Editing Trebuchet (section)

=== Counterweight trebuchet ===
[[File:1187 مقذاف.jpg|thumb|The earliest known depiction of a counterweight trebuchet, by [[Mardi ibn Ali al-Tarsusi]], c. 1187]]

====Origins====
[[File:Fall Of Baghdad (Diez Albums).jpg|thumb|Siege of Baghdad (1258) from the ''Jami' al-tawarikh'', c. 1306-18{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=425}}{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=236}}]]
[[File:Guinevere beseiged in tower - La Mort le Roi Artus (c.1316), f.81v - BL Add MS 10294.jpg|thumb|Counterweight trebuchet in the ''La Mort le Roi Artus'', c. 1316]]

There is little to no consensus as to where and when the counterweight trebuchet, which has been described as the "most powerful weapon of the Middle Ages",{{sfn|Purton|2009|p=382}} was first developed.{{sfn|Fulton|2016a|p=4-5}} The earliest known description and illustration of a counterweight trebuchet comes from a commentary on the conquests of [[Saladin]] by [[Mardi ibn Ali al-Tarsusi]] in 1187.<ref name="Bradbury 1992">{{cite book |last= Bradbury |first= Jim |title= The Medieval Siege |publisher= The Boydell Press |year= 1992 |isbn= 978-0-85115-312-4}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-trebuchet.htm |title=Arms and Men: The Trebuchet |newspaper=Historynet |date=5 September 2006 |publisher=Historynet.com |access-date=2016-08-29 }}</ref> However cases for the existence of both European and Muslim counterweight trebuchets prior to 1187 have been made. In 1090, Khalaf ibn Mula'ib threw out a man from the citadel in [[Salamiya]] with a machine and in the early 12th century, Muslim siege engines were able to breach [[Crusades|crusader]] fortifications. David Nicolle argues that these events could have only been possible with the use of counterweight trebuchets.{{sfn|Nicolle|2003|p=16}}

Although al-Tarsusi provided the first description and illustration of a counterweight trebuchet, the text implies that the engine was not new and had previously been built. Al-Tarsusi referred to the counterweight trebuchet as the "Persian" trebuchet whereas the "Frankish" trebuchet was a light traction engine.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=37}}{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=433}} Later during the 13th century, Muslims used ''manjaniq maghribi'' (Western trebuchet) and ''manjaniq ifranji'' (Frankish trebuchet) to refer to counterweight trebuchets.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=37}} Paul E. Chevedden suggests that ''manjaniq maghribi'' was used to describe hinged counterweight engines in contrast to previous fixed or hanging counterweight trebuchets.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=449}} Sometimes counterweight trebuchets are separated into two or three different categories based on how their counterweights are attached. These being fixed, hanging, and hinged counterweights. A fixed counterweight is an intrinsic part of the swinging arm and its trajectory is circular.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=47}}<ref>{{cite web | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dv4eXvagfgYC&q=hanging+counterweight&pg=PA70 | title=Estonian Journal of Archaeology | year=2006 | publisher=Estonian Academy Publishers }}</ref> Hanging counterweights hang below the arm and drop vertically. Hinged counterweights are attached to the arm by a swinging joint. Some fixed counterweights also had a hinged component. The type described by al-Tarsusi was a hanging counterweight. Writing in 1280, [[Giles of Rome]] claimed that hinged counterweight trebuchets had a greater range than fixed counterweight types.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=438-439}}{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=449}}

Chevedden argues that counterweight trebuchets appeared prior to 1187 in Europe based on what might have been counterweight trebuchets in earlier sources. The 12th-century [[Byzantine]] historian [[Niketas Choniates]] may have been referring to a counterweight trebuchet when he described one equipped with a [[windlass]], which is only useful to counterweight machines, at the siege of Zevgminon in 1165.<ref>{{harvnb|Chevedden|2000|p=86}}</ref> However the source for this was written in the 1180s to 1190s and Niketas may have been placing the engine of his own time anachronistically into the past.{{sfn|Fulton|2016a|p=11}} At the [[siege of Nicaea]] in 1097 the Byzantine emperor [[Alexios I Komnenos]] reportedly invented new pieces of heavy artillery which deviated from the conventional design and made a deep impression on everyone.<ref>{{harvnb|Chevedden|2000|pp=76–86; 110f.}}</ref> Illustrations produced later in 1270 depicted fixed counterweight trebuchets used at the siege.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=442}} Possible references to counterweight trebuchets also appear for the [[Venetian Crusade#Siege of Tyre|second siege of Tyre in 1124]], where the crusaders reportedly made use of "great trebuchets".<ref>{{harvnb|Chevedden|2000|p=92}}</ref> However the sources for this siege, [[Fulcher of Chartres]] and [[William of Tyre]], only mention ''machinae'' and ''machinae iaculatoriae'' that were later translated as ''perrieres'' and ''mangoniaux'' in the ''[[Estoire d'Eracles]]''.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=98}} Chevedden argues that given the references to new and better trebuchets that by the 1120–30s, the counterweight trebuchet was being used in a variety of places by different peoples such as the crusader states, the [[Norman Kingdom of Sicily|Normans of Sicily]] and the [[Seljuks]].<ref name="Chevedden 2000, 104f.">{{harvnb|Chevedden|2000|pp=104f.}}</ref>

The earliest solid reference to a "trebuchet" in European sources dates to the siege of [[Castelnuovo Bocca d'Adda]] in 1199. However it is unclear if this referred to counterweight trebuchets since the author did not specify what engine was used and described the machine as fairly light.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=33}} They may have been used in [[Germany]] from around 1205. Only in the late 1210s do references to "trebuchet", describing more powerful engines and different components, more closely align with the features of a counterweight trebuchet. Some of these more powerful engines may have just been traction trebuchets, as one was described being pulled by ten thousand. At the [[siege of Toulouse (1217–1218)]], ''trabuquets'' were mentioned to have been deployed,{{sfn|Fulton|2016|p=35-36}} but the siege engine depicted at the tomb of [[Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester|Simon de Montfort]], who was killed by artillery at the siege, is a traction trebuchet.{{sfn|Fulton|2016|p=380}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://jaanmarss.planet.ee/juhendid/Mehaanilised_kaugrelvad_keskajal/andmebaas/Russell%20Miners/htt01.html|title=Historic Traction Trebuchet Illustrations Pt 1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.midi-france.info/medievalwarfare/121343_perriers.htm|title = Medieval Warfare during the Cathar Crusades}}</ref> Though soon after, clear evidence of counterweight machines appeared. According to the ''[[Song of the Albigensian Crusade]]'', the defenders "ran to the ropes and wound the trebuchets", and to shoot the machine, they "then released their ropes."{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=34}} They were used in [[England]] at least by 1217 and in [[Iberia]] shortly after 1218. By the 1230s the counterweight trebuchet was a common item in siege warfare.{{sfn|Purton|2009|p=387}} Despite the lack of clearly definable terms in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, it is likely that both Muslims and Europeans already had working knowledge of the counterweight trebuchet beforehand. From the [[First Crusade]] (1096–1099) onward, there does not appear to be any discernible difference in the technology of siege engines employed by Muslim and Frankish forces, and by the [[Third Crusade]] (1189–1192), both sides seemed well acquainted with the enemy's siege weapons, which "appear to have been remarkably similar."{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=36}}<ref name="fulton 2018 405">{{harvnb|Fulton|2018|p=405}} "From the First Crusade onward, it is very difficult to discern any differences, let alone a technological advantage, between the trebuchets employed by Muslim forces and those used by their Frankish counterparts. Even during the siege of Acre (1189-91), when individuals from across Europe and the Middle East were drawn together and encountered people from distant regions and different technological traditions for the first time, their accounts provide no suggestion of an advantage or even difference between the engines employed by the Franks and those of the Muslims.</ref>

====China====
[[File:武備志 茅元儀 明朝 砲 01.jpg|thumb|A Chinese counterweight trebuchet packed for transport, from the ''[[Wubei Zhi]]'', 17th c.{{sfn|Needham|1986|p=223}}]]
Counterweight trebuchets do not appear with certainty in Chinese historical records until about 1268. Prior to 1268, the counterweight trebuchet may have been used in 1232 by the [[Jin dynasty (1115–1234)|Jurchen Jin]] commander Qiang Shen. Qiang invented a device called the "Arresting Trebuchet" which only needed a few men to work it, and could hurl great stones more than a hundred paces, further than even the strongest traction trebuchet. However no other details on the machine are given. Qiang died the following year and no further references to the Arresting Trebuchet appear.{{sfn|Liang|2006}}{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=218}} The earliest definite mention of the counterweight trebuchet in China was in 1268, when the Mongols laid siege to Fancheng and Xiangyang. After failing to take the twin cities of Fancheng and Xiangyang for several years, collectively known as the [[Battle of Xiangyang|siege of Fancheng and Xiangyang]], the [[Mongol]] army brought in two Persian engineers to build hinged counterweight trebuchets. Known as the Huihui trebuchet (回回砲, where "[[Hui people|huihui]]" is a loose slang referring to any Muslims), or Xiangyang trebuchet (襄陽砲) because they were first encountered in that battle. [[Ismail (mangonel expert)|Ismail]] and [[Al al-Din|Al-aud-Din]] travelled to South China from [[Iraq]] and built trebuchets for the siege.<ref name="Citiy of Heavenly Tranquility"/> Chinese and Muslim engineers operated artillery and siege engines for the Mongol armies.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CHzGvqRbV_IC&q=chinese+engines+artillery+chinese+muslim+engineers&pg=PA282|title=The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia|author=René Grousset|year=1970|publisher=Rutgers University Press|edition=reprint|isbn=978-0813513041|page=283|access-date=2010-10-28}}</ref> By 1283, counterweight trebuchets were also used in Southeast Asia by the [[Chams]] against the [[Yuan dynasty]].{{sfn|Purton|2009|p=201}}

{{blockquote|The design of the Muslim trebuchets came originally from the Muslim countries, and they were more powerful than ordinary trebuchets. In the case of the largest ones, the wooden framework stood above a hole in the ground. The projectiles were several feet in diameter, and when they fell to the earth they made a hole three or four feet deep. when [the artillerists] wanted to hurl them to a great range, they added weight [to the counterpoise] and set it further back [on the arm] when they needed only a shorter distance, they set it forward, nearer [the fulcrum].{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=221}}|Zheng Sixiao}}

====Function====
[[File:Siege of Antioch, France, Lyon, Municipal Library, Ms 828 f. 033.jpg|thumb|Counterweight trebuchet, c. 1280]]
[[File:Juda-makabejsky-utok-na-akru-alpska-bible.jpg|thumb|Counterweight trebuchet, 1430]]
While some historians have described the counterweight trebuchet as a type of medieval super weapon, other historians have urged caution in overemphasizing its destructive capability. On the side of the counterweight engine as a medieval military revolution, historians such as Sydney Toy, Paul Chevedden, and Hugh Kennedy consider its power to have caused significant changes in medieval warfare. This line of thought suggests that rams were abandoned due to the effectiveness of the counterweight trebuchet, which was capable of reducing "any fortress to rubble".{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=324}} Accordingly, traditional fortifications became obsolete and had to be improved with new architectural structures to support defensive counterweight trebuchets. In southern [[France]] during the [[Albigensian Crusade]], sieges were a last resort and negotiations for surrender were common. In these instances, trebuchets were used to threaten or bombard enemy fortifications and ensure victory.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Marvin |first=Laurence W. |date=2001 |title=War in the South: A First Look at Siege Warfare in the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–1218 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26013906 |journal=War in History |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=373–395 |jstor=26013906 |issn=0968-3445}}</ref> On the side of caution, historians such as John France, Christopher Marshall, and Michael Fulton emphasize the still considerable difficulty of reducing fortifications with siege artillery. Examples of the failure of siege artillery include the lack of evidence that artillery ever threatened the defenses of [[Kerak Castle]] between 1170 and 1188.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=326}} Marshall maintains that "the methods of attack and defence remained largely the same through the thirteenth century as they had been during the twelfth."{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=327}} Reservations on the counterweight trebuchet's destructive capability were expressed by [[Viollet-le-Duc]], who "asserted that even counterweight-powered artillery could do little more than destroy crenellations, clear defenders from parapets and target the machines of the besieged."{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=328}}

In spite of the evidence regarding increasingly powerful counterweight trebuchets during the 13th century, "it remains an important consideration that not one of these appears to have effected a breach that directly led to the fall of a stronghold."{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=347}} In 1220, [[Al-Mu'azzam Isa]] laid siege to [[Château Pèlerin|Atlit]] with a ''trabuculus'', three ''petrariae'', and four ''mangonelli'' but could not penetrate past the outer wall, which was soft but thick.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=218}} As late as the [[siege of Acre (1291)]], where the [[Mamluk Sultanate]] fielded 72 or 92 trebuchets, including 14 or 15 counterweight trebuchets and the remaining traction types, they were never able to fulfill a breaching role.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=299}} The Mamluks entered the city by sapping the northeast corner of the outer wall.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=298}} Though stone projectiles of substantial size (~{{convert|66|kg|lb}}) have been found at Acre, located near the site of the siege and likely used by the Mamluks, surviving walls of a 13th-century Montmusard tower are no more than one meter thick.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=297-300}} There is no indication that the thickness of fortress walls increased exponentially rather than a modest increase of {{convert|0.5–1|m|abbr=on}} between the 12th and 13th century.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=334-335}} The [[Templar of Tyre]] described the faster firing traction trebuchets as more dangerous to the defenders than the counterweight ones.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=293-295}} The Song dynasty described countermeasures against counterweight trebuchets that prevented them from damaging towers and houses: "an extraordinary method was invented of neutralising the effects of the enemy's trebuchets. Ropes of rice straw four inches thick and thirty-four feet long were joined together twenty at a time, draped on to the buildings from top to bottom, and covered with [wet] clay. Then neither the incendiary arrows, nor bombs [''huo pao''] from trebuchets, nor even stones of a hundred ''jun'' caused any damage to the towers and houses."{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=225}}

The counterweight trebuchet did not completely replace the traction trebuchet. Despite its greater range, counterweight trebuchets had to be constructed close to the site of the siege unlike traction trebuchets, which were smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier to take apart and put back together again where necessary.{{sfn|Turnbull|2001|p=33}} The superiority of the counterweight trebuchet was not clear cut. Of this, the [[Hongwu Emperor]] stated in 1388: "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!"{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=229}} The traction trebuchet continued to serve as an anti-personnel weapon. The Norwegian text of 1240, ''Speculum regale'', explicitly states this division of functions. Traction trebuchets were to be used for hitting people in undefended areas.{{sfn|Purton|2009|p=386}} At the siege of Acre (1291), both traction and counterweight trebuchets were used. The traction trebuchets provided cover fire while the counterweight trebuchets destroyed the city's fortifications.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=295}} The counterweight-trebuchet could also be used for cover fire and as an anti-personnel weapon. [[James I of Aragon|King James I]] of Aragon employed this as a defensive tactic in many fortified structures and towns which proved effective.<ref name=":4" /> Trebuchets could cause mass casualties due to the destruction of structures. During an assault on Muntcada by King James I, a trebuchet was used to target a tower, destroying the structure and causing the consequential deaths of civilians and livestock.<ref name=":5" /> But typically the counterweight trebuchet was used against battlements such as parapets, other defensive structures, and the lower section of walls due to its greater accuracy and longer range, which was how it was employed by the [[Kingdom of Aragon]].<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Humphries |first=Paul Douglas |date=1985 |title="Of Arms and Men": Siege and Battle Tactics in the Catalan Grand Chronicles (1208-1387) |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1987537 |journal=Military Affairs |volume=49 |issue=4 |pages=173–178 |doi=10.2307/1987537 |jstor=1987537 |issn=0026-3931|url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=404}}

{{blockquote|Rather than replace traction trebuchets, counterweight trebuchets supplemented them in a different role. Their slower shooting rate and greater mass made them more difficult to reposition, or even yaw, leaving few incentives to employ a small counterweight engine rather than a comparable traction type. Although less accurate, traction trebuchets might be expected to achieve the same result, albeit with more shots, in a similar amount of time. Accordingly, it was only profitable to employ counterweight trebuchets if they were capable of harnessing noticeably more energy, allowing them to throw significantly larger stones or similarly sized stones greater distances.{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=47}}|Michael S. Fulton}}

There is some evidence that the counterweight trebuchet could be transported. Armies employed a magister tormentorum ('master of trebuchets') for the reconstruction of trebuchets after they were deconstructed for transportation to their destination, whether on carts or by ship.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Williams |first=Gareth |date=2013 |title=By hook or by crook: Siege warfare in the fourteenth century |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48579015 |journal=Medieval Warfare |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=13–17 |jstor=48579015 |issn=2211-5129}}</ref> They could also be equipped with their own wheels, as shown in two 17th- and 18th-century Chinese illustrations, which are also the only Chinese depictions of counterweight trebuchets on land. According to Liang Jieming, the "illustration shows&nbsp;... its throwing arm disassembled, its counterweight locked with supporting braces, and prepped for transport and not in battle deployment."{{sfn|Liang|2006}} However, according to Joseph Needham, the large tank in the middle was the counterweight, while the bulb at the end of the arm was for adjusting between fixed and swinging counterweights. Both Liang and Needham note that the illustrations are poorly drawn and confusing, leading to mislabeling.{{sfn|Needham|1986|p=223}}

The counterweight and traction trebuchets were phased out around the mid-15th century in favor of gunpowder weapons.{{sfn|Turnbull|2001|p=36}}{{sfn|Purton|2010|p=269}}
<gallery widths="170" heights="180" class="center">
File:CrusadersThrowingHeadsOfMuslimsOverRamparts.jpg|Counterweight trebuchets at the [[siege of Nicaea]] (1097), c. 1270{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=422}}
File:Siege de Nicée (1097).jpg|Counterweight trebuchet at the siege of Nicaea (1097), 1337{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=422}}
File:Mahmud ibn Sebuktegin attacks the rebel fortress (Arg) of Zarang in Sijistan in 1003 AD. From the illuminated manuscript of Rashid ad-Din's Jami al-Tawarikh, written in about 1307. Edinburgh University Library.jpg|[[Mahmud of Ghazni]] attacks the rebel fortress (Arg) of [[Zaranj]] in [[Sijistan]] ([[Nimruz province]]) in 1003 AD, from the ''[[Jami' al-tawarikh]]'', c. 1306–18{{sfn|Fulton|2018|p=425}}{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=236}}
File:Al-Anīq fī al-manājanīq.png|Fortress with trebuchet, from [[Yusuf ibn Urunbugha al-Zaradkash]]'s ''Kitāb anīq fī al-manājanīq''
File:Ms.Thott.290.2º 016v.jpg|15th-century depiction of a counterweight trebuchet
File:Vier Bücher der Rytterschafft p33.tif|16th-century depiction of a counterweight trebuchet
File:Counterweight trebuchet 1726.jpg|Possibly a counterweight trebuchet (however text says cannon) from the Chinese encyclopedia ''[[Gujin Tushu Jicheng]]'', 1726
File:Imperial Encyclopaedia - Military Administration - pic062 - 樓船圖.png|Early 18th-century depiction of a Chinese ship armed with three counterweight trebuchets{{sfn|Needham|1994|p=227}}
</gallery>