Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

One more with the cranequin. Some times the foot loop looks very small, as it does here. Note his foot doesn't seem to be in it. Maybe that is just a means to protect the prods, especially composite prods, when placing the crossbow nose down for spanning?

[ Linked Image ]
I think I have seen some crossbows hanging from their stirrups. That would be a way to protect the horn or wooden bow in storage. The very small stirrups could be for that.

I heard that badger skin has good water resistance. If you choose to use quivers on the hunt or in the field, keeping water and debris out are important. The badger skin also communicates that you are the kind of person who takes pests.

I translate some primary sources on crossbows from the 13th and 14th century in another thread.
Sean Manning wrote:
I think I have seen some crossbows hanging from their stirrups. That would be a way to protect the horn or wooden bow in storage. The very small stirrups could be for that.

I heard that badger skin has good water resistance. If you choose to use quivers on the hunt or in the field, keeping water and debris out are important. The badger skin also communicates that you are the kind of person who takes pests.


Definitely. It's just interesting to me how the crossbow quivers seem to be so distinctive and also different from (self) bow quivers.



Quote:
I translate some primary sources on crossbows from the 13th and 14th century in another thread.


Thanks Sean, I'll check that out!

J
Aren't crossbow quarrels loaded tip up in a case or quiver instead of tip down like arrows with the 'fletching' on crossbow quarrels being made of harder wood or parchment?

It makes sense to have a broader base if that's where the additional bulk of those hard fletching is positionened.
I think that's correct - I always assumed that was specific to wooden-fletched bolts, to protect the thin brittle flights. I can't think of another reason.

Also, regarding the "very small stirrup", it is indeed simply a suspension ring. As far as I know, cranequins were used just holding the crossbow in your left hand while cranking away on the handle, which is why the rustung type didn't need a stirrup. Schnepper types typically had a large staple fastened to the front which doubled as an anchor point for the wippe (cocking lever) and as a suspension ring.
Makes sense to me, I wasn't aware crossbow bolts were stored point up, that's interesting.
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
Makes sense to me, I wasn't aware crossbow bolts were stored point up, that's interesting.


It's funny how little details can escape a person.

Look at the paintings you posted, tips up in all of them!
Pieter B. wrote:
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
Makes sense to me, I wasn't aware crossbow bolts were stored point up, that's interesting.


It's funny how little details can escape a person.

Look at the paintings you posted, tips up in all of them!

I've also wondered if there was another reason. In the context of hunting, as I understand it, crossbows were used for hunting a variety of game, some of whose pelts one would not have wanted to damage. If one hunter, during one hunting session, was hunting more than one type of game, it seems feasible that he would have carried more than one type of bolt: broadheads for, say, deer, and blunts for smaller game. In that case, it would be handy to carry them points-up so that one could easily differentiate between the two types.

That said, that is a very specific scenario dreamed up through pure, unqualified speculation!
You definitely see all kinds of different hunting bolt-heads in the art and in collections of actual bolts.
Pieter B. wrote:
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
Makes sense to me, I wasn't aware crossbow bolts were stored point up, that's interesting.


It's funny how little details can escape a person.

Look at the paintings you posted, tips up in all of them!


You are right, I saw it but I didn't realize it was a consistent pattern.
I think there might be a few more reasons to argue for a flaring shape on the quiver, though I don't have any answers - just a few questions worth contemplation:

1. Retention. Bolts are short and do not have the long length of arrows to help keep them grounded in their container. So, by tapering the mouth of the quiver and flaring the base, you can conceivably help to keep your missiles where you want them. The only thing a bit unusual is that the CG of a bolt should be nearer the tip than the fletchings, so you become dependent on the quiver's geometry more so for retention than the forces of nature, if you will.

2. Protection of the Fletchings. Well, maybe. I am not sure of how tough or not the fletchings on a bolt could be. But, perhaps if they tended to be made from wood, having them stick out of the quiver might result in breaking or cracking if you happen to bump into something, while if they are buried in a sturdy quiver this will be less of a problem?

3. Here is a legitimate question: how many bolts does a typical quiver hold?
Michael Beeching wrote:

2. Protection of the Fletchings. Well, maybe. I am not sure of how tough or not the fletchings on a bolt could be. But, perhaps if they tended to be made from wood, having them stick out of the quiver might result in breaking or cracking if you happen to bump into something, while if they are buried in a sturdy quiver this will be less of a problem?


This I think is certain - having made bolts with both wooden flights and feathers, I can say unequivocally that wooden flights are WAY more susceptible to damage in use. I assume the only advantage to wood was long-term storage (i.e. they wouldn't get eaten by insects as quickly).
Seeing as it's routine for archeologists to track medieval battles by finding the iron bolt heads with metal detectors I would assume a fairly high number of the bolts are lost after being shot. Even my modern 175 lb draw hunting crossbow tends to mangle the 'arrows' when you shoot them.
Pieter B. wrote:
Aren't crossbow quarrels loaded tip up in a case or quiver instead of tip down like arrows with the 'fletching' on crossbow quarrels being made of harder wood or parchment?

It makes sense to have a broader base if that's where the additional bulk of those hard fletching is positionened.


I'm not sure if the type of fletching needs to be part of the explanation, since there's a particular type of early medieval Central and East Asian quiver (usually known as a "closed quiver" since it had a lid that could be closed to protect the arrows) had a very similar shape, flaring towards the base with the arrows stored point up. The arrows had conventional feather fletching so damage to the fletching didn't seem to have been a major concern in the design of these quivers (or it might have been a concern but far lower in terms of priority than being able to close the quiver to protect the arrows, maybe from the weather or from pests or whatever threats were deemed the most relevant back then).

Obviously, length doesn't seem to have been much of an issue here either. The arrows appear to have been normal-sized arrows, and in fact the closed quiver would have been impractical for storing arrows of significantly different lengths -- the possible lengths are pretty much restricted by the size of the opening covered by the lid.


Last edited by Lafayette C Curtis on Mon 09 Nov, 2020 5:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
There is some differentiation in terminology in the records of the Teutonic Knights, of which some scholars have done some significant work. The number of papers is somewhat limited, I suspect because not that many people have learned to read Low German dialects compared to say, Early New High German. There is however also a considerable quantity of data mostly in High German from the Schützenfest contests which were routinely held in scores of towns and cities in the German-speaking, Flemish speaking and West-Slavic towns from the High Medieval through the Early Modern periods. These get into detail for the different types of shooting sports with their various different types of weapons - for example shooting at near and far fixed targets (with weaker and stronger crossbows respectively), shooting the popinjay, and shooting targets from horseback. Again, there aren't that many modern papers and most of this hasn't even been translated or reviewed recently but you can find transcriptions into modern German which were done in the 19th Century.

From these records, you can see clearly that there were sharp differentiations between various grades of crossbows, and a somewhat overlapping differentiation between different spanning systems or devices.


Do you have the titles for these 19th-century transcriptions? Schutzenfest records would be particularly useful for some research I'm currently doing.
My original sources for that data were secondary - the relatively recent monograph by professor Ann Tlusty "The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany" has a lot of data on these, (derived from the surviving records) with a pretty good bibliography, and a much older (19th Century) but also pretty good source is Johannes Janssen's Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters which has a bit more detail. You can find that online if you look around a little.

There are a few books also published in the 19th Century which have the transcription of the special songs which were composed by the organizer of these events, someone called a pritschmeister. They include everything that happened at the event, names of all the winners etc., as well the rules. There is also separately an account of a specific one from Zwickau mentioned in the memoirs of From Hans Ulrich Krafft "Reisen und Gefangenschaft" published 1583.

I had a PDF of a book of five of the schutzenfest songs but I've lost track of them. I will try to track those down, I've asked some HEMA friends for help.

Another source you can look for are the actual invitations they sent out, several of which survived. They put on the invitation all the basic rules, as well as the main prizes, and the size of what they consider a foot or an ell or whatever, since each town had a slightly different measure, and the size and distance of the target. I found a scan of one of them (attached) but unfortunately it's too low res to read the script. You can make out the circle and the length of the unit of measure on the bottom. Also the prize of a silver cup and two oxen. I can't quite make out the date but I think it was 16th Century.

I know there are more of those out there and of course, better image but that's all I have at the moment. If I can find some more for you I'll post it here.


 Attachment: 65.2 KB
SchutzenfestInvite.jpg



Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Sat 21 Nov, 2020 7:48 am; edited 1 time in total
I should add that, in the rules (including on the invitation) they apparently include

* The size of one unit of measure, physically indicated on the invitation
* The size of the target, also physically indicated on the invitation
* The distance in (units of measure) to the target for the different grades of crossbow or firearm shooting
* The time allowed between shots
* The rules for qualifying as in how close to the hits need to be to the center of the target etc.

So this gives us a lot of ideas as to a baseline of expected accuracy and performance.
Ok so I did some digging, I believe Hans Sachs wrote a few of these, I haven't found the specific 19th Century collection I used to have but i did find this, which includes a description of a Fechtschule in Würtemburg in 1575, with a partial description of a Schützenfest. (It’s about 20 pages long covering fights, dussack, long sword, dagger, staff, halberd, the Federfechter, the Marxbrüder and delineates the Meisterstuck as per Hans Sachs though I'm not sure if this is him).

https://books.google.com/books?id=o3pUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=%22hett+zu+ro%C3%9F%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wBCMVcfPG8uXNqfuuxA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22hett%20zu%20ro%C3%9F%22&f=false
Here is a fairly clear image of the front page of one of these invitations (from Pforzheim in 1551), unfortunately the rules are on the back page and I can only find that in low-res,

[ Linked Image ]

This is the back side of another invitation from 1606, I'm not sure what city but possibly Coburg. The circle on the bottom is the size of the target. Resolution is aaaalmost enough to make out the text but maybe not quite. If it follows the pattern of others I've seen ten years ago, the distance to the target and other details should be indicated in that text. The circle indicates the size of the target, and the line is (I believe) the length of their unit of measure, as they were different in each town back then.

[ Linked Image ]


...still working on it! I have a line on two more from 15th Century origins.
Here is another one, fully legible, found by Olivier Dupuis who very kindly shared this with me. It is from Landshut, Bavaria in 1549.

https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN1022206435

EDIT - I have tentatively confirmed the following:

"Screwed" [rifled] barrels are not allowed. Crossbowmen have 24 shots at the distance of 96 Landshuter cubits, riflemen 18 shots at 260 cubits (the measurement given at the bottom of the invitation is 1/4 Landshuter cubit).
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Page 2 of 3

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum