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

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)

Chronology order[edit]

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 [1] [2]. 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 (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)


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 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Couillard[edit]

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