Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

The mangonel doesn't seem to represent a single type of catapult, but varies in shape and function from source to source (see "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) 14:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uhhhhh that last section contains some pretty extreme graphic descriptions, idk if all that's really necessary 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:C140:B77B:5543:C590 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 09:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence SimpsonReply[reply]