I really hate the common fiction image of a medieval army matching with siege engines. They were assembled on site, and you can't really build a torsion spring on site. Ancient armies had significantly more organisation and labour (yay slavery) so they could bring the stuff with them. Romans matched with dozens of onagers and scorpions, medieval armies mostly didn't.

And of course, the traction siege engine is just far superior, and it wasn't invented till the middle ages.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

I really hate the common fiction image of a medieval army matching with siege engines. They were assembled on site, and you can’t really build a torsion spring on site. Ancient armies had significantly more organisation and labour (yay slavery) so they could bring the stuff with them.

tbf, the picture notes that the attackers would have constructed these on site.

Romans matched with dozens of onagers and scorpions, medieval armies mostly didn’t.

Fun fact - the Romans sometimes numbered prefabricated machinery parts so they could be assembled, disassembled, and repaired quicker.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lots of guys standing around in arrow shooting range...

[–] Tiptopit 3 points 2 days ago

There are a few things that don't work. The trebuchet is faced in the wrong direction and there is no way they pushed the siege tower uphill at that position.

Guess the picture wants too much at the same time.