The Armour Archive

Anyone have a citation for the distances used for target shooting by urban crossbow fraternities etc.? I know of three images of crossbow target shooting (one in the Hausbuch, one in a late c15 BL ms I forgot to note the shelfmark for, and one similar one I remember but can't track down, also a c. 15 background image) and all seem to be quite short range. I'd also welcome notices of other illuminations of the subject.

Cliff

Cliff Rogers wrote:I'd also welcome notices of other illuminations of the subject.

http://www.larsdatter.com/archers.htm




Several examples in there. (I think the Hausbuch one you mean is the Wolfegg Housebook. I'm trying to get better about my references to housebooks, since there's a big difference between the Wolfegg Housebook and the Mendel & Landauer Housebooks, but sometimes I just shorthand 'em as "hausbuch" and that screws me up when I'm trying to remember just which one.)

Some others linked from http://www.larsdatter.com/archers.htm -

• http://tarvos.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/server ... 008596.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... nstanz.jpg
• http://www.kikirpa.be/www2/cgi-bin/wwwo ... &513812=on & http://www.kikirpa.be/www2/cgi-bin/wwwo ... &513811=on
• http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/Lo ... =159503920 and some other Breughel-the-Younger kermesses

There's also an interesting invitation to an archery competition -- see http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/hsb_reljupiter4.shtm -- though I can't read the text well enough to tell you anything about the competition itself.

A lot of the shooting was at 'popinjays' on a mast, rather than what we think of as a range. The Popinjay makes its appearance in Low Country crossbow shooting in references by the mid 15th century at least.

You might try the article
Open shooting festivals (Freischießen) in German cities, 1455–1501
Kazuhiko Kusudo
International Journal of the History of Sport, 1743-9035, Volume 16, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 65 – 86

If you don't have access to the article electronically or at your library and want to know the numbers now let me know and I'll see if I can get them from it.

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

Cliff Rogers wrote:I'd also welcome notices of other illuminations of the subject.

http://www.larsdatter.com/archers.htm




Several examples in there. (I think the Hausbuch one you mean is the Wolfegg Housebook. I'm trying to get better about my references to housebooks, since there's a big difference between the Wolfegg Housebook and the Mendel & Landauer Housebooks, but sometimes I just shorthand 'em as "hausbuch" and that screws me up when I'm trying to remember just which one.)

Yes, that's the Hausbuch I meant. I had also seen the list you linked to but didn't see other images of what I'm looking for-- which are they? Sorry if I'm being dense.

Cliff Rogers wrote:Yes, that's the Hausbuch I meant. I had also seen the list you linked to but didn't see other images of what I'm looking for-- which are they? Sorry if I'm being dense.

No, I think I'm denser. So, pardon my density, but what's your question? (Do you want the sources for the images above? They're all at http://larsdatter.com/archers.htm but I guess you'd have to look at the source code to find out which one's which ... but let me know which ones you were having trouble finding more information about. I'm not sure about the ones that you're describing that I didn't link to, though, being as how I have a hard time reaching into other people's brains and finding the sources of the pictures they're thinking about.)

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

Cliff Rogers wrote:Yes, that's the Hausbuch I meant. I had also seen the list you linked to but didn't see other images of what I'm looking for-- which are they? Sorry if I'm being dense.

No, I think I'm denser. So, pardon my density, but what's your question? (Do you want the sources for the images above? They're all at http://larsdatter.com/archers.htm but I guess you'd have to look at the source code to find out which one's which ... but let me know which ones you were having trouble finding more information about. I'm not sure about the ones that you're describing that I didn't link to, though, being as how I have a hard time reaching into other people's brains and finding the sources of the pictures they're thinking about.)

I'm looking for ones that show the crossbow range (in the sense of "shooting gallery") and thereby give a sense of the range (distance) at which competition and/or practice was undertaken. E.g. the Hausbuch image or the Schilling image you kindly leld me to. But I don't see any others on the list you provided... did I miss one or more?

Piers Brent wrote:You might try the article
Open shooting festivals (Freischießen) in German cities, 1455–1501
Kazuhiko Kusudo
International Journal of the History of Sport, 1743-9035, Volume 16, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 65 – 86

If you don't have access to the article electronically or at your library and want to know the numbers now let me know and I'll see if I can get them from it.

Piers,

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
Cliff

Cliff Rogers wrote:I'm looking for ones that show the crossbow range (in the sense of "shooting gallery") and thereby give a sense of the range (distance) at which competition and/or practice was undertaken. E.g. the Hausbuch image or the Schilling image you kindly leld me to. But I don't see any others on the list you provided... did I miss one or more?

Possibly. You just want images that give a sideways view of the range (thus giving a better idea of the sense of distance involved)? I like fols 11v and 12r in the Hennessy Hours (c. 1530s).

The archery fair at Konstanz in the Lucerne chronicle (1513) is also pretty nifty, but it's kind of at an odd angle for gauging distance.

Interesting to note, there is a description in Olivier de la Marche of an entrement in Philip the Good's Feast of the Pheasant, which depicts a shooting at the popinjay - in this case,in the form of a magpie, atop a tall pole, by shooters of both bows and crossbows.

The measurements are done mostly in steps and strings.
crossbow ranges are between 70m and 105m with circular targets ranged 12 to 18 cm
'muskets' ranges are between 168m to 216m with circular targets about 160cm.

Piers,

What are the dates for the ranges you are listing? Are they from specific accounts or combinations of multiple ones?

RPM

RandallMoffett wrote:Piers,

What are the dates for the ranges you are listing? Are they from specific accounts or combinations of multiple ones?

RPM

Randall, they are from the second half of the c15 and based on multiple examples. They are from the article Piers mentioned.

Cliff

Thanks for that info. When I get back to school I may have to look the article up.

So second half of the 15th. When it mentions muskets then it is using the term fairly loosely then.

Why do you suppose they did not just use a smaller target and shorter ranges with the 'muskets'? It seems like they had to enlarge the target to have a chance to hit it but it seems an odd set up. The distance is just a bit more than doubled but the target size has gone up nearly ten times. Seems very strange.



RPM

That is why I put it as 'musket'. The author is from Hiroshima University and has a Japanese name so I suspect English is not his first language.

For the answer to the range and size you might try Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics by Hall, he references studies on the accuracy of smooth bore weapons and what not.

The term musket does not come into use until well within the 16th century, though.

Tactical use of the arquebus in Germany at the time pretty much has them being either used from town walls, or wagenbergs, in a very static fashion. Given powder, barrel length, and the windage between barrel and projectile needed to keep them in action for more than a shot or two, you do not have a very accurate arm in regards to man ported black powder weapons. There is a reason the crossbow holds precedence as a hunting weapon in Central Europe until well into the 16th century.


One of the factors the various 'accuracy' tests (and it isn't like there have been many) with the arm usually fail to take into account is the windage required in a combat arm of the day. A few shots fould a bore making a close tolerance ball impossible to load under field conditions.

Historical etymology does not always take president in the usage of terms especially when one is using it generically. Could be worse he references another article that calls them riffles.

In this case I'm pretty sure musket means a long firearm, as opposed to something like a pistol, that has a smooth bore and was muzzle loaded.
I believe, although it is not my thing, that late-15th century firearms fit into that definition. You also have to remember that it is a journal of sport history and not even a military history one so you using a more specific term doesn't necessarily do any good.

Accuracy tests are designed intentionally not to take in to account real conditions because that is what makes them scientific. You need as few variables as possible or at least ones you can control.