| |

Weaponry: The TrebuchetBy Scott Farrell | MHQ | 6 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post Arab and Islamic traders spread knowledge of the traction trebuchet beyond the Orient. By the sixth century a.d., the armies of Byzantium and the Middle East were using these machines in their military campaigns. Archbishop John of Thessalonike described a battery of fifty traction trebuchets called petrobolos (’city-takers’) in his eyewitness account of the siege of that Macedonian city in 597. He claimed these machines flung so many stones that ‘neither earth nor human constructions could bear the impacts.’ The traction trebuchet offered an impressive rate of fire: A 1991 experiment conducted on a model made to ancient standards at the University of Toronto showed that a well-coordinated trebuchet crew could fire four rounds per minute. Yet the traction trebuchet was not without its shortcomings. As this experiment revealed, the logistics of coordinating a team of more than twelve pullers was very difficult, and the unavoidable mechanics limited the throwing arm to only a small fraction of its rotational potential. Perhaps these limitations inspired engineers of the Near East and Mediterranean to upgrade the traction trebuchet design. They attached a weight to the short end of the throwing arm, resulting in an engine known as the hybrid trebuchet. The counterweight, possibly an iron plate forged directly to the short end of the pivoted beam, extended the range of the machines. Attaching a sling to the longer end of the beam and adding wheels that allowed the trebuchet to gain the full advantage of motion made it possible for war engines to sling a rock against a castle wall with accuracy. Although hybrid trebuchets may have been known as early as the eighth century, documented evidence indicates this design was gaining widespread acceptance among Arab and Byzantine armies during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Byzantine chronicler Anna Komnene alluded to this emerging technology when she mentioned several ‘unconventional engines’ that were employed at the siege of Nicaea in Asia Minor in 1097, which she claimed ‘amazed everyone’ with their ability to hurl gigantic stones. In the military vernacular of the eleventh-century Islamic world, the hybrid trebuchet was al-Ghadban, or ‘the furious one.’ In a military manual written for Saladin in 1187, Arabic engineer Murdi ibn Ali ibn Murdi al-Tarsusi depicted a hybrid trebuchet that he said had the same hurling power as a traction machine pulled by fifty men due to ‘the constant force [of gravity], whereas men differ in their pulling force.’ (Showing his mechanical proficiency, Tarsusi designed his trebuchet so that as it was fired it cocked a supplementary crossbow, probably to protect the engineers from attack.) Improved firing power was certainly the primary advantage of the hybrid trebuchet. Such a machine used at the siege of Damietta in Egypt in 1218 fired stones weighing four hundred pounds at the city walls. Nevertheless, if a trebuchet powered by a small counterweight was good, then one with a large counterweight would be even better. As European engineers adopted the trebuchet and improved it in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries (after encountering these machines during the Crusades), this premise was taken to its logical conclusion by developing the counterpoise trebuchet. Unlike traction and hybrid trebuchets, there was no need for human intervention in operating of the counterpoise trebuchet. These machines, powered by either stationary weights, or by hanging buckets filled with sand, rocks, or rubble from the short end of the beam, used gravity to far surpass the capacity of any crew of pullers. With no pulling team beneath the trestle, the sling could be laid in a launching trough directly under the pivot, creating a greater throwing arc. The centripetal acceleration and power of the counterpoise trebuchet could be enhanced by mounting the machine on wheels so it could move during the throw. Larger engines could sling rocks weighing a ton or more three hundred yards, hitting a castle wall with devastating force. Pages: 1 2 3Tags: Ancient-Medieval, Historical Conflicts, Military Technology, Weaponry
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
6 Comments to “Weaponry: The Trebuchet”
“Hurling stones weighing nearly a ton”? I don’t think so. Even the Warwolf, supposedly the largest trebuchet in history, through stones of about 300 pounds. A trebuchet launching vehicle sized rocks would’ve been ridiculous.
By swild on Nov 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Swild has a point. A ton is equal to 2000 pounds!
By J Call on Dec 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The author’s source: Regarding the details mentioned – the statistic quoted is from the
journal article “The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study
in Cultural Diffusion” by Paul E. Chevedden, published in Vol. 54 of
the Dumbarton Oaks Papers, from Harvard University Press. “… during
the 14th century there are reports of counterweight trebuchets that
launched stones weighing between 900 and 1200 kilograms” (a kg being
2.2 lbs., that’s 1,980 and 2,640 lbs.).
By Nick Wood on Dec 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the heaviest trebuchet ever was supposed to have thrown 1,500 kg projectiles.
By Chris on Feb 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Simply put, to toss a ton on a 5 to 1 trebuchet (throwing arm is 5 times the length of the weight arm) would require 5 tons or more of counterweight. Is it possible: 1.) to have a timber or timbers that are strong enough to have 5 tons on one end and 1 ton on the other end without breaking in a static position; 2.) to build a supporting structure that would not collapse due to 6 tons of material being put in motion; 3.) to have a sling made of leather, rope or some other organic material that could hold 5 tons?
The original information for the tossing a one ton stone would have to be looked at somewhat skeptically given the materials of the time.
Maybe a structural engineer could comment on the validity of the questions I am asking.
By Mike on Mar 22, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Mike your figures are approximate but essentially correct. If you look at many sites that give you construction details on the throwing arm you will see that it is built up of many beams to give the required tensional (breaking) resistance at the pivot point. This is not particularly difficult. nor is constructing the frame usually six strong supporting columns, augured in to 2 horizontal ground beams on the bottom and and 2 short apex beams at the top that are made with a semi circular notch for the axle. since iron was scarce and expensive this saddle bearing may or may not have been one of the few places it was used. where it was definitely used was on the hinge of the counter weight bucket, because the supporting arms were in tension with the weight concentrated on the ends in a small area by the pivot axle. without a heavy strap of wrought iron over each side of the axle beam it is difficult to see how this pivot joint would be made. as for the pivot axles a 12 inch diameter heart of oak beam would suffice. JJB
By johnb on May 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm