[LT] Hundreds of pics of weapons,armors and shields

[Joseph Paul]

Icelander - can you post a reference to a pic of that military windlass you posted about?

I would like to see how the handles are taken care of.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Icelander - can you post a reference to a pic of that military windlass you posted about?

I would like to see how the handles are taken care of.

Well, if the handles are directly opposite one another, as in some period illustrations, it would be easy to simply 'park' them in a forward position and shoulder the crossbow.

Even with a more typical and comfortable design, like so, one can imagine that as long as the handle outside the dominant shoulder is the one facing outside and the one closer to the body faces front, it should be possible to hold the crossbow steady.

Compared to a firearm, there is little kick and the use of the shoulder is merely to add extra stability while aiming. Given that heavy crossbows are most comfortably shot while leaning them on a surface of some kind, there is no need for a rifle-style stock held closely against the shoulder. Indeed, many medieval stocks are very un-ergonomic to our eyes, being designed more for their practicality when spanning the bows than when shooting them.

Note odd shooting position.

[Joseph Paul]

I cannot agree that the ironmongery at the rear of the windlass is going to allow aiming. Additionally the hook needs to be removed from the string and if it isn't completely somewhere else it is going to interfere with the gripping of the stock and trigger.

The illustration of the shooter is not odd the bow is canted to show it adequately by the illustrator. Got anything with the bow being fired with the windlass in situ?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

I cannot agree that the ironmongery at the rear of the windlass is going to allow aiming. Additionally the hook needs to be removed from the string and if it isn't completely somewhere else it is going to interfere with the gripping of the stock and trigger.

Very true. The hooks need to be removable somehow. Well, at least detachable, but I can't see that it matters if they were locked in an upward facing over the string. The trigger is well behind them and there is plenty of stock to grip.

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

The illustration of the shooter is not odd the bow is canted to show it adequately by the illustrator. Got anything with the bow being fired with the windlass in situ?

Can't find anything. I'm looking for a picture of one of these inbuilt windlasses, which authors often mention, but no luck so far. All replicas I've seen use a detachable windlass.

I'd be interested in just how the design varies. Of course, there are one-handled windlasses, which could be more managable.

[Joseph Paul]

Very true. The hooks need to be removable somehow. Well, at least detachable, but I can't see that it matters if they were locked in an upward facing over the string. The trigger is well behind them and there is plenty of stock to grip.

My point is that there is too much to grip. Stock plus multiple ropes on both sides of it makes for a pretty big bundle to get a hand around. Avoiding the ropes takes time and risks ensnaring the shooter.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

My point is that there is too much to grip. Stock plus multiple ropes on both sides of it makes for a pretty big bundle to get a hand around. Avoiding the ropes takes time and risks ensnaring the shooter.

The ropes don't have to be tight against the stock. It doesn't look like they'd necessarily be in the way of the trigger fingers.

And the other hand is gripping the stock above of where the ropes are anyway.

This is not to say that one shouldn't remove detachable windlasses before shooting a crossbow. Obviously, such windlasses are attached to the string, which makes it impossible to use the weapon with them.

But depending on design, an inbuilt windlass doesn't have to interfere too badly with the operation of the weapon. However, I have not yet seen a good picture of a period windlass of that kind, for all that many authors mention them. I imagine that the design of the handles and placement of the ropes would be different, and, in any event, that such a bow is heavy enough to make carrying it a chore. Inbuilt windlasses are usually mentioned as being part of siege weapons, not field weapons, and in cases where that is not true, the word 'windlass' is being used in a wider sense than GURPS uses it. Screw-and-handle, cranks, etc.

Obviously, modern crossbows often have in-built winding mechanisms, so there are plenty of designs which work. Which one was used in the period I am simply not sure about.

I saw a good description of a Central European Wallarmbrust with an inbuilt Winde, but I can't find it just now. I can't recall if there was a picture next to it.

Perhaps I should try to acquire Egon Harmuth's book, Die Armbrust, for Christmas. It's supposed to have a lot of good descriptions and pictures of otherwise hard-to-find historical examples. And I've neglected my German for nigh-on a decade.