NOVA/WGBH Trebuchet Project October-November 1998.
WGBH-Boston contacted ARMEDIEVAL's Renaud Beffeyte in June 1998 regarding a
new documentary in their science and technology television series
(NOVA) to be devoted to medieval siege technology.
Two types of counterweight balance throwing machines were constructed and tested during this project:
|
To the left, is the fixed counterweight mangonel* that had been designed using a computer at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), Lexington.
At the lower right, is a larger hinged counterweight trebuchet, that was to replicate, somewhat, the enormous trebuchet employed by Edward I, of England, in his 1304 campaign in Scotland.** The hinged-counterweight trebuchet was designed with compass and square, according to an essentially Euclidean geometry recorded in the portfolio of
Villard de Honnecourt (Bibliothèque Nationale ms fr. 19093, ca.1215-25).
|
|
* Note here the differing conventions for describing a 'trebuchet'. French convention usually distinguishes the counterweight balance throwing machines with hinged, or movable-weight hutches, as trebuchets; and those machines with fixed-weight hutches as managonels. A large number of English works have developed the practice of refering to both as 'trebuchets' and of using the expression 'mangonel' for the medieval version of the Roman onager.
** Reportedly, the most impressive of Edward I's 13 siege machines in his 1304 campaign was called 'war-wolf'. Edward was so proud of the machine that he refused to accept Stirling Castle's surrender until he launched at least one shot with the machine.
|
|
|
Construction of these two machines was to examine fundamental
historical and technological questions:
-
(1) Was it possible to construct the large hinged-counterweight trebuchet
using only medieval materials and techniques?
(2) Were these machines capable of projecting stone balls weighing 300
pounds over more than 160 yards?
(3) Were the machnines capable of breaching a 7 foot-thick granite wall?
(4) What was the potential firing accuracy?
(5) Why did the hinged-counterweight machine trebuchet essentially
replace the fixed-counterweight machine as of the fourteenth century?
The task of constructing these machines was in the hands of approximately 30 Timber Framers Guild (TFG) from America, who were joined by about 7 European framers. The participants split into two teams based primarily on the basis of the skills necessary to complete each machine. The TFG has a webpage on its "Highland Fling" that gives an extensive and well illustrated account of the entire project. Images of the machines and of Urquhart Castle used on this page were taken from the TFG page. See bottom of this page for a link to the TFG web sites.
Renaud Beffeyte was the only French representive in the project. With his unique experience of having built some thirty machines over the past fifteen years, he was entrusted with the construction of the hinged-counterweight
trebuchet
Spectacular location for the project was Urquhart Castle, dating from the thirteenth century, and located on a promontory overlooking Loch Ness, Scotland.
Images and a description of the castle are available at the Urquhart Castle web site.
Renaud Beffeyte's written report is published as an article in issue No. 50 of Timber Framers Guild Journal. A copy of the TFG's journal from the Guild's webpage. See below. In his article, Renaud relates:
-
- "Construction itself began on 19 October, ending 5 November,
inclusive of four days for assembling the machine. Every bit was executed using
traditional tools and a hand-actioned lathe. The throwing arm was hewn from a
50-foot oak with an average diameter of 2 feet; over 2.3 tons of quality
wood, delivered uncut, it was worked on six faces solely with the axe. But it
only took four hours to set the mast in place 24 feet off the ground, using a
system of pulleys and a shear leg. These same lifting techniques exist in Europe,
but, unfortunately, they are rarely used nowadays. I was gladdened to
see once again this marvelous spectacle."
The following parpharses further parts of Renaud's report:
The counterweight hutch was loaded with a "few tons" of wet sand. A 300 pound stone ball was placed in the "braided hemp sling." An initial suite of well grouped shots were launched on the first day of firing, although these hit to the right of the target. The next day, the trebuchet was angled in order to shoot further to the left and the desired accuracy was achieved.
The project answered the originally stated questions as follows:
Although it took more wood that the fixed-counterweight machine, the hinged-counterweight trebuchet replaced the fixed-counterweight throwing machine as of the fourteenth century because it took less men to operate it. It took less costly ballast material [6 tons of lead for the fixed weight versus wet sand for the hinge-weight]. The mobile counterweight allowed the construction of a more reliable, more
robust, and more easily adjusted machine. Further, it permitted loading the counterweight
with readily available, free materials (earth, rocks...) found on site.
|