Crossbow.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Jim MacDougald

Thank you, Matchlock. I need to send some detailed photos of my crossbow so that you can see how similar it is to the ones you referred me to. Photos will follow in a later post with some more explanation.
I'm really confused about the date on the trigger. While 1335 seems too early, 1835 seems way too late. The second number on the crossbow is definitely either a "3" or an "8". I have found no examples of inscriptions from the 1800's with entries separated by colons ,:, but I have seen them in 14th and 15th century examples. Also, I have not found other 19th century crossbows constructed in such a primitive way. The crossbow that launched this thread clearly has some machined, countersunk screws on it. It looks almost modern, and LOOKS like an 1800's or later weapon. Mine looks much older, especially the "wormed" wood. Mine doesn't have any machined screws in/on it, either.
Re: Arabic numerals in Europe. (This comes from on-line Wikipedia): "The first mentions of the numerals in the West are found in the Codex Vigilanus of 976. From the 980s, Gerbert of Aurillac (later, Pope Sylvester II) used his position to spread knowledge of the numerals in Europe. Gerbert studied in Barcelona in his youth. He was known to have requested mathematical treatises concerning the astrolabe from Lupitus of Barcelona after he had returned to France. Fibonacci, a mathematician born in the Republic of Pisa who had studied in Bejaia (Bougie), Algeria, promoted the Indian numeral system in Europe with his book Liber Abaci, which was written in 1202".
In spite of the above, I agree that it would be unlikely (but not impossible) that a European crossbow-maker would use Arabic numbers, as I agree that Arabic numbers weren't widespread in Europe until the 15th century.

Jim, I can but speak from my over 30 years of study in Romanic, Gothic and Renaissance works of art, mainly arms and armor, with special emphasis on original dates and the shape of their numerals in consistency with the appearance of the respective dated object.
My archive on 15th/16th c. original dates alone comprises almost 100 mb. Believe me, none of either the cyphers or the letters on your crossbow is of a form any earlier than the 18th c.

For comparison, I attach images of the earliest known Northern European date I know of, 1407, from the groundbreaking plate of the Holy Spirit Church in Landshut, Bavaria, not far from where I live. Even though this is from the early 15th c., Roman (m) and Arabic (407, mind the High Gothic form of the cyphers!!!) numerals are still combined - and just compare this genuine Gothic Latin script to the letters on your crossbow!
And please note that the words are not separated by colons but by centrally placed square periods.

Apart from that, I have never seen such a thing as a date on trigger. Dates generally appear on more prominent parts of an item.

I do have a completely different idea though and will do some more research before posting it.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Ok, I announced it and here it is.

There are a few North Italian all-steel crossbows known retaining their original all-steel quarrels (crossbow bolts), some of these crossbows fitted with a rounded pistol-grip butt like yours, and a few others with a two- or three-link chain instead of the usual string. While the one attached, dated 1562 and signed by the maker Opera de Renaldo de Visin da Asolo (preserved in the collection of the Ducal Palace in Venice, is 66.3 cm long, various similar are much smaller and are nowadays believed to have been built especially for carrying secretly and in order to use for assassinations.

A period of origin of the first half to the mid 16th c. seems to be common to all members of this very special group of North Italian crossbows. The shape of the rear sight on the attached crossbow is identical to rear sights found on contemporary matchlock and wheellock muskets.

Any thoughts?

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi there,

I tried some photoshopping on Ericlaude's images; though the colors are not correct, more details have become visible, I hope.
Telling from the both general shape and construction and the bolts/screws or rivets used, I should not date it before the 19th c. Thus this might be one of the numerous Historismus (Victorian) copies, including that certain amount of both style mingling and fantasy characteristic of that period), of Renaissance originals like the one in Venice.

As the iron surfaces clearly show significant differences in rust and pitting I assume that some older and not belonging parts were associated.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Please refer also to my thread

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...bow+collection

Best,
Michael

[Jim MacDougald]

Hi Michael,
You are a goldmine of information. Thank you! In the group of photos you posted, the first photo is of my crossbow, and the rest are of Eric Claude's (Where did he go???? He started this whole thing with the photos of his crossbow.) I am endeavoring to take and re-size some photos showing more detail than my earlier photos. A striking difference between mine and Eric Claude's is that his looks much more "machined", especially the countersunk screws. Mine appears much more primitive. My photo was "photoshopped" by me to be clearer, and in doing so, I changed the exposure and thus the color of the wood from very dark to very light. Next batch will have truer coloration and some better construction detail and evidence of significant worming. Is worming common in wood that is only 200 years old? Also, when researching "knights in armor" I keep seeing reference to the fact that mounted, armored knights were 'killed off" by the crossbow in the 15th century. I had thought that a steel-stringed crossbow, with HEAVY and nearly unbendable steel bow, and a Goat's Foot lever to cock it, would be the only weapon capable of harnessing the kinetic energy necessary to pierce armor. I have cocked this one and it appears to produce an enormous force when the trigger is pulled. (I did that without a bolt in it, obviously). That's why I thought this crossbow was a 14th century "Knight-killer"). In Payne-Gallwey's book, he stated that steel bows created problems because they required Goat's Foot levers to cock, and that these levers caused the bowstring to stretch. He couldn't figure out how to make it work...and he never mentions steel bowstrings. I don't think he knew there was such a thing. Odd, since he published the book in 1903, and should have known of bows such as mine and Eric Claude's. The great mystery to me is that Sotheby's described a nearly-identical bow in 1998 as "17th century, used for firing incendiaries", and this description was copied by Del Mar when they sold a similar one in December 2011. And, when i contacted the Royal Armouries in Leeds, they said they had never seen one like it, but thought it "no older than 18th century, probably used for incendiaries or trap". It would appear the RA and you, Michael, are in agreement. It is good to get this resolved, as neither of the recognized "experts" (Sotheby's, Del Mar) appears to have been right. Pics to follow. Jim

[Matchlock]

A detail of the iron chain-link 'bow string' of what I call another 19th c. trap crossbow.

Best,
Michael

[weapons 27]

Jim
this crossbow is at me, I asked has Eric Claude to put the photographs on your site. I did not make yet party of your group!!! if you need photographs more precise, I can send some .I thank you all for the research job..
cdlt

antoine

[Matchlock]

I finally found the trap crossbow in the pic last posted, and attach an overall view. Telling from the screws and other manufacturing criteria, it is made in 16th c. style but should be classed as 19th c. The overall length is 53.5 cm.

Also attached please find the only historic illustration of a trap (war) crossbow that I have ever noticed in period artwork, of the Early Gothic period, by Villard de Honnecourt, ca. 1230, in the Ms.fr. 19093, Bibliothèque Nationale Paris.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi Eric,


I just came across a rather similar specimen, the tiller also made from wood:

http://www.webarcherie.com/forum/ind...lete-ancienne/

and:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15730


That sample and yours might both be of French origin, adopting the old North Italian style!


Btw, just like the guy who originally posted this I am wondering about the use of the blunderbuss-like mouthed opening of the bolt housing, which also seems to have been equiped with a sort of bead foresight ?! (bottom attachment).

Any thoughts?


Best,
Michael

[Jim MacDougald]

Is anyone still following this thread re "steel bowstring" crossbows? I have been away for years, and have some updated info and a few questions.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

FRom post # 26:

There are a few North Italian all-steel crossbows known retaining their original all-steel quarrels (crossbow bolts), some of these crossbows fitted with a rounded pistol-grip butt like yours, and a few others with a two- or three-link chain instead of the usual string. While the one attached, dated 1562 and signed by the maker Opera de Renaldo de Visin da Asolo (preserved in the collection of the Ducal Palace in Venice, is 66.3 cm long, various similar are much smaller and are nowadays believed to have been built especially for carrying secretly and in order to use for assassinations.

A period of origin of the first half to the mid 16th c. seems to be common to all members of this very special group of North Italian crossbows. The shape of the rear sight on the attached crossbow is identical to rear sights found on contemporary matchlock and wheellock muskets.

Michael

I am convinced that the present cord string on this small crossbow dated 1562 is a replacement of the original three-link iron 'string'.

m