Sean Manning wrote: |
Tripple post. |
Sorry for that, MA's server had a bug when I submitted the comment, and it barely allowed me to comment again, until today. If an admin could exclude the extra comments, it would be great.
Quote: |
First off, its always worth remembering that there are very many confident claims about late medieival archery online, few of which are backed by a proper written argument. For example, there seem to be two groups of estimates of the draw weights of the Mary Rose bows (average about 110 pounds, or average about 150 pounds?), and I can't figure out where the disagreement comes from. Its also not clear that we can extrapolate the very high draw-weight bows from 16th century England, China, and Japan to all cultures everywhere. |
I wasn't aware there were two estimates, I just thought the higher estimative was outdated. Theoretically, the solution isn't just making bows using the same dimensions as the extant ones?
Forums and people from the internet made me think that Mongolian and Turkish composite bows had way more draw weight than Longbows, and also that they delivered more energy than Longbows. I was firmly believing in this composite bow superiority until I discovered longbows being used alongside composite bows in Hungary and Italy (Augusto Boer Bront brought a 15th-century Italian source that advises the use of both bows in some campaign circumstances). In Castille "Turkish bows" appear in 15th-century written sources, and in some artistic evidence, but no Longbows were used there; in Portugal, on the other hand, we have evidence for Longbows, though no positive evidence they were used in war by Portuguese soldiers, the Monarchy only cared to crossbows, stipulating a well-trained militia and having control both of the production and the stocking of them, it's stranger that they didn't talk a thing about longbows in war since they had a super-control on crossbows (a source says the Monarchy demanded that all crossbows were in the kingdom were to be brought to the Royal Arsenals, where they would deliver them to municipal authorities that would give them to the corps of Besteiros do Conto).
[ Linked Image ]
This one is 1,70 meters tall, from the late 14th century. Even taller than the size of an average Iberian man in the 17th century. I'm not aware if the sole reason why Longbows were used in Portugal and not in Castille has to do with the Anglo-Portuguese alliance, but that's my only guess.
[ Linked Image ]
O Martirio de São Sebastiao, c. 1536-1538, Convento de Cristo in Tomar, Portugal, by Gregorio Lopes. Higher definition:
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-martyrdom-of-st-sebastian/fQGwsdhMmIB44g?hl=pt-BR&ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.53208157973441%2C%22y%22%3A0.5449283104276698%2C%22z%22%3A9.993910981447586%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.8323176884471651%2C%22height%22%3A0.8750446417183523%7D%7D
Sean Manning wrote: |
What do you mean by "stronger"? The draw weights of Latin Christian crossbows probably increased with the introduction of steel bows and small portable cranks or winches, countering the inefficiency of steel bows and the inefficiency of short powerstrokes. Its absolutely not the case that technology always gets "better"! The whole history of cloth production is learning to make something 10% worse for half the cost, then making that another 10% worse for 25% less cost. |
I'm not sure if I get it. Do you think later steel prod crossbows weren't better or stronger than previous crossbows? The argument I was presented with is: although steel prods have a higher draw-weight, they are slower to move the bolt out of the crossbow, so in the end they're not stronger than composite prods which would eject the bolt at a higher speed and thus delivering more energy. I don't know if you agree with that reasoning, but your last lines made the impression that crossbows became less efficient because they could produce them cheaper (or perhaps at bigger quantities), so the arrangement would be acceptable. Steel prods seems to be way more expensive than a self-bow prod or composite prod.
Your comments on the span reminded me of that:
"Swiss crossbowmen invariably used the cranequin or rack mechanism to span their weapons, both on horseback and on foot. Though it was the slowest spanning device it was favoured over the windlass because it was considerably less cumbersome. By the time of the Burgundian Wars Swiss crossbowmen were also unencumbered by pavises." (HEATH, Armies of Middle Ages vol. 1)
Switzerland has a deep history with the crossbow (William Tell was a crossbowman and the weapons seems to had a local identity), but I don't know if this position on spaning mechanisms is more like a local custom than something to be generalized.
In regards to weather: wouldn't that be an issue for Mongolian and Turkish campaigns in Europe? I was even trying to dig for any source of Nicopolis and Varna on bows since the French deployed Longbowmen in the former campaign and the Janissaries were expert archers (Wojciech Bobowski described the training of the archers of Enderun and I'm almost sure no place in Europe could match the compromise of their training, which had daily gym-like hypertrophy training).[/quote]