The trebuchet, with its counterweight and sling, can launch a 200‑kilogram stone at about 70–80 m/s, giving it a kinetic energy of roughly 600 kJ. It can do this from 200 meters away, so its reach is its advantage. A modern battering ram, say a 1‑tonne metal cylinder pulled by a crew, can deliver a straight blow of similar energy but only after the wall is breached or at close range. The ram’s advantage is its continuous force – it can keep pounding for several minutes – but it needs to be physically in contact with the target. In a direct, short‑range clash, the ram would crush a thin wall faster, but a trebuchet can strike from afar, soften the structure, and pick a weak spot. So it’s not a clear winner; each tool excels in its own battlefield context.

If the wall is brick or stone, about 30 cm thick, the trebuchet’s 200‑kg stone can fracture it from a distance; the ram would need a few seconds of continuous impact to do the same. If the wall is reinforced with iron beams or a composite of timber and lime, the ram’s constant force can buckle the beams, while the trebuchet would have to hit precisely at the joints. In both cases, the thicker the wall, the more the ram’s weight and persistence become decisive. So with a standard 30‑cm stone wall, the trebuchet edges out; with a reinforced or very thick wall, the ram gains the upper hand.

Indeed, that’s a sound assessment. The trebuchet thrives when you can strike from afar and exploit the wall’s weakest points, while the ram excels when you’re close and can apply relentless force, especially against reinforced construction. In practice, commanders choose based on the terrain and fortification design.