Talk:Mangonel

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) Revision as of 17:19, 6 March 2006

Suppressed the simplified image

Looked like nothing at all not even a catapult! The image on the French side is much better. Please note that the old image didn't look like having a moving part, instead the moving arm look permanently attached to its ending point! Even more there is no space for a rotation of an eventual bottom weight!! I can't believe it, and this childish image got copied in all 3 major languages Englis, French and German (did not touch that one! I am not fluent enough in German to explain the reasons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ). Looks like wikispam !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please watch these pages!

Propose merge

Please, everyone,: even if you have no wiki account, sign your post before saving with four tilde characters like:'~~~~' and then save.

I propose that we merge the Onager (siege weapon) article into this one. Onager and Mangonel are functionally the same. Some authors say onager is a sort of nick-name for the mangonel, so the latter should remain. DonSiano 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That would make sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.176.149 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 February 2006

They are not the same try looking at other sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.93.81 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 10:32, 21 March 2006

I would oppose the merger, though the belief that they are the same weapon is encouraged by some sloppy writing in the articles. The onager was a Roman weapon, while the mangonel was a much later (and simpler, and probably less effective) medieval weapon of similar construction. That medieval users believed the mangonel to be equivalent to a Roman onager doesn't make it so. --Llewdor 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onager means "wild ass" and was the Roman nickname for a mangonel. True, Later medieval weapons were probably badly made and less efficient but both had the same working principles - 5 April 2007

I couldn't agree more with Llewdor here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.9.29 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 23:23, 28 March 2006

I would have to disagree with merging them because the Onager was a small short to medium range (relatively speaking) artilery weapon. Llewdeor is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.233.71 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 01:00, 6 April 2006

If the mangonel and onager are claimed to be essentially different devices, then it must be known what that difference is. I claim that no one knows a difference in the action of the two devices (I don't mean range, name or when used) that is supported by historical evidence. They both appear to have a single arm with a sling and pouch, powered by a single bundle of twisted ropes, with a stopping beam to stop the rotation of the arm. They seem to me to be essentially the same device, and I stand by the proposal to merge. DonSiano 11:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llewdor is correct, the onager was Roman artillery/siege weapon commonly used as a support weapon on the battlefield. The mangonel was a medieval weapon commonly used as a defensive weapon in seiges because its small size allowed it to easily be placed on towers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.125.2 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 12:55, 11 April 2006

Mangonels and onagers are as different as catapults are from trebuchets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.124.64 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 13:01, 26 April 2006

Excuse my saying so but that is the rongest thing I have heard... There are no "catapults" as you call them, there are only the names of each catapult, which *can* be described as catapults, so you could say that which you said as: "they are as difrent as trebuchets from trebuchets... I say that they are besicly the same, though mangonels usually use slings and onagers usually use a scoop like ammunition throer... Nathaniel 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)nathaniel749Nathaniel 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with DonSiano. I poked through some other references, and cannot find any major discrepancies between the two. If you could explain how mangonels and onagers are as different as catapults are from trebuchets, that would shed some light on this issue. I think it would serve the users best if the two articles were merged into one, and a section added to explain the minor differences. Spamman272 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with spamman... It seems that the majority think that they are the same, with the same opinion in my case. If anyone can not tell the difference between the two, I believe that they should not tell that they are different. They both have the same frame, have a single firing arm with a sling, powered by a single bundle of twisted ropes. So if anyone can tell the difference between the two I will be budged if when I do research on your reason that it is true. Medieval Master 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Nathaniel749Medieval Master 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The mangonel and onager rely totally on the same rope tortion power, and both have a buttress and sling. Generaly the mangonel would have a different frame, but this is very similar to the different types of trebuchet. IE: the da vici and the norman varieties.

Oppose

Although alike, the onager came after the mangonel, they are different. Mushrooms777 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are different things, should we merge chedder cheese with cheez whiz because they are both cheese? I think not. Braden 00:54 may 11th 2006

Surely there must have been some significant alterations to the original onager design before it came to the field as the mangonel over 1000 years of use...So, unless we can be absolutely sure that they were precisely the same design and were used in the exactly same way, they should be on separate pages. My resources are limited, so I hope someone else will be able to do the necessary research here. Antimatter 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Onager was a Roman siege weapon, having it's very name being Latin (language of the Romans, if I'm not mistaken) and that should be enough to end this. However, I would like to point out that the Mangonel (or the portable Mangoneau) came much later, and the name is French. --64.90.77.75 05:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Nick[reply]

"the onager and mangonel are the same weapon because they both throw ammunition using a single arm and twisted ropes"? that's like saying because two pistols both have four-inch barrels, have a hammer that strikes the firing pin, and use a delayed-blowback recoil feature, they're both the same weapon--but no mention is made if one has a barrel made of plastic and the other has a barrel made of steel, thus ensuring you blow your face off when firing it. half of you are saying that without conclusive evidence it can't be said they're different--what happened to the spirit of science? if it's not proven they're different, it's equally true they're not proven to be the same, and thus should be researched in full before anything is decided lest everyone look like retards when the proof is, in fact, shown.--216.12.107.254 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)erik (THANKYOU, from the year 2015, above...though the article still treats mangonels mostly as either a catapulta or a mixed, Trebukett-Catapult medieval variation. Well, whatever).[reply]

Although the onager is similar to the mangonel, they have differences, therefore they should not be combined and viewed as the same thing. These two weapons should only be combined if EVERY detail about them is the exact same, which they are not. You wouldn't combine a page about plastic with a page about glass because they are both used for drinking cups. It would be possible to provide a link of the page on the other's page, but it is not alright to say these two weapons are the same, they are only SIMILAR at most.--Bert

I think merging the articles is a bad idea because mangonel not only refers to the roman onager but (occasionally) also a variety of medieval catapults/trebuckets/petraries69.200.228.170 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) which (may have) worked in a similar way to a trebuchet. Mangonel could been a roman nickname for onager, but that doesn't meen it IS an onager.[reply]

Waiting to Grok

Needs Careful Researching—initial reaction—This would obfusticate the time distinction, which is historically important. If we want to do a half-assed job, we can go edit 'Encarta' or 'Grolier' (written for grade four to six). The Romans and the Byzantines certainly used 'Onagers' from shipboard — so the one term is Roman, one is much later, obviously French— and Merging, if different, imho, is against the purpose of the encyclopedia, basic education. So, both are torsion engines, iirc, the Onager was wheeled. The guideline, WP:Btw doesn't say anything about combining two articles operating using similar principles, it says to connect them. Another Foundation Goal, you know, those unimportant guys paying the bills <G>, is to have an article for every article in ALL other major encyclopedia's.

I'd been all set against the merge the above, but my in house library doesn't run to seige machines. I want to look in some library books, as online has really slowed down, and I prefer to check this sort of 'split hair' via vetted authoritative sources, not some web enthusiasts understanding. If anyone can cite a link or three from good university papers and such research resources, that would help. This kind of page, has no authority. Best regards, FrankB 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mangonels/Onagers (torsion powered, preferably using human hair in the medieval period), Catapults (traction powered through a tisted skein), and Trebuckets/Trebuchets have long been assumed to be three separate classes of Engine (not that onagers and mangonels are precisely the same). (Please see the link 'onager physics' for those who don't understand the difference between a catapulta and an Onager). There are THREE separate main classes of petrary, and a lack of understanding of that, by all parties' appears to hamper this page. Mangonels still seem to be a redesign from a separate period, so I opppose collapsing Onager into Mangonel, at least as of now, with the traction/torsion question probably never to decided, for mangonels, with certainty. But let's get that basic down, at least--much of this page describes 'medieval mangonels' as a compromise between onagers and trebukets* when what is actually meant appears to be a compromise between CATAPULTA and trebuchets.

    *Spelling/pronunciation note (the hard 'c' and 't'): the original/standard pronunciation of Trebuchet is roughly 'Trebukett'(only with a bit of old french accent, maybe). It came from hard-consonanted-Norse-influenced NORMAN FRENCH into English [and into the extinct 'Anglo-Norman' of 12th century French-English warriors], thus my nonstandard spelling of it, on occasion, so as to avoid reinforcing modern television's Parisian "sight-pronunciation" 'Trebooshay'...which is a little weird (and also indicative of ignorance on the basic subject by the producers, not that that's like, news, these days). Anyway, it's just the same reason we have 'Castle' as the word for traditional-stone-fortress in English, but 'Chateau' in France (yes, 'chateaux' are castles as well as houses). That's all.69.200.228.170 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CONTRADICTION

the first lines state than a mangonel had less range than a trebuchet, however the range of a mangonel is listed as 'up to 400 meters', whereas the range of a trebuchet (on its page trebuchet is listed as 300 meters. :þ clsours ¡Æ! 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article states "The mangonel had better accuracy than a trebuchet" but also "Its unpredictable, yet powerful strikes were best suited to hitting broad, non-moving targets such as buildings or walls."68.219.14.171 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

I no.174.52|talk]]) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Xx mIii anoniempje:D:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.60.192 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no

burning sand

Could this statement be clarified (burning sand?) and given some support (citation, etc.)? "Mangonels might also have thrown burning sand at enemies, the hot sand would enter openings in armor, leading to painful burning or death." — Robert Greer (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts that they were used for that purpose, but that is a description of what hot sand does. Take a look at early thermal weapons for more info and refernces. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly completely wrong?

The newer stuff I have read indicates that the mangonel is a kind of trebuchet, and is not a torsion catapult at all. I will see what I can dig up. Meanwhile, this article has no citations whatsoever, and it certainly needs some. Megalophias (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a very poor Wikipedia article. Most of what I have read, have considered the mangonel to be a torsion machine, similar to a onager. Until I read this article, I never knew that some regarded the mangonel as a kind of traction trebuchet. At the very least, the article should mention that some mangonels could have been torsion devices similar to the onager. Most of this article should be scrapped - a brief discussion of the mangonel could refer to either a torsion device like the onager, or a traction trebuchet, and provide links to those 2 sites, scrap the rest of the article.

How does the Mangonel work?!

There is no information about how the mangonel works. Is it a torsion engine, or does it use the gravitational power, like the trebuchet? This information need to be added to make the article complete in my opinion. --Kri (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separated opinions about what a mangonel is

The mangonel doesn't seem to represent a single type of catapult, but varies in shape and function from source to source (see

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 not met Structure: criterion not 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)

"Non-Gunpowder Artillery; Manongel". Xenophon group. 28 May 2004. Retrieved 2009-01-13.). For example, some sources see the mangonel as a trebuchet while other sources sees it as a torsion engine. A quick Google Image Search however, seem (it has to be considered that Google image search does not only find professional works) to show that the majority of today’s sources see the mangonel as a synonym to the onager (see "Mangonel images". Google Inc. Retrieved 2009-01-13.). --Kri (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it isn't really certain. However, the more modern stuff I've read says the mangonel is a trebuchet, at least in later use. In earlier Byzantine stuff it (manganon) is pretty vague, I gather. I'm going to leave the (rather dubious) medieval onager stuff here for now, though it badly needs references, and readers can go to trebuchet for that interpretation. I will add a couple of references for mangonel=counterweight artillery. Megalophias (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval mangonel

I've done some serious research and I've found a book called Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle (Dictionary of French architecture from the eleventh to the sixteenth century) in the Volume 5, Engines it shows a picture similar to "Catapulta DER 1962.PNG" and it is called baliste or ballista, and later on is talks about the mangonel and depicts it as a fixed counter weight siege engine in wich part of the impulse to throw the proyectiles comes from men pulling ropes attached to the counter weight, it was similar to a trebuchet and also used a sling to add velocity to the proyectiles. Here's a link to the page: Ofensive siege engines before artillery (French)

Mbartelsm (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mangonel. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mangonel.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309223938/http://198.144.2.125/siege/OtherSiegeEngines/OtherSiegeEngines.htm to http://198.144.2.125/Siege/OtherSiegeEngines/OtherSiegeEngines.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220131012/http://www.algobeautytreb.com/ to http://www.algobeautytreb.com/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link in the beginning of article

In the very beginning, there is a link called "onager". This link redirects to an article about a donkey and not about the article about the siege weapon, which also exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiasfeil1993 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Late 7th century Transoxanian depiction of a traction trebuchet.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work?

The article explains that the mangonel did not operate by torsion, but doesn't actually explain how it did work. From the pictures, it looks like a team of men (how many?) pulled on ropes (horizontally? vertically?). What was the leverage situation - were the men pulling the ropes an arm's length, or were they hauling for multiple steps across the ground? A discussion of this sort of thing - how it worked - would be useful. SSSheridan (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a TRACTION thrower?

This is infuriating. In three articles ("Mangonel", "Torsion siege engine" and "Torsion mangonel myth") to find out what it means when someone says "That's not a torsion thrower. That's a TRACTION thrower". I also TRIED to go to "Traction siege engine") but that just goes to "Mangonel". I don't enjoy being teased and played with by someone who is VERY CAREFULLY avoiding ANY description of what a Traction thrower IS and how it works. We're only told what it ISN'T and that it works by "traction" and not "torsion", but what does that even mean? It explains nothing. The extent of my donations to Wikipedia is this: I tell you when you are abysmal, for free, as in the present instance, and that is ALL I WILL EVER donate until you clean up your act! If you want to say that some TRACTION thrower differs from a TORSION thrower, you must explain what EACH OF THEM ARE! What is it, like a military secret or something? You'll go to prison if you breathe a word of it?2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Lede Picture is Misleading

If you hover over the link to this article in any of those for medieval battles, you see this little toy thing that looks like it might, on a good day, throw a pebble. Yes, the caption says it's a miniature model, but no one sees that in the preview. Is there really no better picture we could use at the top of the article? Could we perhaps use this [1] from commons? The wall in the background gives it scale. Otherwise, how about the "Russian reconstruction" pic lower in the article? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]