Arbalest à Tillolles

[Sean M]

If I understand Holger Richter correctly, he does not know of any complete European crossbow which is definitely dated before 1400, just some fragments of the "13th-15th centuries" in Κöln or some of the really early finds from archaeological excavations.

It seems like some of the bows shooting long bolts with a long powerstroke might have been built differently than bows for one-foot crossbows and wall crossbows, so just because the surviving crossbows are all made one way does not mean that earlier on there were not a few different approaches in use. Maybe they will find something in a bog in Lithuania?

[Sean M]

This thread is on hold for the linen armour article, but there are half a dozen scenes with arbalestes a tor in Ambroise's History of the Holy War. I read the translation by Marianne Ailes in Canada, you can find others on Arlima.

[Sean M]

XV. Item, quod nullus predictorum audeat vendere vel vendi facere aliquod tenerium sine traffitta posita in ipso tenerio, antequam balistum ligetur, sub pena soldorum .V. pro quolibet et pro qualibet vice contrafacienti. et quicumque de omnibus et singulis supradictorum accusaverit, habeat medietatem pene si per eius accusationem veritas cognoscetur.

15th item, that none of the aforesaid shall dare to sell or have sold any tiller without a traffitta placed in that same tiller, before the bow is bound, on pain of 5 soldi for every (tiller) and for every offense from the counterfitter, and whoever has accused (someone) about each and every of the things said above, shall keep half the penalty if by his accusation the truth should become known.

XVI. Insuper, ut omnia et singula predictorum continue observentur, ordinaverunt domini supradicti quod debeat fieri in arte ista tres suprastantes boni et legales omni sancto Michaele mutandi; qui suprastantes sacramento teneantur temptare omnes stationes balisteriorum et balista eorum, tenerios, arcus, claves, staphas, nuces, et cordas, et omnia ad artem predictam pertinencia omni mensi semel ad minus, et plus si eis videbitur, et in eo capitulo in quo aliquem contrafecisse invenerint, penam ibi scriptam remoto {start of page 177} amore et odio accipiant, habentes ipsi suprastantes medietatem pene si per eius accusationem veritas cognoscetur.

16th: In addition, so that each and every of the aforesaid shall be observed henceforth, the aforesaid lords have ordained that there ought to be in this art three overseers, good and legal, changing every St. Michael (ie. Michaelmas in September?); which overseers shall be held by oath (sacramento) to examine (temptare) all workshops (stationes) of crossbow makers and their crossbows, tillers (tenerios), bows (arcus), triggers (claves), stirrups (staphas), nuts (nuces), strings (cordas), and all the things pertinent to the aforesaid art at least once a month, and more if it seems fit to them, and if they should find something that violates one of the chapters, they shall collect the penalty written in that chapter without favouritism or hatred, these overseers keeping half the penalty if the truth becomes known because of their accusation.

I may come back and revise these translations but suddenly I have a lot of different people after me for things.

gaukler likes to point out that medieval towns did not have business licenses, so they needed to collect fines from the businesses to pay for town services and infrastructure. I already talked about the armourer in Nürnberg or Augsberg who kept getting fined for importing armour from nowhere in particular, stamping it with his mark and the town mark, and exporting it for a higher price. As the kids in California say, at scale, fines are just another business expense.

The "without favouritism or hatred" clause shows that they knew that funding things by fines could go very badly, but they had not invented business licenses yet and annual membership fees (such as head taxes) do not seem to have been in fashion in town law.

The chapters from 17 onwards are less interesting for makers and I have not transcribed them so I do not know if I will return to this.

[Mac]

Is this the only mention of "traffitta" ?

What is the current thought about it's identity?

Mac

[Sean M]

Is this the only mention of "traffitta" ?

What is the current thought about it's identity?

Mac

M. has no evidence, he just guesses

Non so se la parola <<traffitta>> del capitolo XV significhi appunto una simille divisione del teniere alla sua estremitá superiore o la scanalatura del medisimo, nella quale si poneva il giavellotto per dargli la direzione.

I do not know if the term "traffitta" in chapter 15 indicates a similar division of the tiller at its upper end (into two pieces of wood glued or tied together) or the grove in the middle, into which the dart was placed to take aim.

I might have time in fall to dive into dictionaries after I have finished some other projects, but I don't have any spoons left to research words while the article on linen armour is unfinished and while some other projects are in the air.

[John Vernier]

Modern Italian trafittura means transfixion in the sense of a piercing or impalement. Since the text seems to refer to something installed in the tiller, possibly covered by the binding, it seems likely to refer to the reinforcing iron spike or rivet which transfixes the front of the tiller. It would be a relatively easy component to skimp on, if it is not visible in the finished crossbow.

[Mac]

Modern Italian trafittura means transfixion in the sense of a piercing or impalement. Since the text seems to refer to something installed in the tiller, possibly covered by the binding, it seems likely to refer to the reinforcing iron spike or rivet which transfixes the front of the tiller. It would be a relatively easy component to skimp on, if it is not visible in the finished crossbow.

This seems well reasoned, but I don't know if we have any examples of such reinforcements before the early 16th (?) c. Now.. that doesn't mean that they didn't do it. After all, we don't have a lot of extant material to look at.

Mac

[John Vernier]

That's true, of course. The c.1400 crossbow in the Cologne Stadtmuseum keeps being cited as the earliest extant European crossbow, and if the dating is accurate it is 100 years younger, and from a different region, than these regulations.

Do you know if, among the later extant bows, the reinforcement is sometimes hidden beneath the bone surface plates, or does it invariably pierce them if it is present?

[Mac]

Do you know if, among the later extant bows, the reinforcement is sometimes hidden beneath the bone surface plates, or does it invariably pierce them if it is present?

I don't know of any that hidden under the bone plates. My gut feeling it that this would be unlikely, as it could not be tightened up as the wood shrank. But, that said.. we really can't know without x-raying some tillers.

Mac

[Sean M]

One last gift from Will McLean, the French traité du costume militaire from 1446.

Item, les escuz à quoy on jouste en France sont faiz de bois premièrement dun doy espès, et nervez tant dedans que dehors dun doy espès ou moins ; et sur ladicte nerveure par dehors est couvert de petites pièces larges et carrées du grant dun point deschiquier de tablier, qui sont faictes dos le plus dur que len peut trouver, et le plus comunément sont faictes de cornes de serf endroit la couronne, de lendroit proprement de quoy len fait les noiz aux arbalestres

"Item: the shields with which they joust in France are made, first, from wood of the thickness of a finger, and reinforced (nervez) within and without for thickness of a finger or less; and the said reinforcement (nerveure) on the outside is covered with little pieces, the size and shape of the squares of a chess board, made of the hardest material they can find, and they are ordinarily made from stag horn taken near the crown, the very same material used to make nuts for crossbows."

[Sean M]

The everhelpful Tod has a video on how he lashes his steel-bowed stirrup crossbows (warning: flickering from a failing florescent light). I did not know about the ?wooden? pad on the inside of the stirrup.

He is brave to make heavy bows as well as the ones of a few hundred pounds' draw.

[Sean M]

Matthew Strickland found a reference for a clerk at Stirling castle accepting 20 one-foot crossbows, 4 two-foot crossbows, and 24 girdles in 1304. So it seems like two-foot crossbows could be spanned with a belt.

He cross-references this with a passage in the Tabṣirat arbāb al-lubāb of Murḍa Ibn ˁAli al-Tarṣuṣi, a treatise on arms and armour for Saladin. He translates it as "the crossbow is bent by the pressure of the two feet and the man with the strength of his back, because to draw it one needs a belt of ox-hide, well-tanned and toughened, around the waist, at the end of which there are two iron hooks in which one puts the string. The man places his feet in the inside of the bow and pulls with his back the belt where the hooks are until the string reaches the latch of the guide (ie. the nut of the tiller). He puts in there the key, then he takes the bow in his hands, places the bolt in the guide, lifts the key of the latch to allow it to pass in the inside of the guide; the latch turns because it is like a light pulley on an iron axle pinned to the two sides of the guide and it is revolved to bring it together with the key; the pulley turns, the string is released, the bolt is driven forward and it goes out the end of the guide." (The Great Warbow p. 120)

So he thinks the European two-foot crossbows are spanned using both feet and a belt but not a stirrup (they might have a hanging ring though, or be fitted with a stirrup in case a mighty man thinks he can do it with one leg).

This is probably a re-translation from an earlier partial French translation in an article people keep citing. My photocopy of that article is missing part of the section on crossbows, I ran out of money for the machine and I was focused on other sections at the time. The English translation is printed in Hunting Weapons: From the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century by Howard L. Blackmore p. 178 and Paterson's Guide to the Crossbow p. 35

[Jonathan Dean]

Hey Sean, great find!

I wouldn't be surprised if Patterson had translated from the original Arabic, although he doesn't specify, as he could read it and translated on text on Middle Eastern archery.

[Sean M]

Oh yeah, I forgot that a Paterson translated one of the Arab texts!

The article has a complete Arabic text, an introduction, and French translations of excerpts. So if you can read Arabic, all the sections are available.

It makes sense that once you figure out the belt and hook, you combine it with the two-foot method as well as the stirrup method.

Edit: There are two reasonably priced copies of Paterson on Bookfinder. If I were employed I would pick up one.

[Jonathan Dean]

Dammit! I had to buy my copy new, and now I wish I'd waited a few years xD

[Jonathan Dean]

Looking through Documents relatifs au Clos des galées de Rouen et aux armées de mer du roi de France de 1293 à 1418, Tome 2, there are a few interesting passages:

p12 has "200 crossbows, 200 baldrics, four [windless crossbows]?, four cases of bolts for the [windlass crossbows]?" ("200 arbalestes, 200 baudrez, 4 garroz, 4 cas[ses de carreaux] a garroz")

p14 refers to "bolts of 1 foot" ("carreaux a 1 pié")

p16 has "eight crossbows of 1 foot, eight baldrics of which there should be 6 of linen and 2 of leather, four cases of bolts of 1 foot" ("huit arbalestes a 1 pié, huit baudrés dont il y en a 6 de fill et 2 de cuyr, quartres casses de carreaux a 1 pié"

p20 has "thirty [ready]? crossbows, thirty baldrics, half of leather and half of linen...four thousand bolts of 1 foot, and two haussepieds" ("trente arbalestes prestes, trente baudrés, moitié de cuir et moitié de fil...quatre milliers de carreaux a un pié, et deux haucepiés")

p67 has "thirty one crossbows of two feet and [not any]? quarrels for the windlass crossbows" ("trente une arbalestes a 2 piés et n'a nus quareaus pour arbalestes a tour")

p145 has "2 haussepied crossbows, 4 horn crossbows, 33 foot crossbows, 13 baldrics" ("2 arballestez a hauchepié, 4 arballestez dé cor, 33 arballestes a pié, 13 baudrés")

I did wonder if perhaps the "hauchepié" crossbows might be spanned by a goats foot lever or something similar, but the references to them in Mandements et actes divers de Charles V (1364-1380), p190 indicate that they required a spanning belt as well:

"twenty simple crossbows and six stirrup crossbows with their baldrics...twenty four simple crossbows and six stirrup crossbows, with their baldrics" ("vint arbalestes simples et six arbalestes à haucepie avec les baudriers...vint quatre arbalestes simples et six arbalestes à haucepie, avecques les baudriers")

There are a few other interesting examples from this document as well:

p175: "a hundred yew crossbows of one foot" (" cent arbalestes d'if à un pié")

p224: "twenty five crossbows of one foot" ("vint cinq arbalestes a un pié"), and another document from the same day that refer to a "dozen yew crossbows of one foot".

I won't quote examples from the first volume of Documents relatifs au Clos des galées de Rouen et aux armées de mer du roi de France de 1293 à 1418, as it has over 48 examples, but it almost always specifies the bolts as being 1 feet, even if no description is given to the crossbow itself, and crossbows of two feet, with a stirrup or a windlass are very much in the minority.

[Jonathan Dean]

Hm, maybe I spoke too soon:

"Jacques Hangest huissier d armes du roi et garde du château de Corbeil reçoit 8 arbalètes haussepied, 2 haussepieds, 8 pavois, 2 caisses de carreaux"

The haussepied might indeed be some sort of lever for a large crossbow.

Edit: I checked Jean Liebel, and he presents the haussepied as both a crossbow of two feet and one spanned by a standing lever. I haven't had a chance to see whether it's possible to conflate the haussepied with the crossbow of two feet, but he does make a good point re: the fixed spanning device.

[Sean M]

Here is my retranslation of Claude Cahien's French translation of the passage on page 132 of his article

Puis vient l'arc de pied ( ar-rijl ), qui se bande par la poussée des deux pieds de l'homme avec la force de son dos, car pour tirer il a besoin de se passer à la taille une sangle de cuir de bœuf bien tanné et durci, aux deux bouts de laquelle il y a deux crochets de fer où l'on passe la corde. L'homme placé ses pieds dans l'intérieur de l'arc, et tire avec son dos la sangle où sont les crochets jusqu'à ce que la corde atteigne le verrou du conduit. Il y introduit la clé, puis il saisit l'arc avec les mains, place la flèche (nabl) dans le conduit, ôte la clé du verrou pour le faire passer dans l'intérieur du conduit; le verrou tourne, car il est comme la poulie légère, sur un axe de fer cloué aux deux ouvertures du conduit, et s'en est détourné pour se rapprocher de la clé; la poulie tourne, la corde est relâchée, la flèche propulsée, et elle sort à l'extrémité du conduit (12).

Then comes the foot bow (ar-rijl), which is spanned with the push of the two feet of the man with the strength of his back, for in order to pull it it is necessary to pass a strap of well-tanned and toughened cowhide around the waist. On its two ends are two hooks of iron where one puts the string. The man places his feet on the inside of the bow, and pulls with his back the strap where the hooks are until the string reaches the lock of the trough. The key (ie. trigger) is put in, then he grasps the bow with the hands, places the arrow (nabl) in the trough, and removes the key from the lock to make it pass down the inside of the trough. The lock turns, because it is light as a pulley, on an axle of iron nailed on two holes in the trough, and since it was held back by the presence of the key; the pulley turns, the string is released, the arrow launched, and it goes out from the end of the trough (12).

I think they saw the trigger as a "bolt" holding the "lock" closed.

Note 12 on pages 152 and 153 is a bit hard to understand, if it has anything useful I will edit this post to include it. The only illustrations are ziyâr and ḥusbân crossbows. The shelfmark was Bodleian, Oxford, MS. Hunt 264 when Cahien studied it but I can't find that manuscript in their catalogue https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/

[Sean M]

Guilhelm Ferrand with help from Jean-Pierre Garcia, Les inventaires après décès de la ville de Dijon à la fin du Moyen Âge (1390-1459). Tome I p. 396: Inventary of the effects of Feu Jehan de Tonneurre, locksmith (serrurier): Item, une polie a tendre une aubelestre (item: a pulley to draw an arbalest) That could be Tod's doubler belt before those famous paintings?

Edit: p. 377 of the same book, from August 1400, has an arbalest, a pulley to draw it, and a baldric (baudrey) as a single Item

[Jonathan Dean]

I think that just about confirms it. Good find!

[Sean M]

An old post by Randall M. lead me to a document with a reference to "windlasses" and strings for windlasses for crossbows:

Calendar of Close Rolls for Henry IV of England, 24 September 1401, Westminister. To the keeper of the privy wardrobe within the Tower of London.

Order to deliver to Gerard Spronge the king's esquire or to his attorney, for the king's present expedition towards Wales, four crossbows, a thousand quarrels with heads and two chests for carrying the same, 100 lb. of 'gunpoudre,' 24 stones for guns, 6lb. of thread for crossbow strings and 'wyndaces,' one 'shovyll,' one spade, one hoe, one hammer and one pair of 'pynsoures.'

By K. upon information of Thomas Pikworth knight.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/ABD ... w=fulltext I wish we knew if these were 'big crossbows' for sieges. I would not be surprised if early "tour/turnus" mechanisms tended to be bulky and mostly wood, unlike the smaller iron and steel windlasses in 15th century paintings.

[Sean M]

One of the questions about crossbows is when they were rested against the shoulder like a long gun and when they were rested against the face like an arrow or held in front of the middle of the body like a pistol. A friend is working on transcribing the whole ordinance for Francs-Archers (not just the bit about jacks) and it has an interesting line. Francs-Archers shall be divided into voulges, lances, bows and arbalests. The arbalesters shall wear salets with visors:

"Also, the right-hand side should not cover them as much over the cheek as the left-hand side, so that they may sit their stock at their cheek easily"

et aussi que le coste droit narme pas si bas a la joue que le gauche affin quilz puissent a leur joue asseoir leur arbrier a leur aise

These crossbows are supposed to be pulled with two or four pulleys, so they probably have an 'Englische Winde' / windlass

[Tea Kew]

The last spanning devise I want to include here is another one that "they all have". It's a simple loop or cord attached to the belt and passed over the crossbow's string. In theory is should yield a 2/1 mechanical advantage, minus friction, of course. I have never tried it, and have no idea if it really works.



Mac

(Snipped for brevity)

This is an interesting device because it seems to solve the same problem as a krihake/doubler belt, but obviously in a much simpler way. Do you know of any depictions of it "in use", as opposed to just showing up in military treatises?

(I'll start my own round of manuscript delving here, but I suspect you've looked at a lot more of these than I have)

[Mac]

The last spanning devise I want to include here is another one that "they all have". It's a simple loop or cord attached to the belt and passed over the crossbow's string. In theory is should yield a 2/1 mechanical advantage, minus friction, of course. I have never tried it, and have no idea if it really works.



Mac

(Snipped for brevity)

This is an interesting device because it seems to solve the same problem as a krihake/doubler belt, but obviously in a much simpler way. Do you know of any depictions of it "in use", as opposed to just showing up in military treatises?

(I'll start my own round of manuscript delving here, but I suspect you've looked at a lot more of these than I have)

I have never seen this method anywhere but in military treatises. My suspicion is that it will work... sort of... in a pinch, but that the wear and tear on the string makes it unsustainable.

Mac

[Sean M]

After a discussion somewhere else I am thinking of where we might find more written sources on crossbows from 1350-1450.

Jonathan found the galley rolls from Rouen, I found the post-mortem inventories from Dijon. I think Christine de Pizan's Book of Feats of Arms and of Chivalry (translated by Sumner Willard and edited by Charity Cannon Willard) has a list of types of crossbows to defend a castle.

The articles on "The Lost Armoury of the Gonzagas" by James G. Mann has a few entries from 1407:

#201: E piu quatro leve da balestra •/• "And also, four levers for crossbows"

#285: E piu balestre da bancha no cinque •/• "And also five table crossbows"
#286: E piu balestre de piu sorte n° conto cinquantauna parte con le leve et parte non •/• "And also 151 crossbows of different kinds, some with levers and some without"

#353: E piu quattro balestre alia Francesca con suoi Fornimenti cioe leve corde et fodre de corame et un altra balestra senza martinetto et senza fedro — "And also four crossbows in the French style with their furnishings namely lever, string, and covering of leather and another crossbow without screw-jack and without cover"

The "lever" sounds like it might be our "goat's foot."

Will McLean found a reference to spanning crossbows from the girdle in the medieval biography of Pero Nino of Castille.

The document about Francs-Archers says that archers with crossbows should have windlasses with 4 pulleys "or 2 if they are good at pulling"

Stuart Ellis-Gorman's new book on crossbows may have sources too.

[Tea Kew]

I have Stuart Ellis-Gorman's book. There's a section on crossbow terminology that seems reasonably well written, I'll transcribe the endnotes later.

I presume you've also read his thesis?

[Sean M]

I should have included the link to Stuart Ellis-Gorman's thesis http://hdl.handle.net/2262/77397

Holger Richter's book Die Hornbogenarmbrust: Geschichte und Technik has a chapter of sources (mostly from central Europe, dating 1200-1500). I may add some here.

[Sean M]

On page 140, Holger Richter speculates that a bastard crossbow could be one without a maker's mark. He cites the English Liberate Rolls for the year 1229 with "crossbows made of bastard horn" and suggests that these could be crossbows with several types of horn mixed together.

I will continue to edit this post as he addresses other topics in this thread.

[Sean M]

Ann Wroe found an inventory of the meeting-house of the City of Rodez in Languedoc from 1355 with what she translated as "20 good crossbows, one broken ..., some with a wheel-lock, and one with a reverse lock." I would guess that the wheel-lock is something like ad turnum or its Provencal equivalent but I wonder what the reverse lock was? On the next page she talks about an arquebus so her guesses about how to translate the local dialect were not always solid.

This document has been printed but the book does not seem to be online: H. Bousquet, Comptes consulaires de la cité et du bourg de Rodez (1925) volume 1 pages 178-183. Most of her other sources were unpublished archival documents.