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

[wardlaw]

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

[Micke D]

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

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

[fernando]

THIS WORK looks like serious stuff.

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

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

.

[Micke D]

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

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

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Micke D

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

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

.

[fernando]

Another link:

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


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

[fernando]

An interesting paper where we may ponder on the correlation of one and two foot crossbows ... with passages in english, french and latin:
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot...1_archive.html
With emphasis on:

Two Foot Crossbows
Arbalètes à deux pieds frequently appear in medieval inventories from the 13th century on, often contrasted with the arbalète à une pied. The one foot variety is presumably the familiar sort spanned from a standing position with one foot in a stirrup at the front of the stock. Some have suggested that the two foot crossbows are spanned with a wider stirrup for two feet. There are two objects to this theory. First the biomechanics are very poor. Second, there is no surviving bow that looks like that, and no examples in medieval iconography.

Robert MacPherson has suggested a far more plausible theory: that they were spanned while seated on the ground with a belt hook on the string and both feet on the prod, as though performing a short leg press. That makes a lot more sense.


Crossbows at Marlborough in 1215: "balistae ad turnum (a tour)...balistae ad unum pedem (one foot)...balistae; corneae (horn); ad unum pedem...ad duos pedes (two foot),"

Re.r. De balistis.—Mandatum est H. Giffard', constabulario Turris London', quod de balistis regis que sunt in custodia sua habere faciat Amauro de Sancto Amando quatuor balistas de cornu ad duos pedes (four horn two foot crossbows) et decem balistas de ligno ad unum pedem (ten wood one foot ...)ponendas in castris nostris Heref' et Sancti Briavelli. Teste rege apud Windes', xv. die Aprilis.


Guy de Dampierre
Inventaire du château de Tournoël
Lettre adressée au roi Philippe-Auguste le 12 décembre 1213

Guy de Dampierre au roi.
Votre Sérénité connaîtra que Gualeran de Corbelles et Robert m’ont livré, dans le château de Tournoël : 11 arbalètes de corne, 7 arbalètes à ettrif (stirrup), 3 arbalètes à deux pieds, une arbalète à tour, 10 arbalètes en bois, 8 casques, 2 cuirasses, 10 écus [boucliers allongés], deux targes [autre espèce de bouclier], 4 coffres de carreaux [flèches], ettrifs et autres traits, 2 tours à arbalètes, 2 crocs



.