And to possibly add to the confusion: in folio 12r from Das Mittellaterliches Hausbuch (which Sean referenced in his post some years back, above), we have this image: one - and possibly two - crossbowmen using both the cranequin and stirrup at the same time.

Does anyone know of any other images of this? Was it a likely practice, or artist error? Would it give any benefit when not on horseback, such as more stability, and therefore quicker reloading in the field (given that mounted crossbowmen might not have had the benefit of field pavises)? Could the use in this image have some kind of relevance to the fact that the bowyers are target-shooting (ie not necessarily using bows designed for horseback, but still strong enough to require a cranequin)?

I know that Lafayette's OP was specifically about the right kind of bow for a mounted crossbowman, which is what I'm interested in also. However, on the issue of stirrups vs rings, it seems we have some important questions: what role would they have played when on horseback (eg, Would the ring have been used as a hanging point at all? Would a wide stirrup just provide more edge/points to get in the way of things when mounted?).

And, given that some mounted crossbowmen fought from horseback, some rode to battle but dismounted to fight, and it's not hard to imagine that some chose or were forced to do both, then a bow 'for' mounted crossbow use should ideally work well in both contexts ... so, are there limitations of using a 'ring' bow when not on a horse?

---

 Attachment: 90.57 KB

Here's another image of someone using a cranequin/armbrustwinder and stirrup at the same time.

From Imareal: Martyrium der Hl. Ursula und der elftausend Jungfrauen, Flügelaltar, Donauschule, Passau, c.1525-35

---

 Attachment: 249.65 KB

And another ... was this was common practice, artists were copying each other, or something else ...

Again, from Imareal: Martyrium der Hl. Ursula und der elftausend Jungfrauen, Meister der Georgenberger Antoniuslegende, Slowakei, Mlynica, Slowakei, Pfarrkirche St. Margareta, 1515-20

---

 Attachment: 244.9 KB



 Attachment: 247.87 KB

As regards the purpose of the ring, I am not sure.

Cranequins are actually quite unwieldly to use and so using a stirrup does help to steady it, but they are quite possible to load without and if there is a ring then the bow is loaded the other way up with the butt lodged in the edge of the groin. User preference?

This is also equally true for goats foot levers. They do not need a stirrup, but are often shown with them and in this case the hand holds the stirrup rather than the foot. Again user preference?

Tod

It doesn't seem all that complicated as to ring /stirrup preference.
If you will be shooting your crossbow mainly from horseback, you do not need a bulky stirrup while using your cocking device, but you DO need a ring to hang your crossbow from while riding without your crossbow in hand.
If you will be shooting mainly from afoot, a stirrup is very convenient while using a cocking device, and you can hang a crossbow on a packhorse from a stirrup just as well as a ring.

Hi Steve,

I think we'd already established that as a general starting point :D ... but we still have some questions, such as:

- Is there proof that these rings were actually used for hanging the bow? I've got hundreds of images of crossbow use from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, including every image available from Imareal, and haven't yet found an image of a bow hanging from the saddle.
- Where would the bow have been hung from?
- Exactly what kind of attachment would have been used? (eg, If it was simply hung on a hook, what form and placement would that have taken to not get in the way of mounting, dismounting, and riding? Do we have any extant examples of this, or historical images? Or would the ring have simply been tied on to an attachment point with leather thonging, for example?)
- Which troops preferred the ring, and which the full stirrup? In what regions and time periods were they dominant?

And so on ...

Another image that came to mind was from Dolstein's diary. 1510, so about 20 years past your latest date, but it shows a fairly heavily armored and mounted crossbowman. With the caveat being that this isn't 100% to scale, I would be inclined to say that it appears to have a loop at the front of the crossbow, not a stirrup.

[ Linked Image ]

Just posting to add a picture supposedly from a 1334 copy of Codex Willehalm. It doesn't really provide much detail about the crossbow itself or any spanning and/or attachment methods, but it might be interesting just because it's so early. Another view here: http://orka.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/viewer/i...7892891/1/

---

 Attachment: 370.7 KB
[ Download ]

There's also some interesting info at the end of this TMP discussion thread: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=291377