The drowback about the need of siege engineers is quite relevant: Philippe Contamine says siege engineers' names were very often mentioned in war chronicles just after the main commanders', and when a story about a successful siege was written, the engineer and the machine he built were treated nearly as an artist and his best work.
It was a multi-purpose design, if i remeber correctly. We had them built into Ar 234, as backwards-firing-surprise-guns. On Pz. III chassis, they were mounted as quadruple-flak; and on Subs Typ XXXI they served as scrambeled-egg-distribution-devices. Another proof of great german engeneering.
Germany planned to use counterweight trebuchets mounted on the Panzer I chassis that would launch mugs of tea at British lines, distracting them as they tried to save all the spilled tea. However, the project was cancelled because Seelöwe was also cancelled, so it was refitted with a conventional 15cm sIG33 and became the Sturmpanzer I "Bison".
I thought Seelöwe was about dumping tonnes of tea in the English Channel to make the whole British Army rush into the channel and drown trying to drink the tea? After that the fallschirmjäger would easily take London and win the war... Oh, well, you learn something new all the time...
A few points for scholarly discussion. Apologizes for not having access to look up reference for you 1) Its been some time since a University of Toronto grad student did a lecture on his modern build (1990s?). One of his suggestions was that the angle of release was critical yet that is controlled by the hook. The hook had a precise angle to be made at your armory. All the other parts could be build from locally (relatively speaking). 2) While the traction trebuchet manpower may seem large the medieval siege armies had large amounts of manpower. Rope work was also more common and combined pulling by large groups isn't that hard though the consistency of force would be. 3) for the traction trebuchet some medieval illustrations show the 'gunner' being pulled up as he holds onto the projectile, the rock. It is believed the gunner can make fine tune adjustments to aim the traction trebuchet. 4) There was a counter-weight trebuchet named War Wolf. An Americain documentary, possibly history channel, did a modern build. The historical accounts of war wolf including stripping lead off of nearby buildings to make the lead counterweight. 5) Sieges were long affairs not like modern battles nor hollywood. If you could do even slight damage to a wall on one hit then a few hits a day over many days leads to one broken wall.
Point 1: there are more ways to control launch angle than hook angle. Sling length (the sling acts like a pendulum) and missile weight also influence trajectory, as much as hook angle. Point 5, the Nova show was based on supposition. The lead may have been stolen from the churches to be transported back to England to be sold to partially finance the war. Point 6, sieges were seldom of great length. The besiegers needed to feed their army, and the defenders would have gathered in all the local food they could, destroying the rest. Medieval logistics would make it difficult to supply the besiegers. And bringing in food from outside was expensive. Medieval warfare was on a cash basis. War was literally "waged", soldiers being paid on a daily basis.
@@thomasrosenthal1738 - Supply is a crucial aspect of warfare that is often overlooked. I recommend to anyone who is interested in the topic to read Donald W. Engels Excellent book 'Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army.' It changed the way I looked at Pre-industrial warfare. www.amazon.com/Alexander-Logistics-Macedonian-December-Paperback/dp/B015QNTIOE Lindybeige also has an informative video about Medieval transport. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tdguh1D-fOk.html
wouldn't the counterweight trebuchet also have the advantige of having a more repetative shot placement because you have more control on the force used to launch the projectile.That would have been very handy when reducing walls or stripping the walls of battlements.
in theory yes, the consistency would be improved between shots, though a well drilled crew on a traction catapult could likely achieve some degree of consistency.
Though I wonder how big a deal wood warping would have been. As mentioned, that much weight being held constantly would warp the wood, if not brilliantly engineered. While outright breaking it was the initial challenge, I would imagine that over time the beam might become slightly flimsy. Also, if they are being used in different roles, as described, light projectiles only need to hit a single target (like a house or government building hidden behind the wall) once to make it too dangerous to use and spread chaos. That degree of consistency becomes unnecessary.
there would be other factors that would lead to inaccuracies beyond just the warping of the lever arm. the aiming would be fire for effect type where you would be judging your aim by eye and you wound adjust your aim accordingly, also if the platform skips on release there can be inaccuracies there as well. i dont believe that the trebuchet would have been a precision weapon but rather a general area. even early cannon would have had these same general issues but would have had the advantage of a more consistent firing pattern to work from based on how it was loaded.
the venetians really loved their trebuchets, they made them bigger and bigger, and some of them could even launch 1500kg boulders! In fact, often they even gave them names, like the big pieces of artillery in ww1
Another feature of some counterweight trebuchets was wheels, that not only allowed them to be transported more easily (especially if they were massive), but as the counterweight dropped, the whole structure would roll back a few feet, which was due to the motion of the arm and had the benefit of allowing the counterweight to drop in a straighter downward path, thus adding more power to the rotation of the arm and launch of the projectile.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make videos on the strategies, offensives, alliances, etc. of the Yugoslav Wars. one of the messiest wars of the 20th century is bound to be one of the most interesting videos you'll make
also Trebuchet used to propell other stuff, like dead bodys to cause havoc and plauge amongst the defenders, fire bales to the buildings catch fire, and to demoralize the defenders
Nova did an episode in 2006 as part of their "Secrets of Lost Empires" series titled "Medieval Siege" that featured the construction and operation of two trebuchets. I'm not sure how accurate it was, but it is worth watching if you are interested in siege warfare. Search for "Nova Secrets of Lost Empires Medieval Siege".
Hi, that character actually means 'do' but thats the problem with chinese characters, they can have several different meanings according to the situation. Love your videos!
there is a lot of evidence that not all counterweight Trebuchet had a hanging basket for the weight as you could get similar results by putting wheels on the machine (often seen in original medieval artwork)and using a static weight this actually made it more transportable. Perfect example of the wheeled counterweight Trebuchet is in Edward 1st of Englands campaign in Scotland most famous use of Trebuchet was in the use of WarWolf arguably the largest Trebuchet ever. This is an excellent documentary on them ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QVO8VznqMeQ.html
Thanks for another interesting video with solid well presented information. The efficacy of trebuchets has often been exaggerated in media but they were effective.
I recall the Eastern Roman Empire is often attributed with the creation of counterweight trebuchets. This would make sense as they were the longest lasting super power of the middle ages (large scholar/engineer base), and positioned between Catholic western Europe & Muslim Middle East/North Africa(explaining the quick spread to both).
Talk after Bulgaria has been around for 2,000 years, conquered all of the Mediterranean and Western Europe, and has etched itself so deep in the conscious of the West that it still shapes our thoughts to this day.
Thank you for posting this video, I am going to combine this information with some other information I have gathered and use it in Medieval Engineers to test it :)
A note on the effectiveness of Medieval Siege engines: most major castle and general fortification advancements coincide with more advanced and common siege engines. Sure a single trebuchet may not immediately make half of Wales explode with napalm, but the damage must of been considered far too great to risk outmoded defensive designs failing to them. Effectiveness is not the same as firepower and what may sound negligible today would have been a much bigger destructive force then. If you'd spent decades and an actual fortune on building a wall, how would you react to some carefully arranged wood that can tear it down in a few days?
IIRC there were three types of 'projectile siege engines'. The mangonel, trebuchet and catapult. I've always known the mangonel as a separate device but apparently it is known - as here - as a traction trebuchet as well. Personally I like the three names separate as at least you know which is meant then.
We need a video about where were the Trebuchets made how were they transported and so on. Also what kind of machines (if any) did the people in Medieval Europe used and why?
I built a scaled down trebuchet with a 45 pound weight, and it could wildly fling tennis balls for the dog. People hanging from the rope would be a very light weight and hard to coordinate. Huge baskets of stone are more practical.
The latter trebuchet is more convenient and throws bigger rocks. The Mongols even built makeshift trebuchets at sieges so that they could remain mobile. Combined with the firebomb, it was a NASTY weapon.
actually the traction trebuchet was either invented by the romano byzantines, or introduced by the avars in the 7th century but we know they definately used it in their seige of constantiniople
My main question about trebuchet and siege towers is how a medieval army deployed such a machine during a siege in a short amount of time. i know that most sieges lasted long but could it have been used in a two day siege effectively?
can't remember coming across any construction times, nor am I (yet) familiar with logistics yet, but I assume that usually most armies and their baggage trains would not even arrive within in two day time span. Although this is an educated guess, also depends on the size of an army, but once you have a trebuchet, well it needs quite a few men to operate.
About advantages of counterweight trebuchets: wouldn't their increased aiming capacity be an important consideration, especially when attacking fortifications or siege weapons?
Now I'm not very good at physics, but are you sure the sling added to the force of the heavy beam? You can't create more energy out of nothing. Any physics people please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the sling 'merely' transfer power from the heavy beam into more momentum for the projectile? Without the sling, most of the force would be wasted because the momentum of the heavy beam would be stopped before it could develop its swing completely.
I wonder, why aren't there counterweight trebuchets with humans serving as the counterweight? Think about it! A human climbs up to an elevated platform next to the counterweight point, grabs onto a rope attached to the counterweight point, then jumps off and enjoys swinging on the rope, causing the trebuchet to fling whatever projectile is loaded onto the sling arm. Once the projectile has been launched, the human acting as the counterweight lets go of the rope and drops to the ground, quickly resetting the trebuchet arm in the process.
I assume maintenance. I took the design from a modern illustration of a 12th century trebuchet, so there could be quite some stuff added. Although it makes sense to climb that huge thing once in a while and to check on the axle, after all it is the moving part that is stressed the most.
Interesting that consistency of the counterweight trebuchet is not mentioned even though it /is/ for the traction trebuchet. Surely that is one of the benefits of the former? Regardless of fatigue or the strength of individual men, if the weight used for every shot was the same then it would fly the same distance. That would also mean that calculations for operators would be possible - too far, use a lighter counterweight etc.
Hello there, could you sometime in the future do a video (or series) of the Mongolian Empire? How they came to power, their military force...etc...I am incredibly interested in the topic. Cheers
As much as I like the video, I have to say that you missed out three important points: 1) counterweight trebuchets are very accurate (I know this from my own experience as a kid) and they wouldn't carve perfectly round ammunition, if the accuracy of the weapon was allready bad 2) how did they aim? Adjusting the range is allready awkward, but adjusting the angle won't work with many reproductions at all (too heavy to lift up; weels would cause other problems) 3) whats the point of throwing junk over the wall? You can do it for days without end causing only moderate annoyment, unless you can catapult heads or incendary devices. PS: one siege expert could be responsible for the construction of douzens of trebuchets and he would need to teach only few men how to aim with them; the rest doesn't require any training or timing at all. Appart from aiming the tricky thing in building them was probably the axis. With over a ton resting on it friction can be detrimental.
point 3 could technically be applied to the bombing campaigns from both the ally and axis, but i thing the idea was also psychological as well as physical, i dont want stones thrown at me all day esp if there the size of my head
Brady Ward Still, you can't expect much damage neither to the structures nor personel. They can't see where they hit and in buildings you're pretty safe.
Sieges also lasted for a very long time and the besieged had very limited resources. Any damage done, would be significant and you'd have plenty of time to deal that damage. Many castles were also only manned by a dozen or so men. Killing or maiming one of them was a significant loss to the besieged.
Nerd Punk-Fu Sieges are a question of logistics. You can't starve them out, if your own men find little food and water or you run out of money for the mercenaries. If 12 men hold a castle, imagine how many have to besiege it day and night. Moreover allies could attack you from behind (e.g. siege of Vienna).
There is quite a bit of the word probably used. Maybe, more reseach is needed to get an acurate understanding of which trebuchet did what and how that evolution happened before a video is made...
Hi MHV, cracking video. Just wondering what your source was for the use of trebuchets on towers/walls was, as I've been trying to find evidence of it myself and have struggled! Thanks.
with marathon, you had a ready force attacking a landing force. a landing force is not able to be have full force organized and ready to fight with full gear and so has the disadvantage agianst the force in waiting. asside from that you would have to look at the conditions of the ground and the equipment being used.
The argument about the strength of the beam at 4:35 is wrong from an engineering point of view. Only the maximum Load and how often loads are applied matters. Not the duration of the load. Therefore, the design of the beam for the same payload and range should be the same
Traction trebuchets were sometimes also used with counterweights. The range was often very short but thankfully peasants make excellent cannon fodder for archers. Counterweight trebuchets are really clever, squirrel wheels were also used to winch them back. It's thanks to weapons like this that we have any engineers today. These and bridges
Great video. One small detail that was ommitted is that some counterweight trebuchets were mounted on wheeled bases. Experimental archeologists have found that this modification extends the weapon's range significantly because the weight travels on a more nearly vertical path increasing the rotational velocity of the arm and thus the projectile.
Any thoughts why many pictures of counter weight trebuchets show some triangles at the counterweight? I know that a counterweight with an additional joint is more efficient, although it will cause the machine to dangle longer until it can be operated again and ideally the weight would go only straight own.
The auther is right about most of what he says, except for the widespread use of the counterweight trebuchet. The counterweight trebuchet was used very often during the 14th century. I know this, because I read the Froissart's Chronicles. Here it is writen, how the english destroyed many castles usung the trebuchet. Something which was not that common untill the 14th century, because the counterweight trebuchet was not used or invented untill that time. Besides that, there has been lots of experimental archeology done using the counterweight trebuchet, and we can see it was very effective in destroying walls.
> The auther is right about most of what he says, except for the widespread use of the counterweight trebuchet. I didn't say that, I said that the Traction Trebuchet was the dominant one.
Richard I of England used a pair of counterweight trebs in the 3rd Crusade,1180s/90s . Edward I's famous War Wolf was built n 1304. Da Vinci was born in 1452.
It helps with the motion of the counterweight and reduces stress on the frame. I remember years ago watching a show where they built a full-size trebuchet and had a devil of a time until they added wheels and it then worked much better. With wheels that allow the frame to roll forwards, it allows the counterweight to drop in a straight line, instead of on a curve, which increases the force on the payload. I'm not saying every trebuchet had wheels, but I believe it does help with the action.
interesting, my sources didn't mention the wheels as far as I remember and I thought it was mostly a mechanism for moving / loading the counter-weight.
Counterweight trebs come in two "flavors", with the CW rigidly fixed to the arm or suspended from the arm. The fixed-weight machines benefit from being mounted on wheels, but the hanging-weight ones do not.
Did they have canister or something like that? It seems to me that kind of round would work better on massed troops in the open than firing a single heavy stone especially with the low rate of firing.
***** Ten dozens would be 120. You need 12.000 people to operate them. You probably only fire once until the enemy has closed the distance. With 100m range you would probably endanger your friendlies as well and you would run into positioning problems because deployment against moving targets is difficult. The weight of the incendiary, which would probably be oil, would be relatively low and you would have a greater effect just using the 12.000 people with spears, bows and swords. Trebuchets are siege weapons, they aren't effective in field battles.
Even the manpowered trebuchet was a specialist weapon. Only to be used during a siege, preferably while employing loads of archers to cover the manpower. When used in a siege, it can be fire from behind cover so its manpower would not be at risk of being sniped by enemy archers.
we have to take into account that trebuchets and most other such weapons were only used in a siege which required the machine to be positioned quite closely to the walls in order to hit them dead on and not at to high an arc as that would just glance off. So my idea is that by effective range they mean the range it would need to significantly damage walls but it could fire farther it would be much less effective
I would guess that how many people are pulling on the ropes depends a great deal on how heavy the ammunition is and how far you want to shoot it. If you're only shooting light firepots or even human waste (why build latrines when you can toss some of it at the enemy to infect with desease and demoralise) over the walls then fewer people and a lighter construction would suffice. But if you're slinging heavy rocks with the intention of causing structual damage to whatever they hit, then the trebuchet has to be constructed more solidly and the missiles need to be heavier. This would require a lot of people to operate and still get any sort of useful effective range. I don't think 100 people on the ropes is exagerated. Also I doubt there would be a rope per person. But probably 5-10 people pulling on each rope.
Yeah it would only make sense that the Chinese would make uses of a man powered weapon like the traction trebuchet because they had a lot more man power available due to their large numbers. Where as the medieval Europeans didn't really have that so counterweight trebuchet most likely suited them better.
Great video. You did not touch upon the effective range of catapults and trebuchets, so correct me if I'm wrong here: trebuchets and catapults were only effective if their projectiles hit their intended target before getting past the zenith of their arc, i.e. effectively utilizing the full force behind them before it started to dissapate. Which means that they had to be closer to the action than what is often seen in movies, on tv and in fiction.
well, although Donald Hill spent quite a lot of time with calculations in his article, he didn't mention that part at all, unless I missed it. Also can't remember France wrote anything about it neither. Do you have a source? From little what I know that would make sense.
Sadly I don't have an academical source. It's been many years since I've busied myself with literature on the Teutonic Order in the Baltics and medieval times in general :( sorry!
I have never heard of that. I don't really understand why it should be like this, either. Disregarding drag losses the kinetic energy of the missile is the lowest on the zenith of the ark, and when you account for drag losses, the zenith seems to somewhat of an arbitrary definition. Whar I could imagine, though, is that having a horizontal direction of movement, as in and near the zenith, would be helpful for destroying walls, as the missiles would otherwise hit the walls at a shallow angle, being deflected of it alike to modern sloped armour. This is all specualtion, of-course.
Nope. The stone is released at a certain angle, having a vector quantity for velocity containing both speed and direction. The direction part can be broken down into vertical and horizontal components. The vertical component is influenced by gravity but the horizontal component is not. The stone will smack the wall with its horizontal-component energy at any point along its path. Near the end of its trajectory it has regained the energy lost to gravity (not really lost, just converted from kinetic to potential) and will impact the wall with that amount added in, but that will be delivered at an angle and thus be less effective.
Ha, coole Sache :). Ja stimmt, vor allem weil man mit dem Auto sowieso nicht ankommt ^^. Jedenfalls, super channel, deine Videos sind meine Mittagspausenbeschäftigung :)
![[Weapons 101] Trebuchet - How they work - Traction & Counterweight Trebuchets Medieval Equipment](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
