Most of the siege weapons like the mangonel or the ballista were used in defensive batteries. Hurling smaller munitions at attacking soldiers would work quite well.
Yep, a mangonel throwing a bunch of fist sized stones would be devastating, specially since you are shooting from on top the walls so have gravity in your favor. Sure those stones won't damage anything bigger, but they are enough to kill or at least heavily injure even against thick helmets.
Same issue in other north european countries. Nobody travels to Sweden, Germany or the Netherlands because of the good weather... You only hope to be lucky 🌧🌧🌧🌧🌤
I'd like to point out that not all structures of castles were made of thick stone. There were plenty of wooden walls and roofs inside a castle which you could easily damage by lobbing a stone or a ballista bolt over castle fortifications, particularly if they were jugs filled with oil to help set a fire later. And as others have already mentioned their suitability for the defenders, I'll instead point out that their size made them compatible and useful in naval battles. You can hardly hit a ship with a rock owing to the distance and speed, but with a much flatter firing arc of a ballista and a much higher projectile velocity, you could reliably hit a ship with one. Even harpoon it at close range, if you will.
Straight on point...well, except for one small thing: reliably hit one ship from another in a naval battle? They didn't come close to doing that until WWI, but with the limitations of a ship at sea in mind, it'll work otherwise. I'll add that I don't buy the example on site to be accurate to what actually may have existed, since the torsion system's underpowered, and everything else is seriously overbuilt. So with the help of my friends aside, I'm good with Shad's basic take. What he looked at strikes me as the creation of an archeologist using text and art, not one who understood archeological weapons engineering. I'm interested in what Cutler's take on that piece might be.
@@bookman7409 I was thinking that too. The reason why colonization era ships have so many cannons is mostly to compensate the lack of accuracy with a wall of projectiles, so they have a higher chance of hitting something. Before that people preferred to board the enemy ship and directly fight the sailors.
The Ballista is definitely more of a field-artillery piece. Great for fighting infantry, and rather easy to aim (unlike the mangonel), which is why the Romans loved it. However, both the Mangonel and the Ballista would be great in a siege *for the defenders* rather than the attackers. It ain't like the attacking force is protected by walls.
the ballistae were most likely never used in the medieval period. look up the springald, a medieval torsion bolt throwing weapon which we have evidence of
they even found out some castles had wooden fortifications that were plastered and painted to look like stone walls, to fool potential siegers and attackers.
I beliebe it would still need multiple hits near the same area to breach through a log wall. Maybe not hundereds but still kinda tough given the accuracy of these weapons.
My understanding was that Mangonels are older too. They were invented first and castles and forts quickly got stronger to counter them. Which led to the invention of the trebuchet, the physics king of seige weapons.
I'd be hard pressed to believe though that even a wooden structure would take enough damage from a Ballista to make it worth using on one. The several people it would take to operate one is several more people that could be serving a more fruitful purpose.
i think one crucial use would be against any kind of softer buildings (wooden ramparts and buildings, windows or weak spots like arrow slits, etc). There are often smaller buildings inside a castle that are actually quite vulnerable, like stables, possibly temporary structures (tents, booths, ...) etc. and huring rocks at those will probably do quite some damage and also hit the defender's morale.
Yeah. The objective of a siege generally isn't to overwhelm the physical defenses. It's to outlast the defenders by cutting them off from resources/reinforcements and generally making holding the position miserable and untenable. Plunging fire over the walls would destroy soft interior structures like stables, barracks, refugee camps, etc. as well as any wooden additions to the walls. Incendiaries could start dangerous fires, and constant bombardment by lighter projectiles would keep the defenders constantly ducking for cover and unable to rest soundly. The smaller siege weapons like the ballista would protect the attackers from counter-attacks. Imagine having a handful of those pointed at your castle gate. You'd get skewered to the guy behind you if you tried to rush out to attack/run away. The Mangonel might even be useful for busting down the gates from range instead of lugging around a battering ram right under the battlements.
What were the ranges in a siege? What if it was normal to build log protection just on the other side of the moat? Then a catapult would be useful to wear down the wall just 20 meters away? The catapult being a low construction is one of the differences to trebuchet.
I have heard of diseased projectiles being used. In the cramped quarters where they are hemmed in, disease would spread quickly, any sensible defender, at the point where disease is breaking out would surrender.
Older castles didn't have machiculations, but they had hoardings. Those were made out of wood and could definately be a valid target for trebuchets, balista's and maybe even mangonels (if they could reach the height)
It's important to remember that there were plenty of castles that are no longer standing Not all of them were built to high quality and there were wooden ones as well So even the smaller ones had their use cases even if they do nothing to multiple meters thick stone walls
@martinan22 you don't need to shoot down the walls for artille to be effective. If you can collapse some roofs, bury people in rubble, set off fires and leave the survivors without proper shelter for the rest of the siege that's already very useful for attackers.
@@leonardomarquesbellini This may very well be. But that was not the idea I brought to the table. If we assume the distances in sieges were super short, I believe that changes the entire equation and put catapults in a new light. Since they are not getting their power from swinging in a high arc, they can attack the walls from under a timber overhang from say 20 or 30 meters away, they are too far away for stone blocks tipped over the wall and too sturdy for thrown rocks and too sturdy for arrows. But close enough to hit same spot of wall and to do so with a lot of power. Anyway, THAT was my speculation.
@@martinan22 true, but I feel that the entire proposition of destroying castle walls is already mistaken as a whole. When it happened, at least to fortifications with proper stone walls, it was likely the exception rather than the norm. Even if you captured a place after bringing their walls down, would that really be desirable? You'd obviously have to worry about relief forces retaking the castle (with you inside it now) and repairing walls might've taken months to complete, so if you destroy them you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot and making recapture that much easier. The accounts we have of siege artillery mostly show them being used against the "soft" targets inside the walls. It was only when cannons came around that you start to see walls being targeted.
@@TorvarI think added fire pots or lime pots would work better at stopping a rush has enough power to throw it far (compared to a person) but small enough to go on a castle
Another thing to note is you would not deploy a single siege unit. Logic tells me that they would be deployed in Larger numbers and best fired in sequence to keep a steady rate of fire by some firing while others are reloading. So that one 'puny' stone might be one a dozen that hit a certain spot or unit of troops.
I feel like mangonels were most likely used as a defensive siege weapon, similar to polybolos or scorpions. They're small enough they can fit in an inner courtyard, and some larger castle walls or towers could have one positioned on top of them to throw rocks at enemy siege weapons and units.
And for the attackers, a few of these would prevent any counter-attacks or raids into your siege camps as even heavily armoured warriors could be threatened by the bolts and stones of even small machines. So excellent suppression weapons for the attackers.
What if range of medieval sieges were much much shorter than we imagine? It seems easy to make fool proof arrow protection from logs. If so, then imagine mangonel being mounted just 20 meters from the wall. And since it is low construction, it can be mounted with log overhang, safe from arrow fire and able to shoot straight into wall, again and again. And since it is very close, it will hit more or less same spot.
I figured they were probably quick and dirty light artillery. If you don't have the time or material you could pop out a couple of these for throwing shrapnel. Building a full trebuchet looks like you would REQUIRE schaffolding and a simple crane. Not too tall a task, but on uneven terrain it certainly wouldn't be fun to build.
The question of "why not build a trebuchet instead?" is only relevant after the trebuchet has been _invented._ And remember in the early medieval period, before the Norman Conquest, most castles were made of wood, not stone. Much more viable to seriously damage by bombardment.
You're not gonna break a log wall by throwing rocks at it. Well, maybe in a year, once you manage to get enough hits on the same area. But even with wooden castles, I'd say it was more likely against the battlements.
@@pRahvi0 You'd have to do the math on individual wall thickness and projectile momentum. Certainly they would crumble much faster than a comparable stone wall. Whether you go by weight or thickness.
Btw the "castle" isn't in the background, he's actually IN the castle grounds here. Caerphilly was the first "Concentric rings" castle, with multiple layers of walls and moats. Shad is stood just inside the outermost wall / moat.
Ballistas, to my knowledge, were often used on the battle field, not just to target an individual, but because of tight formations, was able to Pentwater multiple people when they are standing in said tight formation. Like the initial target, as well as at least 1, if not 2 or 3 others behind the initial target. Like a soldier-kebab.
They were used by Romans to break apart shield formations more than anything, and once the medieval period hit it seems they were just not well used. Either too slow to be of use in small mobile formations, too expensive to engineer for a minor lord in his skirmishes, or ineffective vs just using archers and replacing the crew with more footmen.
Even the smaller rock throwers could still be useful for knocking down the wooden defenses, that would be built over top and on the outside of the walls.
I hope you mean you never want to stand up from your desk and books and online media about medieval times. Living back then was much harder. Think about it, wives popped out at least 12 children because half of them died before they turned 8 and they optimally had 3 sons and 2 daughters survive till the ripe age of 14 the three boys would be (oldest to youngest) an heir/successor, a backup/apprentice and a monk (who they donated in hopes of divine favor) and the 2 daughters were a wife, preferably to a better family than the current one, and a caretaker for the parents (remember, this is optimal, not realistic). And with all those dead and alive babies the population in Europe was 10% of what it is now. And now we can add on high crime rate, severe punishments, slavery, and all of what I said makes a big bouquet of certified bad time.
@@sneklover69 Judging history by modern standards is the first thing you should learn never to do, it's an instant bias that can cloud everything and prevents you from being objective. Cultures evolve, technology advances, for better or for worse. You just have to accept the fact that past generations did things certain ways either because they had to due to physical limitations or were required to by the social practices of the time. Even our generation has limits which will be mocked by people in 1,000 years time. Assuming humanity survives that long.
Every time Shad does these types of videos is when he brings out the historian within him and that is where he shines the most along with the pop culture. Which I wonder when Shad is going to do another fight breakdown for I really miss those? I hope he makes another one very soon.
A few points to consider, biological warfare was a thing back then, corpses of dead animals could be flung into the castle over the walls causing diseases to spread, siege weapons could be saved for the main gate as a means of breaching the entrance, the ballista could have had rope attached to the end and if aimed at windows or between battlements one might catch on something or (someone) allowing infiltration, or special payloads to be delivered that would normally be too heavy for bow and arrow.
While the concept existed, hucking corpses during sieges is usually an incredibly bad idea, given how uncontrollable disease is and how lethal it was back during Euro medieval times. Very rare practice, indeed. Don't bring it up unless it's something regularly practiced, hey?
Shad, you should talk about springalds. To my knowledge, there is better evidence that they were used in medieval times than mangonels and similar siege weapons.
I could see mangonels being quite useful for controlling something like an elevated position, say a couple of towers watching a narrow approach. Load it with assorted sized rocks and you have a decent anti personnel system.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 two siege engines vs the cost of 10 or 20 trained archers seems like a favorable cost/benefit. Especially when you figure in cost of arrows as compared to literally picking ammunition off the ground.
@@792slayer I meant more how expensive an onager is vs how hard it is to aim, ie how many useful shots it would actually get off. those things were very maintenance heavy and extremely hard to aim. compared to a treb of any kind. its not archers vs mangonels, its trebs and springalds/ballistae [which everyone forgets could and did shoot stone balls, baskets of stones and clay vessels with greek fire or burning pitch as projectiles) vs mangonels. onagers/mangonels were never super popular because they have all the weaknesses of ballista but a ton of adtional weaknesses, and trebs killed them being way better for the few advantages it has over springalds and ballista.
@@matthiuskoenig3378You're right but it's still cheaper to build one and you don't need scaffolding or a pulley. On an elevated position you should still have the effective range of a weaker trebuchet that's not on a hill.
Regarding ballistae, I think it would ultimately depend on the size of the conflict. Here's why: A ballista had to have had either superior range or greater penetrative power compared to a crossbow or warbow (depending on the projectile, as Shad said). So I figure it comes down to whether you can spare 2-3 men to operate one, and whether that would be worth more than having 2-3 conventional bows. In small conflicts-skirmishes, raids, some of the smaller castles-you probably wouldn't see them much or at all. But in a larger-scale battle, suppose a besieging army has enough troops to completely occupy the entire area within arrow-range and still have men left over. You could hold those extra troops in reserve to fill in after you have sustained losses, or you could reallocate them to operate ballistae and shoot from further away. I think that's the point when siege engines come into play-not so much because you're attacking a castle, but because your army has reached a size where you are unable to deploy everyone at once, so it becomes a valid strategy to use some of your manpower operating less-efficient weapons from longer range. As for defensive mangonels, they could have used something like grapeshot. Cluster munitions tend to spread apart as they fly so lots of fist-sized rocks, flung with the power of a catapult, could possibly kill or maim multiple enemies in a single go if it landed in the middle of a formation. Alternatively, single large rock could be used to break up shield walls and give the archers an opening. Just so there's no ambiguity, I am no historian and this is all speculation on my part.
As far as whether you can spare the men to operate a ballista vs having 2-3 more archers, I don't think they actually compete. Historical archers aren't something you can train in a month or two to go to war, you need to spend years training a half-decent archer, from birth if you want a really good one. They are a valuable commodity that can only be fielded in limited numbers and cannot be easily replaced. Ballistae on the other hand are much easier to operate. You don't need years of physical conditioning to use it and you don't need months if not years of training to aim decently. You can draft some farmers to operate your ballista, and with some training they'll do the job just fine. Factor in superior range, superior accuracy, and the ability to pierce armor and it's a no-brainer to field some if you can.
@@calsalitra4689 One thing to consider however is mobility. An archer is a relatively mobile combatant that can change and improvise on plans, while ballista are wheeled (Assuming they are not just mounted as castle turrets.) And pretty much need to go on cleared paths with multiple men moving it until it's deployed and stay near the backlines where ugly surprises and ambushes are less likely to happen. And so, one would need to consider if drafting peasants into squires. Knights are out of the question, as they require physical conditioning in order to wear solid steel armor effectively. Which is probably why we don't see ballistae all that often in regards to historical battles. (That and compared to the knights and squires holding the line, a ballistae lacks the story telling appeal of a knight.
Love this video series. I've been to this castle when we visited England from the United States. I believe this is the castle of the famous fart. My brother and father were inside one of the rooms in the castle looking at a display. There was an older British gentleman in there too. All of a sudden my brother hears someone rip a big one. My brother thinks to himself "Oh, dad, no!" Then my brother hears a very proper British accent saying "Excuse me." My brother had to run out of the room because he couldn't hold in the laughter.
I would also like you to consider the mental impact a weapon like a ballista has on the enemy. Just the chance, that you could get hit by a bolt from that thing will make you think twice about going into its line of fire.
I would indeed say that breaking down stone walls would be hard. But yeah getting down all the woodwork on top will certainly help in attacking a castle. Less cover, less overhang point to attack from while maybe troops can then finnaly storm with ladders
To my understanding, trebuchets were used to launch stuff over the outer walls, and could be used for morale-busting, or disease warfare (launch some rotting animal carcasses into the enemy castle and they might have a disease outbreak). Could be wrong, but I believe william the conquerer liked to do stuff like that (launching stuff over the walls). Also defensively. Siege weapons were great if you were a defender with a bunch of em up high on a wall! Say, when you are being sieged.
One thing I was thinking looking at the mangonel is that it looks compact enough that a reasonably strong group of 6-8 could carry a fully assembled one relatively quickly. Since it would only take two men to operate one then that same group plus a compliment of archers could set up and operate 3-4 mangonels much faster than it would take to carry and assemble a trebuchet. So while they wouldn't do much damage to stone buildings they would be able to harass infantry along with the archers while other siege weapons are still being set up.
@@JanoTuotanto true that! just trying to think of what use these lil guys could have. At this point all I can think is they're mostly solid blocks of wood so they might last longer without hard to replace pieces giving out but that's something that would need to be tested out. Definitely a niche piece of siege gear.
I imagine ballistas would be very effective on some wooden castle's crenels. If they're made of planks of wood they would probably have enough kinetic energy to break right through so it wouldn't take very long to expose the defenders at the top of the main gate
I could see the ballista and mangonel being used more as a defensive weapon on the battlements to hit opposing siege towers/weapons and enemy formations rather than as a weapon to attack castles
If I am not mistaken, a lot of earlier castles had a lot more wood than the later ones. I would imagine mangonels and balistas were far more viable against wooden defenses, or gates and such. It would make sense that as the castle tech improved, so did the siege weapons.... which is why we see more Roman era usage for the weaker siege weapons in comparison to much later when centuries have lead to an abundance of large stone fortifications that render anything but the largest of catapults mostly ineffective.
I think a trebuchet would be reasonably effective against many medieval castles, most of them we're little more than fortified houses or single towers manned by a dozen or so men at arms Also many of them would have already been a couple of hundred years old
You would not bring a costly and hard to move trebuchet to attack those mini castles. It would be cheaper to have 100 men camped around that castle and wait until the defensers starve to death.
@@steemlenn8797 I don't think a trebuchet were at all expensive, their made from wood, even today with timber being far far more expensive a trebuchet would only cost a few grand. Also you would have to halt a campaign for months to siege a castle that way.
But is it worth the resources having a three man crew man the weapon when you can just have those three men shooting longbows or crossbows. It's not like balista were the equivalent of a modern mortar weapon system.
Great video Shad! The only bits I would add is the effectiveness of trebuchets against a wooden castle or fort (onager good enough at this too) also the ballista could be a great defensive weapon in sieges or as a battlefield or naval weapon. Edit: awesome to see you at Caerphilly, really looking forward to the video dedicated on the Castle itself!
I was at a museum in my neighborhood with some ancient (late Biblical to Roman era) artifacts, and was able to hold a ballista stone. It was about the size of a head (or a bowling ball), and weighed 27 pounds, according to the curator. It was recovered from the site of one of the sieges during the Roman-Jewish wars (~67-70 CE), possibly Jerusalem, but I could be mistaken. As for what use the ballistae were, obviously they worked well enough for the Romans against the walls of cities they were fighting.
What about defending a castle? Wouldn't a ballista be ideal in that, small enough to be placed somewhere on the wall, high enough to have good range, and powerful enough to punch through both armor and whatever light barricades the attackers are using for their archers/crossbowmen.
More likely used by the attacker for the same reason. Set up camp, place mangonels/ballistae pointing at the obvious counter attack positions and hold. Gates work both ways for this purpose.
"Here comes Bessy!" - I remember that line from Stronghold when you were throwing a dead diseased cow into the enemy castle with a trebuchet. The memories... :)
I don't think the purpose of a trebuchet was to demolish a castle as much as it was meant to create a breach in a section of the walls for your troops to pour into. As an attacker you want to take a castle, since any castle is a valuable strategic asset. You don't want to destroy the castle outright.
Even crating a breach would be a real challenge. I could perhaps work on some particularly thin-walled castles, but generally you wouldn't get through.
Castle walls are far too thick to care about 90kg projectiles launched from 300 meters. Trebuchets were mostly for smaller and weaker parts like roofs and the wooden expansions of the battlements. Or to throw in poop, sacks full of heads or dead animal carcasses to do some biological warfare. Yes that's actual payloads used
Generally castle walls are very thick I believe in an earlier video shad said some could be up to 4meters thick. Think of the outer wall of helms deep in the two towers movie. The only way the orcs were able to bring it down was explosively. Same with minastirith in Gondor in the next movie the orcs didn't breech the walls they brought in a magic battering ram to hammer down the magically sealed gates. (Boy did I just epically show my nerdiness) 😅 Either way these examples are very good at showing how castles were taken. Where both of these machines were in use. A more realistic visual example can be found in the movie ironclad
i would think its more like how we use suppressive fire on machine guns in war today. Youre only gonna have so many boulders. Would make the most sense to not necessarily damage the castle but to try and force anyone defending that section to leave or remain in cover out of fear by rapid firing. Now you got an open gap in the castles defenses where you can relatively safely move people up to the wall
Mangonel also tended to be considerably larger than the examples used for demonstration in castle museums if used for offense but as others have said they are primarily defensive weapons, because inside a castle you have far less space for something like a trebuchet to physically swing. However, aimed at relatively unprotected troops that are besieging, then they are particularly effective, especially considering they were often fired with grape shot, basically a very nasty assortment of bits of sharp metal. Ballistae were also used in a similar manner and can be aimed at the attackers wooden staging towers/rams, destroying them and killing the troops inside particularly effectively.
I would like to see a height/distance test between a ballista and a warbow. I could see a case for ballista's if you have to target people on particularly high walls, assuming the ballista can shoot higher/further than a warbow.
In my fantasy story I have the good guys using wall mounted Balistas and Trebuchets whilst the bad guys use cannons and we see the very clear power difference. In the story as well I show the Balistas are used against enemy infantry and the Trebuchets are used to deal with enemy siege equipment (the towers and artillery). The cannons are used as demoralisers and for doing damage.
What if you used the Magilen(That first Catapult you were calling trash) was flinging gravel/smaller stones like a shot gun, instead of a big bolder, you could in theory make it very uncomfortable for whoever you are fighting, because it would be raining stone.
I don't know if you went to Warwick castle on your trip to Britain but it's a must visit! They do a demonstration of firing a trebuchet, it was quite the spectacle to watch.
Hope you enjoyed England. If your ever in mainland Europe let me know, I'm in Latvia and they have both medieval castles and modern defence fortifications here
@callumwright7459 I'm going to be straight-up honest with you. I was just there for 4 months. I don't care, and no one else there does either, except about 250 Welsh people and that one weather reporter who has to pronounce the Welsh names.
@@christiankirkenes5922 Yeah, good idea. I can call 'A History of ignorance and idiocy' and make you the latest entry 😍. Any other witty comebacks or are just going to admit you're wrong and head back to your basement?
the mangonel was probably used by the romans as a counter against their own tactics using gigantic shields. The shields normally protect the people behind them very well from arrows, perhaps not so much from boulders. Which is likely why they were used.
In addition to what others have commented, I'd also like to point out that sieges could last for months, and though a castle wall is thick, the interior is filled with loose rubble and dirt. So even if each shot does minimal damage, if you can keep hitting the same spot it will add up over time, especially once the sturdy outer "shell" is compromised.
Weapons effectiveness cannot just be judged by their damage potential alone. The psychological impact they cause also plays a factor. I can imagine what would happen in a company of soldiers when one of theirs gets picked off by a balista or when a pot of oil lands between them.
The ballista (Scorpio as the roman called it) were rather used as defensive weapon from the fortress or camp to the attackers. Providing a stationary point similar to how machine gun nests are used. To create a very deadly weapon, that would force attackers into finding cover, and disrupting formations. While approaching in open fields. Bow arrows are stoppable with a shield or armor. A ballista bolt can go through 2 people in roman segmentata. This roll in medieval times started to be taken with small cannons.
I've put a bolt thru a couple of inches of oak at around 100 metres so yes, they can have some power. The key there is the weight of the bolt carries a lot more energy to the target.
@@marvindebot3264 "a bolt" that's not very specific. and with what? a crossbow? A traditional one or a modern one? a small Scorpio? a big Scorpio? A bullet can barely kill a rat if it's from an air-rifle, or it can level a house if it's from a battleship cannon. The key here is the size of the machine, that determines what bolts it can shoot. All of these things can have very different results...
About ballistae vs bows: they outrange bows. Like an anti-materiel rifle using a 12.7 mm round outranges a regular rifle using a 5.56 mm round, the bigger the projectile the better it can retain its energy over long distances. You can snipe bowmen with a ballista while you are out of their range.
That is a good point, if the battlements have an extended wooden overhang (I lost the name for them) the siege weapons would be effective. But I agree with Shad, against stone walls... not so much.
@@theworldofcronis I think this depends. There are many sieges that lasted for a long time. Even if the damage is very small over months it will have an effect. But I think by time the medieval ages came about wall tech was pretty good. You do hear of successful uses in more ancient times.
There is also the line of thinking that the goal would be to throw the rocks over the walls to hit waddle and daub buildings inside. A 5Kg rock going at 100 km/hr is going to do some serious damage. Throw 20 rocks over per day, you are bound to hit something, and even if it is only an inconvenience, inconveniences add up surprisingly fast. I was also thinking about ballistas being used by defenders. If you can shoot into a formation, that would be devastating.
Had a thought, some of the smaller stuff like ballista might be usefull against hoardings, which aren't nearly as sturdy as the castle walls themselves
First thing to consider is that the medieval period was quite long, from around 500AD to the beginning of the renaissance sometime around 1300AD to 1400AD and in the later stages included cannons in the arsenal. The Catapult (or onager, or mangonel depending on the source) predates medieval times quite considerably. During the early medieval period many castles were still wooden making the catapult a very effective siege weapon. In that early period the catapult still outranged bows quite considerably. The heavy longbow with its 300+ yard range and 200 pound pull strength only really turned up in the late medieval period and even crossbows were mid era so the catapult still had a range advantage for about half the medieval era. The catapult was however quickly replaced by traction trebuchet style weaponry that was easier to use and build. The trebuchet had a much higher trajectory arc making it better at throwing things over walls rather than at walls but was still pretty effective against wooden defenses. As a siege weapon the ballista was primarily used for defence but still had a lot of use as a field weapon against infantry and cavalry.
My understanding is that the smaller siege engines like the mangonel and ballista were used primarily against infantry formations rather than against buildings. I could see a standard use of these weapons being to throw a few volleys of these at enemy shield walls to break their formation or break their shields, opening them up to further attack from your archers, infantry, or cavalry.
I think the magonel was just a unfortunate design at a bad point in history. It's wasn't big enough for siges and to hard to move for open battle. The Roman's might have used them but there famous for their logistics
I see mangonels and ballistae being useful defensively, not only to attack potential ladder offensives, but also to break defensive wooden barriers that missile troops used to take cover in.
Also, that perrier was only 2/3 the size of an actual perrier, and full-sized perriers would need eight men to operate the arm. It was also very quick to reload, since you could just launch the arm in the reverse direction to prime it (you'd have to be sure to duck or the opposite end of the arm would hit you): by contrast, a normal trebuchet would need to have its counterweight partially unloaded and then reloaded to prime it.
On special occasions they fire the siege weapons, or at least they used to in the past. I think some restoration work has been pending in recent years. However I do have fond memories of broomsticks being fired from the ballista and swedes/turnips from the trebuchet. It is lovely to see someone so excited by the castles I grew up visiting (and still visit! CADW member and all).
A mangonel is a traction trebuchet. The first siege weapon you looked at is an Onager. One of the biggest issues of an onager is that you need thick strong beams of wood(oak, I think) because otherwise, the rope torsion will break the weapon in no time.
Mangonels, ballistae, and springalds were mostly used as active defense mechanisms, usually inside/on top of the wall towers of a beleaguered fortification. So, as you say, they are useful against infantry, not useful against fortress walls, but still definitely used commonly enough. You just required the added elevation of a tower and the static element of fortification defenses in order to make them useful.
I know that a lot of medieval castles had a lot of siege crossbows in their arsenals, siege crossbow is really big crossbow with 2 people crew(2 people needed for portability) and it using long metal rod to support it (like heavy muskets), i read it in book about Teutonic Order castles in late 14 and early 15 century (i don't remember title). Some time ago I read about big stone shot from trebuchet, which fall on the tower vertically destroying roof and all wooden flores, so defensive positions on that tower were not accessible to defenders. That was one of those really big trebuchets, so the stone was quite massive.
I think mangenels work well on top of towers as you are targeting larger groups of people - especially with many smaller rocks - have the advantage of gravity, and they take less material to make and are quicker to make making them optimal for emergency defense weapons.
Ballista was much better defensive tool than offensive since less experienced crews could operate them from within the walls and there little that the attacker could do when hit by it. 🤔
The ballista during a siege was used primarily to deter dragons. A ballista can penetrate their scales (most dragon tamers did not put heavy armor on their dragons). With the concentric castle design, a dragon was very likely to be within one or more ballista's field of fire. This is why dragons were typically relegated to reconnaissance roles, troop/supply transport, intimidation, or simply dropping heavy and dangerous things significantly overhead. Plus, if you are trying to take over a castle, you don't want to use its fire often. You don't want to burn down your future home. I am still looking for artwork depicting this, but I will get back to you. Great video! :)
The 'problem' you are seeing with the 'mangonel' you have in front of you is that is actually an oversized onager which is a Roman artillery weapon designed for use against troops not buildings. The medieval mangonel was a remake of a weapon designed for something else.
Shad, I just wanna say, you've inspired me so much that I just acquired my first sword, gambeson and chainmail hauberk. Will be going to a Renaissance Faire this week to reclaim the Holy Land. Thank you for your wonderful videos and your devotion to preserving and teaching history.
Ballistas were also used by Romans as a field weapon. I believe at some point every century (unit, not time period) in the army had one small piece available so than you had hundereds of these weapons per entire army.
Something to consider with Balista is that the training would be much less important than someone with a bow. Also with the manganel I could see it firing what we could consider bird shot, glass or ceramics. As for the actual siege shots. You would feel the impact more than you would hear it. Just listen to horses run past.
Hey Shad. I was thinking about fighting with weapons, and i realized that if it was done with modern materials and engineering, it’d look pretty different. Riot shields solve the visibility issue of shields, clothing could be made with very light materials that still protect from slices, and body armor could be easily made be very light and durable while protecting from blunt force
A mangonnel is not meant to hit structures but people. Read the war of the Gauls from Caesar if you want an idea of how small siege weapons were used. Scorpions/balistas were probably more useful. Middle age armies were more cavalry centric, so the siege weapons would decrease their mobility. But they still knew how to use these weapons when they made canons in the 15th century. So they certainly continued to use some during the middle age.
This is what I came for when I started following this channel, and it's nice to see the channel getting back to its roots, instead of another click-baity video or an attempt to 'improve' another culture's historical weapon.
A stone castle with 4 meter thick walls is a stone castle with 4 meter thick walls exactly because someone wanted to not be threatened by such siege weapons. I think the mangonel would come in handy when dealing with weaker fortifications and buildings. Should be relatively easy to transport if you just disassemble it and maybe even just carry the metal parts and ropes and source the wooden parts locally whenever you feel the need, if that's at all possible. The lack of mangonels in medieval artwork can also be explained by them just not having been used in any context worth making art about. Like if you have some siege engineers with you and need to bust through an improvised wooden barricade or wall, it probably won't be among the highlights of your campaign. And even if a trebuchet wouldn't take much more effort, you'd still go with the mangonel if you think the mangonel is all you need. At least if medieval engineers were anything like our modern ones.
The ballista would have been very useful against flying targets, dragons in particular. Monstrous Nightmares hate those things. In all seriousness though, I do have to agree, the mangonel and ballista were probably used most by defenders and navel men rather than attackers trying to siege a castle. Anyways, I’m going to go play some Minecraft, I need to increase my security system’s effectiveness. To be honest, cacti and lava moats just won’t cut it against modern Minecraft warfare, even if I do only play single player. Rockatoa, Brickticks out!
Bricoli / pfeilschleider were also popular. In its simplest form - a springy tree with cut branches. It threw a stone like a trebuchet, but with the force of a springy trunk that people bent back with ropes. Then this machine became more complicated, with a metal spring bar. If any of you at school shoot bullets with a bent plastic ruler - you get the idea ;)
I can think of one (1) historic example of a mangonel being used. At Chateau Gaillard, the Angevins employed one for defensive purposes. It was installed in one of the corner tower and pre-sightet to target one of the primary routes of approach attacking soldiers would use. it didn't end up mattering that much though, since the Capetians took the castle by climbing through the chapel windows.
In the book cited below there are references to and citations for large machines in the Roman inventory and how they were used. This is primarily about two-armed ballistae and catapulta (ball-thrower and bolt-thrower respectively, before 100AD metal-franed engines began to use ballistae for bolt-throwers as well). The largest two-armed stone-thrower on record could accurately fire a ~100lb stone 300m and even at that size when it came to attacking a fortified position they were more about morale. Two-armed torsion engines were more about defense. 'Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development' by E W Marsden
I recall seeing medieval art depicting giant cross-bows against the doors of the castle, or rather, anyone who might attempt to come out of said door. I'd imagine a ballista could be used for the same purpose, but that said, they clearly had a reason to use those giant bows instead. Unless, of course, it really was a ballista but the artist was unable to draw one and resorted to bow instead.
I saw something on a program years ago, even if the attack didnt break through the castle wall, the shockwave would shatter the other side of the wall, sending shrapnel like bullets in all directions.
Using these against the hoardings on a castle would be effective too. Quick question for anyone who knows. Trebuchets and mangonels are both classified as catapults, but then is an onager a type of mangonel?
Remember these are naked remains of castles not invested by people.. back in the day towers would often have wooden huts atop them.. with other shelters of lesser size positioned around the place.. even when hoarding was not keyed for..
A ballista is also for use against hoarding.. to target key locations used by particularly well positioned and hence annoying defenders.. it can also be shot outside their effective range to respond..
Roman-made catapults and ballistas used ropes made out of animal sinew, an art that was lost when the Middle Ages began. These animal sinew ropes meant these weapons could built up more energy to effectively strike at their targets.
I used to play this game called Medieval 2 Total War. It had this amazing historical accuracy mod called Stainless Steel. In the mod, mangonels and ballistae were practically useless against castle walls. I had to resort to using trebuchets (and even then, multiple, at least 4 sets of 2 trebuchet) until cannon technology came about. Then sieges became so much more easier with cannons.
What about firing flaming rocks? I've not seen that topic covered on any medieval vids yet, the battle in Prince of Thieves still springs to mind. RIP to the tree felled on Hastings wall.
Ballistas outrange bows so you fire at the castle but they can't fire back. Also due to small size they could be placed on towers and shot at the enemy. Also ballistas could fire lead or stone bullets that would make a mess out of anything. Lastly as an attacker you want to keep the defender off the walls during the assault. Ballistas can do that far safer than bowmen. And there is nothing stopping you from using both.
Funny thing with trebuchet was that while I was in the US army I was in artillery and for some reason one of the Sargents got a bunch of us together and we made a trebuchet.
I am no expert, but from what I heard and read, trebuchets were more used in the objective of hitting what is behind the wall. For the ballista, it's really useful in defence against wooden protections, and it has a much higher psychological impact than a bow.
