• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Crossbowman

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Imagery
  • Crossbowman
• Crossbowman

• RE: Crossbowman

  Wladimir D > 06-09-2016, 05:53 PM

  Koen. Marco showed closer to modern structure combined with crossbow rack. Look at the picture. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Sorry, that in Russian. There is multi-stage trigger.
  
  I would not trust the artist depicted this (tab). It can not be in such a position of the stirrup and bow. The stirrup would interfere with dart.

• RE: Crossbowman

  -JKP- > 06-09-2016, 06:51 PM

  My schedule just got shuffled and I'm ending up with an unexpected (and welcome) lunch break, so I thought I'd post this quickly before I have to run again. I've broken it into pieces since I'm still having trouble posting more than 10 images (note to mods... is there more than one setting that needs to be changed to accommodate a larger limit?).
  
  Some crossbows of interest I came across the last couple of years while searching for crossbow imagery that I tried to post earlier:
  

  • I discovered that China had machine-gun-style crossbows in the middle ages, centuries ahead of western technology. These had extra hardware on top to hold several bolts that could be fired in rapid succession.
    
  • I felt that crossbows in North America were irrelevant but I looked anyway JUST IN CASE the VMS or parts of it were created after 1492, and learned that most crossbow technology went from Africa and Europe to North America, not the other way around, with the exception of those used by nomadic arctic tribes which may have had some limited influence in the other direction.
    
  • I looked in the Pyrenees, Iceland, the British Isles, and Norway, etc., because there was some pretty sophisticated weapons-tool and whaling-harpoon technologies in some of the northern and coastal countries that could potentially have influenced crossbow design. The Basques were such competent sailors that some of them spoke pidgin Icelandic due to their frequent berths in that region.
    
  • I looked in Spain and Sweden, (both of which were engaged in significant warfare and thus had a vested interest in crossbows) and found quite a few images of war bows, especially in eastern and northern Europe.
    
  • I looked in Russia and Mongolia because the Eurasian tribes were fond of invading and might be using crossbows that had been overlooked in previous studies, especially considering China had very sophisticated crossbow technology that might have filtered westward via the Mongols and Russians.
    
  • I looked all over Africa, Madagascar, India, and Australia, as well. Africa is well-known for crossbows but in Australia they favored boomerangs and India had their own version of a throwing/cutting device somewhat like a ninja star.
    
  • I studied pull lever, push lever and cranequin crossbows just in case the VMS illustrator was trying to simplify something more complex... since the VMS drawings of fingers and feet and other more-difficult-to-draw features are somewhat primitive, I felt I needed to stay open to the possibility that more complex mechanical apparatuses might be left out or merely hinted at, as well. In the end, I decided it was hard to tell from such a small drawing and concluded that the features might be somewhat simplified but that it probably doesn't represent something as complex as  a cranequin.
    
  • I looked at hundreds of crossbow images that were not associated with zodiacs and found many of them in manuscript marginal embellishments. One thing I noticed is that many of the illustrators drew the crossbow at one angle and the trigger at another angle so the trigger could be more easily seen when adapting a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional drawing. I also noticed that quite a few of the marginal drawings were more detailed and accurate than the VMS crossbow which is why I am skeptical that the VMS crossbow can be identified as a specific subgroup.
    

  Here is a small selection of what I found in addition to those already posted...
  
  Left, Malay crossbow. No sign of a stirrup or trigger so either the drawing is oversimplified or it's a primitive style. Note the Asian style of drawing and dress. For comparison, next to it is an early 14th-century English stirrup-less crossbow with a shorter stave. It's interesting that the Asian bow is being loaded with one foot (quite the feat) while the English bow is being loaded while sitting and using both feet. I guess in England they don't have to worry about being bitten on the butt by a scorpion or cobra.
  
  
   
  
  From tools of warfare and, right, from Cadamosto's Lunaria page. The tools of warfare manuscript has several images of crossbows:
  
  
  
  Here's one that's tough to spot, tucked into the calendar embellishments for Aquarius (Paris c. 1418), a centaur with a crossbow (left). I found this one shortly after I published the map but since it's a four-legged beast rather than a human, it's less similar to the VMS representation than others. On the right, another early 14th c English marginal pic with a round stirrup. I assume this is a tonsured monk rather than a guy who got nipped by a bolt fired by someone behind him.
  
  
  
  Two more from the Luttrell Psalter (not zodiac-related and essentially the same as the round-stiruup models above) but noteworthy because the artist rotated the trigger in the drawing on the right so that both the stave and trigger can be shown at their best angles for comfortable viewing and aesthetic impact (side views of staves are uninteresting and uninformative):
  
  
  
  
  Square stirrup from a germanic manuscript (bowman not zodiac-related) and a more detailed round stirrup (right) drawn by a illustrator who not only draws crossbows more accurately, but also draws fingers more accurately than the VMS illustrator:
  
   
  

  ---

  Crossbow drawings with less detail... Left, a round-stirrup hunting bow (France) and, to the right, S. Germany late 15th century. The artists only put in as much detail as was necessary to convey the general impression of a crossbow.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  War bows (notice the heavier shafts). The one in the middle depicts an England/Normandy battle. Far right, early 15th c, a hunting bow with no stirrup:
  
  
  
  Left, Hussite (Bohemian) round stirrup. The staves and shafts are very slender, which might be an artistic choice rather than the way they were made since Czech crossbows are generally similar to others in western Europe. Right, target practice—crossbow with a flattened stirrup (there are also hunting bows with round stirrups in the same manuscript). I found this one interesting because the long trigger is similar to the VMS drawing and... notice also the wide sleeves of the tunic which are less common than narrow:
  
  
  
  Left: round stirrup, England, early 14th c. Right, semi-automatic Chinese crossbow—a formidable weapon with multiple bolts and rapid-fire capability that was in use when Europe was still using primitive bows:
  
  
  

  ---

  (Hmmm, it won't let me post more than 10 per message, but it will combine the posts if the additional ones are added as "New Post".)
  
  
  Left, more war bows (St. Gall). The two on the right are noteworthy for their similarity of style and also for the greater detail where the stave connects to the shaft... Middle, early 14th c German, a crossbow with more detail than most 14th century drawings. Right, a similar drawing from a Jewish bible:
  
           
  
  "Oriental" crossbows (as they called anything east of Egypt in those days). Notice the unusually long shaft and trigger on the one on the left. I don't know what benefit a longer shaft might have since extra weight is rarely a benefit for something that has to be carried through the woods or in battle. I haven't yet been able to find a 3D replica of the one on the left so I don't know if it was meant to be held vertical like a longbow or whether the artist rotate the stave in relation to the trigger in order to make it easier to see both (I suspect he did):
  
  

• RE: Crossbowman

  Anton > 06-09-2016, 07:05 PM

  Quote:I've broken it into pieces since I'm still having trouble posting more than 10 images (note to mods... is there more than one setting that needs to be changed to accommodate a larger limit?).

  
  Hmm... I don't think so. What response are you getting when trying to attach more than 10?

• RE: Crossbowman

  -JKP- > 06-09-2016, 07:16 PM

  (06-09-2016, 07:05 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  Quote:I've broken it into pieces since I'm still having trouble posting more than 10 images (note to mods... is there more than one setting that needs to be changed to accommodate a larger limit?).

  
  Hmm... I don't think so. What response are you getting when trying to attach more than 10?

  
  Same message as before:
  
  "The message you entered contained 24 images, while only 10 images per message are allowed. Please lower the image count in your message to meet the limit."
  
  It will however, let me do an "add-on" post by clicking New Post (where it inserts the line between the posts) up to 24 images and I don't think I was able to do that before. When I tried 25, it urped (as would be expected).

• RE: Crossbowman

  Anton > 06-09-2016, 07:18 PM

  Ah, I figured this out. We'll fix it.

• RE: Crossbowman

  Koen G > 06-09-2016, 08:19 PM

  Nice collection JKP!
  
  A couple of things I noticed:
  - Many crossbowmen have a belt-with-hook which they used to reload with the whole body. I hadn't noticed this before in so many drawings. I guess this could be used as an additional binary feature in a detailed study.
  - There is at least one other picture that shows a "floating" bolt that is not properly placed in the middle of the stirrup - this appears to be a perspective thing.
  -  The VM seems to be exceptional in having the stave connect to the shaft in between the stirrup and the string (hope I'm using those terms right). However, this might be a result of the cramped space for the weapon - it's really hard to tell what is significant and what isn't. Moreover, the combination of two perspectives may have altered the relative position of these elements.
  
  Also, it's become hard to find decent crossbow images that haven't been shown yet
  
  Marco, about the statuette you posted, I don't know to what extent it's relevant that he's supposed to represent a Southerner (North African in this case):
  
  From the Wiki: "Sebastian had prudently concealed his faith, but in 286 was detected. Diocletian reproached him for his supposed betrayal, and he commanded him to be led to a field and there to be bound to a stake so that certain archers from Mauritania would shoot arrows at him."

• RE: Crossbowman

  -JKP- > 06-09-2016, 08:56 PM

  (06-09-2016, 08:19 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nice collection JKP!
  
  A couple of things I noticed:
  ...
  -  The VM seems to be exceptional in having the stave connect to the shaft in between the stirrup and the string (hope I'm using those terms right). However, this might be a result of the cramped space for the weapon - it's really hard to tell what is significant and what isn't. Moreover, the combination of two perspectives may have altered the relative position of these elements.
  ...

  
  
  If you look at the crayfish/lobster drawing, you will see legs coming out of the tail instead of the body. It's anatomically incorrect and I have never seen another one drawn that way. We know it's anatomically incorrect because crayfish tails never have legs, but with a VMS crossbow drawing, it's difficult to tell which parts are "anatomically correct" and which are not because there are so many crossbow designs.

• RE: Crossbowman

  davidjackson > 06-09-2016, 09:54 PM

  JKP - Anton pointed out I'd increased attachments, not images. A silly feature of the forum I feel! Number of images per post have now been increased, number of attachments reduced again.
  
  Good stuff with the pics! I note everyone is holding the stock with their left hand, as discussed previously.
  
  
  

  Quote:I looked all over Africa, Madagascar, India, and Australia, as well. Africa is well-known for crossbows but in Australia they favored boomerangs and India had their own version of a throwing/cutting device somewhat like a ninja star.

  
  African crossbows came from Arabian technology - the Arabs were constantly penetrating into the African tribes for slavery, trading, etc. I don't think the African nations had a separate crossbow technology. They quickly picked up on the technology, which is also very good for hunting.
  
  

  Quote:On the right, another early 14th c English marginal pic with a round stirrup. I assume this is a tonsured monk rather than a guy who got nipped by a bolt fired by someone behind him.

  
  Monks were by definition pacific and never got involved in warfare. However, there was a 12-14th century tradition of depicting armed monks in English manuscripts - they were generally representations not of "what is" but "what cannot be", part of a "world turned upside down" fantasy that can also be viewed in some manuscript margins. (Although some later examples were anti-clerical propaganda notes Michael Camille in Mirror in Parchment).
  
  

  Quote:"Oriental" crossbows (as they called anything east of Egypt in those days). Notice the unusually long shaft and trigger on the one on the left.

  
  
  The longer stock version was used in both Europe and "oriental" armies. The long stock would allow the bow to accumulate more potential energy and make it easier to reload, it seems. Here's a pic of modern day recreationists from Italy with replica 15th century Venician crossbows, they're quite similar.
  
  Finally, here's a theoretical pic of the grand-daddy of all crossbows, designed by none other than Mr da Vinci himself. Look at the scale of that thing - what was he planning on bringing down with the quarrel, those elephant things out of Lord of the Rings?
  

• RE: Crossbowman

  Diane > 08-09-2016, 03:52 AM

  Just a note - I wonder if anyone has mentioned the paper written by Jens Sensfelder. I know it was written thirteen years ago, but it was written by a chap who was clued-up about the history of military weapons.
  
  You can read the paper in English translation as a separate page on Nick Pelling's blog.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  I found that Jens made a few basic assumptions, and didn't consider a few other factors, so that his conclusions seemed to me to be flawed.  It's still a good article, though and reading it might help save a little time for researchers.
  
  This, of course, is why it's such a good idea to hear about precedents: it gives us something solid to think about, and a way to keep discussion developing along a clear path.
  
  I might start a thread where we can ask the 'old-timers' (like me, now..) whether a line of research we're thinking about following has been broached before, and where the original study can be read.

• RE: Crossbowman

  Koen G > 05-12-2016, 09:41 AM

  This coin got me confused for a good five seconds 
  
  
  
  
  
  Following the possibility that the central emblems may have been taken from a non-zodiac source, and hence perhaps somewhat adapted to fit a zodiac scheme, maybe it's not so crazy. We can expect references to sailing on a calendar, and in fact an "adulterated anchor" hypothesis might explain quite a bit about the awkwardly added arrow and the stick being placed on the wrong end of the trigger. Also, the non-sagittarian idle pose and the downward pointing of the apparent weapon. But I won't insist.
  
  
• Next Oldest Next Newest