Because I would argue that it is practically impossible to have a large crew of pullers having to stop at a certain position in their pulling. If you still do, then accuracy would seriously suffer, and without hitting the target, the military exercise would be useless.

There was a test some time ago with a modern reconstructed trireme. The rowing crew trained for months, but even slight deviations from the normal rowing rhythm let to utter confusion of the crew.

But what did the ancient texts say about such a pull techniques? Are there modern tests with 100 or 200 pullers?

-------------------------------------------------

I think we have to differ between what was theoretically possible on paper, and what actually was the reality in the field. Or that is at least what I am primarily interested in.

"The most powerful Chinese traction trebuchet with a 250-man pulling-crew was capable of throwing a stone-shot weighing between 57 and 63 kilograms a distance of more than 75 meters. This quantitative data is taken from the Chinese military treatise, Wu jing zong yao (The essentials of the military classics), completed in 1044. "
PAUL CHEVEDDEN: The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion, p.74

Your calculation
range: 75
crew: 250
load: 150

Wu jing zong yao
range: 75+
crew: 250
load: 57-63

--> Historical load numbers are just about 40% of the calculated ones.

Why is the historically recorded limit significantly lower than the theoretical values above? Could you feed your proggi with the above numbers from the treatise?

PS:



Donald Hill, p.106:

"...Nor do we have any reliable information about the masses of the counterweight: calculations based upon the approxiimate dimensions of the counterweight boxes shown in illustrations indicate loads of 10,000 to 30,000 pounds, depending upon the material used for ballast."

This may be a starting point, but I guess, deriving true weights for the trebuchet from depictions is as difficult as deriving true heights of ancient horses from depictions. Too much artistry.

Full scale reproduction trebuchet counterweights seem to be in the 4-5 tonne range (lighter than I might have expected).

It is possible. But like I said, in a crude and limited way. May point isn't that it was accurate, just faster than having to change an onager's throwarm barrier position.

To "stop" a throwarm in say halfway to it's apex, you just need people to pull down and then away at a set location, possibly from a shouted command from someone standing to a side. Try it on a model. It works. How practical is it? Well, the main fault of modern reconstructions is that they use modern people. I'm sure you know the argument on the limitations that places on the accuracy of reconstructions. Anyways, I don't want to get into this new can of worms.

Has anyone built and tested a 200man catapult? Not that I'm aware of.

You see, the issue is that the traction catapult couldn't reach ranges of the counterweight trebs. I believe they were simply never built to that kind of scale.

Again, let me forward my argument of taking the same medieval counterweight treb and replacing it with the equivalent force from a pulling crew. You'll get exactly the same results. Changing the source of the force doesn't changed the friction, or angle, or throwarm weight, or whatever. F = F regardless of source.

Simply put, the 200 range limit was a limitation of imagination on the part of Song builders. They probably never considered using massive catapults (possibly, like I said earlier, due to the constraint of placing large numbers of people under the catapult). If they HAD built a massive "medieval era-sized" catapult, and find the space to crew it, they would have broken the 200m limit easily.


The problem here is that we have no idea what the dimensions of the Wujing Zongyao catapult was. What was the throw-arm weight? What was the throw-arm ratio? You said it yourself. In my comparison, I'm ignoring the variation in all the other details. Precisely.

You have to be careful in reading numbers from historical sources. No where is it stated that these numbers are optimised numbers obtained after extensive research of all probable configurations. They are merely presentations of ONE set of possible outcomes, one where they felt was the most practical and ideal based on criterias you and I can only guess at today).

To give you another example. Just changing the sling length from 8m in my model to 9m actually gives me more range, but increasing the height of the throwarm from the ground gives me less. The variables are just too numerous that you could plot graph after graph of data which is why if you read my early posts, I stated very clearly that my models are based on a crude scaling of illustrations of catapults, ones which I might add most likely were not accurate depictions to start with. An artist could have a limitation on the size of paper he had to draw on and shorten the throwarm for all we know.

I refer again to the medieval catapult and the replacement of the counterweight with pullers.

Good engineering is common sense. Data, is just data.

Another point: If one stops the throwarm halfway to its apex, then one robs the catapult of half of its force, and for that reason alone, I dont think ancient artillerymen would be prone to 'fine-tuning' by complex crew movements. Catapults were most probably used at full power regardless the catapult type or specific target.




The spacing of the crew is the problem.

How much space does a pulling crew of 200 men require? I would say not much less than 200 sq, perhaps even some more. Then imagine how can you shield 200 sq from counterfire by arrow-shooters, archers and slingers? In one thing we can all agree: If only sporadic counter-fire hits the crew, then the whole process of pulling will be seriously disrupted, because no men lets himself be shot like a rabbit, and the instinct ot run for cover would be overwhelmingly.

Therefore, you need hide and wooden screens or even buildings with roofs which cover 200 men from steep missile fire. But buildings with roofs would interfere with the 100 ropes stretching from the shorter end of the throwarm. Therefore, 200 men constitute IMO the absolute upper limit, typical pulling crews certainly consisted of much less pullers, perhaps 20-100, guessing by the space they required.

On naval ships perhaps 10-20 men?





Call me 'Mr. Most Careful In Reading From Historical Numbers'! Actually, I think there is little reason why historical records of catapult ranges should be less exaggerated than ancient records of army strengthes. Therefore, I think the ranges given in the Wu jing zong yao are exaggerated, at best true to the actual ranges, and certainly not understated.

Precisely if you read my posts, why I've been saying all along that the problem with the traction treb is a "standing space" problem, not a catapult mechanical design problem.

Yes, I am very well aware that you made out a space problem, I did nowhere say you didn't.

How much space do 200 men require? What do you think?

Why should they be exagerated? If you exaggerate the range, then that means generals would be ill-informed in battle. Not a good choice. If anything, Liang Jieming's calculations prove that they are not exaggerated. Napoleon III's reconstruction of a trebuchet also launched a 25 kg cannonball to 200 yards, further bringing proof that they are not exaggerated, and that's by using 10,000lbs as the counterweight, which weighs a lot less than 250 men.



Some trebuchets are not made for force along, but accuracy, for hitting a specific target. It would be a lot easier if you adjust the force rather than moving the entire bloody machine.

TL, you need to free your mind more. Start thinking laterally and get away from the western straight and narrow of max power and more power. Chinese catapults especially the Xuanfeng were made to be aimed like sniper rifles.

Just reading Chevedden, he actually assumes 5 (!) pullers per square metre which I find a rather exaggerated claim. (he gave no reasons). Accordingly, he assumes 600 pullers only occupy 125 sq.

So, I marked a square metre on the floor, and simulated the pulling movement myself. I came up with 2-3 persons directly under the beam, and 2 persons pulling from a flater angle all around the traction catapult. This is IMO the maximum, since, in the process of heavy pulling, upper bodies (1 m long) bend in their final movement phase almost parallel to the ground. Of course, people could have pulled only with their arms, but that would drastically lessened their pulling power, and actually constituted a waste of manpower.

On my calculation, 600 pullers would then need at minimum 100 sqm (300 pullers beneath the machine) + 150 sqm (300 pullers all around the machine) = 250 sqm! IMO not feasible, since all these men would have to be sheltered from enemy missile-fire.

I wonder where Needham got his numbers from. All experts on the history of the Greek catapult agree that torsion arrow-firers quickly replaced tension bows in the 4th century BC because torsion bows were "more powerful", "much more powerful" or "immensely more powerful", although none of them actually provides any physics or mathematical model. Given that Chinese forces used single bow tension arrow-firers until at least the fifth century AD, we can safely rule out then that these devices outreached Roman torsion bows. In fact the very opposite must have been true, although the picture might have changed after the introduction of the double bow arcuballista, whose actual performance is, though, unclear.

Also, 160 yards actually did not constitute the maximum range of Roman artillery, as Needhma has, but the maximum efficient range of stone throwers as given by Philon (3rd century BC) for use against stone walls. Reconstructions of Roman onager in the early 20th century by that British crossbow aficionnado have reached 410 m with a 3 kg device, while the German artillery officer Schramm reached 370 with an arrow-shooter. Ancient authors, however, give ranges up to between 640 and 800 m (Athenaios), a claim according to John Warry "not inflated", as modern reconstructions generally fall short of their ancient counterparts.

As for power, the largest Roman stone thrower in regular service hurled 26 kg stones. However, at the siege of Rhodes in 306 BC, Demetrios deployed several 76 kg stone throwers (Diodorus), while Vitruv gives in his treatise catapults with spring diameters capable of throwing twice these weights, although we do not know whether these monsters were actually build. And Plutarch (Biography of Marcellus) attributes to Archimedes the construction of a 200+ kg catapult.

Even if we disregard the two latter sources, archaeological finds of ancient arsenals in Carthage showed 300 (out of 5600) stone projectiles in the class between 30 and 40 kg, while the arsenal at Pergamum had 33 (out of 900) balls weighing 55 kg, two even 75 kg (Source: Campbell: Greek and Roman Artillery), clearly showing that these weights were actually used in action. And the English scholar Marsden assumes for Roman catapults a 110 kg throwing capability in Augustus' time.

In contrast, the heaviest Chinese manned traction catapult could throw 57-63 kg at a distance of 75 m (Chevedden). That, however, is from a Ming edition of an 11th century military treatise, that is at least 1300 years later than the introduction of torsion catapults in Greece, so the comparison is assymetrically in favour of the traction catapult.

Nevertheless, the numbers show that ancient Roman catapults even outdid much later mid-Song artillery both in terms of maximum power and range (though torsion catapults had other disadvantages). So, again, I wonder how Needham came to his conclusions.....

Tibet Libre, if you have no professional competence in the area that you are critiquing, don't just doubt professional sources because they don't fit your pre-determined hunch and bias. The figures he gave for Chinese ballistas was taken from the Wu Bei Zhi and Mo Zi, and also recorded in other texts such as Zhu Fan Zhi and Xu Bo Wu Zhi. The design of these arcuballista changed little over the centuries and their figure was verified by other texts such as the San Guo Zhi and Jung Cheng Tien. So these figures are largely reliable.
The figures of the Greek catapults he listed was given by Huuri and Schramm. And those for the onager were from Payne-Galleywey's own onager.





Tibet Libre, its clear that you haven't scrutinized Needham's book at all. Thats why you are accusing Needham of something he never even stated. Its not very intellectual to debunk another scholar's claim when you haven't even read his book.
needham never claimed these are the maximum ranges. He clearly mentioned at the bottom of the page that "in certain cases the higher of these ranges was greatly exceeded.(in both the European and Chinese cases)," what he presented was the usual range for these catapults. He even explicitly wrote in his commentary that the onagers could hurl stones of 10 lbs as far as 350 yards.



Let me quote the exact sentence which you oversighted. "Ancient European sling and torsion catapults (onagers) threw stones of about 50 lb weight, occasionally up to 175 lb but never much more than 160 yards. He never said that there has never been weights over 50lbs, only that its the general case. Your redundant figures does not impugn what he gave.



This trebuchet is called the Qi Xiao Pao which was already used in the Tang. Yet your analysis of them is comical. Mere weight and range does not indicate the strength of the projectile. The Wu Xiao Pao could throw stones of over 40KG at the same distance manned by 100 less men. And we don't even know whether the ranges given here were average or maximum(Needham, volume 5, part 6, p.217) Similarily, the Hu tun Pao, could launch 16 lbs up to 85 yards, yet the Dan Xiao Pao could only launch 2.5 lbs up to 85 yards. Just because the latter threw much lighter stones over the same distance doesn't mean its inferior, because the relative force exerted was greater in relationship to the amount of men pulling it.
Your comparison between the Song and Greek artillery is nonsensical. It not only doesn't address the power of the projectile, it even neglects the relationship between range and distance. Using isolated examples of Greco Roman projectiles with excessive weight does not compare well with a single source on Chinese trebuchets which probably only reflects the norm. In addition, these projectiles did not have the same range as the lighter stones. The average stone weight thrown, as Palley-Gallwey shown was 50 lb up to around 160 yards. Quit using abnormal instances that divert from the norm of which the range was not even given.
Your argument for superiority not only collapses in this regard, it completely neglects other usages of trebuchets. One of the reason that manned trebuchet was still used during the Ming was that the counterweight was too clumsy to assemble. To quote Zhu Yuan Zhang, first emperor of Ming:
""The old type of trebuchet was really more convenient. If you have a hundred of those machines, then when you are ready to march, each wooden pole can be carried by only four men. Then when you reach your destination, you encircle the city, set them up, and start shooting!" This empasises the composite dismountable nature of the old Chinese trebuchets.
Furthermore, its ironic that you actually quote Paul Chevedden while suspecting Needham, when the former derived much of his information from the latter. It makes me wonder whether you've just dashed through his sources the way you've done with Needham.

Assumptions once again on Needham. I labeled this already on another thread.



Everything's a typical maximum, not THE maximum. Must I point out the misquotes all the time?

I wonder what Chevedden's definition of "heaviest" means. Largest? Heaviest as in weight of the trebuchet? The number of people required? The Tang dynasty of the 7th century has recorded that 66 pound balls went a distance of more than 150 yards. 66 pounds would mean 30 kilograms, half of 60 kilograms. 150/2 would be 75 meters. Others note of distances from as small as 60 paces to 300 paces. The earliest reference that gives both range and weight of a trebuchet that I can find(+3rd century) is throwing a stone of 6.7 catties(Needham translated it as 6.7 lbs) to a range of more than 300 paces(Needham translated that as 225 yards<or was it meters? Not that it makes much of a notable difference>). In comparison the heaviest Roman catapult recorded would be the siege of Jeruselem, in which Joseptah(I forget his name exactly) showed approval of a catapult that was able to launch a 93-100 pd stone up to two "furlongs", or around 400 yards. However, the same author noted that Joeptah like to...exaggerate things, supported by the fact that these machinese later launched a human head(I sure hope heads don't weigh up to 100 pounds, unless if most of the mass came from brain cells) the same distance.

btw, Chevedden said the writing was completed in 1044, not the Ming dynasty.

Edit: it seems Warhead's statement beat mine in time when it comes to Needham's part.

I do not doubt this particular figure which may or may not be correct.

But I doubt how Chinese tensions single bows, as used between Han and Tang, could be "superior" (common quote in the Rome vs. Han thread) to Roman torsion arrow throwers. Why? Because every author on Greek and Roman artillery I have read so far has stressed the great performance boost which resulted from the Greek switch from tensions bows to torsion catapults in the late 4th century BC. Since, however, Chinese arrow shooters continued to rely on tension bow machines, that technological edge of torsion must also apply mutatis mutandis to them.

Just to quote a few:





You must be kiddin". You talking about intellectuality is like a blind talking about colour.

I used the maximum numbers in both cases available, and by using a much more recent Chinese source I stacked the deck actually very much in favour of the traction catapult.



And with another 60 men less (crew of 100 men) the stone-shot weight was already down to 15 kg at the same distance.

We do not need to argue that there is a paucity of statistical material on both sides, seriously hampering any comparison, nor that comparing traction and torsion catapults is, due to their different modes of operation, much like comparing apple and oranges. However, judging by the meager sources we have there is no reason to assume that torsion artillery was "inferior" to manned traction catapults as some want to have it over at the Rome thread. Rather, at least in terms of power and range the opposite seems more likely.

There is a lot more to bow than simple tension vs. torsion. The Chinese crossbow trigger mechanism was superior than the western counterparts, that was why its crossbows were more effective on the battlefield.







No, I am not not kidding, you clearly haven't read Needham. Thats not a blind talking about colour, that is a fact that is reflected in your erroneous remarks and accusations on something Needham never even said. You were caught, deal with it. Be a man and face up to your lack of intellectual integrity and correct it next time.

A much more recent source who quoted from Needham? Irony. But thats only to be expected from someone who doesn't even botter to read from who they critisizes. Your figure is nothing new, the Wu Jing Zhong Yao was examined by historians why before Chevedden. Its already stated in Needham, and as I said already, its called the Qi Xiao Pao.
The Wu Jing Zhong Yao only recorded normal battle field circumstances.
On the other hand, the Greek instances you cited were abnormal cases.



Again, power does not merely depend on range and weight. The trajectory of the trebuchet was higher. And so far you haven't even provided how the "opposite seems more likely". The sources you gave for the heavy projectiles doesn't even have a range. Furthermore, the Byzantine and the Arabs all used manned trebuchets by the 11th century A.D. as their primary form of siege weapon.

That may be true, but is beside the point. The above figures only claim to show that torsion catapults outdid manned traction treb both in terms of range and power, based on the historical data we know.

I repeat, the Wu Jing Zhong Yao only recorded normal battle field circumstances.
The Greek instances you cited were abnormal cases.

And no, your sources did not show that torsion catapults outdid manned traction catapults, it only displayed the weight, not the range or its destructive power.

How do you know? Doesn't that contradict your Needham quote from one minute ago: "we do not know whether the figures given in the Chinese manuals are average or extreme ranges" (Needham, volume 5, part 6, p.217)?




Wrong.

Both already used hybrid trebuchets which far surpassed manned trebuchets in terms of power (and, for the first time, also torsion catapults).







Chevedden even makes specfically that point with respect to China:

It doesn't contradict anything. Normal battlefield circumstance has nothing to do with average range. The Wu Jing Zhong Yao was a government sponsored work supervised by emperor Hui Zong himself. Because its purpose was to edify the military("凡军旅之æâ€�¿ï¼Œè®¨ä¼�之事，ç»�ç±�所载，å�²å†Œæ‰€è®°ï¼Œç¥–å°šä»�义，次以钤略，至若本æœ�戡乱边防御侮计谋方略，咸çâ€�¨æ¦‚举") it only records the the most common occurences. Whether these normal circumstances are recording average range or maximum range is not known. In another word, the supposed maximum stated here meant the normal maximum, not the absolute maximum for any trebuchet anywhere in China.

On the other hand, there are an abundance of Greco Roman accounts on the range and distance of catapults, and the examples you gave belong to instances of rarity. They were invented by independent engineers, such as Archimede, whose invention did not contribute to any lasting impact. And evidence for such catapults no longer exist in imperial Roman times.
If you want to include rare accounts and individual inventions, Needham also mentioned that the Jin invented a type of counterweight trebuchet in the 13th century against the Mongols before Hui Hui Pao was introduced into China, but it was lost after the fortress fell.

Its only proper to use the most frequent examples in the comparison rather than the most extreme because the former reflects the general rule.

And the norm in the Medditeranean, as Needham stated was around 50 lbs at a range of around 160 yards. Compare that to the average Chinese trebuchet, whose functions range, but could usually throw 100 lbs at 85 yards.




No. The hybrid is a partially manned trebuchet. And both states at this date also used purely manned trebuchet. Huuri gave the account of a 11th century Byzantine manned trebuchet that threw over 275lbs at 190 yards.


Furthermore, Chevedden is simply an inappropriate source for the history of Chinese siege, basing his work almost solely on the Wu Jing Zhong Yao. Ignoring all other accounts. As Ming sources indicate, throwing heavier stones does not = better, the manned trebuchets were much easier to carry and assemble. Chevedden seems to overlook this fact.



Lastly, the rare instances of powerful torsion catapults which you emphasize so much isn't beneficial at all, it sacrificed flexibility and mobility for power. To quote McCotter: "Larger defensive weapons(torsion type) mounted on walls may have created too much recoil when fired. Was there really any use for such large mural pieces anyway, when smaller items seem to have been capable of beating back enemy siege engines? On campaign, they may have been too awkward to take apart and transport. This was a gap the trebuchet could fill. Powerful shots which led to collateral damage were almost certainly the main advantages that the trebuchet possessed over the standard Byzantine artillery of the time and that is why it was copied."

ok, I don't come to CHF often these days so I didn't see this until just now.

Two points.

1. Greco-Roman comparisons of torsion bow vs. tension bow stating the superiority of the torsion bow. Have you considered the TYPE of tension bow being compared? Horn? Composite? Recurve? Selfbow? Nonsensical to just lump everything under "tension bow" without stating what is being compared. A is better than tension bow B doesn't make A better than tension bow C.

2. I'd like to refer you to "The Traction Trebuchet" by W.T.S. Tarver (1995) for experimental ranges of traction catapults for more recent scholarship on the traction catapult. He conducted full scale reconstructions and tests in 1989 and in 1991 at the University of Toronto.

Let me just quote a few of his results from his later 1991 field tests;

15 pullers
4.7kg - 102m

14 pullers
3.1kg - 145m

4 pullers
3.1kg - 63m

Tarver unfortunately didn't scale up any larger than that and a crew of 20 or less was the max he experimented with. He does however, conclude that the torsion catapult gives better ranges without needing as large a footprint although it's other disadvantages outweight this one singular advantage

Citing incomplete figures are meaningless, why don't we actually examine historical records.

Fortunately, we have perhaps the earliest source of trebuchet in the Miracles of St Demetrios recording an Avar siege in the late 6th century A.D. These siege engines were explicitly described to be pulled by ropes, which mean it is a trebuchet.

"On being discharged they sent up many great stones so that neither earth nor human constructions could withstand the impacts....For what else might one term these immensely large stones?"

"they were four-sided; they rose from broader bases to narrower tops on which there were massive cylinders, their ends sheathed with a thick layer of iron; to them there were attached lengths of wood, like the beams of a large house, and these had slings; and when these (the slings) were raised up, they sent out rocks; the rocks were large, the shots frequent..."

"Thence the enemy captured effortlessly a great many of the Roman cities"


The Byzantines themselves not only commented on the large size of these rocks, but also the frequency of its shots.

We can conclude that on average, the manned trebuchet threw larger stones, at a faster rate than the torsion catapults. The only disadvantage was its average shorter distance which were probably largely due to its higher trajectory.

Their usage in history is also obvious to their respective destructive powers.
The Chinese trebuchet was especially used to batter down well grounded earth walls, forts and city gates. The torsion catapults were mainly used to batter down small forts and siege towers, but rarely managed to wholesomely destroy a strong rooted city wall. The major usage of the later mangorels(which threw more stone than the onager) was less to destroy enemy fortification, but more to damage the individuals and light structures inside the fortification. This is common knowledge, even in early Byzantine times.


The torsion catapults dissapeared, while the eastern traction trebuchet became widely used in the 7th century A.D.(Byzantine only adopted the Hybrid in the 9th century, so your argument for the Hybrid replacing the Torsion is simply wrong, it was replaced by the pure manned trebuchet way before) because the latter could batter down heavier walls, can be constructed more easily and has a greater rate of fire. In an exchange fire, the onager might be a better weapon. But in battering down heavy walls the trebuchet is undoubtly more destructive. Not only can it throw heavier loads, but it has a higher trajectory of which the range could be manipulated. If you think the Torsion catapults were better, then maybe you should consider the fact why the traction trebuchet has largely replaced them by the 7th century A.D. (To use the same source that you threw around: PAUL E. CHEVEDDEN: The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 54, p. 73, as well as Stephen McCotter: Byzantines, Avars and the Introduction of the Trebuchet.)

This assumption on a lack of change is at odds with availible evidence for ancient arcuballista.
Not only did the design of the contemporary infantry crossbow mechanism change very physically from its first inception to the Han, as can be observed in the devices appearance, but the recorded weapon ranges given from Warring States, Qin, Han, Tang etc. show the expected incremental improvements over their centuries of modification.

What little evidence there is for arcuballista contemporary to the ancient Western torsion examples is literary, i.e the Mozi, which refers to a device quite unlike the better known & later variations of siege crossbow.
This records the size of the arrows and little else to judge capabilties on apart from the rough structural arrangement of the machine.
Physical evidence does reveal arrows in the range of the Mozi weapon existed, as some bronze bolts have been excavated at Shaanxi with total length of shaft and point at 1.8m.
In March I saw a large bronze point with a broad swallow tail I think is consistent with Mozi's 10' arrows in a personal collection, and it was quite unlike a Warring States era spear despite cast for a pole of this size.
The next physical specimen from anything like an arcuballista is from the age of fragmentation many centuries later, a massive type of mechanism simply upscaled from the infantry crossbows.
By the time of the Song there are many varieties & sizes of arcuballista, and siege technology was one area where new inventions and changes are quite stark. These are comparitively well known.
In this way it is not reasonable to assume an ancient arcuballista on such very limited evidence would be the same in capabilities to the beter understood models of many centuries later.
The Mozi does not describe the same mechinical arrangement after all.
The way such weapons developed would of course mean the earliest versions should not be considered the equal of later innovations, nor should 'inferior/superior' claims be made about little understood devices on this basis .

The comparison is between torsion catapults and manned traction catapults, as I have pointed out several times. Hybrid catapults far supersede both torsion catapults and manned trebuchets, but this is not relevant here, since their constitute a different class (the largest recorded hybrid trebs shoot 4 times as heavy missile as the largest manned trebuchet), and, from a historical point of view, were only very late and very briefly employed in China by Chinese forces (post 1270s).

The Onager did not disappear, it remained in siege trains throughout the Middle Ages until mechanical artillery was completely replaced by black powder cannon. There are depictions of onagers in military treatise as late as the 14th century (see Hill: Islamic Technology) in the Muslim realm, and the 15th century in Christian areas (see Anonymus of the Hussite War).

That's why I specifically limited myself to a comparison between torsion shooters and single tension bows. Greek engineers, who are assumed having employed composite crossbows first, must have found that torsion shooters outclassed tension bows in terms of performance, and this opinion is also echoed by modern scholars.

Since torsion weapons require much more engineering skill and have other disadvantages, the performance gain must have been viewed by the ancient Greek engineers as real, otherwise torsion weapons would not have displaced tension bows within a couple of decades.




Tarver gave these numbers:



Maximum efficient range are, of course, much shorter for any kind of artillery.

Baatz, for example, gives for the onager a maximum calculated range of 450 m (13 kg projectile), but maximum efficient range with 100-170 m, as the walls are hit with maximum impact, minimal warning time and on a flat trajectory in a right angle.

You're missing the point. No one here assumed the earlier developments were the exact equal of later ones.
This is actually taken from Needham on the section of arcuballista. So its not an assumption. He stated that its basic design remained little altered. Verifications in mechanism are bound to happen throughout time. But development here does not mean an automatic assumption in increased range and power. Other factors, such as accuracy, rate of fire, and durability were all improvements in design.
Nor is technology always forward moving, there are lots of designs by individuals which could well have been lost over the centuries, especially when we are comparing them with individual inventors such as Archimedes, in which much of his inventions never outlived his lifetime.

As already stated, Needham points out that counterweight trebuchets were invented by the Jin before 1270, but it never passed down to later generations. This is the fallacy of using individual inventors to cite instances of rare design. Because they do not reflect the normal trend of warfare.




The Greek version of the onager did disappear, the medieval version was the Mangonel, which has a disparate design and served a different purpose, throwing smaller stones and more of them. One of the most important role that the original onager played, which was to batter down forts, was replaced by those of the trebuchet.




In addition, the heavy stone throwing onagers you mentioned most likely had very limited range. To quote McCotter again on the classical catapults: "Contrary to popular opinion they do not appear to have been used to destroy walls. Rather the majority of descriptions referring to artillery suggest that it was primarily an anti-personnel weapon, and archery was just as efficient in that respect, though it lacked the punch of heavier torsion machines. This was certainly the case on offence, though some of the heavier stones discharged may have been able to dislodge crenellations and batter gates open.
Defensively artillery was still used against attacking infantry and cavalry, but the larger mural weapons were also used to combat the attacker’s siege machines. Joshua the Stylite mentions a machine, the crusher, which lobbed an enormous stone of over 300lbs. While it would not have been impossible to construct a machine capable of hurling such a weight, Joshua may be exaggerating. However, in his defence, the machine seems to have been employed against enemy engines and sheds near the wall, so the large stones would not have to travel very far. Other mentions of giant stones include Ammianus’ description of the loss of the siege towers at Aquileia in 361, the siege of Theodosiopolis in 421/2, and the Arab siege of Silos in 663. There is no reason to believe that varying sizes of onager were not in use. This could explain the huge stones which are mentioned in some siege accounts. There were certainly different ballistae sizes so why should there not be variations in onagers as well? Since none of them seems to have been small items and they would consequently have been difficult to bring along or construct in situ during a campaign, it is further support for the use of artillery in a primarily anti-personnel role."

TL, you're still missing the point. A [i[single[/i] tension bow of what? Composite? Recurve? Selfbow? Non-composite?

Dear Jieming, I am not missing the point, I already wrote "Greek engineers, who are assumed having employed composite crossbows first...".

And I already wrote repeatedly that I haven't yet detected even trace elements of a scientific discussion, be it mathematical models or experimental archaeology, comparing torsion and tension crossbows. HOWEVER, and that was my main point, all scholars I have consulted so far agree that the Greeks changed so early and comprehensively from the composite bow to torsion shooters because these offered a great performance boost.

This perceived invention is usually not accepted by other scholars and a pretty conjectural text interpretation to begin with.






The design of the Mangonel remained the same: a throwarm stuck in a horizontal 'rope' of twisted skeins, that is a classical torsion catapult.




Contrary to McCotter, other authors seem to have read ancient artillery treatise. Philon of Byzantium (3rd century BC) explicitly states that defensive works in front of the city walls should measure 160 m in order to protect the walls from mechanical artillery fire.

We do not have to argue that hybrid and counterweight trebuchet were more powerful than trosion catapults. However, we dot not have to argue either that you have failed so far to provide evidence that the Chinese manned trebuchet matched torsion catapults in terms of power and range, as far as ancient sources are concerned (and modern experiments support to some extent).

Why don't you provide some facts and figures from ancient Chinese sources for a change?

Not accepted by whom? Cite the source.



The basic design was not the point, its application was different. The onager's role to batter down walls was simply inferior to that of the trebuchet, that was why its was replaced in this field.



Your claim is impertinent to what McCotter stated. He never said that catapults were never used to batter walls, in fact he explicitly mentioned so, but that the primary use of the ancient catapults, as he said, was as anti-personnel weapons and the evidence for the latter far outnumber the amount of evidence for the fact that it was used to batter down walls.





The point is that there aren't any specific figures for the warring states, only reconstructions. The only evidence is a late spring and autumn work for a catapult in the Fan Li Bin Fa. But just because no specific sources were presented doesn't mean we are completely clueless. The basic design of these manchineries can be reconstructed. Furthermore, we also know that the earlier trebuchets were essentially of the same design as the later ones, since a Tang source by Li Shang stated “礮石，今之抛石也。�
"The (ancient) Pao4 Shi is the same as today's Pao1 shi."
It also really doesn't take specific sources to figure out that trebuchets in general threw larger projectiles than torsion catapults(unless the later was stationary) just like we do not need specific figures to know that a horse can run faster than a camel. And from the Byzantine sources themselves, we know that the trebuchets were the more destructive weapon.

Good points. I think we need to focus more on the era in which the first mentions of an arcuballista take place, i.e. the Warring States.

The Mohists were remarkable for their analytical thought, which greatly influenced Warring States philosophy, but, unlike other schools of thought, they had unorthodox theoretical approaches toward geometry, optics and mechanics. I think many would be familiar with this quote out of the Mo Ching:



This is basically Newton's First Law of Motion, hundreds of years before Jesus. There is far more information in the Mo Ching other than this quote, but I don't have access to it just at the moment. The Mohists were confident in exploring the field of theoretical dynamics and forming complex, unintuitive theories of motion, as that quote has shown.

Now, we know that the Mohists gave their services to cities and vulnerable states as craftsman and siege experts. Their scientific knowledge would have greatly aided their construction of efficient and effective war machines, and may have in fact arisen from such needs. The sad thing is that the most advanced theories of mechanics China had ever known prior to contact with modern Europe were forgotten after the Qin.

Mohism wasn't alone in being lost under the rug shortly after the Qin Empire. Some neat bells were being made during the Eastern Zhou, to put it lightly, but during the Han bells like these ceased to be made, and plain, simplistic circular ones took their place. Music theorists near the end of the Spring and Autumn period were <a href="http://web.telia.com/~u57011259/Zengbells.htm">really ahead of their game</a>:



No writings whatsoever of two-tone bell casting have been recovered from this era. My point here is that this is a solid example in China of very advanced technology not only being poorly recorded but being forgotten incredibly quickly. Clearly the arcuballista, the trebuchet and bronze bells continued to be made and used later on, but the bells were a mere shade of their former glory, as archeology has clearly shown. The bell making was patronized by the lesser nobility of the Zhou, be they Marquises, Dukes and Kings, and seeing as bells were a symbol of a ruler's power, you would expect the various competing lords to outdo one another with their musical technology. Such competition disappeared once all were under heaven, as did the expertise of the master bell makers.

A similar fate may have befallen master craftsmen who built siege weapons. After unification, seizing towns and cities was now a tactic that had been swept to the periphery, for living in a fortified city somewhat contradicts the point of being a marauding steppe nomad. The Mohist movement faded deeper into obscurity than any other school of thought,

While the idea of heavy siege weaponry obviously hadn't been forgotten for the first few hundred years after the Qin, am I really supposed to believe that the longest period of decentralized multi-state warfare in China, which coincided with the only time theoretical mechanics was implemented in China before the modern era, saw the use of the weakest and least effective arcuballista/trebuchet?!

People can't simply compare a stone thrower to another, because destroying heavy walls was only one purpose of premodern artillery. The fact is lightly-built and easily constructed manned trebuchets and small torsion arcuballistas were the equivalent of high-accuracy rifles as apposed to grenade launchers, as Liang Jieming helpfully points out. Such weapons would be useful for fighting against mobile yet large targets such as horse nomads or for besieging crudely built fortresses in the cold western deserts. You could obviously make a large, robust trebuchet with the potential for huge manpower to throw massive stones into city walls, sure, and you wouldn't really need to think up more potent means of breaching city walls if these were rare cases.

This, I think, is what P. Chevedden has overlooked, and the opinion of one guy isn't scholarly consensus by any means. It isn't surprising that stronger catapults weren't developed in China for the reasons above, because Chinese sovereign territory has usually encompassed a vast sedentary civilization in the midst of relative wilderness, compared with the many small competing states of Europe and the Middle East and their large, fortified settlements. The Greek works on logic and physics had survived in these regions, whereas the Chinese had long forgotten their Mohist forebears. Even so, I don't see why an independent invention of a counterweight trebuchet during an unprecedented level of siege warfare is so out of the question.

We can, then, see a pattern of increased heavy weaponry innovation among civilizations with a background of urban warfare, small territory and a healthy framework of mechanics. The Roman Empire copying and seldom innovating the Greek ballistae is another example. But was the Warring States period also one? It seems likely.

It has to be said again that multiple bows were used in these weapons to increase power, as apposed to using ropes under torsion instead. It isn't impossible for this advance to have occurred during the Mohists' time, and now I think it was likely. As some here know, the Mo Jing mentions more than one bow attached to a single string in the passage discussing the arcuballista:



I see no reason to doubt this is a description of a multi-bow acruballista, nor the accuracy of Mohists.

A quick question: were there city walls during the Warring States made of brick or stone?

Negative evidence. Needham's conjecture is regularly ignored by specialists in the field such as Chevedden, although his work is otherwise known as cited by them.

Just a side-note, but it is not, rather an intuition by the Mohists. A "law", particularly a physical, requires a mathematical formula, and is meant to serve as hypothesis for other laws and further reasearch. Both did Newton, but not the Mohists, hence he formulated first the law in any scientific meaningful way. Just to state that the apple drops from the tree does not amount to formulating the law of gravity.

To clearify some discrepancies and confusion for members, Newton did not write any equations for some of his laws, including his first law of uniform motion. If I'm wrong on this I would love for someone to show it to me. In fact I don't even know how such an equation would be possible. F(v) = +-I | (V = A) would be the best I could come up with(and I'm sure it's wrong in countless ways).

F(v) = distance, I = infinity, V = velocity, A = any real nonzero number, | = given

Hey, this means I came up with the first mathmatical formula for Newton's First Law! Bow down to me! Anyway, Newton's most famous equation is Force = Mass*Acceleration, from his Second Law. Many claims the credit for Newton's first law, the earliest one being Mozi. Here's a following in chronological order of time.

Mozi: 'The cessation of motion is due to the opposing force ... If there is no opposing force ... the motion will never stop. This is as true as that an ox is not a horse'

Ibn al-Haytham(can't find the quote, sorry)

Jean Buridan: the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion

Gallileo: "A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at constant speed unless disturbed"

Newton: "Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed"

Second of all Needham is almost never ignored when it comes to Chinese siege technology, even by Chevedden who focuses on other siege technolgies. The latter corrected some of Needham's mistakes but also used him as a source.

In modern mathematics and science, yes, obviously you need to rigorously prove a law for it to be valid, using mathematical formulae and sometimes inductive evidence, if the science calls for it, but the law itself remains a law even without such proof. This 'intuition', as you put it, despite it's lack of mathematical proof in the Mohist corpus (or, indeed, in the works of Jean Buridan), is still Newton's First Law, and has since proven to be true.

It is an unintuitive statement, unlike saying fruit falls from trees, because while people instinctively grasp that objects don't move if no net force is acted upon them, no one in the ancient world could witness an object ceaselessly moving with what appears to be no net force acting upon it. Clearly the Mohists hit upon something remarkable, and they could only have done this through thoughtful, theoretical, systematic disputation and experiment. That the ancient Greeks failed to understand this, despite their philosophy originating in naturalism and lasting long enough for formal logic to have developed, is surprising.

How this knowledge could've been applied to the heavy weaponry of Warring States China is what's interesting and what should be dwelt upon.

I'm curious as to where you got the information that these Hybrid trebuchet could throw far heavier weights than the heaviest tractions. The heaviest Chinese trebuchets were powered by as much as 250 men, far more than those recorded for the traction trebuchets of the west. Its not until the 13th century, that we hear of significant weights thrown that could destroy the foundations in one hit. This was the sole superiority of the counterweight, but the decisive one. Yet the hybrid did not have that one hit destroy characteristic. Taking out that advantage, the counterweight provided a hindrance rather than an asset. It is slow and difficult to reload, since the weighted beam had to be slowly winched back into the start position, while in the traction trebuchet the pulling crew can just pull on their ropes again to make the beam fall back. Furthermore, its also easier to carry these traction trebuchets than the counterweights.




Again, you should really stop generalizing about Needham if you didn't even read his work. It is not a conjecture at all but a reference taken from a source which records that in 1232, a Jin commander known as Qiang Shen that was defending Luoyang from the Mongols, in which he created a new catapult that was recorded as;

"...E Pao (Arresting Catapult), which was used to prevent (them) from overrunning (his position). Only a few men were needed to work it, yet great stones could be hurled more than a hundred paces, and there was no target which it didn't hit right in the center."

Since this had superior ranges beyond those of a traction catapult and crewed by only a few men, the catapult could have been a counterweight. Yet this commander died just a year later so his invention was not known to have passed down.