Charles the Bold had English archers in all 3 of his battles with the Swiss, English archers had been serving with the Burgundians for a long time by the 1470's but mostly in small numbers. It's only Charles who began large scale use from 1472 onwards. So the English archers are certainly a valid subject as part of a study of the Burgundian army. However, the English were a minority, both in the overall army and among the archers so IMO it is problem when they are given far more space than the majority of the archers.

Reminds me of how Ian Heath's "Armies of the 16th Century" has a chapter about the Spanish "Army of Flanders", in it the "´Brittish" troops get as much space in the text as the combined text about all of the other non-Spanish nations serving in Flanders. (Wallons, Italians, Burgunduians, Albanians and Germans) Yet except for the Albanians all of those nations supplied more numerous and more important troops than the "Brittish".

I haven't read Bradburys book but you'll forgive me Dan if I don't think that is the last word on the matter.

There are a wide number of parameters at play in spanning a crossbow, there are different types of windlasses and cranequins, there are very widely different types of crossbows ranging in power from 200 lb draw to 1200 lb or more, solid wood, composite or steel prods etc., I suspect it also makes a difference if you know what you are doing or not.

The relevant fact to me is that the vast majority of steel-prod military (as opposed to hunting) crossbows I've seen from the 16th Century or later used the cranqeuin, and also tended to be smaller, or were lighter types which had a foot-stirrup. Most of the windlass crossbows I've seen were 15th Century or earlier and many seemed to be associated with siege defense since the windlass itself is quite ungainly.

J