Talk:Trebuchet

@Nortmannus: Where does it say that (Old) French trebuchet (now trébuchet) first atttested in 1174-77 or CA 12th century in the Roman de Renart as "war engine that throws stones to break down walls".? This not only contradicts later claims in the article but does not seem to be supported in any source mentioned. The source here only says "piège dont le mécanisme de déclenchement consiste en un assemblage de bûchettes en équilibre" which translated by Google or chatgpt gives "trap whose trigger mechanism consists of an assembly of balanced logs". The source says ca. 1200 that " machine de guerre qui lance des pierres pour abattre les murailles", which seems to be the correct dating and translation rather than the Renart attribution. Qiushufang (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC) The source also doesn't claim that the earliest mention of trebuchet in English dates to the 14th century. This seems like original research. Qiushufang (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. If you read the source correctly you will see that the definition I give is in Roman de Renart too, cite :"2. ca 1200 « machine de guerre qui lance des pierres pour abattre les murailles » (Renart, éd. E. Martin, XI, 2545)". The article the way it was written was absolutly irrelevant and against any specialized sources. All the linguistic sources say the same, even the excellent Wiktionary . Nortmannus (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the content said, which is what I am pointing out. Linguistic sources do not get special privilege here especially when it veers into the realm of history, nor does wiktionary take precedence over published reliable sources. Qiushufang (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The way the article is written absolutely is relevant considering that it does not claim what was stated in the added content, and it is odd that you would imply privilege over specialized sources. Qiushufang (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends the use of sources directly related to the subject, in this case the Etymology section, must use etymological dictionaries and studies from linguists as a basic source.Nortmannus (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The source used does not invalidate other equally reliable sources, in this case the words of a published monograph on the subject. There is no Wiki policy necessitating privileging etymological specialists over historians, and trying to stretch the usage of closely related source-subject relationship to that is wrong. They are both "directly related". Qiushufang (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Moreover the content added did not adhere to WP:OR policy. I've noted that the date attribution for a quotation was wrong and have corrected that in the current revision and while it does say the English word comes from Old French, it did not say it came specifically from that edition of the historical text. So I've separated the sentences. Qiushufang (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In the introductory paragraphs, the following lines are not supported by any citations or evidence:

"It first appeared in China in the 4th century BC. Carried westward by the Avars, the technology was adopted by the Byzantines in the late 6th century AD and by their neighbors in the following centuries."

Later in the History section, there are links to essays/articles, but none of these provides or cites any material evidence, only writing samples, for where the trbuchet originated. As such, the origins should be desribed as ambiguous.

Please correct this. 2603:7080:D7F0:1F60:B1D6:58AD:3805:5E56 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "essays/articles" or "writing samples". Wiki is based on reliable secondary sources, and to a lesser degree, primary and tertiary sources. "Material evidence" is not a requirement nor does it make sense here. Quotations are provided in Chevedden 2000 (p. 71) "The counterweight trebuchet was the product of a technological tradition that began in ancient China, was further advanced in the technologically sophisticated civilizations of Islam and Byzantium..." (p. 74) "The traction trebuchet, invented by the Chinese sometime before the fourth century B.C." Peterson 2013 (p. 407-409) "The Chinese hypothesis has received strong support due to Needham’s monumental study on technology in Chinese civilization. As the traction trebuchet has an ancient pedigree in Chinese sources, the hypothesis is eminently reasonable." Purton 2009 (p. 366) "Why did Byzantium, Persia and India switch to this import from China?" The attribution to Avars does seem to be a bit more dubious. Qiushufang (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone please add something at the top about pronunciation of "trebuchet" in English, especially if it is trebuchett instead of trebooshay. editeur24 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

King Uzziah created the trebuchet in 700 BC 2600:6C47:BCF0:17F0:ADA3:F573:CA46:E137 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)