The early history of the crossbow

[Thomas V.]

Hello Robert

[...] Thomas, but what about the (more abbundant) nuts with the hole/slot cut in the back of the nut? Any dating on those for the Roman period?

The only slotted nut that could be from the Roman period is the one from Carnuntum. The dating of the Austrian nut, however, is difficult: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/...17_321.pdf (p. 319). Its design (indistinguishable from medieval ones, see Ildar's picture) is another factor that makes a later origin plausible.

And how would that work?

It would work like a conventional nut-lock crossbow.

Are all nuts found made of bone, by the way?

The prefered material was antler. According to Egon Harmut, the nut and handle from Burbage are also made out of antler (that's why I suggested an antler handle, BTW).

There is another thing puzzling me. Neither of the two pictures show the bow being fastened with lashings.

Stone carvings often omit details.

What are your thoughts on the way the bow was fastened to the stock.

If I would build an arcuballista, I would use the generic medieval binding for the following reasons: quite obvios method of attachement, almost self-explanatory, easy, cheap, ubiquitous, used for centuries, arcuballista possibly antecessor of medieval crossbows.

Is there an ancient text that descrides such a lashing and does it indeed apply to this type of crossbow.

I'm not aware of such a text.

Also 36 cm drawlength does not seem a lot for a bow 90 cm wide.

As the bow would belong to a crossbow, the draw length wouldn't be to short (just take a look at medieval examples).

Do not forget these bows were not the 125 # medival bows. I hope to reach a poundage of half that.

What makes you think that the draw weight was that low? If using a bow not (much) stronger than a hand-held bow, wouldn't it be quite useless to make a rather complicated device like a crossbow?

The trigger mechanism of the crossbow enables you to use a draw weight that high that couldn't be (comfortably) managed by the human body alone. So why waste this advantage?

Why is the recess to hold the bow in the stock that deep?

I had three reasons for opting for a deep socket:

• [li]According to Holger Richter and Egon Harmuth, the crossbows of the early Middle Ages are the successors of the roman arcuballista; the crossbows of the early Middle Ages often are depicted with a deep socket.
  [li]The arcuballista shown by the carving from Solignac also seems to have a deep socket.
  [li]If you combine a "short" draw length with little space behind the nut, you need to elongate the front of the stock in order to make the stock that long that it matches the relief from Puy (forearm-stock ratio).

Regards,

Thomas