crossbow of one foot, two foot and 'a tour'

[Glaive203]

Originally Posted by fernando

...for the matter, turn, as for winch.
Some (French) sources say that arbalete a tour comes from the mechanism that applies tension to the bow...

Thank you for the correction, but I think it's in error. We were discussing the 13th century and neither the crannequin or windlass existed (OK the windlass existed for balistae, but not for crossbows) Therefore we should discount

.

[wardlaw]

Randall Moffett's paper 'Military Equipment in the Town of Southampton During the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries' in the Jounral of medieval Military History, volume 9 (2011) refers to Liebel's book on springalds and great Crossbows, saying that Liebel makes a very good case for the one-foot/two-foot distinction being a reference to the length of the bolt.

[Micke D]

Randall Moffett's paper 'Military Equipment in the Town of Southampton During the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries' in the Jounral of medieval Military History, volume 9 (2011) refers to Liebel's book on springalds and great Crossbows, saying that Liebel makes a very good case for the one-foot/two-foot distinction being a reference to the length of the bolt.

I have not read Moffett's book, but I can strongly recommend Liebel's book on springalds and great Crossbows! I think also that Liebel is correct about the one-foot/two-foot distinction being a reference to the length of the bolt. A bit more than 1 foot long bolts for the hand held crossbows and 2 feet long bolts for the bigger crossbows usually placed in castles and fortifications.

[fernando]

THIS WORK looks like serious stuff.

If in one hand one-foot crossbows were field weapons and two-feet crossbows were for siege purposes, still the distinction between either term refers to the stirrup accomodating one or two feet, depending on the strenght needed to be applied to arm the weapon:

THIS OTHER ONE might be not so academic, but pretends the same.

.

[Micke D]

still the distinction between either term refers to the stirrup accomodating one or two feet

I don't belive this to be true at all.
I will reconsider it when someone can show me a convincing stirrup that you can but two feet in and draw a crossbow.
Another thing to think about is that the draw weight of the two foot crossbow will be way to high to span with just the body.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Micke D

I don't belive this to be true at all.
I will reconsider it when someone can show me a convincing stirrup that you can but two feet in and draw a crossbow.
Another thing to think about is that the draw weight of the two foot crossbow will be way to high to span with just the body.

Perhaps if you go back in the crossbow timeline you recognize that the strenght of primitive examples was no great deal, and the use of the two feet to span them was more a practicality issue than that of applied power; also to remember that the stirrup was a later "invention". That would be the blend for reasoning on the two feet (rather than foot=length) subject. I found that browsing on this subject in french is more fruitfull than in english ... or portuguese. A zillion French websites mention that the use of two feet applied to the bow of medieval (non stirruped) light crossbows was a current situation.

.

[fernando]

Another link:

http://p.dagonneau.free.fr/l'arbalete.htm


Quoting: L'arbalète est maintenue par les deux pieds posés sur le bras d'arc les deux mains sur la corde , nous tirons avec force et maîtrise , au point d 'encoche de façon à bloquer la corde pour envoyer le trait. Cette façon de procéder est une des premières méthodes de bandage d'arbalète.