Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies catapults, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls trebuchets catapults. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "catapult family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of ranged siege weapons, which includes things from mangonels to orangers to the petrary.
So your reasoning for calling a trebuchet a catapult is because random people "call the flingy things ones catapults?" Let's get rubber bands and folded pieces of paper in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A trebuchet is a catapult and a member of the catapult family. But that's not what you said.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?