchet is one type of catapult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.70.76 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and now deleted. Just for reference, this is related to a silly meme, in the vein of 'pirates vs ninjas', so don't be suprised if some prankster puts it back in. Snori (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

1779
This (unreferenced) text has been in the article a long while:
 * ""In 1779, British forces defending Gibraltar, finding that their cannons were unable to fire far enough for some purposes, constructed a trebuchet. It is unknown how successful this was: the Spanish attackers were eventually defeated, but this was largely due to a sortie."

I've just removed it. Why? Because the only reference I can find to this says: "On this occasion General Melville, at the desire of Lord Heathfield, caused a catapult to be made for projecting heavy stones over the edge of the precipice, so that they might fall on a ledge of rock frequented by the Spaniards where shells from mortars could not be aimed to reach them." - in "The book of the crossbow" by Sir Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey.

Note, (a) no mention of trebuchet; (b) mortars not cannon, and (c) it wasn't a matter of range. Oh, and the Spanish attackers were eventually defeated - but three years later. Snori (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What's a traction trebuchet?
The article makes a distinction between traction trebuchets and counterweight trebuchets, but nowhere does it tell the reader what constitutes a traction trebuchet. There is a lengthy explanation of the operation of the counterweight trebuchet but nothing explaining or defining the traction trebuchet. I had to Google elsewhere to learn what a traction trebuchet is and how it operates. Ichneumon~enwiki (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that important omission. I've updated the lede and basic design sections.  See if this at least equals what's on google.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, thanks. Ichneumon~enwiki (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trebuchet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503211719/http://www.trebuchet.com/firstfat to http://www.trebuchet.com/firstfat
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140117034804/http://www.warwicksiege.co.uk/ to http://www.warwicksiege.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Catapult?
Alright, there are quite a few edits debating whether the trebuchet is or is not a catapult. I'm bringing this issue here to discuss. Please do not edit that particular detail until we have reached a consensus here. Zyc1174   chat?   what I did   01:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A trebuchet is certainly not a catapult NotQuiteGenius (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If a trebuchet is not a catapult then we need to edit the article catapult removing everything in it implying that a trebuchet is a type of catapult. It's literally listed there in its list of types of catapults.  It's been there since well before the catapult-trebuchet meme war started.  For example, this revision from 2009.  Personally, I think this "debate" is entirely due to the rise of /r/trebuchetmemes and the anti-catapult side is arguing in bad faith because they just want to push their meme.  Websites and blogs that existed before the meme-war started that were meant to just be informative about medieval siege weapons seem broadly agreed that a trebuchet is a type of catapult.  For example, this one from 2008.  Honestly to me this is an open-and-shut case.  A trebuchet is a type of catapult. Mbarbier (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A trebuchet is fundamentally different from a catapult in how it functions. It achieves the same goal of launching a payload at a target, but the method relies on a counterweight and a swinging arm rather than rope tension, as a catapult does. As for the wikipedia article on catapults, the article uses catapult as a blanket term to describe effectively all medieval siege weapons which launch a payload, regardless of mechanical function. There are many sources around, such as dictionaries, which disprove this, though there is no consensus in any of the more official dictionaries as to whether or not a trebuchet or any other siege weapon can be classified as a catapult, or if a catapult is a weapon rather than a classification of weapons. Wikipedia articles are often incorrect due to self-citation. It is entirely possible that the catapult article is partly or entirely incorrect. Kalybur (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding catapult (or not) [Closed]
This is starting to get problematic, so I opened a RfC here. Zyc1174  chat?   what I did   11:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: The question is is apparently whether trebuchet should be described as a type of catapult. It appears that all opposition is coming from IP addresses, and this article is Pending-Changes protected due to persistent IP vandalism. Alsee (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears there has not been any discussion among involved editors. Has anyone presented any sources to defend either side? CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This RfC asks no question and has no subject. Assuming the issue was intended to be "is the trebuchet a catapult?", the definition "A catapult is a ballistic device used to launch a projectile a great distance without the aid of explosive devices" suggests the answer is yes. Maproom (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that there's been a (slow) but evident amount of semi-vandalism arising from editors arguing over whether it is or is not a catapult, and whether it belongs in the catapult family. Zyc1174  chat?   what I did   06:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A google search for define:Trebuchet catapult turns up quite a few sources describing a trebuchet as a type of catapult. For example vocabulary.com/dictionary/trebuchet begins A trebuchet is a kind of catapult... Therefore it is certainly permissible to describe a trebuchet as a type of catapult. However I suspect we might better avoid reader confusion if the lead simply describes it as a type of siege engine, then in the body of the article explain that is considered a type of catapult. Alsee (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above, this is mainly from IP editors. It's coming from a silly internet meme thing - see http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/what-are-trebuchet-memes.html for a nice short summary. We just need to ignore/revert. - Snori (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe the page should be semi-protected.  Zyc1174   chat?   what I did   02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are no further issues, I'm closing this RfC. Zyc1174   chat?   what I did   11:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also https://www.reddit.com/r/trebuchetmemes/comments/87qkle/upvote_to_force_wikipedia_to_correct_their/, although the "joke" has not driven much traffic here. --Nemo 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to avoid the confusion I would agree with the recomendation to label a trebuchet as a catapult in the body paragraph and not in the main definition, NotQuiteGenius (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I support describing the trebuchet as a siege engine in the main definition and explaining that it is a catapult in a paragraph section Mkwia (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 12th century depiction of a counterweight trebuchet, c. 1187.jpg
 * Artillery from ancient times to the medieval world.jpg
 * Early 17th century Chinese counterweight trebuchet.jpg
 * Late 7th century Transoxanian depiction of a traction trebuchet.gif
 * Trebuchet ship.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019
I believe a useful edit to this page would be to add a section acknowledging the reddit community dedicated to trebuchet memes called r/trebuchetmemes. The subreddit has 276,975 members at the time this was written who are dedicated to memes relating to trebuchets. The most common reference within the community is a reference to throwing a 90kg object over 300 meters. Swiidesh (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggest removing confusing image
recently added this image to the article, to the gallery in the section Trebuchet. Though the file is quite clearly named as a counterweight trebuchet, it instead appears to depict a traction trebuchet. There's no counterweight in the image, but there are a lot of lines attached to the arm, which is the defining characteristic of a traction trebuchet.

I don't know why there's this confusion in the image. Maybe the file was misnamed, or its subject misidentified, or the critical features are missing or poorly represented. But it doesn't matter why; it is confusing, and therefore unhelpful and misleading the reader. We shouldn't use this image. We have a great many others to choose from that don't have these problems. (I think the article has too many images anyway.) --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The ropes are connected to a winch and the counterweight is secured on the top. What is the point of a man-pulled trebuchet with a winch for pulling ropes? Qiushufang (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the image does not display a counterweight trebuchet. Yes, it is confusing, but the characteristics of the machine clearly indicate whoever the artist was, was trying to depict a counterweight. There are not enough ropes for it to be a traction trebuchet, moreover they are tied to a winch mechanism, something no other Chinese illustration of traction trebuchets shows. The thing at the top is also clearly the counterweight, indicated by the ropes securing it, although why it is on the top of the machine I do not know. Qiushufang (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I see nothing "clearly" in this image, or the latest one just added, which is quite similar. We don't know what "enough" ropes would be, since we don't know the scale; some small traction trebuchets only had one rope.  Okay, so the lines are part of a winch?  If so, they have an extreme mechanical disadvantage in pulling the arm, being attached to the short end of the arm; as depicted, it wouldn't work.  As to "thing at the top is also clearly the counterweight", I truly don't know what this means.  Is the apparently immobile box in the center, which is apparently bound to the long end of the arm (the wrong end) supposed to be the counterweight?  No part of this image makes sense.


 * We've agreed that the image is confusing. Again, it doesn't mater why it's confusing, or how it might be explained in some way.  "Confusing" means "bad for the article", period.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That isn't the short end of the arm, which isn't even depicted in the picture. The idea that something does not merit inclusion just because it is "confusing" is weird. At the very least it shows what somebody in China thought a counterweight trebuchet looked like in the 17th-18th centuries. I think it would at least merit one inclusion if only just to see the idealized illustration. Qiushufang (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You’ve done a few paragraphs of explaining and I’m still confused by this image. I think it would be ok for inclusion if we directly linked the treatise it comes from in the description, the current description makes clear (at least to me) that it is a contemporary idealized illustration of a counterweight trebuchet. I would also note that depictions of weaponry (especially siege engines) in this era of Chinese work are widely regarded as unreliable, designs were considered important engineering and state secrets and as a result most illustrations seek to obscure the true workings of the device while giving an idea of its general look and feel. I will also note that this is in no way unique to China or the 1600s. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that we need sources to attempt to explain these images, not editors' opinions, which is WP:OR. Even if we had such sources, images that require a paragraph of text to explain contradict the whole point of having images.  If the only images we had available were like this, then we'd be forced to use them, but we already have far too many images that clearly and accurately depict the subject, and require no such distracting explanations.  The ones here are far more detrimental than helpful to the reader.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources have already been added so the argument is kind of moot now. At the very least it's the probably the only image I know that shows a counterweight trebuchet "packed for transport" that I know of, if that is what it is. Both Liang and Needham's viewpoints have been added.Qiushufang (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is expressly what I argued against doing, adding text required to explain poor and confusing images. Neither the text nor the images improve the article, but only unsuccessfully attempt to support each other, with no noted benefit.  "Packed for transport" does not help anyone to actually understand the image; it's only an excuse for why they are impossible to understand.  We can't even agree on what parts are which in the images; what is the reader supposed to see in these?  They show nothing that's workable, to the point we can't even tell if it's a actual trebuchet.  It's even suggested that the images are purposely confusing to guard state secrets; that would be less insulting to the illustrators than the alternative: that they didn't understand basic physics.  They are a disservice to the reader, and may even be seen as a disservice to the time and culture that created them.
 * Despite all the weak attempts to explain away their numerous deficiencies, I've seen no attempt to explain how they have benefits for the reader.
 * And please, continually editing the article for the subject of an ongoing discussion, without or even against consensus, is disruptive. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  19:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I 100% support keeping this illustration, If we are holding these images to a high standard of technical accuracy then none of the current depictions of counterweight trebuchets are acceptable. I agree with you that the description needs a rewrite, I suggest “Illustration of a counterweight trebuchet packed for transit from the 17th century Wubei Zhi” We need to make clear that this image is from one of the most important military texts of the 17th century (certainly the most important outside Europe). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument for removing the image just seems pedantic now. I've provided two published sources that both agree that it is a counterweight trebuchet. Moreover it is the only semi-contemporary illustration of a counterweight trebuchet that is is being transported or capable of transportation. That alone warrants its inclusion for me. If A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III can one, find another contemporary image of a counterweight trebuchet in transportation, or two, a reliable source that says the illustration does not show a counterweight trebuchet, then there would be something to discuss. At this point, I don't see what else there is to say or argue. Qiushufang (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument for removing the image is it does not help the article. Nothing has been said to counter that, except perhaps just now by implication that it shows "a counterweight trebuchet in transportation".  But it doesn't; it may (or may not) intend to show that, but fails, because the agreed poor depiction of the subject.  And how is showing "a counterweight trebuchet in transportation" helpful in any way?  All trebuchets were transported, either fully or partially, because they can't be fully constructed exclusively from raw materials found at the build site.
 * Current consensus leans toward removing the images. If there's nothing further to say, I'll remove them.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  20:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And now you are saying there is a consensus when both two sources and users disagree with you? What consensus are you talking about? Qiushufang (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your logic that one, it is simply a "poor" drawing, therefore it does not warrant being shown, is absurd. By that logic, half the images in this article would be removed. Most of them simply show a pole the size of a man with a stick on top with a piece of string attached. Your vendetta at this point borders on obsessive. Qiushufang (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not current consensus... I’m shocked that you interpreted my comments as saying such, I meant the exact opposite and I think I said that extremely clearly. Current consensus is to keep all images including the illustration in question from the Wubei Zhi. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies! I actually thought you agreed with most of my main points.
 * Really, in good faith, I'm trying to improve the article. I have zero reason to be pedantic or vindictive, and AFAIK, haven't in any way demonstrated I have any such reasons.
 * I readily agree that some other images are pretty poor, and even repeatedly implied many could be removed. But saying "others are doing it" isn't a good argument.
 * I am honestly awaiting any reasons to keep them, rather than just excuses why they aren't that unhelpful.
 * If we're not getting anywhere with this, as appears to be the case, what about starting an RFC? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  21:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you just ignoring what I have written. I have already listed at least two sources and two reasons to keep them. And you just ignored the fact that many if not all the contemporary images are "poorly" drawn. The 13th-14th century European drawings look like crayon pictures something a kid would have made today, the Middle Eastern ones look like abstract art, and even the better Chinese depictions of traction trebuchets do not show all the details necessary to construct a working ideal of how a trebuchet actually functioned. These are not modern drawings. By the time we get to the 15th century, when more detailed depictions were drawn, trebuchets were already anachronistic as cannons had become the norm. Anything further than the 15th century are semi-contemporary at best, and probably highly idealized depictions of what people thought were accurate trebuchets. In that case, I argue that none of the modern reconstructions or depictions of trebuchets should be included either, as they are obviously not accurate. Qiushufang (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "I am honestly awaiting any reasons to keep them, rather than just excuses why they aren't that unhelpful.” Then re-read whats been written both my myself and by Qiushufang, I’m beginning to lose my patience with you. We are in fact getting somewhere, we appear to have reached a consensus albeit one you partially disagree with. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Muslim counterweight trebuchet 1285.jpg (discussion)
 * Muslim traction trebuchet.jpg (discussion)
 * The earliest known depiction of a counterweight trebuchet, by Mardi ibn Ali al-Tarsusi, c. 1187.jpg (discussion)
 * Wubei Zhi counterweight trebuchet.jpg (discussion)

trebuchet - word origin
I came here looking for why this thing is called a trebuchet. I found nothing on that here. My hasty internet search suggests this is Old French trebucher meaning overthrow, then to Middle English trebuchet. Is that correct? Why overthrow? Is it describing the motion of the device, what we in the US might describe as throwing over hand? Or was this seen as a tool to overthrow a regime? Throw (object) over a wall? Throw over(above) your head? Other? 135.180.43.199 (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're able to find a reliable source discussing this, feel free to improve the article by adding something. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Five whirlwind trebuchets wjzy.jpg
 * Wheeled trebuchet wjzy.jpg

Timeline of Mongol Counterweight Trebuchets
The article seems to imply that the Mongols first used this against the Song Dynasty in 1268 (the siege of Xiangyang), and brought in Persian engineers to design it. However, there is also an image (from the 14th century) depicting Mongol armies wielding this in the siege of Baghdad, 1258. That picture is confusing, because either it is historically inaccurate or we should add something about when the Mongols first started using counterweight trebuchets, because it must have been earlier than the siege of Xiangyang. Palehose5 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Physics and Mathematic of trebuchet design
I believe this article lacks technical information on the physics of how a trebuchet work. I, like many others I know, was curious from a physics perspective as to the functioning of the device accessible information as to mathematics and physics of trebuchet operation is not present. instead after much digging, I found some papers and resources by Donald B. Siano such as and these lay out the operating principles clearly and straightforwardly. I am unsure as to how best add this to the Wikipedia page. 64.189.134.206 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)