Battle of Crecy - could the crossbows have matched the range of the longbows?

[HackneyedScribe]

HackneyScribe,

Actually, William Ross purchases of wood crossbows in the late 15th centiry contradicts Tod, who said the crossbows would be steel at this time, which you have shown to be wrong. I see nothing which contradicts what Galloway said.

The quote said Williman Ross bought a hundred crossbows in which "several" of them were wood, while you claim Todd said most 15th century crossbows are steel. They are not contradictory statements. "Several" wooden crossbows out of what sounds like mostly steel crossbows means most crossbows are steel. I don't know the reason for the insistence to point out Todd's mistakes on issues irrelevant to the issue at hand. None of these accusations so far, even if true, affects that Gallwey exaggerated the range of his crossbow, which was the point, a point you now admitted to. Nobody said Todd was right about everything else all the time.

Also, I watched the video on Todd's 350 lb crossbow video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoGI6tRt6ho
I don't see anywhere in the video of he claiming that most crossbows were steel by the 15th century. Please feel free to point out just where he said that. He said "most WESTERN European bows were steelbows at this point", which is not the same thing. Your thesis paper's survey of 15th century composite bows shows that all these composite crossbows whose location could be located were all located in Central Europe, not western Europe. Of the six steel crossbows whose location could be located, they are located in Spain, Italy, and Central Europe. So the Todd's statement and the thesis paper you mentioned isn't mutually contradictory.

Can you quote the narrative of Galloway 's you had in mind that would preclude wooden crossbows?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I say Gallwey precluded wooden crossbows?

Another bias is toward preserving hinting crossbows and small war crossbows over large war crossbowx. Hunting crossbows were still used long after war crossbows became obsolete. Small war crossbows might be used for hunting as well, allowing them to be continued to be used and preserved after their milirary function ceased. Large crossbows would have just been thrown out when they were no longer needed. None of Tod's replica crossbows are as large as some you see shown in medieval battle scenes, such as the late 14 century illustration of the battle of Crecy, which had crossbows that were around 3 ft prods vs Tod's more typical 2 ft prods. These larger crossbows would have been more powerful as a result of being bigger.

I don't see how you can tell the length of crossbow prods by looking at illustrations.... Art in the 1300ds aren't exact realistic and to scale. And no, bigger bows doesn't always mean more powerful. Just look at how big longbows are. You have to look at bow design, their cross section, and their length + draw length. Prod length in and of itself is not enough to represent draw strength. Also, if you are going to use art, I see plenty of crossbows depicted to be used in military situations, in which they are obviously not draw with a windlass, either because some other drawing mechanism is shown (like a belt hook), or the crossbow lacks a stirrup (making windlass drawing anywhere from impossible to very awkward)

From the 14th century Velissovia Bible:



^I wouldn't use pictures like that to show the exact feet of a crossbow prod, because they aren't drawn to scale. However, they do show two belt hooks, even if not drawn to scale you can determine that the crossbows were drawn by belt hooks, so I would say ~350 lbs draw weight. And if by "late 14 century illustration of the battle of Crecy", you mean this from Froissart's chronicles:



Only one of the four crossbows are depicted with a stirrup. The rest cannot be drawn with a windlass particularly when the prod is behind the front of the stock. Maybe it's drawn with a cranequin (invented in the late 14th century) but I don't see any mechanism for the crossbowmen to draw their crossbows. I don't think the artist was even thinking about how the crossbows were drawn, he just drew them. Just like how he drew pretty much everyone wearing near the best armor of the day, but I highly doubt armies could afford to do that for everybody.

By the way, the temperatur was - 4, not -6 you claimed for Bilcher's 1200 lbs crossbow.

It says -4 in the video but -6 in his comment section of his great horn crossbow video. Either way the difference is so small I don't see the bother of making a big deal out of it.

Also, as temperature went up, power would drop too, but not necessarily efficiency, since draw weight would drop with temperature rise. The prod would be more flexible, hence lower draw weight and less power, but not necessarily lower efficiency.

Maybe. It depends on the temperature in which he measured the draw weight, which is most likely room temperature. So when he shot the crossbow at below freezing point, the draw weight would be higher than the draw weight when he measured the crossbow, as per your logic: If you say draw weight drops with high temperature, then that means draw weight increases with low temperature. Ergo if shooting in the hot summer would make efficiency look lower than it really is, then shooting at below freezing would make efficiency look higher than it really is.

Anyway because we're on a new page I'm giving Bichler's comment again for reference:

To eliminate missunderstandings I'll try to give you further information about my two crossbows. This was also published in the german journal: Jahrblatt der Interessengemeinschaft Historische Armbrust 2016 and 2017.

Great Crossbow (1270lb):
Draw length: 375mm (14.76")
Necessary force to pull the bowstring at 375mm: 5680 Newton
From the bow stored potential energy: 1276.9 Joule
The efficiency (kinetic energy/potential energy) is at last depending from the bolt weiht:
155 g bolt – 67.96 m/s – 357.94 J kinetic energy - 28 % efficiency
260 g bolt – 57.74 m/s – 433.41 J - 34 % efficiency
348 g bolt – 52.92 m/s – 487.79 J - 38 % efficiency

Cranequin crossbow (1200lb):
Draw length: 190mm (7.48")
Necessary force to pull the bowstring at 190mm: 5325 Newton
From the bow stored potential energy: 589.43 Joule
81.1 g bolt – 69.85 m/s – 197.84 J - 34 % efficiency
98.1 g bolt – 64.17 m/s – 201.98 J - 34 % efficiency
105.1 g bolt – 61.47 m/s – 198.56 J - 34 % efficiency

The great differnt to the steel bow can be find in the force/way diagramm. while a steelbows curve is always below the ideal linear curve a composite bow is above it. So if you compare two identical bows (draw length and force) a composite bow is able to store much more potential energy in its lims as a steel bow. Ans so you are able to shoot a bolt with the same wight with more speed.....

The above 1200 cranequin crossbow was shot at approx -4 degrees. When shot at +30 degrees, the 81 gram bolt went 64 m/s producing 167 joules. The 1270 lb crossbow was shot at approx +25 degrees, but Bichler says he wasn't sure about it.

[Common Soldier]

Also, I watched the video on Todd's 350 lb crossbow video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoGI6tRt6ho
I don't see anywhere in the video of he claiming that most crossbows were steel by the 15th century. Please feel free to point out just where he said that. He said "most WESTERN European bows were steelbows at this point", which is not the same thing. Your thesis paper's survey of 15th century composite bows shows that all these composite crossbows whose location could be located were all located in Central Europe, not western Europe. Of the six steel crossbows whose location could be located, they are located in Spain, Italy, and Central Europe. So the Todd's statement and the thesis paper you mentioned isn't mutually contradictory. 

Western Europe does includes Germany and Italy and Spain, even in the middle ages. Tod did not specify a partucular region in Europe, nor did he clarify his statement saying "by the middle or end of the 15th century". While Tod's statement would have been true for the end of the 15th century, it wasn't true for the first half of the 15th centtury. Tod has used German examples for some of his crossbows constructions, so he clearly included Germany in Western Europe.

Todd did say by the 15th "Western war crossbows were mostly steel"


I find a 350 lbs steel crossbow rather light weight, and I would think a heavier crossbow would have been used in combat by the 15th century. While goat's foot lever were very popular, except for cavalry crossbowmen, I don't recall seeing any combat crossbowmen using it, only windlass, or foot stirrups. Since crossbows were labeled "hunting" or "war", I wonder how certain he was that his model was a war crossbow.



I don't see how you can tell the length of crossbow prods by looking at illustrations.... Art in the 1300ds aren't exact realistic and to scale. And no, bigger bows doesn't always mean more powerful. Just look at how big longbows are. You have to look at bow design, their cross section, and their length + draw length. Prod length in and of itself is not enough to represent draw strength. Also, if you are going to use art, I see plenty of crossbows depicted to be used in military situations, in which they are obviously not draw with a windlass, either because some other drawing mechanism is shown (like a belt hook), or the crossbow lacks a stirrup (making windlass drawing anywhere from impossible to very awkward)

From the 14th century Velissovia Bible:



^I wouldn't use pictures like that to show the exact feet of a crossbow prod, because they aren't drawn to scale. However, they do show two belt hooks, even if not drawn to scale you can determine that the crossbows were drawn by belt hooks, so I would say ~350 lbs draw weight. And if by "late 14 century illustration of the battle of Crecy", you mean this from Froissart's chronicles:



Only one of the four crossbows are depicted with a stirrup. The rest cannot be drawn with a windlass particularly when the prod is behind the front of the stock. Maybe it's drawn with a cranequin (invented in the late 14th century) but I don't see any mechanism for the crossbowmen to draw their crossbows. I don't think the artist was even thinking about how the crossbows were drawn, he just drew them. Just like how he drew pretty much everyone wearing near the best armor of the day, but I highly doubt armies could afford to do that for everybody. 

No, the picture you showed are not the ones I am thinking about in regard to Crect, as I said the one I mentioned had a windlass - you can see the picture, also from the same Jean Froissart Chronicles as your miniture, on the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Crecy.

By comparing the prod to a crossbowman's shoulder, you can tell the prod width would be a lot longer than the 2 ft which seems typical for Tod's crossbows, even if you couldn't give a specific value.

One thing you can tell from your picture is that the prods are clearly wood or composite, they are too fat to be steel. Now, since it is a picture of Crecy, that would be historically accurate for the time of the battle. But if the crossbows were just the crossbows being used in the time of the artist, late 15th century, that suggest that steel crossbows were not necessarily the majority even in the late 15th century. William Ross late 15th century purchases do not specifically state they were steel, and the reference to wood could have been to contrast them to composite crossbows, rather than steel

Normally, artist back then showed the weapons and armour for their own time, rather than the time of the battle, but the artist could have known wood/composite crossbows were more historical. Or he use contemporary wood/composite hunting crossbows as his models, rather than actual war crossbows. The prods also seem smaller than those depicted in the other illustrations, and since there is no windlass in the picture, they might just been foot drawn. While we have a lot of goat's foot levers around, attesting to their popularity in medieval times, I don't recall seeing them in any medieval combat illustration, far less than the depictions with windlass being used. The most popular method shown in medieval battle illustrations seems either using a foot (with perhaps a belt assist) or using windlass, with a cranequin mostly shown used by cavalry crossbowmen., By the late 15th century, foot drawn crossbows would have had stirrups, all your crossbows in you 14th illustration did. The lack of a foot stirrup indicates a mechanical assist, possibly a cranequin or a goat's foot lever, although I don't know that you have to have a stirrup to use a windlass - you could hold down the prod with your foot, same as you can draw it without a stirrup..



If the crossbows were crossbows, as Bilchers work showed, the windlass drawn crossbows would have far more powerful than any of Tod's crossbows, and even if steel, they would have been more powerful. No intelligent person would have made a crossbow by a windlass with a larger prod, if the could have made a smaller crossbow with the same power. As I said, "some", (I did not say all) of the battle scene windlass crossbows had prods significantly bigger than Tod's 1250 lbs crossbow with a 25" prod, you only have to look at Tod's video and compare his prod with some of the ones shown in battle illustructions, and see it is smaller.

PS - In the 14th century, most crossbows would not be using windlasses, in fact most would not be. The Genoese, reputed to have among the best crossbows and be the best crossbowmans, could have had windlass drawn ones, and if anyone did, they would be the most likely. Windlass were around, they did exist, so it was possible. As I said at the beginning of the thread, if the Genoese had windlass crossbows, they could of matched or out ranged the longbowmen at Crecy, without windlass crossbows, wet strings were just an excuse.



It says -4 in the video but -6 in his comment section of his great horn crossbow video. Either way the difference is so small I don't see the bother of making a big deal out of it.



Maybe. It depends on the temperature in which he measured the draw weight, which is most likely room temperature. So when he shot the crossbow at below freezing point, the draw weight would be higher than the draw weight when he measured the crossbow, as per your logic: If you say draw weight drops with high temperature, then that means draw weight increases with low temperature. Ergo if shooting in the hot summer would make efficiency look lower than it really is, then shooting at below freezing would make efficiency look higher than it really is.

Anyway because we're on a new page I'm giving Bichler's comment again for reference:

To eliminate missunderstandings I'll try to give you further information about my two crossbows. This was also published in the german journal: Jahrblatt der Interessengemeinschaft Historische Armbrust 2016 and 2017.

Great Crossbow (1270lb):
Draw length: 375mm (14.76")
Necessary force to pull the bowstring at 375mm: 5680 Newton
From the bow stored potential energy: 1276.9 Joule
The efficiency (kinetic energy/potential energy) is at last depending from the bolt weiht:
155 g bolt – 67.96 m/s – 357.94 J kinetic energy - 28 % efficiency
260 g bolt – 57.74 m/s – 433.41 J - 34 % efficiency
348 g bolt – 52.92 m/s – 487.79 J - 38 % efficiency

Cranequin crossbow (1200lb):
Draw length: 190mm (7.48")
Necessary force to pull the bowstring at 190mm: 5325 Newton
From the bow stored potential energy: 589.43 Joule
81.1 g bolt – 69.85 m/s – 197.84 J - 34 % efficiency
98.1 g bolt – 64.17 m/s – 201.98 J - 34 % efficiency
105.1 g bolt – 61.47 m/s – 198.56 J - 34 % efficiency

The great differnt to the steel bow can be find in the force/way diagramm. while a steelbows curve is always below the ideal linear curve a composite bow is above it. So if you compare two identical bows (draw length and force) a composite bow is able to store much more potential energy in its lims as a steel bow. Ans so you are able to shoot a bolt with the same wight with more speed.....

The above 1200 cranequin crossbow was shot at approx -4 degrees. When shot at +30 degrees, the 81 gram bolt went 64 m/s producing 167 joules. The 1270 lb crossbow was shot at approx +25 degrees, but Bichler says he wasn't sure about it.

I can't find the commenrs you refer to. Did Bilcher say he shot the 1200 lbs crossbow again in the summer in 30 C weather? That is rather warm for Germany (+86 F).

[HackneyedScribe]

Western Europe does includes Germany and Italy and Spain, even in the middle ages. Tod did not specify a partucular region in Europe, nor did he clarify his statement saying "by the middle or end of the 15th century". "

No, he said "Most, sort of Western European bows, warbows, were steel at this point": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoGI6tRt6ho

He says the word "Western European" 38 seconds in.

Maybe some definitions of Western Europe include Germany, but this is what I think of when I think of "western Europe":



Like Teal is what the CIA thinks of when they think "Western Europe":




I also don't see how including Spain and Italy into "Western Europe" strengthens your argument. It actually kind of weakens it, because your source says that of the six steel crossbows dated to the 15th century, those whose location could be located were found in Spain, Italy, and Central Europe. Your argument is that Todd's statement here is wrong: "Most, sort of Western European bows, warbows, were steel at this point"

Anyway I don't know why you are raising these issues at all, I'm not seeing what it has to do with the issue at hand. You should take it up directly to him. If you won't then I can just do it for you, and that'll be a quick way to settle it. I already asked him part of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMoL_SBD6gw

While Tod's statement would have been true for the end of the 15th century, it wasn't true for the first half of the 15th centtury.

Todd said that his 350 crossbow had a steel bow and "Most, sort of Western European bows, warbows, were steel at this point". You don't know if the crossbow is based on the early or late 15th century.Then you brought evidence of how crossbows found in Central Europe during the 15th century were composite.

Seriously, I don't know why you are arguing so hard for how Todd 'might' be wrong. What's the point of this?

Tod has used German examples for some of his crossbows constructions, so he clearly included Germany in Western Europe.

Think about what you just said: Tod has used German examples for some of his crossbows constructions, so he clearly included Germany in Western Europe.

How does this statement :
Tod has used German examples for some of his crossbows constructions

Have anything to do with this statement:
so he clearly included Germany in Western Europe.

Did Todd after making the statement, claim that ALL his crossbow replicas are based on Western European examples? That's the only way your logic wouldn't fall flat on the floor, and even if on the very small off-chance he did say that, then the much bigger possibility is that he misspoke.

Todd did say by the 15th "Western war crossbows were mostly steel"

He said "Most, sort of Western European bows, warbows, were steel at this point"
Then you dug up an article showing how most crossbows found in 15 century Central Europe were composite, in order to prove him wrong. Seriously, at this point I don't know if you are genuinely making a point, or disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Why are you so bent on proving Todd is wrong on something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

I find a 350 lbs steel crossbow rather light weight, and I would think a heavier crossbow would have been used in combat by the 15th century. While goat's foot lever were very popular, except for cavalry crossbowmen, I don't recall seeing any combat crossbowmen using it, only windlass, or foot stirrups. Since crossbows were labeled "hunting" or "war", I wonder how certain he was that his model was a war crossbow.

Previously you said light weight crossbows were still useful on the battlefield because most people don't wear armor. You need to give a reason why you are changing your mind. What new evidence have you come across?

No, the picture you showed are not the ones I am thinking about in regard to Crect, as I said the one I mentioned had a windlass - you can see the picture, also from the same Jean Froissart Chronicles as your miniture, on the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Crecy.

Then show the picture you are thinking about, because so far it's not showing. And how does that picture mean it preclude the use of other drawing devices such as the belt hook?



From: maciejowski bible

By comparing the prod to a crossbowman's shoulder, you can tell the prod width would be a lot longer than the 2 ft which seems typical for Tod's crossbows, even if you couldn't give a specific value.

No, you can't. Because the picture isn't drawn to scale. No more than you can use a cartoon to judge the length of a crossbow prod. That's what the art is, basically a cartoon in style. It's not drawn to scale. What you also can't do, is say that a 2 feet steel prod is too short by pointing to examples of pictures of composite prods. The two materials aren't the same.

Let us use the thesis that you gave:



Todd says his 1250 lb steel crossbow has a prod of around 70 cm or "28 inches", which is 2.3 feet not 2 feet. So Todd's 1250 lb steel crossbow has a prod length of 700mm, and fits with what little data that your own source provided for steel prods of the 15th century. None of the bows reached 3 feet (914mm). Of course, the sample is unreliable, but better than looking at pictures of non-steel crossbows that's obviously not drawn to scale, and using them to determine the length of steel crossbow prods. That type of evidence is shaky at best.

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMoL_SBD6gw



Anyway, would you say these are depicting giant people or miniature buildings? Neither? Then the art is not drawn to scale and you shouldn't use them to judge whether something is closer to 2.3 feet or 3 feet:

One thing you can tell from your picture is that the prods are clearly wood or composite, they are too fat to be steel. Now, since it is a picture of Crecy, that would be historically accurate for the time of the battle. But if the crossbows were just the crossbows being used in the time of the artist, late 15th century, that suggest that steel crossbows were not necessarily the majority even in the late 15th century. William Ross late 15th century purchases do not specifically state they were steel, and the reference to wood could have been to contrast them to composite crossbows, rather than steel

Normally, artist back then showed the weapons and armour for their own time, rather than the time of the battle, but the artist could have known wood/composite crossbows were more historical. Or he use contemporary wood/composite hunting crossbows as his models, rather than actual war crossbows. The prods also seem smaller than those depicted in the other illustrations, and since there is no windlass in the picture, they might just been foot drawn. While we have a lot of goat's foot levers around, attesting to their popularity in medieval times, I don't recall seeing them in any medieval combat illustration, far less than the depictions with windlass being used. The most popular method shown in medieval battle illustrations seems either using a foot (with perhaps a belt assist) or using windlass, with a cranequin mostly shown used by cavalry crossbowmen.

If composite crossbows, as Bilchers work showed, the windlass drawn crossbows would have far more powerful than any of Tod's crossbows, and even if steel, they would have been more powerful. No intelligent person would have made a crossbow by a windlass with a larger prod, if the could have made a smaller crossbow with the same power. As I said, "some", (I did not say all) of the battle scene windlass crossbows had prods significantly bigger than Tod's 1250 lbs crossbow with a 25" prod, you only have to look at Tod's video and compare his prod with some of the ones shown in battle illustructions, and see it is smaller.

PS - In the 14th century, most crossbows would not be using windlasses, in fact most would not be. The Genoese, reputed to have among the best crossbows and be the best crossbowmans, could have had windlass drawn ones, and if anyone did, they would be the most likely. Windlass were around, they did exist, so it was possible. As I said at the beginning of the thread, if the Genoese had windlass crossbows, they could of matched or out ranged the longbowmen at Crecy, without windlass crossbows, wet strings were just an excuse.

One thing you can tell from your picture is that the prods are clearly wood or composite, they are too fat to be steel. Now, since it is a picture of Crecy, that would be historically accurate for the time of the battle. But if the crossbows were just the crossbows being used in the time of the artist, late 15th century, that suggest that steel crossbows were not necessarily the majority even in the late 15th century. William Ross late 15th century purchases do not specifically state they were steel, and the reference to wood could have been to contrast them to composite crossbows, rather than steel

Normally, artist back then showed the weapons and armour for their own time, rather than the time of the battle, but the artist could have known wood/composite crossbows were more historical. Or he use contemporary wood/composite hunting crossbows as his models, rather than actual war crossbows. The prods also seem smaller than those depicted in the other illustrations, and since there is no windlass in the picture, they might just been foot drawn. While we have a lot of goat's foot levers around, attesting to their popularity in medieval times, I don't recall seeing them in any medieval combat illustration, far less than the depictions with windlass being used. The most popular method shown in medieval battle illustrations seems either using a foot (with perhaps a belt assist) or using windlass, with a cranequin mostly shown used by cavalry crossbowmen.

I agree if 'this could happen' = 'this must have happened', then your argument 'could be' very good. I'm reading a lot of 'ifs' and 'could' and 'might' types of words. The more of those words you feel you need to use to back a claim, the less likely the claim is going to be true (take Galvin Menzies or Ancient Aliens on the History Channel as an example). For each 'could' you use, there is a 'could not', for each 'might' you use, there is a 'might not'. A good argument does not argue about what is possible, it argues about what is probable. Also, if Todd said that steel crossbows were the majority sometime during the 15th century, then how is a 14th century picture supposed to prove him wrong?

If composite crossbows, as Bilchers work showed, the windlass drawn crossbows would have far more powerful than any of Tod's crossbows, and even if steel, they would have been more powerful. No intelligent person would have made a crossbow by a windlass with a larger prod, if the could have made a smaller crossbow with the same power. As I said, "some", (I did not say all) of the battle scene windlass crossbows had prods significantly bigger than Tod's 1250 lbs crossbow with a 25" prod, you only have to look at Tod's video and compare his prod with some of the ones shown in battle illustructions, and see it is smaller.

Again, longer limbs in and of itself would only decrease draw weight for the same stiffness of the prod. You have shown no evidence to show otherwise besides the assumption that Medieval crossbowmakers only cared for pure power and not anything else. You may not have directly said it, but this is what your logic relies on.

PS - In the 14th century, most crossbows would not be using windlasses, in fact most would not be. The Genoese, reputed to have among the best crossbows and be the best crossbowmans, could have had windlass drawn ones, and if anyone did, they would be the most likely. Windlass were around, they did exist, so it was possible. As I said at the beginning of the thread, if the Genoese had windlass crossbows, they could of matched or out ranged the longbowmen at Crecy, without windlass crossbows, wet strings were just an excuse.

Then why are you arguing that 350 lbs is too light for a battlefield crossbow?

I can't find the commenrs you refer to. Did Bilcher say he shot the 1200 lbs crossbow again in the summer in 30 C weather? That is rather warm for Germany (+86 F).

Of course, of course:







I already did this once already, I hope I don't have to do this each and every time I quote from him.

[Common Soldier]

Here is are some of the illustrations I am thinking of. When looking at the size of the prod, it is bigger that Tod's 1250 lbs crossbow with a 25" - prod would be more like 3 ft (36"). Of course, with all art, there is always a question of how much is factual, versus artistic license, but there doesn't seems any exaggeration in the crossbow itself that I can see.

The combatants are dressed in the style of when the illustration was made, rather than when the battle was fought, crossbows likely also represented the type of crossbows used when the illustration was made, rather than at the time of the battle.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle..._froissart.jpg



Here is another example of larger prods. Again, seems much wider than the 27" Tod said war crossbows had. Many, most?, of the medieval illustrations more in line with the 2 ft or so Tod has for his replica medieval crossbow, but some were bigger.




It is not clear if all these crossbows are composite or steel. Composite crossbows are described as being shaped like a flattened sausage. It is commonly believed that the steel crossbows mostly replaced composite during the course of the 15th century, but I am not sure the evidence for it. If it is based on surviving museum samples, there may be a bias in this, since steel were more durable and so more likely to survive. The much greater energy out that composites could achieve over steel, based on the reconstructions of Bilcher, would give incentive for some professionals like the Genoese crossbowmen to retain the composite even after the majority switched to steel.

While a 350 lbs steel crossbow would only be the equivalent of a normal typical bow for hunting deer, the 350 lbs composite would be equivalent to longbows at the low end of draw weight, or a hunting bow for hunting large game. Not only does the composite crossbow have better efficiency, they possibly could had have longer powerstroke lengths, which would also give them more power. And in the earlier middle ages, less people would have worn armor, than the later middle ages - even common soldiers could be be wearing a coat of plate in the later period, you see this in the bodies of the Battle of Visby, and as shown in medieval illustrations. The later 15th medieval illustrations show a lot more of windlasses, and cranequins being used, meaning the crossbows were more powerful than earlier, so I would say that 350 lbs is too light for combat by the steel crossbows became dominant. Obviously, that was not the case earlier in the 14th century and earlier, when wood/composite crossbows dominated in combat, and many combat crossbows were shown as being foot drawn before the 15th century .

Another effect of bias samples could be on our estimate of powerstroke lengths. While all the medieval crossbows had short draw lengths, even an increase from 6" to 7" or even 8" could have significant increase in energy of the arrow. While most say that the medieval crossbow draw lengths were 4 to 6" or so, that seems to be based a lot on the steel crossbows, which we have more existing medieval/Renaissance sames. The draw lengths could have been longer slightly for the larger steel crossbows and composite crossbows, which were less likely to survive as I explained previously.

It would be interesting to see what kind of power someone like Tod could get if he made a crossbow with a 3 foot prod, which these pictures and sources like Galloway indicated existed. Galloway said his 3 ft steel crossbow weighted around 18 lbs, which seems right if Tod's 25" prod steel crossbow weighted around 12 lbs. While heavy, specialist like the Genoese might still have carried it, and it occurred to me that crossbows might have used stands, similar to what the later matchlock musketeers did, to support the crossbow. The crossbowmen carried around a heavy shield, would not have been that much more to carry a pole for the crossbow. Not a shred data to support this conjecture, but I don't see a lot of medieval illustrations showing the pavise being used either, but we know they were.

• The most powerful were Genoese crossbows (this and their training may have accounted for their being the major mercenary crossbowmen hired in the Hundred Years War by France). This bow was 38 inches wide, 18 lbs, with a pull of 1,200 lbs and a range of 450 yards. It would shoot a bolt of 14 inches and 1/4 lbs but had to use a windlass and was very slow and heavy⁽⁵⁾. http://web.mit.edu/21h.416/www/milit.../crossbow.html

As I said, several different sources, including medieval illustrations, all show crossbows far larger than the ones that Tod has built. While they might not have been in the majority, they did exist. A 38" crossbow would have had more energy and shot a more powerful bolt than Tod's.

[HackneyedScribe]

If you think it's justifiable to use the first picture to judge crossbow limb length, then I should point out that by that logic you can also use the same picture to judge crossbow powerstroke, and the powerstroke depicted in that picture is almost nothing. So again, you shouldn't assume you can use such styles of unrealistic art to judge distance to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Your second picture is drawn more to scale and is hence a more useful approximate of limb length. However, all three crossbowmen have a goats foot lever strapped onto their belt, so the crossbows depicted have much less draw weight than windlass crossbows.

Location of goat's foot lever:
Left crossbowman: Easy to spot
Middle crossbowman: Lever handle can be seen on the right side of his waist
Right crossbowman: Hook can be seen in between his legs.

The most powerful were Genoese crossbows (this and their training may have accounted for their being the major mercenary crossbowmen hired in the Hundred Years War by France). This bow was 38 inches wide, 18 lbs, with a pull of 1,200 lbs and a range of 450 yards. It would shoot a bolt of 14 inches and 1/4 lbs but had to use a windlass and was very slow and heavy⁽⁵⁾. http://web.mit.edu/21h.416/www/milit.../crossbow.html

Sounds like the crossbow described is Payne Gallwey's crossbow... And you've admitted that Gallwey was exaggerating. If you're just going to look online for anything that agrees with what you want to believe, irregardless of whether the statement is backed by either a replica or contemporary records or SOMETHING substantial, then you'll find it. You'll be able to find pretty much anything, in fact. If I used this type of evidence for Chinese crossbows, there's no way you'll let that fly.

Also Todd agreed that given the same draw weight and powerstroke, the crossbow with the longer limb would shoot weaker because the heavier weight of the prod is a disadvantage. However, he said longer limbs allowed a longer powerstroke, which increases energy. But I noticed that in Gallwey's case the maker of his 1200 lb crossbow obviously did not take advantage of that. Its powerstroke was only 0.5 inches longer than that of Todd's. I suspect it's for safety regions as a longer prod with the same powerstroke/draw weight means that the stress could be redistributed along a longer surface.

Also as said before, Todd said his crossbow prod was 70 cm long or 28 inches.

[Common Soldier]

If you think it's justifiable to use the first picture to judge crossbow limb length, then I should point out that by that logic you can also use the same picture to judge crossbow powerstroke, and the powerstroke depicted in that picture is almost nothing. So again, you shouldn't assume you can use such styles of unrealistic art to judge distance to a reasonable degree of accuracy. 

There is a huge difference in differentiating distances of a foot, and telling the difference of a couple inches of the powerstroke. The differences in prod length is an order of magnitude greater than the ppower stroke. The ppower stroke is simply too small to tell what it is precisely. To insist as you do that a difference of 12" is the same as 2" is total nonsense, and you know it.I

A person even a few feet away can tell the difference in length if something is 3ft from something 2 ft. But most would not be able to tell the difference in length of a 6" from 7" as you say.


I don't know why you insist that Tod is always right when he is not. (You insist you don't claim Tod is always right, but I haven't once seen you ackwoledgement him wrong, and you fight me on everything that where I don't acknowledge Tod is the greatest.) This isn't the first time Tod was wrong, won't be the last either.

I am not saying that Tod isn't generally right, but you are insisting that the crossbow prods weren't any bigger than the 27" that Tod said. What is so hard about acknowledging the possibility that there could have been steel crossbows larger and more power than any Tod built? As far I can tell, you won't even concede it being a possibility.

The second picture is drawn more to scale and is hence a more useful approximate of limb length. However, all three crossbowmen have a goats foot lever strapped onto their belt, so the crossbows depicted have much less draw weight than windlass crossbows. 

So you have acknowledged you and Tod were wrong - war crossbows did have prods a lot bigger than 27", about 2 ft. I didn't notice tne goats foot lever in tne picture, it was just the first picture that proves that T. O was flat out wrong. Tod said thar war crossbows were 27" (and he didn't mean just windlass, he was demonstrating a goats lever crossbow when he said it), which is not true. Some war crossbows were 27", not all.

I have already shown 2 pictures that showed Tod was wrong. While you deny it, the first one does shows the prod more than Tod's 2 ft using a windlass, and these were 2 pictures I just happened to find quickly. With more work, I could find others with a windlass, but I am not going to waste more time, having given multiple evidence, while you only have YouTube videos. While Tod is good, he isn't always right (and you insist you don't say Tod is always right, but you do - when have ever aclnowledged Tod was wrong on aanything? . The "The medieval inventories of the Tower Armouries: 1320-1410" Roland Richardson showed that Tod was wrong about the fletching on crossbow bolts.

So far, I have provided all the evidence - it is up to you to provide, which you have not done, that crossbows weren't any larger that the 27" Tod said. You have no justification for insisting there were no hand crossbows bbigger or more powerful than what Tod created, and yet you are doing just that. What evidence do you have, other than what Tod says, that there weren't hand ccrossbows with prods bigger than the crossbows Tod built, or there didn't exist bigger steel crossbows more powerful than.Tod's? And don't claim you aren't, no when you insist that 36" is the same as 6" or 7". (You are making that claim when you insist the situation of the powerstroke, which might be a difference of 6" to 7" or 8", is the same the prod, where we are talking about 38" to 27", as you did In your post).




Sounds like the crossbow described is Payne Gallwey's crossbow... And you've admitted that Gallwey was exaggerating. If you're just going to look online for anything that agrees with what you want to believe, irregardless of whether the statement is backed by either a replica or contemporary records or SOMETHING substantial, then you'll find it. You'll be able to find pretty much anything, in fact. If I used this type of evidence for Chinese crossbows, there's no way you'll let that fly.

The truth is opposite of what you say. Your Chinese evidence consists of just the unverified and ynsupportrd say so, with no independent corroborating evidence to support what was said, while I provided several different independent sources, and you have tried to challenge them in every way, which ridiculous arguments that the powerstroke is the same size as the prod length, which is flatly wrong, or challenged that 3 ft, 18 lbs crossbow is bigger than a 2 ft 12 lbs crossbow. You have dismissed every single source I cited that said something you disliked, while all you present is YouTube videos.

I am not saying that Tod's work was bad, or in this case even inaccurate, just that there were bigger more powerful crossbow than those Tod built, and you refuse even to consider the possibility. As the Genoese crossbow being being the same as Galloway's crossbow, there is nothing to support that assertion - Galloway called his crossbow a siege one, and he said nothing about the crossbow being Genoese, and the source for the statement about the Genoese crossbow was not from Galloway, which you would have known if you had bothered to look up the source, Yes, they had similar dimensions, which could be because there were medieval crossbows built that big, despite what you and Tod insist.



you have something other than YouTube videos and their comments to support whatt you say?



But I noticed that in Gallwey's case the maker of his 1200 lb crossbow obviously did not take advantage of that. Its powerstroke was only 0.5 inches longer than that of Todd's. I suspect it's for safety regions as a longer prod with the same powerstroke/draw weight means that the stress could be redistributed along a longer surface. 

If you believe Galloway is in error, why do you insist the error is in the range, and not in value of powerstroke length or draw weight? A question asked you multiple times, no good reply from you. A change in the values of either the draw weight or powerstroke lemgth, which could result from a single typo error, could give longer ranges than Tod's. Since it is an udeniable fact Galloway's crossbow was much bigger (18 lbs, 3 ft prod vs 12 lbs, 2 ft prod), it would be suprising if the powerstroke length or draw weight, or both, were not bigger than Tod's much smaller crossbow.




Also as said before, Todd said his crossbow prod was 70 cm long or 28 inches long

I heard Tod say 25" was the prod length. A difference of a few inches, unlike a foot, is not signficant in prod length or in this discussion. If you used real articles, instead of videos, we wouldn't have to listen hard, but could read what was said..

[HackneyedScribe]

There is a huge difference in differentiating distances of a foot, and telling the difference of a couple inches of the powerstroke. The differences in prod length is an order of magnitude greater than the ppower stroke. The ppower stroke is simply too small to tell what it is precisely. To insist as you do that a difference of 12" is the same as 2" is total nonsense, and you know it.I

A person even a few feet away can tell the difference in length if something is 3ft from something 2 ft. But most would not be able to tell the difference in length of a 6" from 7" as you say.

You are throwing smokescreens, you knew full well that when I said that the crossbow powerstrokes in the picture looks like it's "almost nothing", then I sure as hell don't mean it's 6 inches, which is something. The powerstroke shown in your picture on the battle of Crecy does not show 6 inches, more like 1 inch. Ergo, the difference between an one inch powerstroke and an 7 inch powerstroke is 6 inches. Just like how the difference between a 28 inch prod and 36 inch prod is 8 inches. If you say that the prod in the picture is 8 inches longer than usual prods, then I can say that the powerstroke shown in the picture is about 6 inches shorter. 6 and 8 inches isn't that much of a difference, not even close to "an order of magnitude" as you claim. There is also the question of ratio. A 7 inch powerstroke is 700% longer than an 1 inch powerstroke, making it easily detectable. Whereas a 36 inch prod is only 28% longer than a 28 inch prod. Ergo, if you think you can use the out-or-proportion picture to say that prod length is 36 inches instead of 28 inches, then I can use the picture to say that powerstroke is 1 inch instead of 7 inches.

This being the picture you used:


Obviously if you treat the picture as accurately drawn to scale (which it is not), then the powerstroke length would be around only an inch long. The picture doesn't show whether the powerstroke is 6 inch or 7 inch long, but an inch long. You are throwing smokescreens, you knew full well that when I said that the crossbow powerstrokes in the picture looks like it's "almost nothing", then I sure as hell don't mean it's 6 inches, but you responded as if I meant 6 inches anyway. Also Todd only said that his replica crossbow has a prod 28 inches long. He never said that there weren't prods longer than 2 feet (24 inches). You are twisting what he said here.

I don't know why you insist that Tod is always right when he is not. (You insist you don't claim Tod is always right, but I haven't once seen you ackwoledgement him wrong, and you fight me on everything that where I don't acknowledge Tod is the greatest.) This isn't the first time Tod was wrong, won't be the last either.

Maybe Todd is wrong somewhere, but you didn't prove Todd is wrong. You shoved words into his mouth, took what he said out of context, and then tried to prove something wrong on matters that he never said. I am not so much defending Todd as I am attacking your questionable debate tactics.

For example, you insisted that Todd claimed that European crossbows were mostly made out of steel sometime during the 15th century. And then brought up a source which showed that Central European crossbows during the 15th century were mostly made out of composite. But when I watched the actual video, he said that "WESTERN European crossbows were mostly made out of steel sometime during the 15th century", and the little evidence provided by your source thesis actually confirms this. And even when I told you what he actually said, and the video to prove it, you still denied it. (post 43)

Or about how Todd only said that his 1250 lb crossbow replica had a prod of 28 inches, or 2.3 feet. You consistently state his prod was 2 feet in order to make it look shorter in comparison to 3 feet crossbow prods, despite me repeatedly telling you over and over it was longer at 28 inches. And then, you start saying how Todd is 'wrong' because there exists crossbows that is over '2 feet' long, which is not something that Todd nor I denied. Todd only said that his crossbow replica had a prod length of 28 inches, and you twisted that way out of context.

^And these are only examples in which you refuse to acknowledge what they actually said and continued with the misquotes, despite me spoon-feeding you what they actually said.

I am not saying that Tod isn't generally right, but you are insisting that the crossbow prods weren't any bigger than the 27" that Tod said. What is so hard about acknowledging the possibility that there could have been steel crossbows larger and more power than any Tod built? As far I can tell, you won't even concede it being a possibility.

Where did Tod or I ever deny that there were crossbow prods longer than 28''? Show it to me. Todd said that his replica prod was 28''. You reduced the length of what he actually said, and then made an argument that there were prods longer than this reduced length. I didn't argue that this reduced length was the maximum prod length, I said that your evidence and debating tactic is horrendously bad. There's a difference.

Where did either I or Tod say that there weren't crossbow prods that are longer than 28''? And again, Todd only said that the crossbow prod he built was 28''. Where did he say that there weren't crossbow prods longer than 28''? Why are you shoveling words into our mouths?

So you have acknowledged you and Tod were wrong - war crossbows did have prods a lot bigger than 27", about 2 ft. I didn't notice tne goats foot lever in tne picture, it was just the first picture that proves that T. O was flat out wrong. Tod said thar war crossbows were 27" (and he didn't mean just windlass, he was demonstrating a goats lever crossbow when he said it), which is not true. Some war crossbows were 27", not all.

Where did Todd say that all war crossbows were 28''? Show me the exact quote, video, and the time in which he said so. And don't cut off important words from it like what you did last time. It's amazing that even when I pointed out word for word what he actually said, and gave the video link to prove it, you still denied it and stuck with the strawman argument.

I have already shown 2 pictures that showed Tod was wrong. While you deny it, the first one does shows the prod more than Tod's 2 ft using a windlass, and these were 2 pictures I just happened to find quickly. With more work, I could find others with a windlass, but I am not going to waste more time, having given multiple evidence, while you only have YouTube videos. While Tod is good, he isn't always right (and you insist you don't say Tod is always right, but you do - when have ever aclnowledged Tod was wrong on aanything? . The "The medieval inventories of the Tower Armouries: 1320-1410" Roland Richardson showed that Tod was wrong about the fletching on crossbow bolts.

All you did was make up strawman arguments. Definition of Strawman Argument: giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

If you are not twisting other people's words out of context, point out where Todd said that all crossbow prods were less than 28'', and you keep claiming he said. Point out where I said it. You can't.

So far, I have provided all the evidence - it is up to you to provide, which you have not done, that crossbows weren't any larger that the 27" Tod said.

Todd didn't say that and neither did I. Otherwise, show just where either of us said it.

You have no justification for insisting there were no hand crossbows bbigger or more powerful than what Tod created, and yet you are doing just that. What evidence do you have, other than what Tod says, that there weren't hand ccrossbows with prods bigger than the crossbows Tod built, or there didn't exist bigger steel crossbows more powerful than.Tod's? And don't claim you aren't, no when you insist that 36" is the same as 6" or 7". (You are making that claim when you insist the situation of the powerstroke, which might be a difference of 6" to 7" or 8", is the same the prod, where we are talking about 38" to 27", as you did In your post).

I see you are still in the habit of stuffing words into other people's mouths. You are taking it so far I don't even know what you are talking about now.

The truth is opposite of what you say. Your Chinese evidence consists of just the unverified and ynsupportrd say so, with no independent corroborating evidence to support what was said, while I provided several different independent sources, and you have tried to challenge them in every way, which ridiculous arguments that the powerstroke is the same size as the prod length, which is flatly wrong, or challenged that 3 ft, 18 lbs crossbow is bigger than a 2 ft 12 lbs crossbow. You have dismissed every single source I cited that said something you disliked, while all you present is YouTube videos.

Let us see the standard of our argument:

My Standard:
I've provided comments from professional crossbow makers on matters of what increases crossbow performance and replica evidence to prove it.
I've provided multiple Chinese contemporary sources, from multiple dynasties, written by multiple different people.
I've provided contemporary accounting documents, showing their typical draw weights. The Chu Yen slips were excavated by a non-Chinese.
I've provided archaeological evidence of long powerstroke crossbows from Qin ShiHuang's terracotta army, which contained real usable weapons of the time period.
I have refused to use contemporary pictures as evidence for long powerstroke crossbows because they were not drawn to scale
I refused to use the archaeological evidence of long powerstroke crossbows if those crossbows were found in the tomb of the nobility, even though doing so would decrease the amount of evidence I have available.
I refused to use empty claims from news articles that say Qin crossbows could shoot 800 meters, because such claims have no justification behind it. Just saying a crossbow could shoot X meters doesn't make it so. Such a claim requires evidence to back it.

Now your standard:
You gave weight to an unknown youtube commentator who said some random crossbow numbers, who have no sources, not even when he was called out on it. But claims from professional crossbow makers is something you accuse me of bringing to the table, on the basis that the claim was made in a video.
You brought up pictures that weren't drawn to scale, in order to judge prod length. Which is exactly the opposite of what I did. (post 44)
You repeatedly distorted what Todd said, twisting his words beyond what he meant, and then attacking the argument that he didn't make. When I tried to correct this type of argument, you end up twisting what I said too.
You readily used claims on crossbow ranges as sources even when it's an empty claim with no justification behind it. Apparently a simple statement saying that a crossbow could shoot X meters is enough for you as a source, even if it has no justification. Or perhaps the justification is that X is a large number and that's good enough for you.
You come up with personal theories, unproven theories with no evidence to back it up, used those theories to reinforce your argument and treated the conclusions based off of those theories as fact.

I also made no argument that prod length and powerstroke was the same. Nor did I ever deny that Gallwey's 18 lb crossbow was bigger in size than that of Tod's 12 lb crossbow. Quote just where I said that or stop making things up. It seems the only way you can win an argument is to twist what other people said.

I am not saying that Tod's work was bad, or in this case even inaccurate, just that there were bigger more powerful crossbow than those Tod built, and you refuse even to consider the possibility. As the Genoese crossbow being being the same as Galloway's crossbow, there is nothing to support that assertion - Galloway called his crossbow a siege one, and he said nothing about the crossbow being Genoese, and the source for the statement about the Genoese crossbow was not from Galloway, which you would have known if you had bothered to look up the source, Yes, they had similar dimensions, which could be because there were medieval crossbows built that big, despite what you and Tod insist.

I didn't refuse to consider the possibility that Todd was wrong. I refused to stand by an argument that twists what people said out of context, snipping out important words from their sentences in order to make your attack easier.

you have something other than YouTube videos and their comments to support whatt you say?

You mean youtube videos and comments made by professional crossbow replica makers. When it comes to knowing the engineering and physics behind crossbow performance, do you know any other source better than professional crossbow replica makers and their empirical testing? If you can't bring up these better sources, then don't complain about what I have.

If you believe Galloway is in error, why do you insist the error is in the range, and not in value of powerstroke length or draw weight? A question asked you multiple times, no good reply from you. A change in the values of either the draw weight or powerstroke lemgth, which could result from a single typo error, could give longer ranges than Tod's. Since it is an udeniable fact Galloway's crossbow was much bigger (18 lbs, 3 ft prod vs 12 lbs, 2 ft prod), it would be suprising if the powerstroke length or draw weight, or both, were not bigger than Tod's much smaller crossbow.

Where did I deny that Gallwey could have been wrong in terms of draw weight or powerstroke? Where did you ask this question "multiple times"? And if you did, then why did you admit that Gallwey was exaggerating the range of his crossbow? On the other hand, he said his bolt was 14 inches long, so a 7 inch powerstroke as Gallwey said was reasonable. He also said he could draw the crossbow with by the fingers of one hand, and that the cross section is 2.5 inch by 1 inch thick and 38 inches long. So a 1200 lb draw weight sounds about right.

Either way, a 1200 lb steel crossbow with 7 inch powerstroke cannot shoot an 85 gram quarrel 450 yards. The actual test caught on video only went 235 yards, despite having 1250 lbs draw weight, 6.5 inch powerstroke, and an 88 gram quarrel.

I heard Tod say 25" was the prod length. A difference of a few inches, unlike a foot, is not signficant in prod length or in this discussion. If you used real articles, instead of videos, we wouldn't have to listen hard, but could read what was said..

Nope, Todd said his prod length was "70 cm or about 28 inches, something like that. It's about 2 inches high", you heard wrong. 40 seconds into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMoL_SBD6gw

You twist his words out of context, and then blame me for YOU getting it wrong, because the source was a video. Uh-huh.

I also told you these questions:
-Anyway I don't know why you are raising these issues [saying Todd is wrong using bad examples] at all, I'm not seeing what it has to do with the issue at hand. You should take it up directly to him. If you won't then I can just do it for you, and that'll be a quick way to settle it.
-Why are you so bent on proving Todd is wrong on something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Also, how long did it take you to admit Gallway was wrong on the range of his crossbow? That argument went WAAYYYY longer, and you only recently admitted to it despite the video evidence from Todd. Yet a couple posts in which I pointed out that you are misquoting what Todd said, and you start accusing me of "always defending Todd" and "never admitting Todd was wrong". Well, I'm defending Todd because you misquoted what he said, and used that as a strawman argument. I said Gallwey was wrong because he said that his 1200 lb crossbow could shoot 450 yards, but a replica of nearly the same draw weight/powerstroke/quarrel weight only achieved half the range. Did I misquote Gallwey like how you misquoted Tod?

As for me never acknowledging Todd is wrong: I acknowledge that Todd shouldn't call the Medieval crossbow trigger a continuation of the Roman crossbow trigger, because we don't really know what these Roman triggers look like. The question is up in the air. And I can say Todd is wrong here with a clear conscience because I didn't twist what he said beyond what he meant. I can't say the same for your argument.

[HackneyedScribe]

Let us see the standard of our argument:

My Standard:
I've provided comments from professional crossbow makers on matters of what increases crossbow performance and replica evidence to prove it.
I've provided multiple Chinese contemporary sources written by multiple different people from different times
I've provided contemporary accounting documents, showing their typical draw weights. The Chu Yen slips were excavated by a non-Chinese.
I've provided archaeological evidence of long powerstroke crossbows from Qin ShiHuang's terracotta army, which contained real usable weapons of the time period.
I have refused to use contemporary pictures as evidence for long powerstroke crossbows because they were not drawn to scale and are subject to artistic liberties.

From my old post: Why did you think I used Qin ShiHuang's army instead of the load of art depictions? Art can display fantasy, Qin ShiHuang's terracotta army shows real weapons that you can grab a hold of and use.

I refused to use the archaeological evidence of long powerstroke crossbows if those crossbows were found in the tomb of the nobility, even though doing so would decrease the amount of evidence I have available.

From my old post: I didn't use this as evidence because it's a fancy sleek stock for the nobility found in the tomb of Mawangdui. It may strengthen my argument but it is not a stock for soldiers. I don't use it because I have standards and don't use or believe whatever is convenient at the moment.

I refused to use empty claims from news articles that say Qin crossbows could shoot 800 meters, because such claims have no justification behind it. Just saying a crossbow could shoot X meters doesn't make it so. Such a claim requires evidence to back it.

From my old post: Plus, the news article is filled with click bait. If I took the article for granted, then 800 meters is a hell of a range.....This would actually support my argument, but I don't use these sources because they are click-bait.

Contrary to what you say, my evidence is independent corroborating evidence. Multiple people from multiple time periods, as well as archaeological evidence, all saying the same thing.


Now your standard:
Claims from professional crossbow replica makers is something you accuse me of bringing to the table, on the basis that the claim was made in a youtube video (post 44).

From your post: you only have YouTube videos

But you were willing to use a youtube comment from an unknown person, with no sources, as if it's worth mentioning (post 27)

From your post: I cam across in the comment section at the bottom of the page of lcher's 1270 lbs crossbow video a comment....

You were willing to use claims on crossbow ranges as sources even when it's an empty claim with no justification behind it (post 44). Apparently a simple statement saying that a crossbow could shoot X meters is enough for you as a source, even if it has no justification. Or perhaps the justification is that X is a large number and that's good enough for you.
You were willing to use pictures that weren't drawn to scale, in order to judge prod length (post 44). Which is exactly the opposite of what I did. And you use these pictures to make a strawman argument.
You repeatedly distorted what Todd said, twisting his words beyond what he meant, and then attacking the argument that he didn't make. When I tried to correct this type of argument, you end up twisting what I said too. (post 43)
You come up with personal theories, unproven theories with no evidence to back it up, used those theories to reinforce your argument and treated the conclusions based off of those theories as fact. A lot of "if", "could", "might" words are used, but the conclusion based off of them are used as evidence.

^So far I don't see any of your sources falling outside of these categories. It doesn't sound like independent corroborating evidence at all. You only provided two pictures, one of which outright contradicts what you said, while the other isn't even drawn to scale. And you cherry pick the type of information you could get from it. Plus you are using it to attack an argument that nobody made, acting as if they did. That's not "independent corroborating evidence". That's using a SINGLE picture of questionable reliability, interpreting it with questionable means, to attack an argument that nobody made (questionable debate tactic).

So no, don't criticize me for my sources considering the type of sourcing you are willing to use. I don't think you're in a position to do that, not even close. What you're doing is throwing smokescreens, accusing my sources for being youtube videos, while ignoring that these videos are made by professional crossbow makers. Whereas you treated a youtube comment from an unknown person with zero evidence as some type of claim worth mentioning. Also I don't appreciate the amount of crap you stuffed into my mouth from your last post.

[Common Soldier]

Here is another example of larger prods. Again, seems much wider than the 27" Tod said war crossbows had. Many, most?, of the medieval illustrations more in line with the 2 ft or so Tod has for his replica medieval crossbow, but some were bigger.




It is not clear if all these crossbows are composite or steel. 

This picture is of Genoese crossbowmen, albeit of the 15th century. During the Battle of Crecy, in the 14th century, the crossbows would have been composite.

It was pointed out that the crossbowmen had goat's foot levers, but these are very long goat's foot levers, longer than any I have seen used by crossbow make Tod Todeschini, and others. Tod and others have said you could use a lever up to about 800 lbs, and given the size and length of the lever, which would give great mechanical advantage, we can reasonably assume these crossbows were about 800 lbs draw weight. The powerstroke length of around 6", common for war crossbows according to Tod and others, seems about the right length for using the lever.

Crossbowmaker Andreas Bilcher medieval composite crossbows have efficiencies around 38% using the linear method, which is consistent with the 40 to 60% efficiency Warston claimed for steel crossbows, if a little low - composite is generally regarded as being more efficient than steel. Someone claimed Bilcher said he thought he could have improved the design of his prods a little, but in any case, 38% would be a worse case for a composite crossbow using a properly sized bolt.

Taking all that, we would calculate 800 lbs x 6" powerstroke x .5 x 0.38 x .113 J/lbs-in = 103 J, about what Mark Stretton go with his 144 lbs longbow (little higher). so the Genoese crossbowmen should have had ranges comparable to the longbow as they claimed.

Using their goat's foot lever, the rate of fire would have slower than a longbow, but not that much slower - a video I saw had a foot drawn crossbow shoot 6 bolts to 10 bolts of a longbow in the same amount of time, and a lever crossbow is about as quick. Drawing a 144 lbs crossbow would be tiring, more tiring I susprect than using the lever for the crossbow, so in the long term, the crossbowmen might have been able to maintain a comparable rate of shooting, if not in the short run. Of course, these crossbows were not typical crossbows, the Genoese were famous for their crossbows.

So all in all, if the Genoese were using crossbows at Crecy similar to what they are shown using later, their claim they were out ranged because their bow strings were wet has merit. I don't know if the goat's foot levers were available then, I believe the earliest reference we have of them is from the later 14th century, but they could of been around earlier, and the Genoese would likely hafe had leading edge crossbow technnology.

Wh



While a 350 lbs steel crossbow would only be the equivalent of a normal typical bow for hunting deer, the 350 lbs composite would be equivalent to longbows at the low end of draw weight, or a hunting bow for hunting large game. Not only does the composite crossbow have better efficiency, they possibly could had have longer powerstroke lengths, which would also give them more power. And in the earlier middle ages, less people would have worn armor, than the later middle ages - even common soldiers could be be wearing a coat of plate in the later period, you see this in the bodies of the Battle of Visby, and as shown in medieval illustrations. The later 15th medieval illustrations show a lot more of windlasses, and cranequins being used, meaning the crossbows were more powerful than earlier, so I would say that 350 lbs is too light for combat by the steel crossbows became dominant. Obviously, that was not the case earlier in the 14th century and earlier, when wood/composite crossbows dominated in combat, and many combat crossbows were shown as being foot drawn before the 15th century .

Another effect of bias samples could be on our estimate of powerstroke lengths. While all the medieval crossbows had short draw lengths, even an increase from 6" to 7" or even 8" could have significant increase in energy of the arrow. While most say that the medieval crossbow draw lengths were 4 to 6" or so, that seems to be based a lot on the steel crossbows, which we have more existing medieval/Renaissance sames. The draw lengths could have been longer slightly for the larger steel crossbows and composite crossbows, which were less likely to survive as I explained previously.

It would be interesting to see what kind of power someone like Tod could get if he made a crossbow with a 3 foot prod, which these pictures and sources like Galloway indicated existed. Galloway said his 3 ft steel crossbow weighted around 18 lbs, which seems right if Tod's 25" prod steel crossbow weighted around 12 lbs. While heavy, specialist like the Genoese might still have carried it, and it occurred to me that crossbows might have used stands, similar to what the later matchlock musketeers did, to support the crossbow. The crossbowmen carried around a heavy shield, would not have been that much more to carry a pole for the crossbow. Not a shred data to support this conjecture, but I don't see a lot of medieval illustrations showing the pavise being used either, but we know they were.



As I said, several different sources, including medieval illustrations, all show crossbows far larger than the ones that Tod has built. While they might not have been in the majority, they did exist. A 38" crossbow would have had more energy and shot a more powerful bolt than Tod's.[/QUOTE]

[Common Soldier]

I came accross the Battle of Morlaix 1342, where English longbows also apparently overcame Genoese crossbowmen. I read that the captain of the Genoese crossbowman, Grimaldi, wrote a letter a couple days after the battle admitting the longbowmen "outshot" them. So perhaps it wasn't just the weather that was responsible for the longbows out ranging the crossbows at tne Battle of Crecy.