COMPONENTE URBANO
INSTRUMENTOS DE GESTIÓN Ver Plan de Ejecución Urbana y Rural.
The most basic development to assist with spanning a crossbow, which could barely even be called a device, was the addition of a stirrup to the front of the crossbow. This feature became standard in almost all medieval crossbows, although the specific shapes would differ. These helped the archer to hold the crossbow steady while they pulled the string back with their hands. It also prevented any damage to the lathe that might result from the previous habit of standing on the bow while pulling the string back.455 Exactly when the stirrup became a standard feature of crossbow design is not
clear. Since very little is known about the early design and development of crossbows, and there are no surviving complete European crossbows from before the fourteenth century, it will likely remain a mystery. Crossbows certainly had stirrups by the thirteenth century, if not before.456
The first device independent of the crossbow itself, ‘the belt hook’, was
455 Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow: Its Military and Sporting History, Construction and Use, (1903,
repr. London, 1995). pp. 57-61.
456 David S. Bachrach, “Crossbows for the King: The Crossbow During the Reigns of John and Henry III
of England”, Technology and Culture, 45:1, (2004). pp. 109-13.
Josef Alm, European Crossbows: A Survey, ed. and trans. G.M. Wilson and H. Bartlett Wells, (1994, repr. Dorchester, 1998). pp. 20-3.
Nicole Pétrin, “Philological notes on the crossbow and related missile weapons”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies 3:;3 (1992). pp. 280-91.
193 developed at approximately the same time as the stirrup. The belt hook was a metal hook that hung from the crossbowman's belt. Some belt hooks had only one hooked prong while others were two-pronged. A crossbow was spanned by putting the string on the hook and the archer's foot in the stirrup. There were two different methods of actually spanning the crossbow when using a belt hook. One method was to crouch when hooking the string and then pull the string back into place by standing up with one foot in the crossbow's stirrup. The other method was to balance on one foot with the other in the stirrup. The archer would then push down with the foot in the stirrup forcing the string back as it was held in place in the belt hook. There are contemporary images that are indicative of both of these methods, but the latter method appears more often. The belt hook was already in use by the thirteenth century and continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages.457
A later device that functioned on similar physical principles as the belt hook was the krihake. The krihake was a hook with an attached pulley which was mounted on a rope. The rope was attached to the archer's belt on one end, and had a loop of metal on the other. The metal loop was placed around a metal stud or hook on the crossbow and the hook attached onto the bowstring. This was done with the archer leaning over with their foot in the crossbow's stirrup. Then when the archer straightened their back the rope on their belt would pull the string and span the bow. This method was superior to the older belt hook, because the pulley and rope system used allowed for the archer to more efficiently use their force to either span a heavier crossbow or span a lighter crossbow with less effort. Despite the relative technological simplicity of the krihake, especially compared to some of the devices discussed later in this chapter, one should not assume that it was invented almost contemporary to the belt hook. Krihakes were probably first introduced in the fourteenth century and became fairly common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.458 There was ample artistic evidence of its use from the fifteenth
century, for example, two were being used by archers in Piero de Pollaiuolo's Martyrdom of St Sebastian from c. 1475 [Plate 39].
Crossbows with the highest draw weights required more force to span than could
457 Jens Sensfelder, “A Gothic Spanning-Belt Hook”, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 43
(2000). pp. 27-8.
Josef Alm, European Crossbows, pp. 20-3.
458 Ibid. 40-1.
A. G. Credland, “The Crossbow in the Far North”, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, 26 (1983). pp. 13-4.
Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, pp. 73-80.
194 be generated by human power alone, so devices were made to span them instead. There were two devices suited to crossbows of this type. They were sometimes associated with specific regions, although the accuracy of this association is not entirely clear.459 The
first of these devices was the windlass. The windlass, which was sometimes called English windlass, was a system of ropes and pulleys connected to a winch. It was attached to the end of the crossbow. Sometimes it was built into the crossbow tiller but often it was just temporarily secured. It had two hooks which were attached to the bowstring. The archer would then turn the handles on either side of the winch which would pull the string back into position. The windlass required continuous cranking on the winch for it to work. If the archer stopped, the string would snap back into its original position. The windlass is generally thought to have been introduced into Europe
sometime during the thirteenth century. There were mentions of it in a text written for Saladin by Al-Tarsusi in the late twelfth century and in Western Europe the windlass was often linked to Richard I's return from the Third Crusade (1189-92).460 Richard I (r. 1189-
1199) was certainly a proponent of the crossbow but there was little evidence for him being connected to introducing the windlass as a new technology. The first clear
evidence for the windlass in an English context is from the reign of Henry III, but it was likely in use well before then. The windlass continued to be used well into the early modern period.461
The second spanning machine intended for use on heavy crossbows was the
cranequin. The cranequin was sometimes associated with Germany or, more generally, Central Europe.462 The cranequin was secured to the crossbow by means of a metal
hook, or loop, which wrapped around the tiller and secured it to the top of the crossbow. Several cranequins can be seen in Image 71. The mechanism that did the work of
spanning the crossbow was a group of gears in a case that were turned by a handle. These gears would move a ratched bar. The bottom of the ratched bar had a hook that was attached to the string, so that when the handle was cranked, the string would slowly be
459 Josef Alm, European Crossbows, pp. 39-40
460 David S. Bachrach, “Crossbows for the King, Part II: The Crossbow During the Reign of Edward I of
England (1272-1307)”, Technology and Culture, 47:1, (2006). pp. 83-5. Anne-Marie Eddé, Saladin, trans. Jane Marie Todd, (Cambridge, 2011). pp. 281-2. W.F. Paterson, A Guide to the Crossbow, (Oldland, 1990). pp. 34-5.
461 David S. Bachrach, “Crossbows for the King: The Crossbow During the Reigns of John and Henry III
of England”, pp. 113-117.
Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, pp. 121-5.
Arthur Graves Credland, “Crossbow Remains (Part 2)”, pp. 11-2. Dirk Breiding, A Deadly Art, pp. 93
195 pulled back in stages. The majority of surviving examples were from the late fifteenth century and later, although it was difficult to date early cranequins so some of these examples could have been older. Cranequins from the late fifteenth, sixteenth and later centuries were more likely to have identifiers like maker’s marks or coat of arms on them which makes it easier to date them accurately. Early cranequins had only one hook to attach to the string, while later ones had two hooks as well as a flap of metal that helped to ensure the archer lined the device up exactly on the center of the string. The cranequin
likely came into use around the fourteenth century and continued to be used well into the early modern period. By the sixteenth century it had largely eclipsed the windlass. Many early modern cranequins had detailed images and decorations carved into them,
sometimes inlaid with gold, that were likely indicative of noble ownership.463
Image 71: A range of cranequins dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, currently in the Bernisches Historisches Museum, photo by author
The key difference in use between these devices was that the windlass was used in one smooth motion which required constant turning while the string was being winched back while the cranequin pulled the string back in stages. The devices also differed greatly in how they were made. The windlass was made of metal, ropes, and usually some wood while the cranequin was entirely made of metal, excluding any
463 Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, pp. 140-4.
Josef Alm, European Crossbows, pp. 38-40.
Sven Ekdalh, “Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order in Prussia” in The Military Orders: Volume 2 Welfare And Warfare, ed. Helen Nicholson, (Aldershot, 1998). pp. 143-7.
196 decorations.464 Both devices were quite slow to attach to the crossbow and operate,
which meant that these heavy crossbows were slow to reload. The most commonly cited reload time for a powerful crossbow being operated by a trained archer is between thirty and sixty seconds per shot.465
The final spanning device that saw frequent use in the Later Middle Ages was the goats-foot lever. The goats-foot lever was composed of two metal claws and a handle. This device was used by hooking one claw over the string and the other end either hooked on to or braced against metal lugs in
the crossbow’s tiller. The handle could then be used as a lever to pull the string into place.
Image 72 shows an example of this in action. There were some examples of crossbows with very small hand sized stirrups and lugs for a goats-foot lever that suggest that the device may sometimes have been used with a stirrup for stabilizing the crossbow.466 Where exactly
it fit into the chronology of the history of crossbows was not clear, nor was it clear exactly how powerful a crossbow would have been to require its use. Many surviving goats- foot levers had rings or nobs of some sort on
the end of their handles that would have allowed them to hang from a saddle, or possibly a belt, for ease of use.467 Like the cranequin the goats-foot lever remained popular well
into the early modern period. It may have been primarily intended for hunting rather than warfare.468
Determining what kind of spanning method was used with a given crossbow can often be more difficult than might be expected. This seems like it would be relatively easy since there were several noticeable design features that indicated what type of spanning mechanism was used on a crossbow. Windlasses, cranequins, krihakes, and
464 Ibid. pp. 94-5; 103-11.
465Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, pp. 121-125, 140-144.
Josef Alm, European Crossbows, pp. 38-40.
466 Josef Alm, European Crossbows, p.40. 467 Ibid.p.28.
468 Ibid.pp. 27-29.
Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, pp. 84-91.
Image 72: A Goats-Foot Lever in Use, from Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow, p. 85
197 goats-foot levers all attached to the crossbow in different ways, and the various lugs and hooks that these machines used can still be identified on many crossbows. Many
collections have not mentioned these features in their descriptions, however, so one must either see the crossbow in person or hope that the collection had high quality
photographs. The type of stirrup could help to narrow the range of possible spanning methods a crossbow would have used. A hook or windlass based system for spanning required a stirrup large enough to place a foot inside. In contrast the goats-foot lever or
cranequin could be used with either the aforementioned kind of stirrup or else a stirrup only large enough for a hand, to merely stabilize the crossbow.469 The main problem for
historians attempting this kind of analysis was the fact that crossbows were not only used in the time they were made. Some crossbows continued to be used for decades after they were first made. Sometimes, in the twilight years of their use, these crossbows would be modified by their owners to use a different spanning device. For example Image 73
shows crossbow B2 from Grandsom Castle, which was been dated to the fifteenth
century and had a cranequin lug which was definitely a later addition.470 For one thing, it
was not very well inserted, it was not perpendicular to the tiller. It also penetrated and damaged the horn inlay decoration. The original crossbow-maker would almost certainly have made sure the lug was oriented correctly and definitely would not have so
obviously damaged the decoration by adding the lug after the horn inlays were in place. Additionally, there is a hook on the top of the tiller that was clearly designed for a
469 Dirk Breiding, A Deadly Art, pp. 92-6 470 Appendix I, p. 262.
Image 73: Close up of Grandson Crossbow B2 showing both its original krihake hook as well as the cranequin lug which was added later, photo by author
198
krihake and probably represented the original spanning method intended for the
crossbow. This was not the only example of this practice and many others involved less obvious modifications, so it can be hard for historians and curators to determine whether a spanning method was original to the crossbow or a later addition.471