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

[randallstorey]

Hi all

I frequently see these terms in records and I'm under the impression they refer to the means of drawing the crossbow, the last being mechanical. However, I can't recall seeing a substantial discussion of these terms, especially their development and varying etymologies.

Any ideas where to look?

[fernando]

For a start:

SEE PAGE 97 HERE

[fernando]

Amazingly also in this forum, despite the existing huge amount of material on crossbows, i (for one) don't recall the mentioning of such terms, which obviously refer different arming systems .
While 'one foot' or 'two foot' refer the arming mode of portable crossbows, the term 'a tour' is typicaly french and, alternated with the term 'treuil' (winch), is more connected with the arbalist, the heavy weight crossbow or even the siege machine that succeeded the catapult.

.

[randallstorey]

Thanks for the ref Fernando. Google books didnt reveal the text of the page for me, could you summarise the author's statement on the matter for me if not too much trouble.

I have just begun looking through this forum and am overjoyed with the info available esp the photographs which are in short supply in published materials now! The document i use in which these terms appear are English of thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, with better distinctions among them obviously culminating towards the latter. I wondered though how prevalent this naming system was throughout Europe and during the twelfth century?

All the best

[randallstorey]

I've found a readable page of Crossbow Hunting now, thanks again. Those were my impressions, but I was hoping for a more substantial and historical discussion of these terms. Any other ideas?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by randallstorey

... I wondered though how prevalent this naming system was throughout Europe and during the twelfth century? ...

Assuming i have no documentation on this subject, what i posted came from browsing the Net as, being interesting material, i feel enticed to also learn out of such research.
I have found so far that this terminology also existed in France. You can draw from the inventory of a French castle, in a letter addressed to the King, dated December 1213, the mentioning of two foot crossbows (arbalete a deux poids) and also arbalists (arbalete a tour)

http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Invent...y_de_Dampierre

Also if you can deal with the french language, you can read the following perspective of a member posting in a French archery forum, in that he assumes that the two foot crossbow is a device from the 10th 11th century.

je peux me tromper mais ,d'après moi l'arbalète à deux pieds est une des premières arbalètes 10 ième 11ième siècle.l'armenent se fait dos d'arc au sol les 2 pieds le long de l'arbrier et on tire à la main sur la corde

[wardlaw]

Apologies for highjacking the thread but, if this is the Randall Storey I met way back at the Arms, Armies and Fortifications Conference at Oxford many, many years ago, do drop me a line.

Rob Jones

[randallstorey]

haha the one and same, though it was only 15 years ago, dont make me feel older than i already do!

I dont yet have pm permission here but my email is randallstorey@hotmail.co.uk.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by randallstorey

... I dont yet have pm permission here ...

Are you sure, Randall ? Check again

[fernando]

How is your italian, Randall ... rusty ?
Definitely the terms 'one foot' and 'too foot' were part of current crossbow terminology in Europe.
Hee is a link mentioning that these terms were used in medieval Italy. Scroll dow to the martinetto (jack) section:

http://www.arcoebalestra.it/index.php?sub=balestra

You will read:

Il termine medioevale di balestre a "un piede" o a "due piedi" indica modelli diversificati dal modo di caricamento.

meaning (+ or -):

The medieval crossbow terms "one foot" or to "two feet" indicate the way of loading (arming) the diverse models.

[randallstorey]

Excellent, thnx for upgrading my account fernando.

Since i work primarily in latin i can usually muddle through most romance languages. Its good to see the same naming convention for these crossbows and from such an early date. If only the terms for larger engines were that standard!

If I do find a full treatment of this issue i'll post info here.

[Glaive203]

The first link describing the difference between a one foot and two foot crossbow is partially false. There was never a time one when one placed one foot on the lath and then spanned the arbalest. Laths and bows both have to be carefully tillered so that both limbs pull the same or they're inaccurate. stepping on just one limb or even in the center would tend to throw them out of tiller.

The difference between the two types is that the lighter "two foot crossbows" (AKA arbaltetes a deux pieds) was spanned with both feet stepping on the lath and ones hands spanning the arbalest, while the one foot arbalest (AKA arbalest a ettrif) had a stirrup that one placed a foot in and the crossbowman spanned it with a girdle worn around his waist with a claw suspended from it that was hooked on the string and he spanned it by handing the butt of the tiller and standing up.

The arbalest a tour was also not the springald. There's a difference between the way a modern crossbow and a medieval or ancient European were held. The traditional "crossbow" was held more like a bow, that is with the lath almost vertical rather than the later horizontal method. When was shooting from inside a tower or from and arrow loop in a merlon it was highly desirable for the lath to be as absolutely vertical as possible to so a top-tiller was added to keep the quarrels from falling off the tiller, this allowed the crossbowman a greater up and down positioning of the lath while shooting and also allowed him to not to expose any of his body to an extremely lucky shot through the arrow slit he was shooting from. Likewise the horizontal slits one sees in some arrow loops were not for "crossbows", but were actually slights for either a bowman or arbalester to use to better see.

Some useful illustrations http://picasaweb.google.com/11612624...66701183790530

http://picasaweb.google.com/11612624...66702517977874

http://picasaweb.google.com/11612624...69578950262338

[fernando]

Welcome to the forum, Glaive203
Thank you so much for the precious enlightening on this one foot/two foot subject
Would it be not too much, asking you to select the album pages with the illustrated examples you wish to refer and upload them directly in the thread; a more efficient way to show the images and the adviced method to keep the images in our archives, as per our forum policy .
Thank you in advance .

[wardlaw]

Glaive 123 -

thank you for your comments. I am sure you are onto somehting with the one and two foot crossbow.

I have to ask, however, where you got your infomration about the crossbows being held upright 'more like a bow'? If it is purely based upon the images you cite (and I know there are lots more with a similar depiction of the crossbow held in this manner) I wonder whether you are not misinterpreting an artist convention - a reflection of the artist struggling to depict the crossbow when, side on, the arms and quarrel disappear? I am not entirely clear what you are referring to when you talk about a 'top tiller' - I am not aware fo having seen a surviving example with one, nor can I make them out on the illustrations?

I am sure that 'à tour' means 'of the tour' and, whilst it may not be a springald, surely refers to a heavier bow.

[Glaive203]

Originally Posted by fernando

Welcome to the forum, Glaive203
Thank you so much for the precious enlightening on this one foot/two foot subject
Would it be not too much, asking you to select the album pages with the illustrated examples you wish to refer and upload them directly in the thread; a more efficient way to show the images and the adviced method to keep the images in our archives, as per our forum policy .
Thank you in advance .

Sorry sir. I have pneumonia and was sick of not replying and so just forced myself to and I made the assumption that the forum rules were standard rules.

[Glaive203]

Originally Posted by wardlaw

Glaive 123 -

thank you for your comments. I am sure you are onto somehting with the one and two foot crossbow.

I have to ask, however, where you got your infomration about the crossbows being held upright 'more like a bow'? If it is purely based upon the images you cite (and I know there are lots more with a similar depiction of the crossbow held in this manner) I wonder whether you are not misinterpreting an artist convention - a reflection of the artist struggling to depict the crossbow when, side on, the arms and quarrel disappear? I am not entirely clear what you are referring to when you talk about a 'top tiller' - I am not aware fo having seen a surviving example with one, nor can I make them out on the illustrations?

I am sure that 'à tour' means 'of the tour' and, whilst it may not be a springald, surely refers to a heavier bow.

It's not my idea that they were held more or less vertically. Crossbows switched to the horizontal method when the gun stocks and sights were applied to them. I can being a traditional archer and bowyer tell you why (or ex archer and bowyer as I've not made bows or shot them since I lived in the country and had no trouble finding 200-400 yard meadows to shoot in).

The Roman crossbow did not use the Han/Chinese nut and hook/tricker/tickler system, instead it's "trigger" was a board attached to the tiller with a peg sticking out of it. The peg went through a hole in the tiller and literally pushed the string out of a notch in the tiller which held it. This was not a very smooth release and quarrels could shatter on impact. Holding these crossbows horizontally is awkward and slightly painful when on tries to pull the tickler which can throw off ones aim, especially when aiming down. There was also the risk of splinters from a shattered quarrel flying into ones face, a risk reduced by the vertical hold, finally the lath obstructs ones vision of the target when held horizontally.

Some of these reasons remained in effect with the adoption of the Han trigger mechanism. A "top-tiller' is a small plate attached to the tiller, going straight up and then bent at a right angle again to go over the nut and hold the quarrel.

The best translation of "a tour" is "tower" in English we would say a "tower crossbow" A crossbow spanned by the girdle and hook method is already as strong as one can make them without mechanical means of spanning them which did not exist at this early period. I already knew that crossbows were originally held almost vertically, but wondered how they were shot from arrow loops, as the archer had to hold the lath really vertically, as he often was standing at an angle to the loop. Richard Rutherford Moore supplied the answer (he's a re-enactor, best known for his acting role as sergeant Harper on the Sharpe series set in the Napoleonic wars). http://www.sthubertsrangers.org/crossbows.htm

Sorry for the tardy reply.

[fernando]

Rather interesting input Glaive203 !

Originally Posted by Glaive203

... The best translation of "a tour" is "tower" in English we would say a "tower crossbow"

Well, not necessarily .
As you know, the term tour has quite a few attributions, namely journey, lathe and, for the matter, turn, as for winch.
Some (French) sources say that arbalete a tour comes from the mechanism that applies tension to the bow.

Arbalètes à tour
D'origine romaine, ce sont les engins que nous nommons couramment « catapultes ». Ils tombent dans l'oubli avec la chute de l'Empire romain. Ils sont remplacés, à partir du XIe siècle, par l'arbalète à tour ou à treuil qui tire son nom du mécanisme qui sert à bander l'arc

[Glaive203]

Originally Posted by fernando

...for the matter, turn, as for winch.
Some (French) sources say that arbalete a tour comes from the mechanism that applies tension to the bow...

Thank you for the correction, but I think it's in error. We were discussing the 13th century and neither the crannequin or windlass existed (OK the windlass existed for balistae, but not for crossbows) Therefore we should discount

.

[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



.

[fernando]

This is also an interesting source:

http://lanceletrefle.free.fr/index.p...7-def-arbalete

Tendre l’arbalète :
Arming the crossbow:
1) Les deux pieds sur l’arc
The two feet on the bow
2) Etrier (un seul pied = progrès) + crochet à la ceinture (fin XIIe / deb. XIIIe s.)
Stirrup (one only foot=progress) + belt device
3a) pied-de-biche (léger et rapide)(fin XVe s.)
3b) modèle à tour ou à moufle : pesant + lent MAIS longue portée + précision (= utilisée pour défendre et attaquer places fortes)
Model à tour or crank: heavy + slow + far reach +precision (used for defence and fortification atack)
3c) crannequin : plus puissant + plus rapide

[wardlaw]

Not wanting to belittel the work of the reenactors (I am one myself, and a western martial artist, as well as being an acadmeic, and I appreciate the insights that they can offer) but, as far as determining the etymology of the terms under discussion, you period examples are much more convincing.

[fernando]

Thast was just an "en passant" in the english language, as the majority of (Web) material comes in french, from French sources; from where i have spotted quite a few more. One could then infer that this terminology was mostly preferred by "des Gauloises"; just a thought.