Roman crossbow

[Longovicium]

It's fine with me using Firefox as a browser with AVG. No problem at all.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I use the same as you. Might have been the adware on the website.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

So yeah... anyone know where to buy a selfbow for one?

[Gunthamund Hasding]

So yeah... anyone know where to buy a selfbow for one?

well tell me where are you located and what are you looking for (exadct dimensions), the next question is how expensive should it be, i have some links that I can send you in PM
cheers
Gelu

[Thomas V.]

Hello,

I just came across [hide]Philological Notes on the Crossbow and Related Missile Weapons[/hide] ("In the following I shall investigate the possible connection of arcuballista and [i]manuballista[/i] with archery and the crossbow.").

So if you are interested in the Roman crossbow, you should have a look at the text.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

His theory is good, but my issue is that the Romans had crossbows - we know the haute-loire relief and others were crossbows because they display a nut. Furthermore, we have 3 finds of nuts from (almost) the Roman era - the earliest one was posted on here earlier and dates to the 5th century.

Whether or not the Arcuballista was the name for the crossbow, I agree is up for debate.

BTW, what is the word the Strategicon uses? I can't read greak (well... I can read toxoballista in greek but that's it.)

[Thomas V.]

His theory is good, but my issue is that the Romans had crossbows - we know the haute-loire relief and others were crossbows because they display a nut. Furthermore, we have 3 finds of nuts from (almost) the Roman era - the earliest one was posted on here earlier and dates to the 5th century.

I also think that the two reliefs depict crossbows (i.e. no arrow-guides). One reason is, as you already stated, the nut-like objekt shown in the relief from Salignac.

Whether or not the Arcuballista was the name for the crossbow, I agree is up for debate.

This is another reason. Even if the medieval "arcuballista" should have been an old term (For a bow? For a bow equiped with an arrow-guide? For a mounted arrow or bolt-shooting engine?) used to describe something new (medieval and thus non-Roman crossbow), this doesn't mean that the crossbow was unknown to the Romans, albeit not beeing called "arcuballista".

The third reason is, that the approach to use the terms arcuballista and manuballista as a template for the classification of arrow-guides only works if you don't consider the manuballista as a type of torsion artillery.

The fourth reason is the quiver of the Saint-Marcel relief. The length of said quiver indicates that arrows of regular length were used. However, the purpose of arrow-guides was the usage of very short arrows.

The fifth reason is the Granada Crossbow. The crossbow resembles the two devices in the reliefs (cf. Harmuth, Richter). The author also mention the similarity; but she considers the possibility that the crossbow might have been an arrow-guide and therefore an indicator for the reliefs depicting arrow-guides. Her consideration is based on the accusation that Harmuth just "missed" to consider the possibility that the Granada Crossbow might have been an arrow-guide and on the claim that "Arabic crossbow" was a misnomer as the Granada Crossbow doesn't have a stirrup. This reasoning is problematic, IMO. Why shouldn't Harmuth consider a crossbow as a crossbow? And: The existence of an Arabic source claiming crossbows were equiped with stirrups doesn't automatically exclude the existence of stirrupless Arabic crossbows (the Granada Crossbow is a good example for a stirrupless Arabic crossbow). As the Granada Crossbow is a crossbow, its similarity to the devices shown in the two reliefs supports the theory that said reliefs depict Roman crossbows.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Plenty of crossbows don't have stirrups: the arcuballista did not (especially considering the horse stirrup had not yet been invented.)

How long are regular length arrows? I haven't shot in years.

EDIT: I have been looking for a wooden stave that would work, but have been unable to find a recurved one. I've considered using a flatbow, and wanted to know your thoughts on that?

[Robert]

You can make your own recurve by soaking the wood and then bending it with heat (paintstripper) using screwclamps and a mold, then leave it to cool clamped solid. That is how my bowmaker makes his.

[Thomas V.]

BTW, what is the word the Strategicon uses?

The Strategicon mentions the "[hide]solenarion[/hide]".

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Ah, the Solenarion is an arrow guide then?

[Koyuncu]

Ah, the Solenarion is an arrow guide then?

Indeed it is since there are other terms to describe crossbows.

I am curious about the bow of crossbow if it was composite or self bow. Is there any certain evidence to support self bow-crossbow? For me reliefs indicating composite built bows.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It really depends. A self-bow would be cheaper, and considering Bone Nuts survive, then the Lathes of a Composite bow would have also survived in those cases. This indicates at least the 3 finds in Britain may have used self-bows. Indeed a Self-Bow can be powerful enough, as 4-foot Native American Selfbows can draw 50 pounds at 2 feet.

I think you would have seen both constructions, after all you can recurve a self-bow, can't you? Robert just described one way to do it.

[Koyuncu]

Climate is the key element that affects of materials to build bows. It would be pointless to use composite bows in Britain since it's humid air quickly dissolves glue of composite bows eventually causing it to collapse. Simply, Roman craftsman were aware of this and they could had chosen self bows for Britain.

I know it is possible to recurve a self bow's tips but the reliefs looks rather different. The curve starts almost before the middle of bow arm which is as far as I know looks like a composite built bow. Yet, this could be either artist's fault or a composite bow used in a different, possibly more dry climate.

[Thomas V.]

[C]onsidering Bone Nuts survive, then the Lathes of a Composite bow would have also survived in those cases. This indicates at least the 3 finds in Britain may have used self-bows.

It could also indicate that the nuts stem from a period for wich the use of self bows for crossbows is attested (i.e. post-Roman times). The possibility that the two or three other nuts might be stray finds could also be an explanation for the nuts not having been found in conjunction with bone/antler reinforcements.

Indeed a Self-Bow can be powerful enough, as 4-foot Native American Selfbows can draw 50 pounds at 2 feet.

Are said bows self bows or bows with a sinew backing?

Climate is the key element that affects of materials to build bows. It would be pointless to use composite bows in Britain since it's humid air quickly dissolves glue of composite bows eventually causing it to collapse. Simply, Roman craftsman were aware of this and they could had chosen self bows for Britain.

Parts of composite bows were found in Britain; said parts where found in a Roman context. So the Romans seemed to use composite bows in Britain.

[L]ooks like a composite built bow.

It really looks like a composite bow: Set back handle and tips pointing forward when the bow is unstrung.