Talk:Catapult

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Medieval Start‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

There is a Mangonel article...I'm not sure if it will help you though, it's pretty stubby. Adam Bishop 18:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Try onagerIt's the same thing. Tofor

Can someone cite a source for this claim?: "Originally, "catapult" referred to a dart-thrower, while "ballista" referred to a stone-thrower, but the two terms swapped meaning sometime in the fourth century AD." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.33.153 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006 (UTC)

well now it says the opposite, that the cat was originaly a stone thrower and the ballista a dart thrower and that it switched in the 4th century

which seems odd to me seeing as i have always thought of a catapult as a stone thrower and the ballista as a dart thrower i'm going to remove the statement in 3 days if there is no objections raised in that time--Manwithbrisk 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link

a reference article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowloonese (talk • contribs) 20 April 2006 (UTC)

====Missile launche.

Ok the way i see it there are two possibilities, either the catapult was invented by yankee doodle or a monkey beacuse it does not work!!!! GBC 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heron-->Hero

I decided to change the name because the title of the article on the guy says Hero (but mentions the alternative Heron). I think it is probably the more known version. Joe Dick 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Catapults Exist?

I think that catapults and other big siege machinery couldnt exist as a part of an invading army because of logistic problems and simply the invading army losing the speed advantage of their faster troops.What is the point of getting to the enemy strongpoint in a few days and have to wait for weeks or more for the slowest part of your supply line to come? I doubt you can find proper boulders and wood to build the machines on the spot. Please correct me if im wrong.

You are wrong. To ask a counter-question - what is the point of turning up to an enemy's fortifications if all you can do is stand around waving, or wasting countless lives attempting to storm them intact? Try reading the article on the Trebuchet for some general background on the use of seige weapons around that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.131 (talk • contribs)

Siege weapons were usually built on-site, with only the hard-to-make parts (ropes to use as springs, metal fittings for the hinges, trigger, and sling hook) brought along with the army. --Carnildo 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Unsigned, they used ladders to storm fortifications because they were easier to build and long small trees were fairly plentiful and didnt need to be a specific type or have a specific trait. Carnildo, certain types of trees had to be used and they had to be dry to be of any use. Educated manpower would be needed to assemble the parts of the catapult that werent assembled (they also didnt have sawmills back then)and last time ive heard, there wasnt much education back then. They also didnt have capabilities to build all those "hard-to-make parts" unless they had a Home Depot a short drive away :P

There was a class of soldier known as an engineer (yes, "engineer" originally meant "guy who builds siege engines"). These were generally the best-educated men in the army: they often could read, write, do arithmetic, and had years to decades of experience.

Catapults were typically built from sections of tree trunk. You don't need a sawmill to make the parts; an axe will do. Any tree that has a straight trunk will work for building a catapult, with stronger wood making for a more powerful catapult.

As for specialized parts, the typical catapult has three: a 20- to 100-foot length of thick rope for the mainspring, a hook to hold the free end of the sling in place, and a trigger hook. For more reliable operation, you could use metal bearings for the windlass and main axle, and a metal loop for the trigger hook to attach to, but these are optional. The mainspring rope would be made by the same guys who make rops for ships, and any blacksmith could hammer out some hooks. --Carnildo 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer? This isnt a video game.

Carnildo is right; the historic evidence for siege engines is overwhelming (look at Warwolf at the siege of Stirling Castle--the entire narrative of the siege was dependent upon the existence of a massive trebuchet. Keep in mind that this was before maneuver warfare; being able to travel quickly was not important for an army. Additionally, while literacy may have been low the "education" required to build a siege engine is almost exclusively practicle. Ladders are discouraged for attacking because they expose your soldiers for a withering fire and when attacking a castle the requisite ladder could be unmanageably long.

I screwed it up

Could somebody correctly revert that annoying vandalism? --Taraborn 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to "Catapult"

Okay so i researched and built a catapult (i had to make one in physics)and i would like to give people the benefit of my research... do i just add it on? Like I made a page but it got deleted for not being needed and I was given the message that i should have merged it or something.

some sample research that I want to add is: 44.6 degrees is the optimal angle for a meter tall catapult, the basic parts of a catapult are arm(general structure), hinge, and method of propulsion, there are six basic ways to make each part(and many more ways depending on the purpose).

Basically i want to add ideas, ways, and research that you could use to build a catapult, but not the actual how to make stuff. --Weasel'66 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]