Roman crossbow

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I should also note that the Batavi Roman Reenactment group constructed a similar looking Prod with an Ash Selfbow.



BTW, would painting a bow effect its ability to flex or it's firepower?

[Thomas V.]

I should also note that the Batavi Roman Reenactment group constructed a similar looking Prod with an Ash Selfbow.

The self bows from the Roman era weren't of ash, had a different shape and were longer.

However, composite bows have the right shape (Salignac, Saint-Marcel) and length (Saint-Marcel). They are also capable to reach the full "hand-held bow draw length" despite being relatively short; a shortened self bow wouldn't be capable. The long draw length is indicated by the quiver (Saint-Marcel), the placing of the lock at the end of the stock (Saint-Marcel; also cf. Baatz) and Chinese crossbows (according to Holger Richter, Roman crossbows are proportioned similar to Chinese ones).

A self-bow would be cheaper [..].

The fact that Romans used composite bows proves that the higher costs weren't an impediment.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

a shortened self bow wouldn't be capable.

Again I disagree. The 120cm Native American Hunting Bow (which was a Flatbow) had a 50 pound draw at 60cm - exactly the length of an Arcuballista.

I know Roman bows weren't Ash (they would have been Yew) but Yew is ridiculously expensive.

However, composite bows have the right shape (Salignac, Saint-Marcel) and length (Saint-Marcel). They are also capable to reach the full "hand-held bow draw length" despite being relatively short; a shortened self bow wouldn't be capable. The long draw length is indicated by the quiver (Saint-Marcel), the placing of the lock at the end of the stock (Saint-Marcel; also cf. Baatz) and Chinese crossbows (according to Holger Richter, Roman crossbows are proportioned similar to Chinese ones).

I also agree, but I should also note that the Bone strips found that decorated the side of the Late 5th Century Crossbow in the Wiltshire Article were 16 3/4 inches long. The crossbow may have only been 20 inches in length.

I think it's possible selfbows were used, I agree composite bows were used vastly more.

[Thomas V.]

I also agree, but I should also note that the Bone strips found that decorated the side of the Late 5th Century Crossbow in the Wiltshire Article were 16 3/4 inches long. The crossbow may have only been 20 inches in length.

The bone strip(s) was/were very likely longer: "Whether these all belong to one strip or not is not clear—only one end is preserved[..]." Moreover, the lenght of said bone fragments doesn't necessarily determine a maximum stock length.

The 120cm Native American Hunting Bow (which was a Flatbow) had a 50 pound draw at 60cm - exactly the length of an Arcuballista.

We don't know the exact length of arcuballistas. Apart from that, didn't Native American bows often have a sinew backing?

After having read Baatz' article and other sources, I have changed my views regarding the bow, the stock, the handle, the measurements and the proportions.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

If you could elaborate, it would be helpful. I can't read German.

[Koyuncu]

In case of size, maybe this relief could help. It is possible to build parts according to arm length after taking a average value of human arm.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

My Arm and hand total 17 inches.

[Thomas V.]

In case of size, maybe this relief could help. It is possible to build parts according to arm length after taking a average value of human arm.

The drawing of the relief isn't a good representation of the real relief. The photo in Baatz' article is much better. Baatz suggests a bow length of c. 130 cm (tip to tip when being in the brace height state). If you take a look at said photo and consider the fact that 130 would be a possible length of composite bows, you will see that Baatz' sugesgestion is plausible. When i suggested 120 cm in one of my previous posts, I just "eyeballed" the measurements. After I have read Baatz' article, I used a 130 cm long mock-up and came to the conclusion, that the proportions fit the ones of the Saint-Marcel relief. This sketch corroborates Baatz' suggestion: [hide]http://www.atarn.org/chinese/images/xbowdiag.JPG[/hide]. Right now my point of view is that the arcuballista contained an (symmetric :? ) composite bow (c. 130 to c. 140 cm tip to tip when beeing in the brace height state) that didn't differ from the hand-held composite bows. If you would attach a "normal" composite bow to a stock, you would be abled to fulfill the criteria mentioned by Baatz: Using arrows that are of about the same lenght as the ones for hand-held bows (B. bases this assumption on the quiver of the Saint-Marcel relief) and achieving a long draw length (as the nut is placed at the end of the stock, B assumes that the draw lengt was longer than the ones of later crossbows; using arrows that dont differ lengthwise from the ones used for hand-held bows is another indicator for a draw length not different from the ones of said bows, by the way).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

So like the Grozer Roman Bow? I don't know how long it is but I think it's 130 or 150cm, and is symmetrical.

What kind of draw length are we talking then? 90cm?

[Thomas V.]

So like the Grozer Roman Bow? I don't know how long it is but I think it's 130 or 150cm, and is symmetrical.

According to the homepage, it is 53 inches long when strung.

What kind of draw length are we talking then? 90cm?

Skimming composite bow reconstructions of different kinds, the draw length seems to range from c. 65 cm to c. 80 cm (26 to 32 inches). Considering the length of the human arm (c. 70 cm, according to Baatz) and the modern "standard draw length" of 28 inches, said range doesn't seem a stretch.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

134.62cm is feasible.

[Robert]

It would not be like the Grozer Roman bow but like the Scythian bow. Then there is the question why you would want to put a normal bow on a stock, instead of just holding it. The relief suggests a stock no longer then 20 " to the nut, so where does that long drawlength come from?Perhaps Thomas V. could share some pictures of how he thinks this would have worked. By the way, I was very surprise by the statement Roman bows were not made of ash. Has any wooden Roman bow or a description of one ever been found to give rise to this presumption??

[Thomas V.]

It would not be like the Grozer Roman bow but like the Scythian bow.

I have to agree that both bows bear a striking similarity to the Scythian bow type. However, I don’t think that they necessarily depict bows of the Scythian type; in my opinion they are depicted in a generic “typical composite bow way”. If I would reconstruct an arcuballista, I would equip it with a composite bow constructed in the same manner as the Roman hand-held composite bows of the period the reconstruction is chronologically placed in.

Then there is the question why you would want to put a normal bow on a stock, instead of just holding it.

Because the benefits (cf. Alm, Baatz, Harmuth) of the crossbow still apply:

• higher draw weight limit,
  
• better aiming,
  
• can be kept spanned for quite a long time.
  

By the way, I am not the only one considering that there might have been historic crossbows equiped with a "normal" bow. On ATARN Stephen Selby makes the following sugguestion: "The Qin crossbow was simply a firing mechanism for the bow, which could be removed and used as a normal bow." Furthermore: "Bede Dwyer: The suggestion that the bows could be dismounted and used as hand-bows is very interesting. I admit that I was wondering along those lines too. Is there any indication in the texts? Stephen Selby: I think that later (Han and after) crossbows did have specially-constructed prods. But I believe the earlier ones used general-purpose bows mounted on a stock."

Another reason is, that the bows shown in the two reliefs strongly resemble hand-held composite bows shape- and size-wise.

Here are some pictures of Arabic (and other?) crossbows provided by the RAT-member Ildar in another thread:
[hide]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Ml5xrTSJ28w/T4GCj-9hcXI/AAAAAAAADTg/WH-Ezx4cxY0/s500/321a6560791cecfd44.jpg[/hide][hide]
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-uS0u0...0/9021.jpg[/hide]
[hide]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qqdKfwv9CkE/T4FM9alJEmI/AAAAAAAADRY/CDoi3rp8rHM/s600/crossbow-2.jpg[/hide]

And two Chinese crossbows (the first one apparently has a draw length of c. 67 cm):
[hide]http://www.atarn.org/chinese/images/crossbow.jpg[/hide]
[hide]http://www.atarn.org/chinese/images/xbowdiag.JPG[/hide]

All the above crossbows have one thing in common with the arcuballista depictions: A bow that doesn't seem to differ regarding length and shape from contemporary "normal" (i.e. hand-held) composite bows.

[So] where does that long draw length come from?

Again: As in my opinion the arcuballista bows don't differ from hand-held composite bows size/shape-wise, I assume that the draw length didn't differ either. There are also Baatz' assumptions. Because of the size of the quiver shown in the Saint-Marcel relief, he suggests that the arrows were about as long as the ones for regular bows. Long arrows might not exclude a short draw length, but if you would use arrows of regular length and shorten the draw length, the arrow would project considerably from the front end of the crossbow stock, wich would make the rectangular cut-out on the front end of the stock superfluous; according to Baatz, the purpose of said cut-out was the accommodation of the arrow tip. The draw lengths shown/indicated by the above crossbow depictions are another reason for me to assume that crossbows furnished with a bow not different from hand-held bow size- and shape-wise had the same draw length as hand-held bows.

The relief suggests a stock no longer then 20 " to the nut[..].

Is this assumption based on the drawing of the relief? If so:

The drawing of the relief isn't a good representation of the real relief. The photo in Baatz' article is much better.

If you take a look at the photo, you will realize that the overall length of the arcuballista is about the same as the distance from the ground to the belt line (about one meter; Baatz suggests a length of c. 96 cm).

Perhaps Thomas V. could share some pictures of how he thinks this would have worked.

Here you go:
[hide][attachment=9252]Arcuballista.jpg[/attachment][/hide]
The stock itself might be longer than the ones in the Saint-Marcel relief and Baatz’ drawing, but the overall length nonetheless resembles the Saint-Marcel relief.

By the way, I was very surprise by the statement Roman bows were not made of ash. Has any wooden Roman bow or a description of one ever been found to give rise to this presumption??

I don't know of a remaining Roman wooden bow, to be honest. When writing "The self bows of the Roman era were", I had the Nothern European Iron Age bog finds in mind, as I don't know of any other remaining self bows that could serve as a clue for reconstructing a Roman self bow. Instead of "were" I should have written "quite probably were". As far as I know, the vast majority of the bog bows were made of yew, while none was of ash. Said bog finds aside, I'm not aware of any historic european self bows made out of ash. Yew was THE wood for European bowyers.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Homlgaarde bow was Ash. So were a few others. Granted Homlgaarde dates to 8000 BC...

[Thomas V.]

The Homlgaarde bow was Ash. So were a few others. Granted Homlgaarde dates to 8000 BC...

The Holmegaard bow was of elm: [hide]http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-mesolithic-period/the-stone-age-hunters-bow-and-arrow/the-worlds-oldest-bows/[/hide]