Talk:Trebuchet

The Spanish trebuchet in Mexico didn't destroy itself

This is referenced in Cortés' Third Letter, late in the Siege of Tenochtitlan:

"Since our powder was running very short we had spoken over a fortnight before of making a catapult: and although we had no engineers really competent to undertake it, yet some carpenters offered to make a small one... The catapult took some four days to put into position even after it appeared in the square, Meanwhile our Indian allies were proclaiming to those in the city in what a marvelous manner we were going to kill them all... Both hopes however were doomed to disappointment, for neither did the carpenters succeed in working their engine, nor did the inhabitants though frightened make any move towards surrender, so that we were obliged to cover up the failure of the catapult by saying that moved by compassion we were unwilling to kill them all. (1)"

Cortés tends to be understated, but we have another account from Díaz del Castillo with some more color:

"In Cortés; camp there was a soldier who said that he had been in Italy in the Company of the Great Captain and was in the skirmish of Garallano and in other great battles, and he talked much about engines of war and that he could make a catapult in Tlatelolco by which, if they only bombarded the houses and part of the city were Guatemoc had sought refuge, for two days, they would make them surrender peacefully... Cortés promptly set to work to make the catapult... When the catapult was made and set up in the way that the soldier ordered, and he said it was ready to be discharged, they placed a suitable stone in the sling which had been made and all this stone did was to rise no higher than the catapult and fall back upon where it had been set up... Cortés at once ordered the catapult to be taken to pieces. (2)"

Finally, we also have an account of this instance from the Mexica side of things, in Book 12 of Sahagún's history:

"And then those Spaniards installed a catapult on top of an altar platform with which to hurl stones at the people. And when they had it ready and were about to shoot it off, they gathered around it, vigorously pointing their fingers, pointing at the people, pointing to where all the people were assembled at Amaxac, showing them to each other. The Spaniards spread out their arms, showing how they would shoot and hurl it at them, as if they were using a sling on them. Then they wound it up, then the arm of the catapult rose up. But the stone did not land on the people, but fell behind the marketplace at Xomolco. Because of that the Spaniards there argued among themselves. They looked as if they were jabbering their fingers in one another's faces, chattering a great deal. (3)"

All in all, this is a relatively well documented event during the war between the Mexica and the Spanish-Tlaxcalans. It fits with the Spanish having to rely on items like gunpowder being delivered from the coast and having to improvise. Some projects, like the brigantines constructed by Martín with Tlaxcalan labor and the utilization of native craftsmen to make crossbow bolts were fairly successful, but the catapult is recognized as an unequivocal failure, with only who to blame for its construction and failure being in question.

1 Cortés H [trans. JB Morris 1969] Five Letters of Cortés to the Emperor, p. 218

2 Díaz del Castillo B [trans. D Carrasco 2008] The History of the Conquest of New Spain, p.298

3 Sahagùn B [trans. J Lockhart 1993] We People Here: Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico, p. 230

Last time I corrected a mistake on wikipedia, I got reprimanded, so I won't fix it and I'll just leave it here. Instead of only fixing it, perhaps we can also mention that this is a common misconception. PincheFidelito (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification of translated quotation

@Nortmannus: Where does it say that (Old) French trebuchet (now trébuchet) first atttested in 1174-77 or CA 12th century in the Roman de Renart as "war engine that throws stones to break down walls".? This not only contradicts later claims in the article but does not seem to be supported in any source mentioned. The source here only says "piège dont le mécanisme de déclenchement consiste en un assemblage de bûchettes en équilibre" which translated by Google or chatgpt gives "trap whose trigger mechanism consists of an assembly of balanced logs". The source says ca. 1200 that " machine de guerre qui lance des pierres pour abattre les murailles", which seems to be the correct dating and translation rather than the Renart attribution. Qiushufang (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC) The source also doesn't claim that the earliest mention of trebuchet in English dates to the 14th century. This seems like original research. Qiushufang (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. If you read the source correctly you will see that the definition I give is in Roman de Renart too, cite :"2. ca 1200 « machine de guerre qui lance des pierres pour abattre les murailles » (Renart, éd. E. Martin, XI, 2545)". The article the way it was written was absolutly irrelevant and against any specialized sources. All the linguistic sources say the same, even the excellent Wiktionary [1] [2]. Nortmannus (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the content said, which is what I am pointing out. Linguistic sources do not get special privilege here especially when it veers into the realm of history, nor does wiktionary take precedence over published reliable sources. Qiushufang (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The way the article is written absolutely is relevant considering that it does not claim what was stated in the added content, and it is odd that you would imply privilege over specialized sources. Qiushufang (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends the use of sources directly related to the subject, in this case the Etymology section, must use etymological dictionaries and studies from linguists as a basic source.Nortmannus (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The source used does not invalidate other equally reliable sources, in this case the words of a published monograph on the subject. There is no Wiki policy necessitating privileging etymological specialists over historians, and trying to stretch the usage of closely related source-subject relationship to that is wrong. They are both "directly related". Qiushufang (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Moreover the content added did not adhere to WP:OR policy. I've noted that the date attribution for a quotation was wrong and have corrected that in the current revision and while it does say the English word comes from Old French, it did not say it came specifically from that edition of the historical text. So I've separated the sentences. Qiushufang (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Citations missing

In the introductory paragraphs, the following lines are not supported by any citations or evidence:

"It first appeared in China in the 4th century BC. Carried westward by the Avars, the technology was adopted by the Byzantines in the late 6th century AD and by their neighbors in the following centuries."

Later in the History section, there are links to essays/articles, but none of these provides or cites any material evidence, only writing samples, for where the trbuchet originated. As such, the origins should be desribed as ambiguous.

Please correct this. 2603:7080:D7F0:1F60:B1D6:58AD:3805:5E56 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "essays/articles" or "writing samples". Wiki is based on reliable secondary sources, and to a lesser degree, primary and tertiary sources. "Material evidence" is not a requirement nor does it make sense here. Quotations are provided in Chevedden 2000 (p. 71) "The counterweight trebuchet was the product of a technological tradition that began in ancient China, was further advanced in the technologically sophisticated civilizations of Islam and Byzantium..." (p. 74) "The traction trebuchet, invented by the Chinese sometime before the fourth century B.C." Peterson 2013 (p. 407-409) "The Chinese hypothesis has received strong support due to Needham’s monumental study on technology in Chinese civilization. As the traction trebuchet has an ancient pedigree in Chinese sources, the hypothesis is eminently reasonable." Purton 2009 (p. 366) "Why did Byzantium, Persia and India switch to this import from China?" The attribution to Avars does seem to be a bit more dubious. Qiushufang (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Someone please add something at the top about pronunciation of "trebuchet" in English, especially if it is trebuchett instead of trebooshay. editeur24 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)