Talk:Torsion mangonel myth

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese / Classical / Medieval Start‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-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 not 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
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarity[edit]

I think the article needs to make clear the distinction between (a) the view that the mangonels of medieval sources were torsion machines and (b) the view that torsion artillery in general continued in use in the Middle Ages. The former can be a myth without the latter being one. But this article takes the view that the latter—the really interesting one—is a myth also. (That language does strike me as perhaps too POV. Reputable living scholars have published in favour of the "myth".) Srnec (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang: Care to comment? Srnec (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what there is to comment about. I thought it was made pretty clear that torsion missile devices did continue to be used, such as the springald, just not the onager type. @Srnec: Qiushufang (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question of what a mangonel was is only a question of what machine(s) the sources that use the mangonel family of terms are referring to. The question of the continued use of the onager and/or ballista is separate from the question of the meaning of the term "mangonel". I think there is some conceptual slippage here that will only confuse readers. Perhaps I am the only one, but I find it awkward to speak to the latter question in terms of the former. Srnec (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two are linked as far as the side of the "mangonel myth" (Purton/Fulton) are concerned because 1) the mangonel is popularly conceived of as a torsion, and 2) because they believe torsion artillery in the form of onager and/or ballista were just not used in the era of the mangonel, whatever that may be. Do you have any particular authors or sources in mind on the topic that I can look at that separate the two? Qiushufang (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And those on the side of the possible existence of torsion artillery such as the onager/ballista like Jim Bradbury are uncertain as to whether any specific term referred to torsion artillery. Its existence is conjectural. Much of the discussion revolves around the matter of terminology in which mangonel is intrinsically linked as that is one of the most popular terms associated with torsion artillery. The question is therefore whether or not there is material sufficiently distinct enough from the matter of what a mangonel means, whether or not it is torsion artillery, to warrant another section, separation, or article. Because ultimately any discussion of whether or not torsion artillery existed in the medieval era will involve terminology, since that is the basis of the majority of the argument. Qiushufang (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is a TRACTION thrower?[edit]

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) 09:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]