Arrows v artillary

[Kobal2fr]

Well it would make *some* sense... I mean, castle walls probably took ages to build, not to mention the manpower required to get the stones, carry them all the way up the cliff/moutain/hill and then set them properly.
It would therefore be understandable that besiegers would want to keep them as intact as possible and opt to wait the defenders out, shortening said wait by lobbing flaming and/or diseased stuff inside and hoping to hit the granaries/wells/living quarters/arrow stocks etc...
Or, in short, target the people and most importantly their will, instead of the castle itself.

I'm not saying that's really what they did, nor that your historian is right in saying so, but it's not a preposterous idea either.

[Forward Observer]

Interesting conversation, especially for an old artillery buff like myself.

I posted this before about trebuchets, but it is worth repeating.

In reality trebuchets were probably the most accurate seige engine of all and that includes most of the the primitive smooth bore artillery. While its range was limited to about 300 yards, unlike other primitive artillery, the trebuchet's propelling energy relied on the absolute constant of the force of gravity. Unless one changed the position of the engine, the length of the throwing arm, the fulcrum position, or the size of the counterweight---a trebuchet would put a projectile of uniform size and weight in the same spot just about every time.

All of the other pre-gunpowder siege engines such as the catapult, onager, or ballista relied on tension as a propelling force and this was subject to the varibles of the strength, quality, and condition of the tortion material used.

Early smoothbore black powder weapons also suffered from many variables including weather conditions, the inconsistancies of barrel manufacture, and the extreme variables of the quality of the gunpowder used.

Cheers

[DesertEagle]

@ Caliburn - I tuned down the AI's use of siege engines by making them all 10x more expensive, both for gunpowder and non. I justify this by saying that they were an expensive endevour, having to hire out an engineer (or have one on retainer) and furthermore, it helps the computer not build as many. They'll have 2 or 3 in late game, when they have enough money to spare, but I figure that if they are bringing an army of spear militia, they probably won't be paying for an engineer.

@ Didz - I would imagine if there was any reason to doubt the efficacy of trebuchets, it would be their high acing trajectory. After all, catapults and ballistas, not to mention gunpowder siege engines all had a flatter more direct trajectory. This would result in more energy going into the wall, and less "sliding" or "glancing" off it as the projectile continues downward. They might be the most accurate, and more powerful in raw numbers, but as far as how that power is applied, it might be less effective. Just my personal opinion, I'm not a scientist or anything :P

[John_Longarrow]

Kobal,

Especially if you want to keep the walls as intact as possible, you would want to use a trebuche. It keeps hitting the same spot over an over, thus reducing the total amount of damage required while putting one hole in the wall. That would make it much easier to fix.

DesertEagle

Yes, the amount of energy transmitted compared to total potential is reduced a little by the downward angle. On the flip side a trebuche can generally throw a much heavier projectile than other siege weapons. Cannons had a hard time getting up over the 200-300 lbs weight limit due to pressure restrictions on the barrels. Catapults and Balista had a lower limit due to their method of manufacture. Trebuche were able to throw projectiles over a ton accurately. As such, even if it only delivered half as much energy per pound of projectile it would still be far more effective than other weapons.

The down side to real world trebuches is that they were not mobile. Unlike gunpowder or tortion powered siege weapons, trebuche relied on very heavy counterweights. Some of the counter weights were over 20 tons. As such the real heavy duty trebuche were not only built in place but aimed at a specific target when they were assembled. When ranging the weapon, projectiles of a known weight were used and the mass of the counter weight was adjusted based on where the projectiles landed. This trick also allowed the trebuche to hit at the top of the wall to begin with and work its way down, simply by removing a few of the stones from the counterweight.