Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 7th February 2012, 03:39 PM   #13
Jim MacDougald
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8
Default Crossbow

Thanks! I'm attaching a hand-drawn replication of the inscription on my crossbow. The folks at the Royal Armouries (RA) believe that the date probably is 1835, not 1335, which is possible because the inscription is hard to read. But it is done in a medieval style, with colons separating entries. It just doesn't LOOK like a 19th century inscription to me. But RA is convinced that this crossbow was designed either for firing incendiaries or as a "trap" bow, most likely because it is a logical explanation of the need for a steel bowstring. A steel bowstring would be fireproof (a good thing when using incendiaries!), and a steel-stringed trap bow would be weatherproof. But I can find no evidence of purpose-built "incendiary firing crossbows" in the 18th or 19th centuries, or any other century, for that matter. Nor can I find an example of a "trap" crossbow with a steel string, especially one that was built in the 18th or 19th centuries using 15th century design. The trigger mechanism on my crossbow is extremely primitive, and not at all similar to crossbows in use for sporting purposes in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have the book from the Royal Netherlands Army Museum, but it has no similar crossbow. I contacted them, and the crossbow expert has left their museum. I also have the 1903 seminal work on crossbows by Payne-Gallwey. While it has a lot of interesting information, it does not address the "steel string" type. I am convinced that the reason this bow has a "steel bowstring" is because the extremely heavy and barely flexible bow could not have been drawn back with traditional bowstring. The bowstring would have broken or stretched. I have "cocked" this bow, and it stores enormous kinetic force. Thanks for any input you may be able to provide. Jim (Whoops! Tried to attach photo, but it is, again, too large. Will try to remake it and attach to next post)
Jim MacDougald is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.