Payne Galway attributes the crossbow to the Romans, but I interpret this as the bias of a classically educated European.
I wonder how the crossbow was transmitted from Ancient China, or is there a case for it being independently invented elsewhere?
Rod.

As a topic of only recent interest to me, I must rely on the web and but one book I own that discusses them.

Most web sources seem to agree with information drawn from yet another author (Peterson?) and do credit thew Chinese with the earliest evidence.

The author I have discussed elswhere (Blackmore) Presents timlines for both the Chinese evidence and credits introduction to the west from the east. Interestingly though, is his description of writings from Heron of Alexandria. These writings, said to have been written in the first century, describes a "gastraphetes".

This object seems to bear little resemblance to the early Chinese crossbows, it seemingly a board mounted bow with a series of notches in a trough. Drawn against the stomach, hence the name gastraphetes.

He also offers that Heron's writings may in fact relate the lost writings of Ctesibius of Alexandria who lived the middle of the third century BCE.

With the authenticated Chinese evidence of Shih Chi, from the first century BCE, writing of crossbow use as early as the fourth century BCE; compared with the organic difference between the Chinese bows and the gastraphetes, there may be a strong case for independant development.

Again, I'm new to archery history but I have done a lot of speculative study of migration and trade routes. There seem some truly odd parallel developments of tools, weapons and textiles but there are enough differences that one might doubt it was directly shared technology (maybe).

Cheers

GC

Well looking up the subject in one of my books: ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL SIEGE WEAPONS, Konstantine Nossow, I find the Greek Gastraphetes at around 400 B.C. or " belly-bow " using a prod and that has some similarities with medieval crossbows and some differences. The Roman had small ballista that where hand held or the size of a larger siege crossbow the Cheirobalista or Manubalista using torsion power rather than a prod.

The Chinese seem to have been using what look like true crossbows as early or earlier and I tend to think that in ancient times it would be more independent development rather than one copying the other.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire I think the Manubalista fell out of use and I don't remember reading about it's continued use by the Eastern Roman ( Byzantine Empire ) . The Byzantines seemed to be unfamiliar with crossbows when the first crusaders were passing through, and seemed impressed by it's power ! If they were still using Manubalistas
they should have been less impressed or would have commented on any significant power differences ?

The true crossbow of the Medieval age may have been re-discovered but this time influenced by the Chinese crossbows that remained in continuous use from ancient time.

So the first time around we had in all probability independent development and maybe the second time around the first European Medieval crossbows originating from half remembered Roman use of man portable ballista and stories of crossbows or a few samples coming from China? Could have been independant re-development again though ?

Just mentioning some possibilities as speculation. ;)

I agree that the crossbow developed independently in both China and the Aegean and the Romans improved on the design. There is a theory that the crossbow continued to be used in the Byzantine Empire but by the time of Anna Comnena it was largely unknown in that region (see Glen's Alexiad quote in the last crossbow thread). Middle Eastern chroniclers seem to have been more familiar with the Frankish crossbow than the Byzantines. This is strange since the Byzantines were the traditional "middle men" regarding trade between Europe and the Middle East.

I have read two different descriptions of what a gastraphetes looks like and still don't get it.

Any one have a picture?

edit:
I found some!
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/Gastraphetes.jpg

Sure,

Make me drag out a camera, fire up a real pc, change my forum settings and here you have the page from Blackmore's title Hunting Weapons :D BTW, this is one title that is included in Amazon's look inside program. There were also first edition HC offerings at $3.00

Cheers

GC

---

 Attachment: 101.3 KB

if i get time i will take a picture of the one i have reproduced about 2 years ago thats here. It fires blah blah....

Would hate to be told however i got it wrong <g>




David

A side note on the Amazon Look Inside program. It's a bit hit and miss but there are some great titles included, like the Bezdek sword books.

Blackmore's title is really great. I've never sat with it cover to cover and frequently find stuff I've missed on other browses. Some very nice photographs in the back of cuttoe and pistols attached to just about anything.

The other title listed as just "Hunting Weapons" is the first edition from 1971. Dover's bibliographical notes list their edition as an unabridged reprint of "Hunting Weapons", published by Barrie and Jenkins, London, in 1971. The photographic plates in the original being dispersed throughout and consolidated to the rear in the PB edition.

Like I say, I saw HC first editions for as little as $3.00 just the other day.

Cheers

GC

David, It would be great to see pics of an actual reproduction. It gives a much better idea of the weapon than an illustration. The illustration is nice though, I had it pictured a little wrong in my heaad so this is a big help, Thanks Glen!


BTW: How are the chinese always so far ahead with technology!?

-James

David;

The firing mechanism also seems very different than that of a crossbow, more like a smaller version of what a large ballista would have used ? Although I haven't seen picture showing the details up close enough to understand exactly how it works when used in drawing the string and exactly how it releases the bolt.

Were there some forms of these that are more like a slider where the crossbow string goes through the sliding unit and remains attached to it and move with the string as a unit and pushes the bolt out ?

It also look to me that one would cock one of these by bending down and using one's body weight to ratchet up the string to the full cocked position: The sliding front being on the ground or braced on a wall maybe ? With the ratcheting one could cock it partially and maybe sit on it to finish the cocking in a two stage process if the prod was very heavy and the person using it " not so much ". :p Just trying to imagine how I would use one of these.

Power should be in the belt hook type crossbow range I think, unless more that one person sat down on it maybe ???

Ah, I found a diagram on the internet. The action kind of reminds me of...a nerf gun.

I found this pic of a Gastraphetes on a website some time ago.

Its just a shame its so small.

---

 Attachment: 11.62 KB

You are very welcome Nathan. It is a great little tome. Some of the objects in the photographic plates section are really fascinating. Several nice plates of Maximillian.

While the scope of the crossbow section may be limited and repetitive of contested sources, it is still a good overview of their use as a hunting tool. The net launcher looks like fun.

Cheers

GC

Sorry to resurrect a long dormant thread, but I have a question to ask.

I was having a look through "The Age of Chivalry" by H Nickel, S W Pyhrr and L Tarassuk when I came across the following statement:

Quote:

The crossbow was officially abolished as a military weapon in Germany in 1517 by order of Emperor Maximilian, though it was still used in other countries...

To me that immediately begs the question why? I assume they were abolished in favour of matchlock arquebuses, but surely in 1517 crossbows were far more accurate and had a longer range than an arquebus, so why replace a tried and tested weapon with an apparently less effective one? Any ideas?