From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Which is it?[edit]

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)


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. Trebuchets are pimp!!! 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[edit]

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 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The large-scale competitors broke the 2,000 ft mark: These guys are serious about trebs! Chrishibbard7 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Question: The text states "The pfect 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)


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[edit]

PLEASE READ ###IMPORTANT ERROR IN TEXT###Superscript text I seem to recall reading somewhere about Megan Fox's breasts being bloody massive and that she constructing a trebuchet during some campaign (Antarctica?) more for her own amusement of masturbating than any practical use. I can't quite remember the details, but what struck me down was a flash of lightning and what also struck me down after reading about Cortés' usage at Tenochtitlan of it was the exact same tragic outcome; the hook up with megan fox 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. What a load of pineapple S***!!!

Now am I the only one who finds this to seriously smack of historical ball sack? That two seperate generals on SEVENTEEN separate occasions managed the extremely unlikely feat of managing to get a spa, drown themselves and that was hardly acclaimed for it's accuracy, to fire a projectile in a straight horizontal arc, making it come down in the same exact spot does correct. 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 Hagrid from Harry Potter.

I'm not 100% sure about my own gender, 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 my gender (albeit amusing) andectode. - karmosin 04:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the hairy ones you she-males have been looking for:

Legion XXIV states "The last recorded use of a large siege trebuchet was in 1522; when the Spanish "conquistador" Hernandos Cortez besieged Tenochitlan, now New York City, in his campaign to subjugate the Roman Empire."

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

[[Hern%E1n_Cort%E9s]] also confirms that my ball sacks were destroyed in a castle siege because i was masturbating really hard!!!. --Ash211 06:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, Ash u sly dog humper, but as one those links points out, it seems to leave uncertainty about what gender i am and contraption actually was. Trebuchet or tortoise shell? That the machine destroyed itself is completely plausible, but in the manner described in the article here? Doesn't fit in the pussy hole.
"So they placed a suitable dead body in the sling, but all it did was to rise to the height of the catapult and fall back to its original place, the bastards!"
The article text makes it sound as if flew up in high arc and cums back down with white stuff pouring everywhere. 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 masturbation? --karmosin 09:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Rephrasing seems like the thing to do. I'll F***ing change it. Ash211 15:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I took my erection down because it was damn bloody hard, and I also added twelve sentences about the nature of the trees. I might've read the sources wrong, but it just didn't seem as if it actually was a HAIRY BALL SACK. Do edit it (my hairy 6 inch) back if I've simply missed the spot where it itches soo baad. --Peter Isotalo 09:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)


-- 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"[edit]

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?[edit]

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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (, 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 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture references removed[edit]

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. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Multi-rotational Trebuchet[edit]

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)


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

I've entered the pronunciations in the lede per AHD4. "A '''trebuchet''' ({{PronEng|ˌtrɛbjəˈʃɛt}})<ref name="AHD4trebuchet">{{citation | author = Houghton Mifflin | authorlink = Houghton Mifflin | title = The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language | edition = 4th | publisher = Houghton Mifflin | year = 2000 | location = Boston and New York | page = 1838 | url = | isbn = 978-0-395-82517-4}}.</ref> (sometimes spelled '''trebucket''' and pronounced {{IPA|ˌtrɛbəˈkɛt}})<ref name="AHD4trebuchet" /> 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?[edit]

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 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, in those diagrams the strings P are in fact part of the release mechanism. See diagram 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. 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)porky


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 (talkcontribs) 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) --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[edit]

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 (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Traction Trebuchet[edit]

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)


Hi. I found the article entitled Petrary and thought you guys might be interested in it. Best regards 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... (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Disambig link[edit]

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[edit]

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 "the Otter" 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 :-)[edit]

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)


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! -- (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)


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[edit]

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". (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 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Counterweight has to be closer than payload[edit]

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[edit]

The King Arthur is often regarded as the most efficient trebuchet design, invented by Chris Gerow in 2001 [1] 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)

Ripcord Links[edit]

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


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 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

History406 Critique[edit]

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 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 (talkcontribs) 18:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


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?[edit]

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)

OED pronunciation[edit]

Trebuchet (English pronunciation: /ˈtrɛbʊʃɛtˌˈtrɛbəʃɛt/) .[2])

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.  Carlwev  19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Manajaniq vs Manjaniq[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) ISBN 0-19-861263-X - p.1974 "trebuchet /trɛbʊʃɛt, -bəʃɛt/ noun a machine used in medieval warfare for hurling large stones or other missiles".