| Author |
Message |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
 Posted: Mon 11 May, 2015 4:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | By the second quarter of the 15th Century some quite small crossbows suitable for use on horseback (which you still see being used into the 18th century for hunting) were nearly as powerful as the larger siege crossbows, I think that is why the big siege weapons didn't necessarily have as much of a niche on the battlefield. |
What's the evidence for this? Given similar materials, a larger bow should deliver more energy than a smaller bow. I don't see how a cavalry crossbow could be nearly as powerful as Payne-Gallway's bow unless it were much more efficient or it was about as massive. (While using a crossbow that weighs 18lbs on horseback seems ridiculous, Sir John Smythe did claim that groups of cavalry using the heavy musket plus breastplate rests existed at least briefly.)
| Quote: | | That said, I don't think we have actual evidence that they weren't very widely used - most of the records of armies and battles don't distinguish them or get to that level of detail. What we do know is that crossbows were ubiquitous and were heavily used by the infantry of the late medieval period and we do see the windlass spanners which are most closely associated with the bigger siege crossbows in the artwork quite a bit. |
Yes, and as you point out some big crossbows were also spanned by cranequin. We really have limited information about a lot of the crossbows used in the period. The French employed crossbows in large numbers through the first quarter or so of the 16th century. Fourquevaux advocated for the crossbow as late as 1548. It's specifically Monluc's description of using the crossbow as a makeshift shield in the left hand that makes think French infantry crossbows didn't weigh 18lbs. I'm unsure whether they were composite or steel, or how they were spanned.
That was one of the images I thought of asevidence for composite prods. None of the crossbows in that image strike me as clearly steel. The one the mounted man holds in the far left and the two on the middle right look more like composite. The incomplete color scheme and possibly color-changing paint doesn't help. By contrast, the two crossbows in this 15th-century fresco look decidedly steel.
| Quote: | | Composite prod weapons weren't necessarily always lighter either. |
No, only per amount of stored energy.
| Quote: | | There is clearly an enormous amount we don't know about how these weapons were used in this period, or in other eras like in China or ancient Greece. |
I certainly agree with this.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 11 May, 2015 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Han crossbow practical test? |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | I've been hearing that the trigger mechanism of the Han crossbow enabled a longer power stroke for this weapon and vastly increased its delivery energy. |
To return to the OP: With the Chinese trigger mechanism, the trigger is below the nut, and the trigger mechanism is usually mounted at the rear end of the stock. So the string is drawn to almost the end of the stock. Thus, a longer power stroke can be achieved without having a very long stock.
The usual European crossbow has a shorter power stroke, so the stock can extend a relatively long distance to the rear of the nut, without making the stock too long. This allows the simpler European trigger, with a long trigger providing the leverage to overcome friction between trigger and nut. Could a compact trigger have been made in Europe? Certainly by the 17th and 18th centuries, where they can be seen on pistol crossbows and musket-stock crossbows. 16th century complex triggers look like they could have been made compact (on a Medieval-style stock, you don't want them to be compact).
European crossbows could have been made with long power strokes, even before those complex triggers, simply by extending the trigger downwards or forwards, instead of backwards along the butt of the stock. But going for more energy by increasing the draw weight instead of power stroke does have advantages. It should give somewhat more bolt speed for the same stored energy, and allows a more compact and lighter crossbow. The disadvantage is that you need a spanning mechanism. The Chinese-style crossbow has the disadvantage of weight and size, but has the advantage of not needing mechanical spanning at energies where European crossbows do need mechanical spanning.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I heard some people mentioning big crossbows 'only' using cranequins but why would those be of lower poundage compared to windlass crossbows? To the best of my knowledge they only appeared around the mid 15th century and quickly displaced the windlass. Of course the ease of using one and the speed at which you could load might be important but is there any evidence they couldn't handle those 1000 lbs crossbows?
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Windlasses continued for sporting use into at least the 19th century (and maybe to the this day, I'm not sure). It's possible the cranequin completely displaced the windlass for military use but I'm skeptical. Most of the later 16th-century imagines of crossbowers I've seen show goat's-foot levers, but that's after the crossbow had mostly left Western European military service. Sir John Smythe also specified gaffles (goat's-foot levers) for the mounted crossbowers he wanted in the 1590s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Windlasses continued for sporting use into at least the 19th century (and maybe to the this day, I'm not sure). It's possible the cranequin completely displaced the windlass for military use but I'm skeptical. Most of the later 16th-century imagines of crossbowers I've seen show goat's-foot levers, but that's after the crossbow had mostly left Western European military service. Sir John Smythe also specified gaffles (goat's-foot levers) for the mounted crossbowers he wanted in the 1590s. |
I've looked at quite a few pictures in the Swiss chronicles and they primarily depict Cranequins as being used. These crossbows were used right along with firearms. I cant recall seeing a windlass in them.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cranequins seem to be used instead of windlass in the field in German and Slavic areas. That may have been partly a cultural preference (the Teutonic Order called cranequin's "German Winders" and called the windlass "English Winders") or it may have been due to a regional emphasis on using mounted crossbowmen. I suspect the windlass were still being used for siege warfare though as they still seem to have been used quite a bit by Italian militias into the 16th Century (and continue to show up in their crossbow festivals today, though I don't have any way of knowing if that is linked to the historical practice). But the Teutonic and Livonian knights show 'English winders' in their armories as well as the other types. So do some cities in that region like Gdansk, Riga, Tallinn, and Torun.
As for whether a windlass can handle a more powerful span than a craneqin, I simply don't know. Maybe Leo could tell us.
The use of small but very powerful crossbows is from records from the Tetuonic Order and from some north -European towns. They had different terms for different grades of crossbows and they often referred to the most powerful ones as 'statchel' or 'stingers'. Many if not most of these were issued to cavalry or mounted marksmen, some assigned to a lance, others deployed independently, so presumably they were not huge 18 lb weapons. Some however were deployed with a paviseman and seemed to be infantry weapons, both in the field and in the defense of towns and major castles like Malbork.
The less powerful 'stirrup crossbows', deployed with goatsfoot or 'wippe' spanners presumably to make them easier to deal with on horseback, were also frequently deployed with cavalry. By the way in that same series of images which Bartek posted, you can see some interesting examples of those other types of simple 'lever' spanners. The weakest (and most numerous) type with the solid yew prods seemed to be only deployed to infantry used for defense of castles and abbeys.
As for a source, this is a good article which I've posted before that summarizes some of the data related to crossbows from the various Teutonic Order chronicles:
http://deremilitari.org/2014/03/horses-and-cr...n-prussia/
Though cranequin seem to have become more popular in Central and northern Europe, maybe windlass remained popular in the west; you do still see the windlass type spanners, and what appear to be larger crossbows depicted in artwork from the 15th Century. Reproductions of Froissart for example.
You also see them in some south German and Czech artwork and MSS. There is a book (I'd have to ask Mike Chidester the manuscript number) which depicts a battle from the Landshut War of Succession in 1503 with a bunch of Bohemian troops and IIRC you can clearly see some really big windlass spanned crossbows.
| Quote: | | Given similar materials, a larger bow should deliver more energy than a smaller bow. |
Then how do you explain the differences between the English longbow and the Steppe recurve?
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's interesting Jean, I never knew the goatfoot level was also employed for cavalry crossbows but it does make sense when looking at the size of it.
I don't want to derail the thread to much but do you know how they were tactically employed?
I've seen hausbuch depictions where they are placed on the flanks of a deep men-at-arms formation while a flemish 1480 depiction shows them in a single rank behind a single rank of men-at-arms.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Quote: | | Given similar materials, a larger bow should deliver more energy than a smaller bow. |
Then how do you explain the differences between the English longbow and the Steppe recurve?
Jean |
Different materials. The big-eared Manchu composite design does store and - with heavy arrows - deliver more energy than the short Turkish design according to current, admittedly limited tests. And larger Turkish bows store/deliver more energy than smaller Turkish bows, etc.
As far as steel vs. composite goes, I was just reading an early 16th-century Spanish text that specifies steel prods and goat's-foot levers. Extant examples of Spanish steel crossbows spanned by the goat's-foot lever, the Padre Island crossbows from a 1554 wreck, appear surprisingly weak according to published accounts: 250-500lbs at 5-6in. Replicas have been made but I don't know of reports of how they performed. Of course, possible these - especially the smaller ones - were more for hunting than warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't 500 lbs stretching the limits of what a goat-foot lever can allow a human to handle?
This is from another thread and while not really scientific might allow us some insight. Maybe training and strength can counteract the limit our fellow forumite has found.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...t=crossbow
| Quote: | | Draw weight about 450# depending on string tension. |
| Quote: | The goats foot has a clip like you would see on a buckler. It hangs in the belt quite securely due to it's weight.
I have to span it inverted, with the bow up because of the draw weight. I have to lean my entire body on the lever so I suppose this is the upper end of whats practical ( and safe) for a goats foot. I really want a cranequin for it because that would also make it way easier to change strings without risking limbs and life ;-)
A short video of spanning and releasing 2 bolts here. Note that I really have to lean in to pull the string down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPsS1pahWjM |
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Until cranequins and windlasses became popular and perhaps even then, powerful crossbows required considerable strength to use. Spanning a mighty crossbow was a feat of strength just like drawing a mighty bow. You see this in sources from ancient China to 15th-century Europe. I suspect that was true for martial crossbows spanned with the goat's-foot lever as well. I suspect the best crossbowers could handle rather more weight than the folks making and shooting crossbows today - unless somebody is training for crossbow spanning like warbow arches do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Until cranequins and windlasses became popular and perhaps even then, powerful crossbows required considerable strength to use. Spanning a mighty crossbow was a feat of strength just like drawing a mighty bow. You see this in sources from ancient China to 15th-century Europe. I suspect that was true for martial crossbows spanned with the goat's-foot lever as well. I suspect the best crossbowers could handle rather more weight than the folks making and shooting crossbows today - unless somebody is training for crossbow spanning like warbow arches do. |
I'd be very interested if someone could take the time and effort to train with a crossbow like some do with a warbow. Perhaps it would allow us access to some real info on crossbow firing speeds as opposed to the 'one shot per minute' you still see in documentaries and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Quote: | | Given similar materials, a larger bow should deliver more energy than a smaller bow. |
Then how do you explain the differences between the English longbow and the Steppe recurve?
Jean |
Different materials. The big-eared Manchu composite design does store and - with heavy arrows - deliver more energy than the short Turkish design according to current, admittedly limited tests. And larger Turkish bows store/deliver more energy than smaller Turkish bows, etc. |
This is only the case when the larger bow allows a longer draw length. For the same draw weight and draw length, a shorter bow will often store more energy (if lower brace height) and deliver more energy for the same weight of arrow (due to lighter limbs).
If the draw length of the shorter bow is restricted by the strain the material can withstand, then a longer bow allows a longer draw length. Thus the wooden longbow. But if the draw length of the shorter bow is limited by the length of the archer's arms, then going to a longer bow doesn't provide any more draw length.
Korean archers, with a relatively short bow, will sometimes draw to the same very long draw as Manchu archers (OK, the Manchu archer will have about 1" more distance due to the cylindrical thumbring). So the limit on draw distance is the archer, not the bow.
Plotting Karpowicz's numbers on ATARN for his Turkish bow tests, there doesn't appear to be any statistically significant effect of bow length on energy. (His shortest and longest bow do deliver less and more energy respectively, but the others all perform similarly.) This is for the heaviest arrows; for the lightest arrows, the shorter bows perform a little better, normalised for draw weight and draw length.
For the Manchu bow vs the Korean bow, the geometries differ. It isn't just a matter of size. The proportionally longer siyahs on the Manchu bow should give a more convex force-draw curve. I suspect that the larger size also makes it a little more forgiving in terms of performance under less than ideal conditions (i.e., on the battlefield) and less than ideal manufacture.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Timo, to clarify, my claim is that - all other things being equal - greater mass allow for greater energy storage/delivery. For example, again all other things being equal, a 100lb-draw-weight Turkish will have more mass than a 50lb-draw-weight Turkish bow. (This relationship isn't simple, but we do see this trend in the data.) Physically, I don't see how it could be otherwise. Materials have a certain strength per unit of mass; thus you need more to store more energy. This goes back to my skepticism that there were small crossbows suitable for cavalry use that were "nearly as powerful as the larger siege crossbows." Of course, "nearly" can mean various things, but I don't quite see how this would work unless the small, lighter crossbow has a more efficient design and/or more efficient materials.
As far as windlasses go, I just came across the claim of a 1503 Spanish document that describes crossbowers armed with crossbows that pulleys with four wheels ("poleas de cuatro ruedas"). That sounds like a windlass to me.
As far as strength goes, I think the the idea that anybody could use a crossbow while only an expert trained from childhood could use a yew bow is a major misconception. (It's also a misconception if you replace "crossbow" with "matchlock.") Han crossbow draw weights and spanning methods neatly show the importance of physical strength for spanning crossbows. From what I recall, the Han military and other ancient Chinese-region militaries had strength standards for crossbowers just like archers. For example, I remember reading about a commander to would only accept crossbowers capable of using crossbows of certain strength. In Europe, you have the 1351 French military regulation that specified that crossbows have crossbows strong according to their strength. You likewise have El Victorial, describing circa 1400 events, which features bending mighty crossbows among Pero Niņo's various feats of strength. Windlasses and cranequins may have enabled anybody to span a powerful crossbow - depending on gear ratios - but other spanning methods typically benefited from brawn. Rather than seeing crossbows as more accurate with little training, I suspect they were more accurate at most any skill level (expect perhaps complete mastery).
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Tue 12 May, 2015 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 12 May, 2015 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Timo, to clarify, my claim is that - all other things being equal - greater mass allow for greater energy storage/delivery. For example, again all other things being equal, a 100lb-draw-weight Turkish will have more mass than a 50lb-draw-weight Turkish bow. (This relationship isn't simple, but we do see this trend in the data.) Physically, I don't see how it could be otherwise. Materials have a certain strength per unit of mass; thus you need more to store more energy. This goes back to my skepticism that there were small crossbows suitable for cavalry use that were "nearly as powerful as the larger siege crossbows." Of course, "nearly" can mean various things, but I don't quite see how this would work unless the small, lighter crossbow has a more efficient design and/or more efficient materials. |
Ah! I was assuming "larger" meant "longer". "More mass" is a different situation. Add mass by making the bow wider, and draw weight and stored energy scale linearly with mass; add thickness instead and it scales with the cube of the mass. Add mass by making it longer, without changing width or thickness, and you can reduce the stored energy.
More generally, "greater mass gives greater energy storage" is true if the material is strained to its limit. If not, then it depends on the details of the designs. But given the undesirability of excessive weight of weapons, "nearly as powerful as the larger siege crossbows" for small crossbows seems unlikely. "Nearly the draw weight of the larger siege crossbows" is quite feasible, with shorter power strokes for the small crossbows.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 13 May, 2015 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another factor besides strength is skill. Watch Todd shoot this 1250 lb draw windlass crossbow, he's a bit nervous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeZTV9wiA
that's because a mistake can be very dangerous with a weapon that powerful, for example if it gets bumped and slips while spanning, you don't want to have your hand in the wrong place. In 15th Century shooting contests they used to require the most powerful category of crossbows have wire wrapped around the prod in case it broke (to protect the audience).
There is also skill in rapidly spanning weapons, under duress etc., and skill in shooting. Working in a team with the paviseman and an assistant loader, as seems to have been the normal case with infantry crossbowmen with the bigger weapons. Or alternately, shooting and spanning weapons on horseback, which I suspect aint easy.
Then you got all the other stuff like the apparently very common explosive or incendiary bolts
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?...&stc=1
There is a reason why crossbowmen were paid more than most other soldiers.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Wed 13 May, 2015 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Timo, to clarify, my claim is that - all other things being equal - greater mass allow for greater energy storage/delivery |
In storage, indeed, mass is needed to build surviving bow of given weight.
In delivery, the less mass, the better, though. Simply.
The less energy bow arms devour themselves, the more arrow can use.
That's why shorter, smaller bow is in many ways actually more optimal.
Provided that one can build short bow which can store energy efficiently, and don't break due to stress at the same time. Which is huge 'provided' of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic