Book on mediaeval crossbows with composite prods
Holger Richter ?Die Hornbogenarmbrust, Geschichte und Technik? published by Angelika Hornig, 2006, written in German
Though the book is basically devoted to a European weapon it may be of interest to the composite bow enthusiast. It somehow relates to Asian archery, as the technology used to build the composite bows for crossbows in Europe seems to be most probably borrowed from the Islamic world. The book contains a lot of pictures depicting the complexity of this highly advanced and outstanding weapon, cross-sections, dimensions and based on Edward McEwen?s experience practical advice on making composite prods.
I have long been suspected the crossbow incorporating the composite technology may be probably somehow underestimated weapon.
It would be very interesting to see some tests done with proper replicas, there are competent people eager to do such testing, however there is a problem with acquiring proper composite crossbow prods, as they are more tedious to manufacture than a composite bow.
Though the book is basically devoted to a European weapon it may be of interest to the composite bow enthusiast. It somehow relates to Asian archery, as the technology used to build the composite bows for crossbows in Europe seems to be most probably borrowed from the Islamic world. The book contains a lot of pictures depicting the complexity of this highly advanced and outstanding weapon, cross-sections, dimensions and based on Edward McEwen?s experience practical advice on making composite prods.
I have long been suspected the crossbow incorporating the composite technology may be probably somehow underestimated weapon.
It would be very interesting to see some tests done with proper replicas, there are competent people eager to do such testing, however there is a problem with acquiring proper composite crossbow prods, as they are more tedious to manufacture than a composite bow.
The book is a very good source of information. The complex structure of European composite cross bows is very different from the Asiatic composite bows. However, hearing of or seeing Asiatic bows might have spurred the development of these amazing bows.
The complex horn cores are remarkable as are the wooden bellies. I think some people are making replicas. Like you I would love to see tests conducted with these bows. I think the draw strengths will turn out to be enormous. The fact that they were superseded by steel bows does not mean the steel bows were better at shooting, but merely they were easier to make and required less maintenance.
The complex horn cores are remarkable as are the wooden bellies. I think some people are making replicas. Like you I would love to see tests conducted with these bows. I think the draw strengths will turn out to be enormous. The fact that they were superseded by steel bows does not mean the steel bows were better at shooting, but merely they were easier to make and required less maintenance.
I don?t read in German (yet :D ), so I haven?t gone through the book completely. Concerning the origins of the weapon author wrote that a 12th century Arab manuscript is the first sure source mentioning composite crossbows, and the oldest actual artifacts of this weapon date at the beginning of the 13th century and come from Syria. One can assume The Crusades must have played a vital role in developing the crossbow in Europe.
The composite prods were made in a couple of different manners, lamination(s) consisting of vertical horn slats with matching grooves at their surfaces and a heavy sinew backing seems to be the standard. Wood was sometimes also incorporated as a core, a thin belly layer or as both. There are some early? bows with horn pieces forming short stiff ?ears?. The relatively high reflex present on some of the bows is also of interest.
I?ve heard Edward McEwen made some composite crossbow prods, apart from him I?m not aware of anyone. I?ve been told by a Polish archery researcher conducting tests on bows and crossbows that an attempt of acquiring such a bow for testing went unsuccessful.
The composite prods were made in a couple of different manners, lamination(s) consisting of vertical horn slats with matching grooves at their surfaces and a heavy sinew backing seems to be the standard. Wood was sometimes also incorporated as a core, a thin belly layer or as both. There are some early? bows with horn pieces forming short stiff ?ears?. The relatively high reflex present on some of the bows is also of interest.
I?ve heard Edward McEwen made some composite crossbow prods, apart from him I?m not aware of anyone. I?ve been told by a Polish archery researcher conducting tests on bows and crossbows that an attempt of acquiring such a bow for testing went unsuccessful.
Why not so many composite Xbows.
...not to mention that there are not many good sources for high quality long horns.
...not to mention that there are not many good sources for high quality long horns.
The advantage of the European composite cross bows was that you could us many small strips of horn. Shorter ones could be spliced together.
McEwen also made composite bows for Han dynasty cross bows based on the shapes of bows in clay models for tombs. He wrote an article on Chinese composite crossbows in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries which is worth reading if you are interested in the process.
McEwen also made composite bows for Han dynasty cross bows based on the shapes of bows in clay models for tombs. He wrote an article on Chinese composite crossbows in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries which is worth reading if you are interested in the process.
Bede, thanks for the pointer. Wasn?t the case that the Han dynasty crossbow was rather more like a ?hand? bow mounted on the tiller?
Jkekoni, I think there is quite a few composite crossbows present in the European collections, roughly form the 13th till 15th cent. the crossbow was the dominant archery weapon in some of the European countries. There were active guilds of composite crossbow makers in the larger towns, the demand for crossbows for sure was decent.
As Bede wrote, the horn cores consisted of a large number of tiny horn scraps glued together.
Jkekoni, I think there is quite a few composite crossbows present in the European collections, roughly form the 13th till 15th cent. the crossbow was the dominant archery weapon in some of the European countries. There were active guilds of composite crossbow makers in the larger towns, the demand for crossbows for sure was decent.
As Bede wrote, the horn cores consisted of a large number of tiny horn scraps glued together.
Stephen Selby advanced the theory that due to the shape and size of some of the model bows shown with crossbows in the Qin and Han Dynasties they might have been made from hand bows mounted on crossbow stocks.
While this could have been done in an emergency, I doubt that it was the standard procedure for military crossbows. The weights given for foot bows and strong crossbows could only have been drawn by using both feet and both hands to draw the bows. These weights are verified from records excavated at the western end of the Great Wall from the Han period. These records refer to the types of bows, their repair and the numbers that should be kept at the towers.
Two features of early Chinese crossbows stand out. One is that the bows hover around the 2:1 ratio between bows and draw length. The other is that the bows often have features we would associate with hand bows. The main feature that stands out is the setback centre. Most archers associate the setback as a feature of the hand bow to increase the power stroke of the string on the arrow. Another feature is straight rigid ears. This again is seen as a feature useful in hand bows to make the draw smoother towards the end. Later the bows became shorter and there are some indication that short heavy bolts were used that were shorter than the track on the stock. There is considerable variation from the beginning of the Qin to the end of the Later Han dynasties.
The bow length to arrow length ratio suggests a safe design with some under-stressing if the bow had a standard composite construction. It might indicate that the bow was made with wooden or bamboo laminations reinforced with a sinew back and wrapping. It might have been just a conservative practice relating to earlier bows, if we assume that the original crossbow design started with a wooden bow lath. If the bow was set up with the string just touching the stock when the bow was braced, there would be a clockwise twisting of the limbs, when viewed from the side, as the bow was drawn to the lock. Longer limbs may have reduced the average torsional stress on the bow and increased its lifespan.
The setback centre could also be a conservative design feature. There is another possibility which is that the setback was the result of the reflex of the bow. In either case, it would have served the same purpose in a crossbow as in a hand bow which is to prolong the power stroke.
The stiff ears would have modified the amount of energy stored under the force/draw curve of the bow. This is also an advantage for bow types of bows.
While this could have been done in an emergency, I doubt that it was the standard procedure for military crossbows. The weights given for foot bows and strong crossbows could only have been drawn by using both feet and both hands to draw the bows. These weights are verified from records excavated at the western end of the Great Wall from the Han period. These records refer to the types of bows, their repair and the numbers that should be kept at the towers.
Two features of early Chinese crossbows stand out. One is that the bows hover around the 2:1 ratio between bows and draw length. The other is that the bows often have features we would associate with hand bows. The main feature that stands out is the setback centre. Most archers associate the setback as a feature of the hand bow to increase the power stroke of the string on the arrow. Another feature is straight rigid ears. This again is seen as a feature useful in hand bows to make the draw smoother towards the end. Later the bows became shorter and there are some indication that short heavy bolts were used that were shorter than the track on the stock. There is considerable variation from the beginning of the Qin to the end of the Later Han dynasties.
The bow length to arrow length ratio suggests a safe design with some under-stressing if the bow had a standard composite construction. It might indicate that the bow was made with wooden or bamboo laminations reinforced with a sinew back and wrapping. It might have been just a conservative practice relating to earlier bows, if we assume that the original crossbow design started with a wooden bow lath. If the bow was set up with the string just touching the stock when the bow was braced, there would be a clockwise twisting of the limbs, when viewed from the side, as the bow was drawn to the lock. Longer limbs may have reduced the average torsional stress on the bow and increased its lifespan.
The setback centre could also be a conservative design feature. There is another possibility which is that the setback was the result of the reflex of the bow. In either case, it would have served the same purpose in a crossbow as in a hand bow which is to prolong the power stroke.
The stiff ears would have modified the amount of energy stored under the force/draw curve of the bow. This is also an advantage for bow types of bows.
Bede wrote:
Stephen Selby advanced the theory that due to the shape and size of some of the model bows shown with crossbows in the Qin and Han Dynasties they might have been made from hand bows mounted on crossbow stocks.
While this could have been done in an emergency, I doubt that it was the standard procedure for military crossbows. The weights given for foot bows and strong crossbows could only have been drawn by using both feet and both hands to draw the bows. These weights are verified from records excavated at the western end of the Great Wall from the Han period. These records refer to the types of bows, their repair and the numbers that should be kept at the towers.
Two features of early Chinese crossbows stand out. One is that the bows hover around the 2:1 ratio between bows and draw length. The other is that the bows often have features we would associate with hand bows. The main feature that stands out is the setback centre. Most archers associate the setback as a feature of the hand bow to increase the power stroke of the string on the arrow. Another feature is straight rigid ears. This again is seen as a feature useful in hand bows to make the draw smoother towards the end. Later the bows became shorter and there are some indication that short heavy bolts were used that were shorter than the track on the stock. There is considerable variation from the beginning of the Qin to the end of the Later Han dynasties.
The bow length to arrow length ratio suggests a safe design with some under-stressing if the bow had a standard composite construction. It might indicate that the bow was made with wooden or bamboo laminations reinforced with a sinew back and wrapping. It might have been just a conservative practice relating to earlier bows, if we assume that the original crossbow design started with a wooden bow lath. If the bow was set up with the string just touching the stock when the bow was braced, there would be a clockwise twisting of the limbs, when viewed from the side, as the bow was drawn to the lock. Longer limbs may have reduced the average torsional stress on the bow and increased its lifespan.The setback centre could also be a conservative design feature. There is another possibility which is that the setback was the result of the reflex of the bow. In either case, it would have served the same purpose in a crossbow as in a hand bow which is to prolong the power stroke.
The stiff ears would have modified the amount of energy stored under the force/draw curve of the bow. This is also an advantage for bow types of bows.
Yes, one of my bowes broke that way, than i just adjusted the angle where the bow is attached to the stock, and everything is fine.
The angle is adjusted to the drawlenght of the bow.
The longer the drawlenght, the closer the angle is to 90 degredes. Like the letter L
The bow cracks when its almost cocked, if the angel is 90.
And you can hear the tree is twisting and sound like a old wodden sail ship, before the shot, and how it twists back after the shot.
It?s not fatal for the wodden bow, it just loses maybe 10-15 % power, and get a crack in it.
So a faulty bow like this (90 degredes) still manage 100-150 shot before the crack, and not sure how many shots after that.
Andreas Bichler made a very informative test on the subject. Check for the results on the last German crossbow Journal:
Jahrblatt der Interessengemeinschaft Historische Armbrust: 2010
Jahrblatt der Interessengemeinschaft Historische Armbrust: 2010
By the way, Andreas is a top class composite crossbow maker from Austria.
Thanx for the eye opener.
Do you know where i can download the book for free?
Maybe a link?
I have the hornbogenarmbrust here.
http://narod.ru/disk/11312211000/Rihter.rar.html
To bad it?s not in .pdf or .djvu yet.
It?s still better than nothing.
Even if one dont understand german, still good pics.
You can made one without steel.
Do you know where i can download the book for free?
Maybe a link?
I have the hornbogenarmbrust here.
http://narod.ru/disk/11312211000/Rihter.rar.html
To bad it?s not in .pdf or .djvu yet.
It?s still better than nothing.
Even if one dont understand german, still good pics.
You can made one without steel.
You must buy the Journal, as I did. But between us, here?s part of the article online. There you go:
http://www.historiavivens1300.at/biblio ... uss1-e.htm
http://www.historiavivens1300.at/biblio ... mbrust.htm[/url]
http://www.historiavivens1300.at/biblio ... uss1-e.htm
http://www.historiavivens1300.at/biblio ... mbrust.htm[/url]
I?m against bying things that may be given for free, but thanx anyway for the article.
I have a lot of info on the hornbow and know now how to build one.
The real gain in it, is really that you can make it smaller than a wood bow.
And even smaller than steel, with grater drawlenght.
I have a lot of info on the hornbow and know now how to build one.
The real gain in it, is really that you can make it smaller than a wood bow.
And even smaller than steel, with grater drawlenght.
Jos?, that's very informative, thank you for looking it up.
Khan, If I may share a couple of my thoughts regarding the issue of the copyright.
I can understand it's often hard to get your hands on a particular book etc. and it's often tempting to get a free copy.
In general breaking copyrights is not approved here (ATARN), mostly because of the legal issues. But also when you consider that many contributors to ATARN are also authors and it is often the case that many that visit here eventually become to know each other, posting a link that breaks the copyrights is a bit like robbing your friends.
And, personally, I also think that the results are more rewarding if you have to struggle a bit on the way. Please don't get offended or discouraged.
Khan, If I may share a couple of my thoughts regarding the issue of the copyright.
I can understand it's often hard to get your hands on a particular book etc. and it's often tempting to get a free copy.
In general breaking copyrights is not approved here (ATARN), mostly because of the legal issues. But also when you consider that many contributors to ATARN are also authors and it is often the case that many that visit here eventually become to know each other, posting a link that breaks the copyrights is a bit like robbing your friends.
And, personally, I also think that the results are more rewarding if you have to struggle a bit on the way. Please don't get offended or discouraged.
Personally i dont feal any satisfaction seeing other peaple struggle.
To me it sounds like faschism, like the nazi forced jews to work in ww2.
Second, how exactly am i robbing my friends by not giving them money?
So my personal opinion on writing books.
If you want to say or show somthing to other peaple, write a book.
If you want to make money on writing a book, dont write it.
And i dont get offended or being discouraged, every human should have right to his opinion.
And also there is a lot of books out there that was wrighted in former soviet countries, and they are all without copyrights.
They where gifts for the people.
Anyway i have always tought copyright belonged to countries like USA and europe, and was never adepted by asian and other countries.
(And even in europe in some countries)
So it could be no penalty breaking copyrights in some places, it all depend where the ATARN server is located, and what law?s that country have about copyrights.
To me it sounds like faschism, like the nazi forced jews to work in ww2.
Second, how exactly am i robbing my friends by not giving them money?
So my personal opinion on writing books.
If you want to say or show somthing to other peaple, write a book.
If you want to make money on writing a book, dont write it.
And i dont get offended or being discouraged, every human should have right to his opinion.
And also there is a lot of books out there that was wrighted in former soviet countries, and they are all without copyrights.
They where gifts for the people.
Anyway i have always tought copyright belonged to countries like USA and europe, and was never adepted by asian and other countries.
(And even in europe in some countries)
So it could be no penalty breaking copyrights in some places, it all depend where the ATARN server is located, and what law?s that country have about copyrights.
Maybe someone could answer why hornbows have the shape like a ladies waist where you hold youre hand, and ironbows dont.
And i did see Andreas bows on pictures, very beautiful.
And if hi did not insist to have any metal parts on them, they would be even more beautiful.
And if hi did not insist to have any metal parts on them, they would be even more beautiful.
On more thing Ashbow.
The kind of struggle you are talking about is called genoside.
To bad that kind of genoside today is not punishable in any way that i know of.
Our?s in russian language mean nashi.
Nashi pronounced by a german, turn to nazi.
Get it?
Nazi came to power in germany and forced the german people to work.
Provoked the yoth to go to war, and later punished them.
Fjodor dostojevsky wrote somthing about it i think.
(havent read it yet)
Thats theres tactiks, provoke to crime and then figure out some punishments.
One thing i still wondering about is if Hitlers 6:th army sended to russia was nazi?s or german workers.
To get space in Germany and workforce in Russia.
You could be sent to work 10 years in a mine or similar dark hole, later som of them "friend" say it was just a joke.
You at least call it struggle.
In the meantime they provoke you to do some crime for the need of money, for the apartment you renting of them.
And so you can keep youre unsatisfied wife.
Than ofqourese later you lose first youre wife, and than the apartment and then youre job.
(after a joke that was not even funny, with the wife and her friend)
And forced to live in some summerplace and shit in the forest.
Now thats nazi style.
And when you have work so hard that you back and arms are broken, you are simultaniusly forced to made there summerplace to a winterplace.
When you riched some point, you just give up and begin to made crossbow?s instead.
I call this struggle genoside.
so this was my book to the people, with no copyrights.
This is the basics of genoside.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
? Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
It?s almost i think impossible to prove that genoside is going on.
And some hard pounches thru someones face just would make it worse.
Personally i think the best way to fight nazi?s would be with pure violance.
But one cant do much if he is surounded and watched. :D
The kind of struggle you are talking about is called genoside.
To bad that kind of genoside today is not punishable in any way that i know of.
Our?s in russian language mean nashi.
Nashi pronounced by a german, turn to nazi.
Get it?
Nazi came to power in germany and forced the german people to work.
Provoked the yoth to go to war, and later punished them.
Fjodor dostojevsky wrote somthing about it i think.
(havent read it yet)
Thats theres tactiks, provoke to crime and then figure out some punishments.
One thing i still wondering about is if Hitlers 6:th army sended to russia was nazi?s or german workers.
To get space in Germany and workforce in Russia.
You could be sent to work 10 years in a mine or similar dark hole, later som of them "friend" say it was just a joke.
You at least call it struggle.
In the meantime they provoke you to do some crime for the need of money, for the apartment you renting of them.
And so you can keep youre unsatisfied wife.
Than ofqourese later you lose first youre wife, and than the apartment and then youre job.
(after a joke that was not even funny, with the wife and her friend)
And forced to live in some summerplace and shit in the forest.
Now thats nazi style.
And when you have work so hard that you back and arms are broken, you are simultaniusly forced to made there summerplace to a winterplace.
When you riched some point, you just give up and begin to made crossbow?s instead.
I call this struggle genoside.
so this was my book to the people, with no copyrights.
This is the basics of genoside.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
? Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
It?s almost i think impossible to prove that genoside is going on.
And some hard pounches thru someones face just would make it worse.
Personally i think the best way to fight nazi?s would be with pure violance.
But one cant do much if he is surounded and watched. :D
Well, you overinterpreted what I wrote and I was perhaps not clear enough, so you might have got it too personal.
The things about struggle was a friendly comment, I have never meant that you have to experience some hardship. Maybe it was a wrong word to use then, because it evokes bad fellings in you, what I meant is that if you achive something by putting in some more effort than the results are more satysfying, and you can appreciate and understand many things better, you don't have to agrree with that, off course.
What I meant about copyrights is not really about money, but about having simple respect to the authors of the text or book, who may not want they work to be reproduced and copied without permision or they knowledge.
If the author wishes so than I respect that.
I don't say the copyrights are good or wrong.
Many authors that write on archery would be most probably happy to give a free copy to a person that is interested in the subjest but cannot afford to buy.
You put up a link to a copy of a book, that perhaps breaks the copyright, and such links are removed here by the administrators of that forum, I didn't say you do wrong, I wanted to let you know that this is the rule of this forum, you don't have to be angry.
Here you can read the rules for yourslef:
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5
I hope that we can carry on in a friendly manner and I wish you good.
The things about struggle was a friendly comment, I have never meant that you have to experience some hardship. Maybe it was a wrong word to use then, because it evokes bad fellings in you, what I meant is that if you achive something by putting in some more effort than the results are more satysfying, and you can appreciate and understand many things better, you don't have to agrree with that, off course.
What I meant about copyrights is not really about money, but about having simple respect to the authors of the text or book, who may not want they work to be reproduced and copied without permision or they knowledge.
If the author wishes so than I respect that.
I don't say the copyrights are good or wrong.
Many authors that write on archery would be most probably happy to give a free copy to a person that is interested in the subjest but cannot afford to buy.
You put up a link to a copy of a book, that perhaps breaks the copyright, and such links are removed here by the administrators of that forum, I didn't say you do wrong, I wanted to let you know that this is the rule of this forum, you don't have to be angry.
Here you can read the rules for yourslef:
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5
I hope that we can carry on in a friendly manner and I wish you good.
Ok Ashbow.
Im responsoble for the post ofqourse, and atarn take no respons of it.
And if the mod?s see the link to the download he will ofqourse take it away.
So the question is, should we make him see the link or not?
Otherwise there is always the option to post a link to a forum that you think is very informative on the subject.
Like this.
http://thearbalistguild.forumotion.com/ ... sbow-books
The seeker would than have to "struggle" a bit (as you like it)
To get the information from oncle sam.
Im responsoble for the post ofqourse, and atarn take no respons of it.
And if the mod?s see the link to the download he will ofqourse take it away.
So the question is, should we make him see the link or not?
Otherwise there is always the option to post a link to a forum that you think is very informative on the subject.
Like this.
http://thearbalistguild.forumotion.com/ ... sbow-books
The seeker would than have to "struggle" a bit (as you like it)
To get the information from oncle sam.
Copyright on the books is a thing that go against freedom of knowledge and free circulation of ideas. One must creates a balance between those two principles. E. g. public libraries are places where this is possible. In our particulary experience ATARN maybe could be a place where papers and books in digital format are made available to scholars and amateurs of Asian Archery, a kind of electronic library open only to Atarn members. The main problem, I thing, doesn't are authors but publishers. Where is possible one can ask to authors permission; in other cases, as books long no more printed and sold (e.g. Arab Archery, Saracen Archery) i don't understand why one cannot make they public. As for me, I'm author of twos italian books on archery: the last published in 2011 is again printed and sold and so I cannot make it free because I broke the contract with publisher. Another that is by 1996 and then again protected by copyright - but no more long avalilable in print or for sale - I have make it available for free on Google Books.
Not surpriced that somone try to claim copyrights on a book from year 1500 somthing, cant be serius about it.
It?s like me would claim copyrights on the moon or somthing like that.
Yes why not have a electronic library where you can borrow books on archery here on atarn.
And than every reader could rank them or somthing.
Anyway, thanks fore the advise, finded some books of both archery and crossbows in the towns library.
Just imagined what a giant library atarn could have, if everyone borrowed boks from there towns library and elecrified the boks to pdf-format.
Even if languages are different. there is always illustrations in books that could be of use.
It?s like me would claim copyrights on the moon or somthing like that.
Yes why not have a electronic library where you can borrow books on archery here on atarn.
And than every reader could rank them or somthing.
Anyway, thanks fore the advise, finded some books of both archery and crossbows in the towns library.
Just imagined what a giant library atarn could have, if everyone borrowed boks from there towns library and elecrified the boks to pdf-format.
Even if languages are different. there is always illustrations in books that could be of use.