|
|
Weaponry: The TrebuchetBy Scott Farrell | MHQ | 6 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post The counterpoise design elevated the trebuchet’s destructive power. At the siege of Castelnuovo Bocca d’Adda in Northern Italy in 1199, attackers used trebuchets that could fire stones weighing between nineteen hundred and twenty-five hundred pounds. European engineers who built these machines gave them nicknames such as ‘God’s stone thrower,’ ‘the daughter of the earthquake,’ ‘big mother,’ ‘war wolf,’ and the ‘bad neighbor’ that de Montfort used to attack Minerve. Islamic chroniclers who saw these trebuchets being used, described them simply as ‘manjaniq ifiranji‘ — Frankish war machines. The improved firing capability of the counterpoise trebuchet came at a price, however. Such machines needed elaborate block and tackle systems to raise the heavy ballast box; they could only be fired three or four times per day, according to contemporary accounts. However, the power of the counterpoise design gave these war machines a new role in battle. Smaller trebuchets had been relegated to the tasks of supporting troops scaling castle walls or targeting structures within a walled city; counterpoise trebuchets could actually be used against the walls themselves, thus sparking an architectural arms race that would continue well into the gunpowder age. Not until modern times did the cannon eclipse the trebuchet. The strategist Christine de Pizan, in her book Fais d’armes et de chevalerie written for the Duke of Burgundy in 1410, explained that even an army equipped with sizable ‘gonnes’ should still have ‘four entirely new trebuchets, completely equipped, each one with two cables and four slings to change when needed.’ Moreover, trebuchets were not limited exclusively to use outside castle walls. In 1218, while preparing for an assault on the city of Toulouse, France, Simon de Montfort, the victor at Minerve, was struck down by a rock falling from the sky — a stone fired from a trebuchet inside the city. Even the most skilled general was not immune to the wrath of a bad neighbor. This article was written by Scott Farrell and originally published in the Autumn 2006 edition of MHQ. For more great articles, subscribe to MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History today! Pages: 1 2 3Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 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. |
||
Loading ...
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