crossbow question.

[robertbevan]

do you crank the winch first? or insert the bolt first?

thanks.

 

[Steerpike]

The bolt goes in after it is cocked. I'm not sure what the various cocking mechanisms are for a crossbow, though.

 

[robertbevan]

thanks a bunch!

 

[Caged Maiden]

if it has winch, you crank it first. actually, because it's really easy to accidentally hit the trigger, you want to be very careful while pulling the string anyways. They didn't have any sort of protection of the trigger that I've seen in historical models. However, most common crossbows don't have a winch. I watched an 80-year old man pull a 150 pound crossbow string like he was tying his shoelaces. He did it dozens of times, and was quicker than I've ever seen, so for a trained crossbowman, it's easy.

The winch ones tend to be the heavy ones, 250-450 pound pull. They take forever to wind though, so that's something you could consider in your story. Sorry, I don't know what application you have for the weapon, thought I'd just expand on an answer. The really heavy ones were sometimes mounted to turrets.

Also, weird thing about quarrels, they weren't necessarily fletched with feathers. They have two, by the way, unlike arrows, which have three or four feathers. Quarrels sometimes used leather, parchment, paper, or other materials for their flights. Weird, huh?

 

[wordwalker]

However, most common crossbows don't have a winch. I watched an 80-year old man pull a 150 pound crossbow string like he was tying his shoelaces. He did it dozens of times, and was quicker than I've ever seen, so for a trained crossbowman, it's easy.

The winch ones tend to be the heavy ones, 250-450 pound pull. They take forever to wind though, so that's something you could consider in your story.

Let's see. I remember crossbows that had a "stirrup" on the end that you stepped on while you pulled the string upward, and I guess those might also be ones you hooked the string into belt hooks to pull on. It sounds like that 150-lb fast-working crossbow was one of those, or was it a straight grab-and-pull bow? (150 lbs is pushing real longbow territory...)

Heavier than those would be the ones you fitted a lever onto (either pushing or pulling), such as the "goat's foot" crossbow.

Then the really big ones would have the cranks, like the detachable crank "cranequin" or even the two-crank windlass. Nasty, but very slow. (Yes, that's the one in the pilot of *Revolution*, where the girl blows a full-grown soldier away with one shot, and then runs for her life.)

Still, crossbows might equal or exceed a bow's power, but they were usually shorter in range, for two reasons: one, it's hard to tilt the bow up and "arch" the shot with that big mechanism blocking your view, and two, the bolts were usually heavier than arrows. Of course they hit all the harder at close range.

 

[SeverinR]

ok, since it is mentioned, what was the goal of a 250-450 lb crossbow.

impale many foot soldiers with one shot?
Do structural damage?
Kill at a longer distance?

 

[CupofJoe]

The machines I've seen in that draw poundage were all designed for range. From what I've read of siege gear slow-big projectiles do more damage than small-fast ones. So catapults win over crossbows against castles, palisades etc...

 

[Kahle]

Longbows could easily outrange a crossbow-mainly because of arcing the shot, but they lost force faster as well. A crossbow shoots flatter and harder, and takes a lot less skill to use. Crossbows could be paired with pikemen to devastate full-plate knights and scatter a cavalry charge. The French finally figured this out late in the Hundred Years War. While a bow is more versatile, and can have different tips for cutting through flesh, piercing chain-mail, and punching through armor...a crossbow bolt will rip through almost any armor from 1000 CE on. Bows use arrows, which are long, thin wooden shafts, and a crossbow uses bolts-a thick, short, heavy piece of wood with a diamond-shaped head. A lot of modern crossbows employ compound technology that reduces the pull or draw weight of the string, and commonly use short arrows instead of the medieval bolt. They were fired in a line, similar to a Civil War musket volley, though they probably didn't have the power to completely pierce through an armored target-the human body is a great shock absorber, and muscle can be pretty dense when you're dealing with a thick bolt. Of course, there are more instances of crossbow bolts shattering arms and legs beyond healing-just splintering the bone on impact.

 

[Devor]

ok, since it is mentioned, what was the goal of a 250-450 lb crossbow.

impale many foot soldiers with one shot?
Do structural damage?
Kill at a longer distance?

For the heavier ones? It really depends on the crossbow. But heavy crossbows worked well during a siege because a siege lasted all day, giving you time to crank. They were often manned by two people - so a marksman could aim and fire and make every shot without wearing himself out, while a few untrained commoners could trade off on the cranking. You'd have a lot of trouble getting an archer who could keep shooting all day long with a longbow.

From what I understand, most crossbows were made with commoners in mind, in one way or another.

 

[Kahle]

Around the 13/14th centuries there were also defenders carrying a large shield called a pavise. These could be anchored to the ground for support and protected the crossbowman while he reloaded. There are even accounts of crossbowmen refusing to go into combat without the support of the pavises.