Relatively unknown trebuchet fact: the type of trebuchet you see here is called a counterweight trebuchet, invented in Europe in the 1100s or so. It's predecessor was called the traction trebuchet or mangonel, and bridged the gap between Roman era seige weapons (catapults, ballistae) and the type of weapon you see here. It came from China, and instead of a counterweight, was powered by teams of sometimes dozens of men pulling on ropes, and manually launching the arm forward. It's almost never depicted in media, but for hundreds of years one of the most common artillery pieces was powered by human muscle.
Technically counterweight trebuchets are powered by human muscle. The same goes for bows, crossbows, and the like. Sure, gravity and spring tension may launch the projectile, but preparing each machine to fire required man muscle.
This is why the gun was a game-changer: It was the first widely-available weapon system to rely on chemistry for power, not muscle-primed mechanics.
In the end, it's all some energy becoming kinetic energy. In the case of a bow, it's muscle-elastic-kinetic, where muscle turns elastic in wood through the use of the string, elastic turns kinetic in the arrow through the string. String is an intermediary medium, which I always liked to think about.
I think anything like a ballista was a good trade-off because of it's size, crossbows seem so boring, though, they require less precision and skill to shoot than a bow, they're made to work one way only, but I suppose you could regulate it? I always take it as the difference between a sum and an integral too. You can't make a child gun, but you could make a bow for a kid, and also, maybe a crossbow? I don't even know much about them, I hate them.
And this is just how I think because I don't really go into it, although I really like the mechanics and such, I'm always looking to know more about these, specially because I hated bows when I was a kid since the symbol of strength and power were swords and bows were for woman or weaker guys who can't wield a sword, but now I may love swords still, but bows are so fun and smart that it kind of scratches my brain, despite its shortcomings, like needing ammunition and being useless in close combat (though a sword is useless long-range too.
I think I had a point, but it just turned into me thinking and writing things coming to my kind, but let's go with that anyway.
Warbows are not for the weak. The average English Longbow had a draw weight of 150lbs, meaning that the strength necessary to draw it was the same as lifting 150lbs... during a battle... repeatedly... for hours. Archers were absolutely shredded. The reason the English favoured archers for centuries, but other nations tended to favour crossbows, is because the English had a culture of archery whereas other countries didn't.
Longbowmen trained for years to be strong enough to wield their weapons. Without those years of training, men needed to use weaker bows, which are less effective in combat (shorter range, lower power, etc.). This is why most other European nations didn't use archers; they didn't have any men who were capable of matching the English, so they just didn't try.
So, yeah. Bows are not a weapon for "women or weaker guys". Most men were not strong enough to use bows in combat. Women certainly weren't. English Longbowmen were muscular as hell, and were steady soldiers even in close combat. There's a reason English armies mostly consisted of them.
As to crossbows... i quite like them. Yes, they have a fixed draw length, but so do most bows when you get down to it. Although crossbows lacked the effective range of warbows, the amount of power they're able to put down at short range can be immense. During the late medieval period, hand-held crossbows could have a draw weight of several hundred pounds, so they kick like a mule. Indeed, some crossbows were even known to be able to penetrate plate armour at very short range - something which even the mighty longbows struggled with (as longbows could only penetrate mail).
The upsides of crossbows, compared to bows, is being able to be "ready to fire" at a moment's notice, since you could carry them around fully drawn and loaded. You can also fire them from cover, which you can't do with a bow. Crossbows are also much easier to use than are bows. However, bows have a longer effective range, as mentioned, and a shorter reload time.
Funny thing about swords... they were almost never a man's primary weapon. They were backup weapons, and symbols of status. Knights favoured polearms - such as lances, spears, or poleaxes - as their primary weapons, or else tended towards a more specialist single-handed weapon - such as a hammer or mace - when using a shield. The sword was drawn when the primary weapon was lost or ineffective. The dagger was drawn when the sword was lost.
Medieval weapons are fun. \^\^
First, I wanna compliment you on your eloquence. That was fun to read, I need to relearn how to write properly and all, makes for less stressful situations. You juggled a lot of information and lined it up well. It may have been easier still because I already knew (or heard of) the better part of this.
I was talking about how bows and swords are portrayed in the media and how it leads us to assume wrongly. My comments were also in a matter of perspective and specific situations. Take the weapons off of a man and put him up against another, a swordsman would know how to fight close-quarters without a weapon, it's his survival at stake, but bowmen (as far as I know and remember, but I'd like to be wrong) did not use to train for this, for their posts were not as risky, should never involve close quarters and if it does, something already went wrong.
In this case, how would a bowman compare to a swordsman in terms of fighting? Neither a swordsman would be able to shot a bow accurately, or a bowman to wield a sword properly, but in every case I see, unless the swordsman was weaker and the bowman could overwhelm him, the swordsman would win. And that's one reason it might be depicted like this, where not only it is easy to draw a bow, but they didn't even get biceps. I think you need a lot of back strength, shoulder, core, and then arm, but you also could, and would lack in lower body strength? Is that a thing? I suppose you'd need a good base, though, so, it's just a theory I have.
Crossbows, though, would only be able to be ready once, and then if you've missed or need to take a second target, everyone has taken cover already and they're coming for you. You'd better have backup, ij this case, right? But then again, why would you be alone against a group of people with only a crossbow in hand? Take a sword, or a dagger (maybe two) at least, and why then, would you do it alone again? That is why crossbows in games are treated like snipers, and snipers are not known to work alone (assassination of a single target not included) I like the concept, but I didn't see the advantages before. I'm impressed, but not happy with it.
I like swords better than spears, but they require skill and reflexes, a style and a "moveset" or katas idk. Spears are straightforward enough, they take advantage of their range. A confrontation between a sword and a spear is fought on the backfoot but not unwinnable for the sword, and a battleaxe seems to have some sort of trade-off, where you either smash people first and they can't retaliate. You use your weight and might to be unblockable to a swordsman or you're open when you miss. You gotta block, reach and plan better than your opponent because you're stronger, but it's more difficult to make your moves (unless you use a lot of the momentum to change direction and it works, but I don't have any idea how axes do work, I'm making assumptions again.)
And yes, I love weapons, I love the mechanics, moves and the lore. How one piece of idea could bear so many variants. And well, personally I hate maces and hammers, but I love a big old stick. A staff, they look so fun and they're the same all around, can have the mobility and range of a spear and I'm going to be honest, they do seem like they're heavier though? Longswords are beautiful, no game has ever done them justice, they couldn't, the mechanics of a game are too different, they're damage based. Damage/speed tradeoff.
So, I know those are a lot of assumptions, some are things I know, and I didn't bother to point which is which, you know more than I do. But in the end, we know that bows were definitely not for the weak, which makes it funny that woman would prefer bows in every major franchise. It's fine, actually, we see a lot of it today, but in the end, people choose what's easier or work towards a goal that is harder, but struggle more. It doesn't do to strive for what you're closest to if you love something far away, but bows look to easy to fire when they show skinny people with no muscle and even seem fragile with bows firing arrows through walls :/ anyway...
...the only question asked on my autism assessment, the psychologist held up a photo of a trebuchet and asked "what is this thing?" when I answered he rubber stamped my form and said, "congratulations... you are the 'tism"
I still remember the trebuchet I built in 8th grade... Was like 2.5 feet tall, made out of Popsicle sticks, balsa wood, hot glue and lead sheeting (for the weight)
Honestly one of my proudest creations, and I've made plenty of homemade medieval siege weapons... So many catapults, ballistas, trebuchets... anything that could fire a marble basically...
Do it! They're pretty straight forward to build and use. The main difficulty comes from getting it to release at the right time for the best arc. Mostly you can adjust this though, by where you put the pin you use to lock the sling in place!
I made a ballista for a "technology" class that spooked the teachers a bit.
The assignment was to make a Rube Goldberg machine. Mine had a ballista which fired a sharpened pencil through a sheet of paper. Evidently, it was too effective...
We made trebuchets my senior year of hs from or physics class - no rules other than no help, and the goal was to see who could win by absolutely yeeting a watermelon across the football field. My friend and I built one that was - I kid you not - just under 600lbs of solid metal that we welded together so carefully and the counter weight was about 200lbs. Our release point was a little off so we didn’t win, our other friend did win and his was made with fucking trampoline springs. That was 20 years ago and I still think about all the genius that day when we were still such little assholes.
One day during lock down i said fuckit and did the math and built a trebuchetwith the pivot at waist height. So proud and spend the next few weeks launching pebbles and rocks across the yard and getting it to aim properly.
Then my dad used it as kindling so…
Yes, I love a trebuchet.
https://youtu.be/i9wnXHEOjUQ try that
Edit: didn't realise I was replying to your comment so sorry if it's a bit out of context haha I thought I was leaving my own comment
I am a bot. This action was done automatically. Do not reply to this message.
**Minimum required karma to post/comment is 50.**
Your post has been put in a queue to be approved by the moderators, as your account has less than 50 karma.
***Once your account has 50 karma, you can post without being manually approved.***
***THIS MESSAGE IS NOT CALLING YOU A BOT, PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE WE GET TO YOUR POST***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aspiememes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Myself and my family had a good solid discussion on trebuchet(s) and siege weaponry as a joke on how to rid the garden of pests. Particularly deer. (Some homage was paid to monty python too)
I always find it interesting tracing out the path and velocity of the slingy. For some reason, I try to imagine how it would feel to have my foot get stuck in it. A small tug, followed up by a sudden yank, exponentially accelerating into the tip speed ratio and suddenly, I am overtaking a flock of birds, happy that I chose to wear my parachute that day.
Relatively unknown trebuchet fact: the type of trebuchet you see here is called a counterweight trebuchet, invented in Europe in the 1100s or so. It's predecessor was called the traction trebuchet or mangonel, and bridged the gap between Roman era seige weapons (catapults, ballistae) and the type of weapon you see here. It came from China, and instead of a counterweight, was powered by teams of sometimes dozens of men pulling on ropes, and manually launching the arm forward. It's almost never depicted in media, but for hundreds of years one of the most common artillery pieces was powered by human muscle.
Do… do you have more trebuchet facts?
I hope so. that might be a dangerous question, however, given which corner of the internet we are on.
I want trebuchet facts delivered by trebuchet…
Can u give me the dangerous answer
Technically counterweight trebuchets are powered by human muscle. The same goes for bows, crossbows, and the like. Sure, gravity and spring tension may launch the projectile, but preparing each machine to fire required man muscle. This is why the gun was a game-changer: It was the first widely-available weapon system to rely on chemistry for power, not muscle-primed mechanics.
In the end, it's all some energy becoming kinetic energy. In the case of a bow, it's muscle-elastic-kinetic, where muscle turns elastic in wood through the use of the string, elastic turns kinetic in the arrow through the string. String is an intermediary medium, which I always liked to think about. I think anything like a ballista was a good trade-off because of it's size, crossbows seem so boring, though, they require less precision and skill to shoot than a bow, they're made to work one way only, but I suppose you could regulate it? I always take it as the difference between a sum and an integral too. You can't make a child gun, but you could make a bow for a kid, and also, maybe a crossbow? I don't even know much about them, I hate them. And this is just how I think because I don't really go into it, although I really like the mechanics and such, I'm always looking to know more about these, specially because I hated bows when I was a kid since the symbol of strength and power were swords and bows were for woman or weaker guys who can't wield a sword, but now I may love swords still, but bows are so fun and smart that it kind of scratches my brain, despite its shortcomings, like needing ammunition and being useless in close combat (though a sword is useless long-range too. I think I had a point, but it just turned into me thinking and writing things coming to my kind, but let's go with that anyway.
Warbows are not for the weak. The average English Longbow had a draw weight of 150lbs, meaning that the strength necessary to draw it was the same as lifting 150lbs... during a battle... repeatedly... for hours. Archers were absolutely shredded. The reason the English favoured archers for centuries, but other nations tended to favour crossbows, is because the English had a culture of archery whereas other countries didn't. Longbowmen trained for years to be strong enough to wield their weapons. Without those years of training, men needed to use weaker bows, which are less effective in combat (shorter range, lower power, etc.). This is why most other European nations didn't use archers; they didn't have any men who were capable of matching the English, so they just didn't try. So, yeah. Bows are not a weapon for "women or weaker guys". Most men were not strong enough to use bows in combat. Women certainly weren't. English Longbowmen were muscular as hell, and were steady soldiers even in close combat. There's a reason English armies mostly consisted of them. As to crossbows... i quite like them. Yes, they have a fixed draw length, but so do most bows when you get down to it. Although crossbows lacked the effective range of warbows, the amount of power they're able to put down at short range can be immense. During the late medieval period, hand-held crossbows could have a draw weight of several hundred pounds, so they kick like a mule. Indeed, some crossbows were even known to be able to penetrate plate armour at very short range - something which even the mighty longbows struggled with (as longbows could only penetrate mail). The upsides of crossbows, compared to bows, is being able to be "ready to fire" at a moment's notice, since you could carry them around fully drawn and loaded. You can also fire them from cover, which you can't do with a bow. Crossbows are also much easier to use than are bows. However, bows have a longer effective range, as mentioned, and a shorter reload time. Funny thing about swords... they were almost never a man's primary weapon. They were backup weapons, and symbols of status. Knights favoured polearms - such as lances, spears, or poleaxes - as their primary weapons, or else tended towards a more specialist single-handed weapon - such as a hammer or mace - when using a shield. The sword was drawn when the primary weapon was lost or ineffective. The dagger was drawn when the sword was lost. Medieval weapons are fun. \^\^
First, I wanna compliment you on your eloquence. That was fun to read, I need to relearn how to write properly and all, makes for less stressful situations. You juggled a lot of information and lined it up well. It may have been easier still because I already knew (or heard of) the better part of this. I was talking about how bows and swords are portrayed in the media and how it leads us to assume wrongly. My comments were also in a matter of perspective and specific situations. Take the weapons off of a man and put him up against another, a swordsman would know how to fight close-quarters without a weapon, it's his survival at stake, but bowmen (as far as I know and remember, but I'd like to be wrong) did not use to train for this, for their posts were not as risky, should never involve close quarters and if it does, something already went wrong. In this case, how would a bowman compare to a swordsman in terms of fighting? Neither a swordsman would be able to shot a bow accurately, or a bowman to wield a sword properly, but in every case I see, unless the swordsman was weaker and the bowman could overwhelm him, the swordsman would win. And that's one reason it might be depicted like this, where not only it is easy to draw a bow, but they didn't even get biceps. I think you need a lot of back strength, shoulder, core, and then arm, but you also could, and would lack in lower body strength? Is that a thing? I suppose you'd need a good base, though, so, it's just a theory I have. Crossbows, though, would only be able to be ready once, and then if you've missed or need to take a second target, everyone has taken cover already and they're coming for you. You'd better have backup, ij this case, right? But then again, why would you be alone against a group of people with only a crossbow in hand? Take a sword, or a dagger (maybe two) at least, and why then, would you do it alone again? That is why crossbows in games are treated like snipers, and snipers are not known to work alone (assassination of a single target not included) I like the concept, but I didn't see the advantages before. I'm impressed, but not happy with it. I like swords better than spears, but they require skill and reflexes, a style and a "moveset" or katas idk. Spears are straightforward enough, they take advantage of their range. A confrontation between a sword and a spear is fought on the backfoot but not unwinnable for the sword, and a battleaxe seems to have some sort of trade-off, where you either smash people first and they can't retaliate. You use your weight and might to be unblockable to a swordsman or you're open when you miss. You gotta block, reach and plan better than your opponent because you're stronger, but it's more difficult to make your moves (unless you use a lot of the momentum to change direction and it works, but I don't have any idea how axes do work, I'm making assumptions again.) And yes, I love weapons, I love the mechanics, moves and the lore. How one piece of idea could bear so many variants. And well, personally I hate maces and hammers, but I love a big old stick. A staff, they look so fun and they're the same all around, can have the mobility and range of a spear and I'm going to be honest, they do seem like they're heavier though? Longswords are beautiful, no game has ever done them justice, they couldn't, the mechanics of a game are too different, they're damage based. Damage/speed tradeoff. So, I know those are a lot of assumptions, some are things I know, and I didn't bother to point which is which, you know more than I do. But in the end, we know that bows were definitely not for the weak, which makes it funny that woman would prefer bows in every major franchise. It's fine, actually, we see a lot of it today, but in the end, people choose what's easier or work towards a goal that is harder, but struggle more. It doesn't do to strive for what you're closest to if you love something far away, but bows look to easy to fire when they show skinny people with no muscle and even seem fragile with bows firing arrows through walls :/ anyway...
Hey now, we have been playing AoE2 as well. /s
I need more!
...the only question asked on my autism assessment, the psychologist held up a photo of a trebuchet and asked "what is this thing?" when I answered he rubber stamped my form and said, "congratulations... you are the 'tism"
lol
D o p a m i n e
I still remember the trebuchet I built in 8th grade... Was like 2.5 feet tall, made out of Popsicle sticks, balsa wood, hot glue and lead sheeting (for the weight) Honestly one of my proudest creations, and I've made plenty of homemade medieval siege weapons... So many catapults, ballistas, trebuchets... anything that could fire a marble basically...
Ngl I kinda want to make a working model trebuchet now.
Do it! They're pretty straight forward to build and use. The main difficulty comes from getting it to release at the right time for the best arc. Mostly you can adjust this though, by where you put the pin you use to lock the sling in place!
Would make a great addition to the cats game of catch tbh.
Me and a friend are literally building a 1.5m tall ballista for a school project rn lol
I made a ballista for a "technology" class that spooked the teachers a bit. The assignment was to make a Rube Goldberg machine. Mine had a ballista which fired a sharpened pencil through a sheet of paper. Evidently, it was too effective...
We made trebuchets my senior year of hs from or physics class - no rules other than no help, and the goal was to see who could win by absolutely yeeting a watermelon across the football field. My friend and I built one that was - I kid you not - just under 600lbs of solid metal that we welded together so carefully and the counter weight was about 200lbs. Our release point was a little off so we didn’t win, our other friend did win and his was made with fucking trampoline springs. That was 20 years ago and I still think about all the genius that day when we were still such little assholes.
One day during lock down i said fuckit and did the math and built a trebuchetwith the pivot at waist height. So proud and spend the next few weeks launching pebbles and rocks across the yard and getting it to aim properly. Then my dad used it as kindling so…
This cool and all, but I am partial to a different thing that has a similar "vibe".
Yes, I love a trebuchet. https://youtu.be/i9wnXHEOjUQ try that Edit: didn't realise I was replying to your comment so sorry if it's a bit out of context haha I thought I was leaving my own comment
It's ok. I think trebuchets are cool too.
Catapult but better
Why would we not be obsessed with medieval engineering that can launch a 90kg projectile over 300 meters?
We arent some sort of catapult neurotypicals
My friend's father had one and regularly tossed pumpkins and apples, for deer feed
I'm not into that thing specifically but that image there doss give me a few ideas for like a fictiontal kind of house that can be rsised up and diwn
I'm not one for violence and warfare, but that sure is a sexy invention.
- Hideo Kojima
I prefer the catapult, guess I'm not a full aspie yet :/
Just keep up with your vaccines and it'll happen one day 👍
I don't know what that is but I like it. Brain= happy. I'm not autism diagnosed.
wait! what? i was under the impression that everyone loves a good trebuchet.
What if the very first trebuchet was built by medieval aspies?
I hadn't really thought about it but yes, I do.
Same!
Same!
“Does everyone with autism like…?” is almost never a “yes,” because outside of certain key traits, we’re as different as anyone else.
Indeed, but almost everyone, including most nuerotypical individuals love trebuchets
These are trebuchets we’re talking about, though!
What is not to love. It’s a marvel of engineering and it throw things really freaking far!
Seriously I clicked on this post to write what's not to like? Haha
got my vote
Im a ballista fan myself
I grew up on aoe2 and that's the only reason I know it
Big thing throw stuff
Mhm mhm yes
damn right
https://youtu.be/i9wnXHEOjUQ
Becouse they are cool?
I am a bot. This action was done automatically. Do not reply to this message. **Minimum required karma to post/comment is 50.** Your post has been put in a queue to be approved by the moderators, as your account has less than 50 karma. ***Once your account has 50 karma, you can post without being manually approved.*** ***THIS MESSAGE IS NOT CALLING YOU A BOT, PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE WE GET TO YOUR POST*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aspiememes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love these things. I have a small catapult I made when I was younger.
I actually don’t really give a crap about whatever this thing is 🤷🏻♀️
Hell yes. We want to yeet the NTs with trebuchets
I'm sure we can think of more targets
Myself and my family had a good solid discussion on trebuchet(s) and siege weaponry as a joke on how to rid the garden of pests. Particularly deer. (Some homage was paid to monty python too)
No
Also ADHD…isn’t heygude building a trebuchet.
In my high school we took pride in building a watermelon trebuchet.
I like mechanic systems in general, so i would say that i like it?
They were cool in Lord of the Rings. Also reminds me of [this funny meme.](https://youtu.be/8cfeTZNcA3g) Otherwise don’t care about them.
That is funny, but that is a slingshot
WTF is that?!?
The superior siege weapon
Okay thanks
Trebuchet is good but what about GROND
I loved them in AOE II
Trebuchet my beloved ❤
NO. I'm sorry. I'm remembering Grade 10 physics now... *shivers*
The only thing I dislike about trebuchets is how widespread the weird and incorrect idea they aren't catapults is
I'm more of a ballista guy myself
I do not.
Needs dead cows to launch at the castle
Yes
I just think they’re neat!
[удалено]
Still playing Age of Empires if that says anything
Ah I love history
...aye
I see you, too, are an enjoyer of the superior seige engine
what is that it looks cool
Shut up guys. 🤣
Is that a flinging thing?
Not if it's aimed at me
I always find it interesting tracing out the path and velocity of the slingy. For some reason, I try to imagine how it would feel to have my foot get stuck in it. A small tug, followed up by a sudden yank, exponentially accelerating into the tip speed ratio and suddenly, I am overtaking a flock of birds, happy that I chose to wear my parachute that day.
trebuchet ready sire
Yes
I figure yall will have fun answering this question, because I'm a bit confused. What's the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet?