The Armour Archive

Tod has me thinking a bit about crossbow spanning methods. In the 13th century we have one-foot crossbows (with a stirrup?), two-foot crossbows (sit down and draw it with both feet?) and tour-turnus-vice crossbows (windlass? something that the crossbowman turns)

Will McLean found something called a hasepe in the 14th century (is this what the French called a hauchepié or hausse-pied?)

In 1488, the armourers, brigandiniers, and scabbard-makers of Angers in France defined half proof and full proof as follows:

Armour in Texts wrote: 2nd item: And those masters of the aforesaid mastery shall be held to labour (besoigner) and make work of good stuff, that is to say, as regards the armourers, they shall make white harness for men-at-arms of full proof, which is to say against an arbalest à tillolles, and for coursers (coursels) of half proof at least, which is to say against the arbaleste à crocq and the archer’s pull (ie. a longbow rather than an arbalest)

The croc is some kind of belt hook, but does anyone have an idea what the tillole or tillolle or tignole is? Christine de Pisan seems to think the tillole and the tour are two different things: she thinks a wise castellan should obtain 24 good arbalestres à tillale, 6 arbalestres à tour, and 24 arbalestres à crocs.

Not much help but related and interesting

Tod has a video demonstrating 9 medieval methods of spanning a crossbow

Tod wrote:Medieval crossbows!!!
From hand spanning a crossbow with no stirrup, to using a goats foot lever and onto the really powerful systems of the cranequin and the windlass; just what power can these devices employ? The answers are not just calculated from some designs, they are measured from the actual working medieval crossbows.

The results are below
Hand Span 1:1 Max 150lb
Sitting Span 1:1 Max 300lbs
Stirrup 1:1 Max 250lbs
Spanning Belt 1:1 Max 320lbs
Doubler Belt 2:1 Max 450lbs
Goat's Foot Lever ~5:1 Max 550lbs
6 Pulley English Windlass 78:1 +1500lbs
Cranequin 182:1 +2000lbs
Screw Jack 47:1 +1000lbs

English 'windlass' in modern French is 'treuil'. Perhaps an older French version of that?

'Tour' is 'tower', possibly denoting some sort of base-mounted siege crossbow?

It looks like there is one meaning of tour that comes down from Latin turris "tower" ...
and a second meaning from Latin tornus or turnus "some kind of machine with rotary motion. " They think the second kind can be the same as a treuil in modern French.

I like the idea that tilloilles could be a pair of little windlasses, there are people who think that the crossbow ad tornum was more of a springald or great crossbow that you use to snipe people from walls.

Its also interesting because it pegs the power of a hand bow to the power of a type of crossbow. Of course, if archers can learn to double or triple their draw weight if they have to, it could be that arbalesters learned to leg press more weight than they can today In the target crossbow thread from 2016, the highest draw weight people were talking about, 175#, is the lowest Tod is willing to build a 14th/15th century crossbow in today.

I'm still not sure that one and two foot crossbows actually mean they use one or two feet to span. I suspect you have the lighter ones that you can span with your hand but after that they are all belts until you get to the windlasses and such. I think it has to do with bolt size. I have found several clear examples of different length bolts in use for crossbows and they are in the same lists as one and two foot crossbows. What is even more interesting is that the jumbo versions, the giant crossbows and springalds also have two sizes!

RPM

RandallMoffett wrote:I'm still not sure that one and two foot crossbows actually mean they use one or two feet to span. I suspect you have the lighter ones that you can span with your hand but after that they are all belts until you get to the windlasses and such. I think it has to do with bolt size. I have found several clear examples of different length bolts in use for crossbows and they are in the same lists as one and two foot crossbows. What is even more interesting is that the jumbo versions, the giant crossbows and springalds also have two sizes!

RPM

The whole question of "two foot" crossbows is a bit vexing, but there is one thing I am pretty sure of. That is, that they are not bows with stirrups which accommodate both feet. I read that shocking assertion somewhere, and have ever since kept my eyes open for examples, either extant or in art. I have not seen any evidence for a two-foot-stirrup.

My working assumption had been that "two foot" bows were the sort you occasionally saw which had nt stirrup, but were spanned by placing both feet on the bow while seated. These don't seem to be represented often enough to account for their frequency in inventories, though.

Mac

RandallMoffett wrote:I'm still not sure that one and two foot crossbows actually mean they use one or two feet to span. I suspect you have the lighter ones that you can span with your hand but after that they are all belts until you get to the windlasses and such. I think it has to do with bolt size. I have found several clear examples of different length bolts in use for crossbows and they are in the same lists as one and two foot crossbows. What is even more interesting is that the jumbo versions, the giant crossbows and springalds also have two sizes!

RPM

If they were using some long bolts, that sounds like they were using some crossbows with long powerstrokes. I get the impression that the people working on crossbows have not experimented so much with wooden bows and hornbows, because crossbow people tend to like the mechanical side more than fussy natural materials.

Tod is not so impressed by the 'sit on your butt and push with both legs' method, he can draw a stronger bow with a belt hook and stirrup. And don't the "windlass/crank/turner" crossbows show up in documents before we see them in art?

One day it would be fun to do a deep dive into European crossbows and see if the archaeologists have some cool things we don't know about.

Sean M wrote: If they were using some long bolts, that sounds like they were using some crossbows with long powerstrokes. I get the impression that the people working on crossbows have not experimented so much with wooden bows and hornbows, because crossbow people tend to like the mechanical side more than fussy natural materials.

There are a lot more modern makers using steel bows than other materials. They are easy to understand. By contrast, there is a lot to figure out before you can reliably make a composite bow. There are a few Europeans who are building them, but they seem to be very secretive of their methods. (Who really benefits from that? )

Sean M wrote:Tod is not so impressed by the 'sit on your butt and push with both legs' method, he can draw a stronger bow with a belt hook and stirrup.

My impression of the bows where you sit on you butt and use both legs is that they are rather long in the stroke. If that's right, then they might take a longer bolt than those that span with a hook.

There is a sort of unstated idea that "a two foot bow must surely be more powerful than a one foot bow". While this might not be true in terms of draw weight, the longer stroke (if I'm right about that) may well make up the difference. So... without making up reconstructions or even crunching the numbers; the two footer might or might not be a more formidably weapon.

Sean M wrote:And don't the "windlass/crank/turner" crossbows show up in documents before we see them in art?

I think that's right. I imagine that it's for two reasons. The first is that they may well look the same when the artist shows the crossbowman taking aim from the battlements. The second is that those self same battlements are going to conceal the spanning mechanism from view.

The exception here may be the spanning mechanisms which show up in Kyeser's Bellifortis. I don't know how that compares to when they appear in documents.

Mac

Sean M wrote:

RandallMoffett wrote:I'm still not sure that one and two foot crossbows actually mean they use one or two feet to span. I suspect you have the lighter ones that you can span with your hand but after that they are all belts until you get to the windlasses and such. I think it has to do with bolt size. I have found several clear examples of different length bolts in use for crossbows and they are in the same lists as one and two foot crossbows. What is even more interesting is that the jumbo versions, the giant crossbows and springalds also have two sizes!

RPM

If they were using some long bolts, that sounds like they were using some crossbows with long powerstrokes. I get the impression that the people working on crossbows have not experimented so much with wooden bows and hornbows, because crossbow people tend to like the mechanical side more than fussy natural materials.

I only know of one attempt at a crossbow that comes close to the Berkhamsted or Glasgow bows, although it's a proof of concept rather than an attempt at approximation, but it has a 15" powerstroke and seems sufficiently powerful to match the heavy end of 12th/13th century warbows.

And don't the "windlass/crank/turner" crossbows show up in documents before we see them in art?

Yes, but I question their use in the field. Where I can identify a spanning method, the belt and claw is the only method in use right through to the end of the 14th and start of the 15th centuries, at least in France and England. It's really only after the 1420s that cranks or windlasses can be discerned. My working theory is that mechanical aids were just too much of a nuisance for field use until a combination of more complete plate armour and more compact (steel) lathes created a need for more powerful crossbows than could be spanned without mechanical aid.

I really believe the two foot version are bigger in scale and size. We actually have a few remaining that are big to insanely big crossbows. IN this case it is logical that they used longer bolts and had a bigger power stroke and possibly heavier bolts. I found evidence of them all the way into the 15th when they seem to disappear along with the decline of the giant crossbows.

The account that is clearest for the giant crossbows were from Edward II's reign. It mentioned bolts of 2/3 a yard and 3/4 a yard. Now to me that is interesting as the smaller one if my math is right should be about 23-24" (c.two feet) and the 3/4 should be 27-29".

The Biggest I know of is one Bertus got me photos of and it from the Bayerisches Armeemuseum in Ingorstadt, and it must have been off the top of my head about 5.5-6 feet across for a prod, easily 2 times the size of the crossbows around it.

Now whether the giant crossbow and two foot are the same thing or overlap bolt size I don't know. That said in one Ed II account prepping for the War of St. Sardos he gets two sizes of crossbow bolts and springalds. Perhaps the springald loosed a heftier diameter projectile? Having messed about with bows and crossbows I have seen that too light of arrows get to a point of diminishing returns to flat out failures. It could be that they at one point had crossbows with longer power strokes that were in use. How I could not say except that most of the documents I find them in are for castle and civic defense.

The fact they start to disappear in the first half of the 15th into the 2nd half makes me think they get replaced by handgonnes and small cannon. Whereas the smaller crossbows remain in use as they have many advantages, perhaps these did not. It could also be that more powerful smaller crossbows replaced them as well...

Sean- I was hoping your foray into Italian sources might help with this as they had many towns and likely civic accounts that might be rich in such things. I need to learn Italian.... the urban militias and such fascinate me.

RPM

Jonathan Dean wrote: I only know of one attempt at a crossbow that comes close to the Berkhamsted or Glasgow bows, although it's a proof of concept rather than an attempt at approximation, but it has a 15" powerstroke and seems sufficiently powerful to match the heavy end of 12th/13th century warbows.

That's an interesting project, but I didn't see any pics in the thread.

Jonathan Dean wrote:Yes, but I question their use in the field. Where I can identify a spanning method, the belt and claw is the only method in use right through to the end of the 14th and start of the 15th centuries, at least in France and England. It's really only after the 1420s that cranks or windlasses can be discerned. My working theory is that mechanical aids were just too much of a nuisance for field use until a combination of more complete plate armour and more compact (steel) lathes created a need for more powerful crossbows than could be spanned without mechanical aid.

I think I may have missed a couple of those images in my Pinterest page of (mostly) one foot bows. I'll just pin them all and sort out duplicates later. Thanks!

Mac

RandallMoffett wrote:I really believe the two foot version are bigger in scale and size. We actually have a few remaining that are big to insanely big crossbows. IN this case it is logical that they used longer bolts and had a bigger power stroke and possibly heavier bolts. I found evidence of them all the way into the 15th when they seem to disappear along with the decline of the giant crossbows.

I can readily believe that. With a 15" powerstroke, and presumably a 18-20" draw length, a two foot bolt would be just about right for the linked crossbow. I've seen suggestions that the Berkhamstead bow (which was somewhat thicker in the center than the linked bow) was likely a rampart bow, and that would fit with your general theory.

Mac wrote:That's an interesting project, but I didn't see any pics in the thread.

They seem to have disappeared, along with some other photos on the forum, during the last year. I regret not downloading them now.

I think I may have missed a couple of those images in my Pinterest page of (mostly) one foot bows. I'll just pin them all and sort out duplicates later. Thanks!

Mac

No problems!

And that's a fantastic Pintrest page you've got there. Lots of examples there I hadn't come across yet.

Jonathan Dean wrote:
And that's a fantastic Pintrest page you've got there. Lots of examples there I hadn't come across yet.

Thanks! I'm been collecting them for a while. Feel free to harvest it as you will.

Mac

RandallMoffett wrote: The Biggest I know of is one Bertus got me photos of and it from the Bayerisches Armeemuseum in Ingorstadt, and it must have been off the top of my head about 5.5-6 feet across for a prod, easily 2 times the size of the crossbows around it.


RPM

Is this the one?

Since we are moving away from the late 15th century ...

The books by Joseph Alm (1947, even if the English translation came out in 1994) and by Egon Harmuth are getting pretty old. Are there any recent publications which focus on crossbows from the high and late middle ages, before we have all those beautiful ones in collections? Archaeologists in eastern Europe are digging up all kinds of things, and museum-based scholars don't always know the written sources so well. I don't know if I have ever seen an original belt hook ...

Giovanni Monticolo published the Latin rule of the crossbow-makers of Venice in 1896, there are probably some French rules if you dig for them. David Bachrach published a pair of articles called "Crossbows for the King" on crossbows in English royal administrative texts, and Jack Gassman has something on mounted crossbowmen in one of those $300 volumes from Brill. Its fun to hear about Peter the Saracen and Benedict the Moor turning up in England in 1204 making crossbows for King John.

Given a choice, artists often prefer to show less bulky weapons which don't get in the way, and the people buying illuminated manuscripts in the 12th/13th century wanted to see knights not town militia, even if the illuminators' guild had a proud contingent of crossbowmen in the town militia. Maybe that is why its so hard to find two-foot crossbows and windlass crossbows in 12th/13th/14th century art?

Mike Loades recently wrote a short book on them for Osprey which gives a more or less modern introduction to medieval European crossbows, with some additional information about Chinese crossbows.

I know Stuart Gorman is currently in the process of writing a book on crossbows that I believe is intended as a modern English language equivalent to Alm or Harmuth. I don't know if he's paying specific attention to the Eastern European archaeology, but I know he's very aware of the current German scholarship, so I expect a lot of the archaeology will filter in anyway.

Humh, looks like something to read! And I will give the Mike Loades book a try if I can ever order a bunch of Ospreys.

Gorman, Stuart (2016) "The Technological Development of the Bow and the Crossbow in the Later Middle Ages." Ph.D. Thesis, Trinity College Dublin. http://hdl.handle.net/2262/77397

Am I right that in the late medieval/early modern European crossbows, the only parts which really work better in iron are the trigger and maybe the stirrup? So we would not expect a lot of archaeological finds, but there are some deep muddy bogs in the Low Countries and Lithuania/Poland.

I will also throw in a bit of the rule of the crossbow-makers of Venice from around 1278

Victor Gay found an "arbalest of steel gilt" worth 100 s. in the inventory of from 1313 in an inventory of Mahaut d'Artois https://archive.org/stream/glossairearc ... 0/mode/2up

Edit: Stuart Gorman on page 193 of his dissertation quotes some authorities who think that something called a krihake is what Tod calls a "doubler belt" that runs from the girdle, around a pully attached to the bowstring, and back to a pin on the stock. He thinks he can see two in Piero de Pollaiuolo's Martyrdom of St Sebastian.

To me that word looks like it could be a "croc-hook," like saying "ringmail" or "katana sword" or "carbine gun." Sometimes people say a foreign word and then a word in their language that means the same thing. But I don't have access to any crossbow books while the libraries are closed.

Sean M wrote: I don't know if I have ever seen an original belt hook ...

I've got some images on my crossbow board.... but most (all?) of the hooks can be seen on Rob M's hook section of his crossbow board.

The thing that's surprising about them is that many (or perhaps most) have a sort of tang on the loop. This must end up stitched into the strap, and probably makes it easier to manipulate the hook.







Mac

Sean M wrote: Am I right that in the late medieval/early modern European crossbows, the only parts which really work better in iron are the trigger and maybe the stirrup? So we would not expect a lot of archaeological finds, but there are some deep muddy bogs in the Low Countries and Lithuania/Poland.

.

Do you mean "better in iron" than in organic material? As far as I'm concerned those are parts that really must be made of iron or steel.


They do get turned up by metal detectorists on occasion. This is a stirrup I bought on Ebay from some guy in Bulgaria (?)




In addition to the trigger and stirrup, there is also the reinforcement for the nut. These sometimes rust away, but this pic shows what they look like in the nut.



Mac

Thank you for the belt hooks! They look just like what I see in 14th century manuscripts. Tod has good relations with a foundry, so I wonder why he does not cast some of the hooks- it looks like he makes his out of twisted bar stock and fits two hooks on them. He uses steel nuts, which Iolo does not like.

Luttrell Psalter
BNF Français 167 Bible Moralisée
BNF Français 2813 Grandes Chroniques de France

Is spanning with a single hook more fiddly than spanning with a pair? In the art it looks like the single hook slides back alongside the stock until the nut catches the string.

Aren't there a few crossbows from Europe around the year 1000, and many used in the last century in east Asia, which are made of nothing but wood, horn, bone, twine, and sinew? I'd imagine that without the iron trigger the draw weight has to be pretty low.

It looks like if you wanted a replica of a late 14th century crossbow, a belt hook would be a safe choice, but there were probably spanning devices which allowed a stronger draw like the doubler belt or the windlass or the screw jack (and what were the mounted crossbowmen using- hand span braced against their body?)

Sean M wrote:
it looks like he makes his out of twisted bar stock and fits two hooks on them.

Double hooks are what happens when we turn our modern minds to the question of crossbow spanning. We just can't seem to accept the idea that one hook will bring the string to center, so we "improve" it. The idea seems to have begun with Viollet-le-Duc, and has grown to be a standard of modern illustration since then.

To the best of my knowledge there is only one example in art of a guy using a double hook. It sort of looks like the artist couldn't decide which side of the bow to put the hook on, so he did both.



Now... there are double hooks; but they are the sort that have a built in pulley or roller. This one is typical.

Sean M wrote: He uses steel nuts, which Iolo does not like.

Steel nuts are not an authentic solution, but it's easy to see why people use them. It's difficult to get good antler for nuts, and tedious to set in a steel insert for the trigger to bear against. Theoretically, steel nuts rob the bow of power by being heavy and slow to accelerate, but I don't know how much difference it makes.

Sean M wrote: Is spanning with a single hook more fiddly than spanning with a pair? In the art it looks like the single hook slides longside the stock until the nut catches the string.

It's not as difficult as you might think. After a bit, you just learn where to put the hook so that it ends up bringing the string up centered. The double hook is an invention to solve a nonexistent problem.

The difficult thing about spanning with any hook is learning to balance yourself while you do it. I recommend practicing with a light weight bow until the motion it smooth and natural before moving up to something heavier. I learned on a 75# "baby bow", and found that the step up to 150# was pretty easy. I once taught someone with no earlier experience to span their 175# bow with a hook. It was a bit scary till he got the hang of it.

Sean M wrote:It looks like if you wanted a replica of a late 14th century crossbow, a belt hook would be a safe choice, but there were probably spanning devices which allowed a stronger draw like the doubler belt or the windlass or the screw jack (and what were the mounted crossbowmen using- hand span braced against their body?)

For the late 14th C, a belt hook typical an normal.

I have no idea how mounted crossbowmen spanned their weapons before the advent of craniquins or goat's foot leavers.

Mac

Sean M wrote:Aren't there a few crossbows from Europe around the year 1000, and many used in the last century in east Asia, which are made of nothing but wood, horn, bone, twine, and sinew? I'd imagine that without the iron trigger the draw weight has to be pretty low.

There's at least one virtually complete example, which had fragments from other crossbows associated with it:

http://www.callixte.com/downloads/histo ... avines.jpg
http://www.callixte.com/downloads/histo ... avines.jpg

Tod made a replica of it as well: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.32376.html

Jonathan Dean wrote:
There's at least one virtually complete example, which had fragments from other crossbows associated with it:

http://www.callixte.com/downloads/histo ... avines.jpg
http://www.callixte.com/downloads/histo ... avines.jpg

Tod made a replica of it as well: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.32376.html

That's an interesting lock; a welcome change from the "rising pin".

When is the find thought to date from?

Mac

Somewhere between 1000 and 1040 AD, which is the lifespan of the site, so it's a fortunately well dated find. It was probably a hunting weapon (blunt bolts were found as well), but it definitely makes for an interesting experiment in design.

Since there is interest, I will start posting rough translations of one or two clauses a week and talking about loud about the parts that I don't understand.

Will McLean has one more gift for us:

Will McLean, Crossbows of the Dukes of Burgundy https://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/search/label/Archery wrote:According to the records below, from 1362 to 1445 in cases where the material of the bow was identified they owned or bought 552 crossbows with wooden bows, and 195 composite bows of corne (horn). From 1446, when they first began to acquire steel crossbows, to 1485, they owned or bought 197 crossbows with wooden bows, and 1,422 with steel bows.

Garnier, Joseph. 1895. L'artillerie des ducs de Bourgogne: d'après les documents conservés aux archives de la Côte-d'Or. Paris: H. Champion.

So people with money were still buying arbalests with wooden bows in the 14th and early 15th century. In the English royal accounts from King John to Edward I, the one-foot crossbows are most often wood and the two-foot and turn crossbows are mostly horn (with ratios like 3:1 not 10:1).

IN this case it is logical that they used longer bolts and had a bigger power stroke and possibly heavier bolts

For sure they had havier bolts: from the capitolare of blacksmiths of Venice we know that 1000 "quadrelli de strove" should weight 35-38 libre, 1000 "quadrelli de ballestra da duos pedes" 60 libre.

"Now whether the giant crossbow and two foot are the same thing or overlap bolt size I don't know"
They were 2 different things.

In addition to the trigger and stirrup, there is also the reinforcement for the nut

The capitolare of crossbowmakers of Venice obliged to reinforce the nut.

For the late 14th C, a belt hook typical an normal.

In Italian sources of XIV century it seems that the "normal" crossbows always should be used with a belt hook. Probably also one-foot crossbows were too strong to be loaded only by arms.

I have no idea how mounted crossbowmen spanned their weapons before the advent of craniquins or goat's foot leavers

The problem is: how they fought? as a mounted infantry or as cavalry with ranged weapons? However the arsenal of Venice in 1310 had 33 "balestrae de pectore". Maybe lighter crossbows for mounted crossbowmen?
I found a mendum (the mendum was the refund payed for horses and arms lost in battle, skirmish, ...) from 1230: a mounted crossbowmen in Siena was armed with "unius corecti et unius barbute et corazzarie de corio et unius spate et unius par copertarum et unius baliste et unius talamacci et unius cappelli corii et unius farsetti et unius cultelli".

ergosum wrote:I found a mendum (the mendum was the refund payed for horses and arms lost in battle, skirmish, ...) from 1230: a mounted crossbowmen in Siena was armed with "unius corecti et unius barbute et corazzarie de corio et unius spate et unius par copertarum et unius baliste et unius talamacci et unius cappelli corii et unius farsetti et unius cultelli".

Am I right in reading "corazzarie de corio" as "cuirass of leather" and "cappelli corii" as "leather cap"?

ergosum wrote:The problem is: how they fought? as a mounted infantry or as cavalry with ranged weapons? However the arsenal of Venice in 1310 had 33 "balestrae de pectore". Maybe lighter crossbows for mounted crossbowmen?

Ergosum, I hope you have comments as I work through the guild rule starting next weekend.

The Norwegian King's Mirror ('200), Hals Talhoffer ('400), and I think Sir John Smythe ('500) all talk about spanning and shooting the crossbow from horseback. A new article by Jack Gassman called "The Use of the Crossbow in Medieval Cavalry" has some details but its in a very expensive volume from Brill. But I think there is a lot for English speakers to learn about medieval (pre 1450) crossbows in general and their role in combat in particular, most of the crossbow books focus on the 1450-1700 era when we have lots of surviving crossbows.

Edit: Gassman adds Martin Huntfelz ("Item: note that when you are to fight on horseback with a crossbow and a sword and would like to keep both so you do not lose one as you work with the other. Note: when you have shot and cannot come to spanning and must defend yourself, so throw the crossbow on your right and grab for your sword or grip the crossbow under the nut with the left hand and also the reins with the left hand.") and a painting in WLB HB XIII 6 Weltchronik folio 218v

There's an explanation of how to span a crossbow on horseback in Latham and Patterson's Arab Archery, which is a translation of the mid-14th century mamluke manual:

To shoot this weapon, the mounted archer should equip himself with a broad strap after the style of the familiar Frankish drawing-strap (jabbadh). The drawing-claw (khattaf) should have two hooks. What the archer does is to slip the drawing-strap over his left shoulder like a strap of the kind used by porters for heaving massive loads (hamalat al-haykal), placing the claw below his right armpit close to the nipple. When he wishes to shoot, he takes the reins in his left hand and the bow in his right and sets the string in the hooks, keeping the stock right in between them. He then bends forward in a stooping position until the front half of his right foot is in the stirrup with which his weapon is equipped. The archer now stands in his stirrups, as he draws the string at its centre point until it catches in the stock-nut (jawzah) and be can then settle it firmly with his right hands. This done, he bends over forward, removes his foot from the bow and, lifting the crossbow off the hook, transfers it to his left hand and holds it along with his reins.

It's rather different from your ms. image, but I believe the Islamic crossbow generally had a longer draw length and was more like a Han dynasty crossbow. The basic principle of bending down and putting one foot in the stirrup before standing/straightening seems to be the same, though.

Jonathan Dean wrote:There's an explanation of how to span a crossbow on horseback in Latham and Patterson's Arab Archery, which is a translation of the mid-14th century mamluke manual:

To shoot this weapon, the mounted archer should equip himself with a broad strap after the style of the familiar Frankish drawing-strap (jabbadh). The drawing-claw (khattaf) should have two hooks. What the archer does is to slip the drawing-strap over his left shoulder like a strap of the kind used by porters for heaving massive loads (hamalat al-haykal), placing the claw below his right armpit close to the nipple. When he wishes to shoot, he takes the reins in his left hand and the bow in his right and sets the string in the hooks, keeping the stock right in between them. He then bends forward in a stooping position until the front half of his right foot is in the stirrup with which his weapon is equipped. The archer now stands in his stirrups, as he draws the string at its centre point until it catches in the stock-nut (jawzah) and be can then settle it firmly with his right hands. This done, he bends over forward, removes his foot from the bow and, lifting the crossbow off the hook, transfers it to his left hand and holds it along with his reins.

It's rather different from your ms. image, but I believe the Islamic crossbow generally had a longer draw length and was more like a Han dynasty crossbow. The basic principle of bending down and putting one foot in the stirrup before standing/straightening seems to be the same, though.

Now that I see this, I remember having read it decades ago.

I'm very surprised at the apparent draw length! If the business end of that hook is "close to the nipple", the overall draw must be about 20 inches (500mm) longer than the overall draw of a European one foot bow; where the hook is somewhere between the groin and the knee. I wonder if there could be some error in the translation.... or if the bows are really that big.

I am also surprised to see that he specifies a double hook. I guess I need to back off on my "they never did that" stance on such hooks.

Mac

Edit

I guess we must be talking about something like this.



That's certainly a very long draw. It's more or less a handbow on a tiller.

Mac

Sean M wrote:Since there is interest, I will start posting rough translations of one or two clauses a week and talking about loud about the parts that I don't understand.

Will McLean has one more gift for us:

Will McLean, Crossbows of the Dukes of Burgundy https://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/search/label/Archery wrote:According to the records below, from 1362 to 1445 in cases where the material of the bow was identified they owned or bought 552 crossbows with wooden bows, and 195 composite bows of corne (horn). From 1446, when they first began to acquire steel crossbows, to 1485, they owned or bought 197 crossbows with wooden bows, and 1,422 with steel bows.

Garnier, Joseph. 1895. L'artillerie des ducs de Bourgogne: d'après les documents conservés aux archives de la Côte-d'Or. Paris: H. Champion.

So people with money were still buying arbalests with wooden bows in the 14th and early 15th century. In the English royal accounts from King John to Edward I, the one-foot crossbows are most often wood and the two-foot and turn crossbows are mostly horn (with ratios like 3:1 not 10:1).

The proportion of wood to composite is very surprising to me. What I think I'm seeing in art is composite bows replacing wooden ones more or less entirely by the last third of the 14th C. I wonder if I'm misidentifying what I see.

The steel bow figures seem reasonable, though. We often hear people say "Oh, they had steel bows by 1400!" as justification for what they are shooting. While steel bows may have existed then, they don't seem show up in art that early.

Mac

Mac wrote:Now that I see this, I remember having read it decades ago.

I'm very surprised at the apparent draw length! If the business end of that hook is "close to the nipple", the overall draw must be about 20 inches (500mm) longer than the overall draw of a European one foot bow; where the hook is somewhere between the groin and the knee. I wonder if there could be some error in the translation.... or if the bows are really that big.

I am also surprised to see that he specifies a double hook. I guess I need to back off on my "they never did that" stance on such hooks.

Mac

Edit

I guess we must be talking about something like this.



That's certainly a very long draw. It's more or less a handbow on a tiller.

Mac

That's the impression I got reading the next section of the text, where he speaks of mounting a regular bow on a tiller to make a crossbow. He gave the draw weight as over 400lbs, though, so I was a little unsure about whether it was actually a regular bow or now. That image seems to solve the issue in favour of it being more or less a regular bow in at least some cases.

Here are summaries of the types of crossbow purchased by kings of England (1204-1307) and dukes of Burgundy (1362-1485). Practice in England or Burgundy may well have been different from Venice or Austria, and its possible that some of the Burgundian bows were horse bows or hunting bows or target bows. The English bows were mostly for equipping royal castles or fighting the Scots or the Welsh.



Faris and Elmer's Arab Archery chapter IV says that "the Turks and most of the Persians" make heavy Turkish or Persian bows and mount them on groved stocks and fit the stock with a lock and trigger and stirrup, and that this is a kind of foot bow. So maybe the crossbows our Arab archer knew were more like a Frankish "two foot" crossbow? The "Turkish and Persian" crossbows have stirrups though ...

Edit: Updated the chart, I switched the order of the two rows with early 13th century two-foot bows

Jonathan Dean wrote: That's the impression I got reading the next section of the text, where he speaks of mounting a regular bow on a tiller to make a crossbow. He gave the draw weight as over 400lbs, though, so I was a little unsure about whether it was actually a regular bow or now. That image seems to solve the issue in favour of it being more or less a regular bow in at least some cases.

That would be a lot of bow to span with one leg. With such a long draw, it would be very powerful indeed!

Mac

Randal Storey's thesis contains lots of useful information on purchases. Interestingly, the average price for two-foot quarrels is double the average price for one-foot quarrels.