Primula Baggins wrote:
Why am I suddenly muttering "Trebuchets are not a defensive weapon!"?
While the trebuchet was predominantly an offensive siege weapon, evidence exists that trebuchets – in other parts of Europe known as
Fundíbul (Spanish),
Tribok (German), or
Valslynge (Norse) – were also occasionally
employed by castle defenders:
In chapters 39 of the thirteenth-century Norwegian
speculum text “King’s Mirror” (
Konungs skuggsjá) a father informs his son of “Military Engines”.
“If one is to attack a castle with the weapons which I have enumerated, he will also have a need (of) trebuchets; a few powerful ones with which to throw large rocks against stone walls to determine whether they are able to resist such violent blows, and weaker trebuchets for throwing missiles over the walls to demolish the houses within the castle (…)
Those who have to defend a castle may also make use of these weapons which I have now enumerated and many more:
trebuchets both large and small, hand slings and staff slings.”
It can therefore be said that the use of such trebuchets in the films is not pure fantasy (pun intended). Why the defenders of the White City use highly non-aerodynamic building parts as projectiles however remains a mystery. A nearly spherical projectile on the other hand could be used against farther away targets, and even has the possibility to roll some distance after touching the ground. I for once, would have loved to have seen a shot of a trebuchet projectile bowling down a couple of dozen orcs.
PS: It should be said though, worse projectiles exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wVADKznOhYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14zsAqA8FXUSources:
http://deremilitari.org/2014/04/medieva ... gian-text/https://books.google.at/books?vid=OCLC0 ... &q&f=false