Talk:Catapult

Catapults are good for launching cats onto people's heads. Get it? Cat-apult?

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Roman & Byzantine / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

There is a Mangonel article...I'm not sure if it will help you though, it's pretty stubby. Adam Bishop 18:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Try onagerIt's the same thing. Tofor

Can someone cite a source for this claim?:

"Originally, "catapult" referred to a dart-thrower, while "ballista" referred to a stone-thrower, but the two terms swapped meaning sometime in the fourth century AD." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.33.153 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006

well now it says the opposite, that the cat was originaly a stone thrower and the ballista a dart thrower and that it switched in the 4th century

which seems odd to me seeing as i have always thought of a catapult as a stone thrower and the ballista as a dart thrower i'm going to remove the statement in 3 days if there is no objections raised in that time--Manwithbrisk 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Catapults are good for launching cats onto people's heads. Get it? Cat-apult![reply]

Well, it doesn't seem improbable to me, and a quick survey of the web seems to indicate that catapults indicates any large object-throwing siege device (i.e.: www.catapults.info. Googling "define: catapult" gave me the following two contradicting answers:

A class of siege engines designed to throw spears and heavy bolts.

Stone-throwing engine, usually employing torsion.

However, another source (Wise Geek) stated that catapult was a generic term for war machines throwing projectiles, and that the first of these were throwing bolts, what I'd assume was called a ballista. I also thought catapults meant stone-throwing, and had always done so, but initial evidence tends to say this controversial statement (that it originally refered to bolts but now refers to rocks) might be true. More likely, however, is that it refers to any war machine that propulses projectiles.

It definately needs a source to justify, but I wouldn't call it an outright wrong statement.

Just something to consider for anyone who actually has the knowledge to edit it correctly. --Quantum Omega 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term espringale redirects to this page, but the term espringale does not appear on this page. Any chance of including it where it ought to be? I encountered the term in an Ellis Peters novel set in the 12th century, in her Brother Cadfael series. Prairieplant (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) There is now a nice list of different device names. Is espringale appropriate to the list? The specific novel was Brother Cadfael's Penance, which described a 12th century siege in some detail. If this article is being considered for B class, could that link issue be cleared up, preferrably with some text here? Prairieplant (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a reference article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowloonese (talk • contribs) 20 April 2006

====Missile launche.

Ok the way i see it there are two possibilities, either the catapult was invented by yankee doodle or a monkey beacuse it does not work!!!! GBC 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that catapults and other big siege machinery couldnt exist as a part of an invading army because of logistic problems and simply the invading army losing the speed advantage of their faster troops.What is the point of getting to the enemy strongpoint in a few days and have to wait for weeks or more for the slowest part of your supply line to come? I doubt you can find proper boulders and wood to build the machines on the spot. Please correct me if im wrong.

The same could be said of any time before internal combustion engines of transporting gunpowder artillery such as cannon and rockets. Perhaps they didn't exist. --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. To ask a counter-question - what is the point of turning up to an enemy's fortifications if all you can do is stand around waving, or wasting countless lives attempting to storm them intact? Try reading the article on the Trebuchet for some general background on the use of seige weapons around that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.131 (talk • contribs)

Siege weapons were usually built on-site, with only the hard-to-make parts (ropes to use as springs, metal fittings for the hinges, trigger, and sling hook) brought along with the army. --Carnildo 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Unsigned, they used ladders to storm fortifications because they were easier to build and long small trees were fairly plentiful and didnt need to be a specific type or have a specific trait. Carnildo, certain types of trees had to be used and they had to be dry to be of any use. Educated manpower would be needed to assemble the parts of the catapult that werent assembled (they also didnt have sawmills back then)and last time ive heard, there wasnt much education back then. They also didnt have capabilities to build all those "hard-to-make parts" unless they had a Home Depot a short drive away :P

There was a class of soldier known as an engineer (yes, "engineer" originally meant "guy who builds siege engines"). These were generally the best-educated men in the army: they often could read, write, do arithmetic, and had years to decades of experience.

Catapults were typically built from sections of tree trunk. You don't need a sawmill to make the parts; an axe will do. Any tree that has a straight trunk will work for building a catapult, with stronger wood making for a more powerful catapult.

As for specialized parts, the typical catapult has three and pizza is good: a 20- to 100-foot length of thick rope for the mainspring, a hook to hold the free end of the sling in place, and a trigger hook. For more reliable operation, you could use metal bearings for the windlass and main axle, and a metal loop for the trigger hook to attach to, but these are optional. The mainspring rope would be made by the same guys who make rops for ships, and any blacksmith could hammer out some hooks. --Carnildo 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer? This isnt a video game.

Carnildo is right; the historic evidence for siege engines is overwhelming (look at Warwolf at the siege of Stirling Castle--the entire narrative of the siege was dependent upon the existence of a massive trebuchet. Keep in mind that this was before maneuver warfare; being able to travel quickly was not important for an army. Additionally, while literacy may have been low the "education" required to build a siege engine is almost exclusively practicle. Ladders are discouraged for attacking because they expose your soldiers for a withering fire and when attacking a castle the requisite ladder could be unmanageably long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.125.230 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help "unsigned" to know that sieges were battles that went on for weeks or months. A siege was a long term assault on a walled city or fortress. Speed was really not that important. Cutting the enemy off from resources, preventing them from standing in plain sight on the city walls, and terrorizing people within those walls were the purposes of the catapult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battling McGook (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody correctly revert that annoying vandalism? --Taraborn 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) yo im sorry[reply]

According to them, the fort of Raja Dahir was safe until the religious flag mounted on top of the fort was safe.

What exactly did they believe? That the fort was safe as long as the flag was safe? Or, as the sentence says, that the fort was safe up to the point where the flag mounted upon it was safe? In the latter case, why did they put the flag there in the first place? If someone knows of this, maybe they could clarify that sentence. --Quantum Omega 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In first sentence: A catapult is any one of a number of mechanical devices (used) to throw a projectile a great distance; Missing used. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I would like to see a "construction of" section, as that is the reason I visited this site in the first place. It is definitely relevent information. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I read the following

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/051216.hamoukar.shtml

in particular the part about 4" clay ball projectiles (note that this is "baked" clay which is more or less stone) I wondered if they were using some kind of early catapult. Either that or some really big slingers.Ploversegg (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)ploversegg[reply]

They could also have been thrown off the city walls onto the heads of attackers. --Carnildo (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your argument against the large 4" clay balls as slung projectiles, but from the other side of the argument, a 4" projectile from a siege-weapon would be fairly ineffective against anything but infantry. The article states that the projectiles were found in or around the city wall, thus they were dropped from the wall or hurled against it. I will have to side against the idea of even earlier catapult-like weapons. --TechSan 21:22, 28 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.8.15 (talk)

A possible even older catapult is described in the Bible. It was built by skilled workers during the reign of King Uzziah circa 800 B.C.. The King James Version in 2 Chronicles Chapter 26, verse 15 states, " And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.32.52 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any accounts in history of people using small to medium-sized catapults to cast nets over animals in a hunt? For instance, were there any maharajas in India that went 'hunting' animals with nets, and medium-sized catapults mounted on the backs of elephants? I think I read some cases in the English Reports where throwing/fixing nets over entire creeks was an improper way of capturing fish, short of having in place a license to do so, first, but that begs the question of whether there was ever a practice of using catapults to throw very large nets over a herd in hopes of capturing a few of the animals migrating. 198.177.27.13 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The catapult type on the image I added, does that have a name? I think it's a classical type of catapult, but I can't find the name of it in any article. --Kri (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone finds out about the name of this catapult, it maybe would be good to put it in the article or in the image text. --Kri (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt have what i need!

I believe it is called a mangonel or onager, according to the rest of the page. I know this is a very old question, but maybe someone should still do as Kri suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katanaka (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I'd say this is a modern artist's depiction of what he thinks a catapult would look like. It doesn't look like it would function at all. it looks like it is supposed to be tension-powered like a bow. But the arm can clearly travel a lot farther than that "bow" can bend. The only bow-powered catapults I've seen or heard of are ballistas. And if that's not supposed to be a bow, I can't imagine it's purpose. It should probably be pulled from the article. On the other hand, to be fair, pretty much every catapult in existence today is an artist's depiction. Perhaps the best question is, where did this image come from. 131.142.52.246 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a petraria arcatinus, which may or may not have existed, and if it did exist, may or may not have actually looked like the photo.Battling McGook (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need instructions on how to build a small catapult for my sons 4th grade project.I have no clue how to do it.Can somebody please help me????Please!!!!It would be deeply appreciated... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.134.237 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC) okay what do u neeed ragean shepherd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.228.62 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I don't think this is an appropriate place to look for instructions on how to build a catapult. Disoriented Person (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is...there were none and all scholars are agreed on that. The Greeks invented the catapult, all references to pre-Greek catapults are either later interpolations or anachronism committed by ancient writers. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The passage in the Bible is a translation error: The Hebrew text, however, gives karim which means battering-rams, so that the person who translated Ezekiel's work into Greek, at a time when artillery was very common, was led into making a simple, but understandable, mistake. Incidentally, those responsible for the Authorized and Revised Versions of the English Bible avoided the error. Thus, the evidence for early artillery in Biblical texts is misleading and due to human failings in their composition and transmission. (E. W. Marsden: "Greek and Roman Artillery. Historical Development", At the Clarendon Press, Oxford 1969, pp. 48–64 (53)) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring too. The biblical reference I know of (and mentioned by someone here in a bad edit that should be moved to another section) is Chronicles 2, chapter 26, where inventions are described which throw or hurl arrows and large stones. There's no single word translation issue. The phrase is descriptive, with several very well known and understood words. From everything I've read, there's not a lot of dispute about the general meaning. There's nothing at all about a battering ram. Maybe you were referring to a different bible reference?

The time period of King Uzziah in this story (700 BCE ish) predates known records of catapults. However, Chronicles was written between 400 and 450 BCE, which is more in line with the known history of the development of the catapult. Either way though, nothing here predates ancient greeceso in that since you are on track.

From what I've read, scholars don't all agree on anything. In fact they seem to be all over the map, especially scholars from different eras, or even different decades. There's lots of hints about very early catapults. It's unclear exactly how early or who invented them. I'd say that Greeks remain the front runners, but the historical record is so spotty that far back that we should remain open to other possibilities. From what I've seen there are certainly quite a few interesting hints in various old sources.Battling McGook (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The couillard link leads to trebuchet page, when there is a valid page for the former item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eligitine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since arcuballistae weren't invented yet? I guess the paragraph may have been garbled, but it's unclear what else it could be claiming he used - perhaps gastraphetes? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And many modern sources identify the arcuballista with the torsion-coil cheiroballistra. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HIST406-13JJANG741 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Critique: Catapult

The topic I chose had to do with a technology from warfare, the Catapult. The Article does a fairly good job of describing the catapult and its history. It describes how the catapult gained its name, who was the first to utilize it and its connection to the crossbow. I really liked the fact that it mentioned the appearance of the crossbow in the writings of different Greek authors and how it evolved. The article did a great job in describing how the catapult came into play, first from bows, crossbow’s, fire-arrow crossbows and the use of the catapult as new technology involving torsion was introduced.

In comparison to an entry in the encyclopedia, the Wikipedia entry is like a book. The encylopedia entry only has two types of definitions, one is a noun and the other a transitive verb. However the Wikipedia entry does a lot more. It does a good job with the history for the most part. It introduces the origins, Greek and Roman. It also briefly tells of the introduction of the catapult in Greek literature. One of factors that made this entry informative was its discussion of Greeks switching from flexible crossbows to the torsion propelled catapult and how the Romans also began incorporating the catapult into their society. I also liked the fact that the article did not end with just a brief history and the origins of the catapult. Instead, the article also includes a list of the different types of catapults that were used and also modern use of the catapult in our military. I thought that was an interesting tidbit that tied together the initial technology in history and how it is still in use today.

Unfortunately, not all the sources for the article appear to be of academic origin or possess a scholarly background. In some cases, the in-text citations do not have a full citation in the bibliography. This creates a dilemma since many of the citations do appear to be legitimate. Most are from two books: one by Eric William Marsden called "Greek and Roman Artillary: Historical Development" published by The Claredon Press and the second by Duncan Campell called "Greek and Roman Artillary 399 BC-AD 363" published by Osprey publishing. Because so much of the article relies on only two sources, it is unclear whether the article can be believed without questioning certain facts.

The images and illustrations were a great add-on to the article, they had multiple pictures showcasing the different taypes of catapults, both historical paintings and pictures of modern catapults which was great so that one could see the changes in design and modernity of the same technology.

The article itself was informative, not filled with unrelevant information or unnecessary facts. However, although the article did do a good job of presenting an informative yet brief history, it was not perfect. It did not talk about how torsion was introduced,who exactly invented the technology or catapult and its evolution in conjunction with torsion. It only discussed its use by the Greeks and its introduction in literature and the different types of catapult.

Overall the article was well-written, the illustrations added to the overall effect of making the article appear professional and academic since there were a variety of images used. The only suggestions I have would have to deal with incorporating more information about torsion and how it led to the creation of the catapult and how that technology was harnessed. I would also suggest including more sources from scholarly journals, books or articles so that the basis of the article was not from just two sources alone since the technology of the catapult cannot be adequately described from just two books alone. It would also be nice to know who invented the technology or who played a pivotal role in developing torsion or the catapult form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13JJANG741 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that the Biblical reference to catapults in 2 Chronicles 26 is not even mentioned as a possibility. Present the evidence and let people decide for themselves. You can even include the fact that most scholars believe that catapults were invented by the Greeks, but to leave out this clear reference smacks of religious hatred and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.178.121 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article now has multiple references in the bibliography, generously sprinkled throught the text. The text is organized better, more readable and well illustrated with photos and old artwork. As this is a protected article, can there be some review by the approved editors to update that general and very old critique? --Prairieplant (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

208.248.108.30 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couillard is not linked in the list at the end and editing of the article seems to be blocked so I can't add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm going to create a section right before Medieval Catapults, called Other Ancient Catapults. I'd like to mention that the first recorded use of the Catapult as a siege weapon in India was in the 5th century BCE by Ajatshatru, and it may have been the first historically recorded catapult as well. I'm not going to state that however, merely mention Ajasthatru's use of it, though i would like some consensus on whether we can reword the following section

"Onomarchus of Phocis first used catapults on the battlefield against Philip II of Macedon", since it is incorrect. Ajatshatru's was the first recorded use that I know of (it is older than Onomarchus) and there are some biblical and chinese and perhaps Persian/Mesopotamian claims as well. Thus we cannot say that Onomarchus of Phocis was the first to use Catapults. Whether we should say that for Ajatshatru should first be determined here, since I do not want to initiate an edit war.

Source for Ajashatru's 5th century catapult useage http://books.google.co.in/books?id=H3lUIIYxWkEC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=xddD5PaRjF&sig=B84IsTz4TPhjpCV42ZeryxeUITw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j_NbU8WYNsWHrQeWn4HQAw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tca achintya (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at that source and it seems pretty darned sketchy and non-specific. A one sentence claim that there were catapults from a secondary source isn't that convincing. There's all kinds of claims all over the place for ancient catapults and they are notoriously hard to verify.

I do see that "Mahasilakantaka" is used in different sources to refer to either a war or a weapon of Ajatasatru. And the wikipedia page which refers to it as a war says "by the divine influence of the Indras even the pebbles, straws, leaves hurled by Ajatasatru's men fell like rocks on the army of Chetaka". This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, hinting that the notion of hurling large stones could be a literal interpretation of a metaphor.

I have no idea what to make of this. I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not even saying that catapults were unlikely then or there. But I suggest you read more about this, and see if there's any sort of agreement that they had actual catapults then. And provide additional sources.Battling McGook (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Upinder Singh is a very well respected historian, so i thought it would do. Some additional sources - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wsiXwh_tIGkC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=OWmN2KurgL&sig=rmKrM1hCUyS8I_bK2xKSLrOfj8g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=catapult&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=U2gRUVIF2joC&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=lojaj-c-gF&sig=wgpe2-nsTdMhdBuzlGVYOxaV1JY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5Gcj3LJDheYC&pg=PA1415&lpg=PA1415&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=oWAZYK2jmt&sig=utS0gcMb9D2ie3GYi06QpOIk_kE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wZyLVdkA7cIC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Ajatshatru+catapult&source=bl&ots=1vNfaoj8wP&sig=OmdOtUzkykgr1gPgMnY3_zrendM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7aZeU4LFFoyMrAekkIDwDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Ajatshatru%20catapult&f=false

Would these do? I've tried to cover from a variety of sources, thus one is a generic history text, one is a preparatory manual for the Civil Service exams, one is a young reader's history text. Of-course Upinder Singh quotes the Original Jaina text, and has referenced the statement i believe, but I'm not sure i have the original Jain text on file. Also, could you tell me if there is some problem with the credibility of Upinder Singh's text or was it just a lack of sourcing that was problematic?--Tca achintya (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a more general one. All of the sources we have available today have been heavily filtered and diluted over time. The Jain texts you refer to seem to have been written around (very roughly) the same time as the popular notion of the invention of the catapult in 399 BCE. This makes them quite similar in time frame with the Biblical source describing a catapult. In both cases, these are people writing down oral histories that had been passed down for some time. Oral histories are subject to rapid change over time, but once written down, become (somewhat) stable.

If you want my personal opinion, both the Jain texts and the Biblical text are solid sources in terms of catapults existing (and being common) at the time of the writings, but not so great as to how they pertain to the direct contents of the writing. This is also good indications that the popular 399 BCE claim of invention (which I think was written much much later than that so in my opinion probably suffers from similar oral history issues) is probably not correct. It seems likely that everyone was probably claiming for a period of a least a hundred years and maybe more that their particular king or hero or race or culture or god or whatever was the one that created these new machines of war. I haven't looked at catapult research in a while. I remember there are several other references available that hint that catapults might have existed as far back as 550 BCE, though as I recall there was not enough for any consensus. There is even a claim of a picture of a catapult from 800ish BCE on a Nimrud relief, although the only images I've seen in relation to that claim look nothing at all like catapults.

It's great that you have several sources. However I'd suggest you make sure that these are not in fact all simply several people all repeating the opinion of secondary source. This is how myths get created and perpetuated (e.g. "catapults were invented in 399 BCE"). If there is more than one person who has translated or interpreted the meaning of the Jain text that would be a big reassurance. I see that happen all to often on other subjects I'm interested in. If there are translations available of the text being referred to that would also be helpful.

My favored approach for writing about such things (in general and on wikipedia) is to include lots of sources like the one you've added and the biblical source which has been asked for but not included, along with an honest discussion of what this might really mean. It doesn't sound as clean as a plain statement like "catapults were invented in 399 BCE", but it would get across to the reader the honest fact that nobody is very sure or in very much agreement about exactly when catapults were invented or which culture might have been first.

I should be clear that most of what I've said here is opinion and goes way above and beyond wikipedia rules. I appreciate your contribution. I just hope to make it clear that the interpretation of history this old is a very messy proposition. Battling McGook (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I haven't changed the Greek section of the Catapults. The sources do say that Ajatshatru used a catapult against the Licchavis. I do not want to get into an edit war by going to "who used the catapult first" so i haven't made any changes in that respect, and i thought there should be some consensus on that aspect. Based on the sources provided, I think the sentence is ok, since it says that Ajatshatru is recorded as having used a catapult. I don't want to add in OR on that front by claiming that this would be the first recorded use of catapults on a battlefield without consensus. On the biblical front, i've heard about it, but since i have no sources, i cannot add it into the page, since i cannot make a determination as to which scholars are reputable and acceptable and which are not when it comes to biblical history. I will not be making any further changes until some people weigh in on whether there need to be more changes. Thank you for your help --Tca achintya (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica 1911 describes a Bricole as "a military engine for casting heavy stones" along with some secondary meanings, I guess obsolete. Bricole simply redirects to Siege engine (which does not mention the term), but that must be wrong as it's apparently more of a catapult than a battering ram. Where would it fit in the list of Medieval Catapults in this article? Would it be better, at a minimum, to redirect Bricole to Catapult? David Brooks (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA - French Wikipedia says it is an intermediate development between the Pierrière and the Mangonel. I think for now I'll redirect it to Mangonel and maybe one day translate the French article. David Brooks (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature in catapults is a nightmare of confusion, because of terms being exported back and forth between different languages and across different eras. Modern sources are all over the map about what almost any catapult name actually refers to. I will say though that it is fairly safe to assume that "siege engine" in modern terms can refer to any engine that was used during a siege, not just battering rams and siege towers. This of course would include catapults of all types. Battling McGook (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please let me edit this I would be very happy.

207.190.182.254 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the place to request extra rights, I believe the correct place is here WP:PERM. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Use section here says "Ships also use them to launch torpedoes and deploy bombs against submarines".
I'm a bit dubious about this; I'm guessing the editor who put it there is thinking of the WWI “bomb-thrower”, or the later “depth-charge thrower”, but AFAIK both those used an explosive to give the propulsive effect. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the text on the history of the word its own section title, Etymology. This takes the topic out of the lead, and into the article. The lead should include the highlights of the article, and etymology probably is not one, but other items might yet be added to the lead. This article is full of interesting information. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is given etymology correct? I mean, καταπέλτης - κατά+πέλτης, "against"+"shield" (see πελταστής) seems obvious. 87.117.189.244 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is sourced. Do you debate the sources? Do you have other sources? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the Ballista used torsion. The article for Springald says the Springald also used torsion. Then this article says the Springald was similar to the Ballista, in that it used tension. I think that should be torsion, instead of tension. Although I'm not sure, so I'll let someone else change that. - 72.184.128.205 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catapult. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160112160714/http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/CatapultTypes.htm to http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/CatapultTypes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

? A help request is open: yes. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link should this one: be https://web.archive.org/web/20160228044238/http://www.hellenicaworld.com:80/Greece/Technology/en/CatapultTypes.html which goes directly to the article on catapults. Link supplied goes to a page that requires one to click on the notice that the material is moved to the link I supplied. Do I just change it, or does this helpful Bot need to fix it? I will say need help=yes to learn what happens when I do that. Never did it before. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

Until recently, catapults were used by thrill-seekers to experience being catapulted through the air. The practice has been discontinued due to fatalities, when the participants failed to land onto the safety net.

This reads as if it applies worldwide, but the two cites provided each refer to the same occurrences at a single location. If the article wasn't semi-protected I'd tag it {{worldwide|section}} at least, but since it is, I'm just posting this here. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The text has been modified to feature the specific trebuchet in England, with an additional citation that tells the full story of the device's use and the fatality. It was discontinued. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki on catapults used to be a lot more balanced with the east asian catapults from 4th-5th century BC mentioned but I now noticed they have been completely removed. There are descriptive passages on the building of catapults mentioned in Mohist texts, a translation of the full canon by Prof. Robin Yates.

You read this entire article on catapults and the omission is glaring.

There are references to east asian catapults here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine

There are also records of the Pipil catapults used against the Spanish in central America or a mysterious reference to some rock throwing device used against vikings by North American indians. The Japanese also had an indigeneous catapult called the Oyumi which is found in description only (no illustrations have survived or been found yet).

The development of the hinged counterweight is very likely a middle eastern improvement over the traction catapults of east asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2001:133A:3021:E4C1:A834:872F (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC) nah mate the baicaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.129.255 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stones sometimes set on fire? I assume this should refer to arrows, more likely these were sometimes set on fire? BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]