Compare any two siege engines side-by-side — range, firepower, crew, and tactical score.
Design your own siege engine and see how it ranks against historical machines.
Full stats for all 7 historical siege engines. Click a column header to sort.
| Engine ↕ | Range(m) ↕ | Payload(kg) ↕ | Crew ↕ | Shots/hr ↕ | Score ↕ |
|---|
Select two historical siege engines from the dropdowns in the Compare Two tab, optionally override individual parameters like range or crew size, then choose a battle scenario and hit "Compare Engines." The tool scores each machine across six tactical dimensions and declares a winner based on your scenario. Use the Custom Build tab to design your own engine and benchmark it against history.
Medieval siege warfare was an engineering arms race that lasted nearly 1,000 years. The choice of siege engine wasn't just about throwing rocks — it was a logistical, tactical, and economic decision that could determine the outcome of entire campaigns. A trebuchet could hurl a 100 kg stone over 300 metres, but it required 40+ crew, weeks to construct, and enormous timber resources. Meanwhile, a ballista could be assembled in hours, manned by 3–4 soldiers, and placed inside a city for defence.
Game designers, history enthusiasts, military historians, tabletop wargamers, and teachers building curriculum around medieval warfare all need a quick way to compare these machines on equal terms. When Edward I besieged Stirling Castle in 1304, he deployed a massive trebuchet called "Warwolf" — reportedly so impressive that the garrison surrendered just to watch it fire. Understanding why Warwolf was terrifying requires quantifying its advantages over alternatives. That's exactly what this tool does.
Each engine is scored on six dimensions: Range, Payload, Rate of Fire, Crew Efficiency, Accuracy, and Mobility. Each dimension is normalised to a 0–100 scale based on historical maximums across all engines.
The Tactical Score is a weighted composite:
Score = (Range × w₁) + (Payload × w₂) + (RoF × w₃) + (CrewEff × w₄) + (Accuracy × w₅) + (Mobility × w₆)
Weights shift depending on your chosen scenario. A Castle Assault weights Payload and Range heavily; a Field Battle weights Mobility and Rate of Fire; a Long Siege prioritises Range and Crew Efficiency. Crew Efficiency is calculated as Payload × RoF / Crew — the throughput per soldier, a key logistical measure.
By most metrics, the counterweight trebuchet was the most powerful. Edward I's "Warwolf" at Stirling (1304) could hurl stones weighing up to 140 kg over 300 metres. The Mongol trebuchets used at the siege of Xiangyang (1267–73) were reportedly even larger. No other engine matched its combination of range, payload, and destructive force against masonry walls.
Essentially, yes — the ballista used the same tension-based mechanism as a crossbow, scaled up dramatically. Unlike torsion engines (catapults, mangonels), which store energy in twisted rope or sinew, the ballista stored energy in bowed limbs. This made it far more accurate than torsion engines, and it excelled at anti-personnel use and targeting specific defenders on walls. Its bolts could penetrate multiple soldiers in a line.
A full-size counterweight trebuchet required 30–60 days to construct from raw timber, with a skilled crew of carpenters and engineers. Edward I reportedly had Warwolf transported in prefabricated sections. Smaller torsion engines like mangonels could be assembled from pre-cut parts in 1–3 days. This construction time was a critical tactical factor — besieging armies couldn't always wait two months to deploy their heaviest weapons.
Yes — incendiary projectiles were commonly fired from trebuchets and mangonels. These included clay pots filled with Greek fire, burning pitch, quicklime, or even beehives and diseased animal carcasses (an early form of biological warfare). The trebuchet's high arc was ideal for dropping incendiary loads into the interior of a castle, which was much harder to extinguish than a direct projectile impact.