Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote:[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.
Quote:The relief suggests a stock no longer then 20 " to the nut[..].
Is this assumption based on the drawing of the relief? If so:
Quote: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).
Quote: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.
Quote: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.