Late Gothic Crossbows and Accouterments

Swordfish · 18th June 2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Another of the extremely rare instances in period artwork where a spanning belt and hook are illustrated; this, from a Swabian painting of ca. 1430-40, Bavarian National Museum (BNM), inv.no. MA 3395, is probably the earliest!

m

Quite the contrary, spanning hooks are often depicted in medieval artwork, I needed only a minute to find an earlier one. St. Stephan South-Tyrol c.1400-1410.
Pleas note the kink in the trigger lever, with an angle > 90 degrees.
This is a clear indication for early crossbows of the 14th century.

Swordfish · 18th June 2012, 07:19 PM

Another earlier one. Easy to find.
Romance Alexander, c.1340

Do you need still more? I have saved dozens on my Hard Disk.

Matchlock · 18th June 2012, 08:14 PM

I already posted this and similar others in posts # 96 and 97, so it was easy to find indeed.

Apart from that not only just me in particular would be interested in seeing your remaining material.

Swordfish · 18th June 2012, 08:53 PM

If you have posted the last and others, why do you then write such clearly wrong statements (to avoid the word nonsence) as Quote:
'extremely rare instances in period artwork where a spanning belt and hook are illustrated... from a Swabian painting of ca. 1430-40...is probably the earliest!'

This depiction on a painting of the 15th century is neither extremely rare, nor is it the earliest!

David Jaumann · 19th June 2012, 02:22 PM

Hi Swordfish,

Your assumption sounds really likely! There are as you said no pictures from the late 15th century, where such crossbows were shown as war or hunting weapons. I don´t know any picture at least.

Best,

David

Matchlock · 19th June 2012, 02:37 PM

Sorry this was your last chance.

Once again your choice of words has gotten uunecessarily aggressive and it is obviously my person which you have chosen as a target, instead of the topic.

You are always getting very personal, which means insulting. As you have been told here by others before you are unable to differentiate between discussion and personal aggression. This ability though is the main prerequisite for anybody trying to convey special knowledge in a field where the easy-to-grasp black and white instances are rare but where delicate shadings in between are manifold.

I do not believe in absolute expertise; what I believe in is studying together by sharing and discoursing on a commonly accepted friendly level. I have always seen our forum as an equitable community rather than a stage for individual grandstanding.
Go on believing you are the best.

From now on I will completely ignore your posts.

fernando · 19th June 2012, 06:34 PM

Accusations are taking over peaceful perspectives.
Thread now locked, at least temporarily.

Andrew · 19th June 2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

From now on I will completely ignore your posts.

This is a good idea. Explore the "ignore" function, please. Both of you. Today.

fernando · 20th June 2012, 05:50 PM

After having proceeded with some backstage adjustments connected with inconvenient participation, it was decided to reopen this thread ... essentially due to its added value.
Thank you.

18th June 2012, 07:19 PM	#2
Swordfish Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 129	Another earlier one. Easy to find. Romance Alexander, c.1340 Do you need still more? I have saved dozens on my Hard Disk. Attached Images Last edited by Swordfish; 18th June 2012 at 08:02 PM.

18th June 2012, 08:53 PM	#4
Swordfish Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 129	If you have posted the last and others, why do you then write such clearly wrong statements (to avoid the word nonsence) as Quote: 'extremely rare instances in period artwork where a spanning belt and hook are illustrated... from a Swabian painting of ca. 1430-40...is probably the earliest!' This depiction on a painting of the 15th century is neither extremely rare, nor is it the earliest! Last edited by Swordfish; 19th June 2012 at 04:35 PM.

18th June 2012, 08:14 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	I already posted this and similar others in posts # 96 and 97, so it was easy to find indeed. Apart from that not only just me in particular would be interested in seeing your remaining material.

19th June 2012, 02:22 PM	#5
David Jaumann Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 35	Hi Swordfish, Your assumption sounds really likely! There are as you said no pictures from the late 15th century, where such crossbows were shown as war or hunting weapons. I don´t know any picture at least. Best, David

19th June 2012, 02:37 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Sorry this was your last chance. Once again your choice of words has gotten uunecessarily aggressive and it is obviously my person which you have chosen as a target, instead of the topic. You are always getting very personal, which means insulting. As you have been told here by others before you are unable to differentiate between discussion and personal aggression. This ability though is the main prerequisite for anybody trying to convey special knowledge in a field where the easy-to-grasp black and white instances are rare but where delicate shadings in between are manifold. I do not believe in absolute expertise; what I believe in is studying together by sharing and discoursing on a commonly accepted friendly level. I have always seen our forum as an equitable community rather than a stage for individual grandstanding. Go on believing you are the best. From now on I will completely ignore your posts.

19th June 2012, 06:34 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Accusations are taking over peaceful perspectives. Thread now locked, at least temporarily.

20th June 2012, 05:50 PM	#9
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	After having proceeded with some backstage adjustments connected with inconvenient participation, it was decided to reopen this thread ... essentially due to its added value. Thank you.